Category Archives: Social Commentary

Hashing Out the Nobel Peace Prize Nominees

Hashing Out the Nobel Peace Prize Nominees

Posted on by • Posted in Social Commentary • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

—February 2, 2016

Well, the deadline for nominations for the 2016 Nobel Peace Price closed last night, and we believe it’s safe to assume that our names weren’t proffered for consideration. Of course, with over 1,000 potential members of the nominating committee, perhaps one of them has become familiar with our strenuous efforts to bring peace to the world—among other things—through civilized and intellectual debate.

For those of you unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Nobel Peace Prize, it was established by the Swedish industrialist, inventor of dynamite, and armaments manufacturer (yeah, go figure) Alfred Nobel to annually recognize those who have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The prize—along with similar ones established by Alf for Chemistry, Physics, Physiology/Medicine and Literature—has been awarded since 1901.

Under the dictates of Nobel’s will, the Nobel Committee accepts nominations for the award from “qualified” people, such as members of governments, international courts, university professors, and former winners, among others. Information about the nominees, including the selection process, is withheld from the public, and, under the terms of the will, supposed to be withheld for 50 years. Of course, with so many potential nominators a tongue or ten inevitably wags, and rumours of each years’ nominees are rife. Of course, the Nobel Committee will never confirm or deny the name of any nominee, so the public still has to wait 50 years for the official release of nominee names. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize nominee rumour mill is predicting a record year for number of nominations.

Anyhow, the nominees are whittled by the Nobel Committee to a short list, which is vetted by advisory boards and by Nobel Committee staff, with their opinions about the short-listed nominees further hashed out by the committee until it finally comes up with a winner by early October. And, for the record, nominees are not always just individuals, as the annual award has been given to co-winners as well as to organizations. Oh, and the winners, as well as purported nominees, are often considered controversial, with Barack Obama’s win in 2009 prior to his first full year in office as U.S. President, being among the most recent controversial wins.

With the deadline coming to a close, lips have already started to loosen and those reportedly in the know are passing on the apparent nominees to the press. Among the more controversial names we’ve heard is “The Donald.” Yep, a U.S. nominator has reportedly proposed the U.S. Republican front-runner Donald Trump for his “vigorous peace through strength ideology.” However, the source of this leaked nomination did not give The Donald any chance of winning.

The negotiators—U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Chief Ali Akbar Salehi—who came up with the Iran Nuclear deal are also reportedly on the nominee list. While many people around the world might agree that they are deserving, there are certainly those on the right-end of the political spectrum in the U.S. who would disagree.

But perhaps the most controversial nominee would be Edward Snowden, the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor who spilled the beans on the U.S. government’s massive global surveillance program. Controversial because the public at-large cannot agree on whether he’s a hero, a whistleblower, a dissident, a patriot or a traitor. While some people consider him a hero and would applaud his Nobel Peace Prize win, others, including former CIA director James Woolsey, think he should be hanged for treason. The nominators of Snowden for the Peace Prize, said his whistleblowing has “contributed to a more stable and peaceful world order.”

Whatever one might believe about Snowden, currently living under political asylum in Russia, there is little doubt that his actions mark the biggest leak of U.S. government top-secret documents since the 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers, and that information in those documents has given the government a black eye. Among the revelations from the leak is that the U.S. conducts extensive spying on its own allies, that it engages in non-national security-related industrial espionage, and spies on its own citizens with impunity and contrary to federal law.

The leaks also suggest that high-ranking CIA and NSA officials consistently lie to Congress when queried about their activities. Meanwhile, these same officials claim that Snowden’s leaks have significantly harmed America’s international intelligence gathering efforts and allowed terrorists to circumvent detection.

Thus, Snowden is a polarizing figure. He’s either a patriot for exposing government transgressions, or a traitor for harming national security. If you’re of the “my government right-or-wrong” ilk then you undoubtedly believe Snowden is the latter. If you’re more circumspect in your views then it’s more complicated, and almost like he could be both traitor and hero. And, if you believe the NSA and CIA are akin to “Spectre,” then Snowden would obviously be a hero and deserving the Nobel due to his efforts in curtailing their insidious cyber-belligerence.

What to believe? What to believe?

Hash-It-Out! Does Snowden deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

—Published in hashitout.com on Feb. 2.

Patriotic or Not?—Hashing Out The Bundy’s Struggle Against Government Tyranny

Patriotic or Not?—Hashing Out The Bundy’s Struggle Against Government Tyranny

Posted on by • Posted in Politics, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

—January 29, 2016

Well, the siege at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon is winding down, with the ringleader and 10 of his followers under arrest, and four hold-outs still rattling their sabres (AR-15s and the like) at the refuge over the alleged tyranny of the U.S. government.

For those of you unfamiliar with this story, Ammon Bundy and about 20 very-well armed associatesimage.adapt.480.low.bundy_1272016 took over the wildlife refuge on Jan. 2, ostensibly in protest of a federal prison sentence handed down to Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond for arson on public lands that the ranchers grazed their cattle on. Upon the Bundy seizure of the refuge, the Hammonds quickly disassociated themselves from Bundy, proclaimed that the Bundy gang did not speak for them, and urged Bundy and his gang to leave the refuge.

Bundy just as quickly quit referring to the Hammonds’ plight as the excuse for the armed take-over. The new excuse posited the seizure as a protest against the Federal Government’s unconstitutional ownership and management of federal lands, and Bundy’s militia vowed not to give up the refuge until the government turned it over to the people of Harney County.

But not all the people. While the refuge is actually part of an 1.78 million-acre Indian Reservation taken from the Northern Paiute tribe in violation of an 1868 treaty, Bundy, while recognizing the tribe’s historic claim, told the press that “they lost that claim.”

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in Harney County agree with the Hammonds that the Bundy militia does not speak for them, and urged them to give up the occupation and go back to their own homes in Arizona, Nevada or wherever they hailed from. Many area residents also noted confusion about why the self-proclaimed patriots decided to occupy Malheur and expressed the sentiments that “they don’t speak for us,” and “we don’t want them here.”

Well, the government—federal and state—kept its distance from the refuge and the siege has thus far lasted some 28 days at what is excepted to be great taxpayer expense, not to mention great inconvenience to the residents of Harney County, who are under a partial lockdown, with schools closed and businesses related to the popular refuge shut down.

Now, we could stop right here and ask you to hash out your thoughts about whether the Bundy militia is comprised of true-blue patriots or self-righteous, right-wing Looney Tunes. But no, we’re going to go back a couple of years to another siege of sorts, which was initiated by Ammon Bundy’s father and has yet to be resolved.

You see, in April 2014, a self-proclaimed militia came to the defence of Ammon’s father Cliven Bundy, whose cattle were being impounded in the Gold Butte area of Clark County, Nevada by the Federal Bureau of Land Management. The impoundment was ordered due to Cliven’s failure to pay more than $1 million in grazing fees and fines for non-payment and non-compliance with grazing regulations over the course of two decades.

For the record federal grazing fees are relatively cheap and represent a 93 percent discount from what the private sector charges. However, Cliven in 1993 declared, among other things, that any federal ownership or control of the land was null and void, and spent the next 20 years all but ignoring federal efforts to collect any payment due or force compliance with grazing regulations. Cliven did attend the many federal court proceedings against him, all of which ended up in favor of the government and ordering Cliven to pay the ever-increasing fees and fines and comply with grazing regulations.

And finally, on April 5, the government took direct action by starting the round up and removal of the trespassing Bundy livestock that had freely grazed with impunity for so long. Armed militia members and other antigovernment protestors showed up at Gold Butte shortly thereafter and  demanded the release of the Bundy cattle. More federal agents were called to the scene and an armed stand-off of sorts ensued. After several days of escalating tensions the government backed down, released the Bundy cattle and withdrew.

Cliven quickly followed up his success by demanding the country sheriff disarm the National Park Service at Lake Meade and Red Rock Park, and then declared that county sheriffs across the country should “disarm the federal bureaucrats.” Cliven became a darling to the Tea Party, the extreme-right wing of the Republican party and prominent members of the right-wing press. This quickly faded within a week after Bundy, wise sage that he is, publicly stated that African-Americans might be better off as “slaves, picking cotton and having a family life,” rather than living off government subsidies.

The federal land known as Gold Butte is no longer “managed” or “patrolled” by government personnel. Armed Bundy supporters reportedly patrol and block access to the land, as well as intimidate trespassers, especially those that give hint of any ties to the government. Bundy walks around as a free man and has still not paid any of the $1 million plus in fees and fines owed for his use of government land. Of course, according to the Bundys, the land doesn’t belong to the government, it belongs to “the people.”

So, Hash It Out! Is Cliven Bundy a scofflaw or a defender of the people’s rights and ownership of the land? Are the Bundy militia members patriots or domestic terrorists? And, should the government continue to let these “patriots” of whatever stripe take over federal land without repercussion, or arrest them for their various transgressions?

—Published in hashitout.com Jan. 29, 2015.

GuyFi Beats Stress by Strangling the One-Eyed Snake

GuyFi Beats Stress by Strangling the One-Eyed Snake

Posted on by • Posted in Humor, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

—January 21, 2016

OK, kids, today’s story would appear to be from within the realm of “Are you f—king kidding me!?”

But no, we are not kidding you…. A British sex toy company has opened the first “male stress relief booth” in New York City, “designed to give the busy Manhattan man the privacy, and the high-speed Internet connection, he deserves.”

Or, to put it in layman’s terms: A British sex toy company has opened the first masturbation booth for men in New York City, where guys can slip into a former phone booth curtained off from public view, watch some high-speed Internet porn and engage in a little hand-to-gland combat.

Yeah, whoa!

OK, so London-based Hot Octopuss opened the “GuyFi” male stress relief booth a week ago on 28th Street and 5th Avenue, and company officials reported that about 100 men visited the booth on its first day of operation. According to the company’s Website, 80 percent of Americans say they suffer from workplace stress, and research has indicated that “a remarkable 39 percent of New Yorkers ‘self-soothe’ in the workplace to alleviate stress.” Thus, Hot Octopuss has created “a more suitable environment for this practice and “now invites office workers in desperate need of some downtime to visit the GuyFi booth and find out for themselves how a little break can make a big difference to their wellbeing and productivity.”

Hot Octopuss co-founder Adam Lewis said, “There’s no denying that working a nine-to-five job can be stressful on both your mind and body, especially in a non-stop city like Manhattan. It’s really important for guys to look after themselves so that they can stay healthy and focus properly on the task in hand.”

Yep, nothing beats choking the chicken as a means of keeping healthy and focused on work…. 

While the mainstream press has yet to weigh in on this pud-pulling booth story, the Internet press—such as Mashable and other sites—are posting the news, but also suggesting that the GuyFi booth is just a publicity stunt. For its part, company officials are insisting that it’s not a stunt and that the company plans to open other GuyFi booths around Manhattan, in London and in other major cities.

With a lack of mainstream press attention, public commentary about this five-knuckle-shuffle of a story is thus far muted. There was even a surprising lack of reaction on the comments section of those websites which did release the news, with the relative few comments generally ranging from support for the “great idea,” suppositions that it’s a hoax, questions about legality, and just a couple expressing outright disgust.

For example, a poster named Thomas hit the Hot Octopuss Website message board Jan. 18, with this apparent backlash of disgust:

“No this is revolting. Not only is this absolutely degrading but what about women? I can assure [you] I will not be buying anything from a company that thinks ‘men’ with no self control need to further harass women and children on our street by using MASTURBATION BOOTHS. How f—king ridiculous?! I don’t want to walk my girls down the street and have to explain what the hell these things are, or why some ragged homeless man is moaning and groaning in some f—k booth. Absolutely revolting – shame on you and this whole company.”

Upon reading Thomas’s comment we wondered what he meant by “but what about women?” Is he suggesting that women need their own booth in which to shuck their oysters—ahem, we mean, relieve stress?

We also wondered why Thomas focused on the “homeless.” What? he’ll have no problem explaining to his daughters why a Madison Avenue executive is moaning and groaning in the stress relief booth?

So, Hash It Out! What is your reaction upon learning about this new GuyFi booth?:

You are f—king kidding me….

LOL!

Eew!!!

Beavis-and-Butthead-It-s-A-Miserable-Life-beavis-and-butthead-9406719-720-480What a great idea!

There ought to be a law….

You wrote this blog because you have the psyche of a pre-pubescent boy and it’s giving you the excuse to spout out every masturbatory term you can come up with.

—M.J. Moye

Hashing Out the Lack of Diversity Among Oscar Nominees

Hashing Out the Lack of Diversity Among Oscar Nominees

Posted on by • Posted in Celebrities, Political Correctness, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

The release last week of the nominations for the 88th annual Academy Awards stirred an immediate backlash due to the lily-white composition of the best actor and best supporting actor categories. That’s right, for the second year in a row the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ 6,000-plus voting members failed to recognize any people of color or ethnic diversity for their acting abilities.

You would think that the crackers—more than 90 percent of the Academy members are white—Oscars So Whitewould have learned from last year’s backlash and made an effort to be more inclusive. Last year’s slate of 20 white acting nominees marked the first time since 1998 that the nominees didn’t include at least one racially or ethnically diverse actor. This despite the critically acclaimed acting in the Martin Luther King Jr. biopic “Selma.” And now the Academy voters have done it again, and revived the “Oscars So White!” backlash.

But are the Academy’s crackers biased or was there just a lack of good racial or ethnic talent? Critics are pointing to “Straight Outa Compton,” “Beasts of No Nation,” and “Concussion,” as being filled with black talent that was ignored by Academy voters. Of course, the review of “talent” is highly subjective and many people might argue that these movies, though quite good, are not representative of Oscar-worthy talent.

Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, who happens to be a woman of color, said, “Of course I am disappointed, but this is not to take away the greatness [of the films nominated].” Nevertheless, she added, the Academy’s efforts to diversify are moving too slowly. For the record as part of its efforts to become more inclusive in the wake of last year’s backlash, the Academy invited “Selma” star David Oyelowo, “Concussion” acrtress Gugu Mbatha-Raw, and “Straight Outta Compton” director F. Gary Gray to join its ranks.

This obviously isn’t going to tip the scales enough, and will probably only alleviate the apparent Academy bias against blacks. What of other minority groups? We don’t see them represented with any nominations. Are any of the acting nominees Asian? How about Hispanic? Disabled? Gay? Native American? Trans? Obese?

The answer appears to be “no.” And if you are appalled by this blatant lack of diversity in the Academy Awards nominees, then no doubt you would support a mandated affirmative action program for the Academy’s nomination process. And not only would this ensure the inclusiveness of all marginalized minority groups, but it would force Hollywood to make movies more reflective of the actual world we live in.

Here is what the slate of “best” and “supporting” actors would be comprised of under such an affirmative action nominating program (with nominations based to the extent possible upon the actual percentages of subgroups within the at-large U.S. population).

Fourteen whites

Three Hispanics (with at least one being of Mexican origin)

Two blacks

One mulatto

One Asian

and one Native American every sixth year

Of the nominees seven must be obese, four must be physically or mentally disabled, and one must be gay (every 22 years the gay actor can be substituted for a transgendered actor).

So, what do you think? Should we force Hollywood to be more realistic by holding it accountable to affirmative action in its awards nominations? Hash-It-Out!

—M.J. Moye

Originally published Jan. 15 in Hash It Out!

Forget “Gun” Control—How About “People” Control?

Forget “Gun” Control—How About “People” Control?

Posted on by • Posted in Politics, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

—December 3, 2015

With every mass shooting that happens in America gun control proponents amass more ammunition in their ongoing struggle to ban or otherwise restrict gun ownership and usage in the country. And yet, they keep shooting blanks….

I would posit that a large part of their problem lies with their emphasis on controlling guns rather than the people who use guns. It’s an inconvenient truth but: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles didn’t walk into the San Bernardino, California Inland Regional Center on their own accord yesterday and start shooting people. No, two obviously deranged people walked into that center for people with disabilities and shot up the place using AR-15 semiautomatic rifles.

Guess what? The two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles are not to blame. And yet that is what gun control proponents will fixate on, all but ignoring the people who actually fired those guns and slaughtered 14 innocent people.

Another inconvenient truth: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Take Washington, DC, which had the strictest gun control laws in the nation in the 1980s and early 1990s, and yet had among the highest gun violence per capita in the nation during that time. For quite a few years it was known as the nation’s “murder capital,” with handguns being the primary murder weapon of choice.  And gee, how could that be possible as Washington, DC had an outright prohibition (since annulled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) on the ownership of handguns? Guess the criminals weren’t too worried about the five-year prison sentence for possession of a handgun.

So, again I ask, why the emphasis on controlling “guns” rather than people? Here in my adopted country of Canada, the government in the late 1990s enhanced its already stringent control on guns with something known as the “long gun registry.” It turned into a billion-dollar boondoggle in which efficient bureaucrats (pardon the oxymoron) milked the taxpayer teat at a rate of about $255 (and continually rising) per registered gun.

The program, which was scrapped in 2013, was never proven to reduce gun violence. Canada’s auditor general, in reviewing the government’s performance report on the registry, determined that the report did not show how the registry minimized “risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.” Law enforcement users of the registry were mixed in their feelings about its usefulness, with many departments believing the program to be ineffective in deterring gun violence, but useful for determining whether guns might be present in particular homes that they might be called to or were otherwise investigating.

A quick question: Which deadly weapon kills more Americans every year than guns?

Give up?

Automobiles.

Have you ever heard anyone talk about “automobile control?” No, and that’s because the emphasis isn’t on automobiles, but on the people who drive them. If someone wants to drive a car in America they have to be trained and licensed. There are different classes of license depending upon vehicles driven, and the license can be revoked if a driver fails to follow the rules of the road.

Why shouldn’t the use and ownership of guns be treated in a similar fashion? If someone wants to own or use a gun, he or she should be required to possess a valid license, based on passing a gun usage and safety class, not having any criminal convictions involving firearms, and not having any medical or psychological conditions that might preclude or limit the safe use of a firearm. A basic license would allow for the use or ownership of a standard rifle or shotgun, while other classes of the license would allow for use or ownership of handguns and/or semiautomatic rifles, based on even more stringent training and requirements.

Failure to have a license could result in impoundment of firearms, fines and other penalties; and criminals committing gun crimes without a valid firearms license would be subject to enhanced penalties such as extended prison terms.

Overall, the entire program could be modelled on state automobile licensing programs, and even be operated under their auspices, as they have existing infrastructure in place to operate such a program. State governments would just need to add new computer software and hire division of firearms officers to perform all the tasks that need to be done in the issuance of a license.

To ease the transition into the new licensing scheme, long-time, law-abiding gun owners could be grandfathered in without the need for the safety/training class, and the requirements to become licensed could be phased in over several years on an age-based process.

And those states reluctant to adopt firearms licensing programs could receive encouragement from the federal government, which can threaten appropriation of state highway funds or enact other encouraging measures.

So all you gun control proponents, think about it: why control the guns when you should be controlling the people who use them?

Behold—or not—the Breast!

Behold—or not—the Breast!

Posted on by • Posted in Social Commentary • Tagged , ,

A photograph of a group of uniformed female soldiers breastfeeding their babies went viral on the Internet over the weekend after being posted on Facebook. We commend these women both for their service to our country and for their motherhood.

And no, this blog is not seeking to hash out the issue of women in the military, because women serve admirably in the U.S. military, and have been legally allowed to serve in combat roles since early 2013 (though we do trust that nursing soldiers will be recused from active combat duty roles). This blog is about breasts and breastfeeding, and seeks debate on why they should even be considered controversial.

Take for example the photo of the breast feeding soldiers. Former U.S. Air Force soldier Tara Ruby staged the photo to commemorate the building of a dedicated nursing room at Fort Bliss, Texas. According to Ms. Ruby, support for breastfeeding female soldiers “wasn’t even an option or a consideration” back in the late 1990s when she served. In her Facebook posting with the photo, Ms. Ruby stated in part:

“I remember nursing my oldest in the shadows, hiding on toilets and where ever I could while in uniform. My second baby I was told to cover up, that no one wanted to ‘see that.’ I remember that breastfeeding wasn’t cool or the norm.”

After posting the photo last Thursday, Facebook reportedly removed the image and any copies circulating as a result of Facebook repostings. However, after Mr. Ruby and others reposted the photo again on Friday, Facebook has allowed the image to remain in circulation. The company has not responded to news organization requests for comments about the initial removal, but the company has a history of removing of photos of breastfeeding mothers, citing offensive content violating the Facebook Terms of Service.

Offensive? What is offensive about breastfeeding, let alone a breast?

The vast majority of women who breastfeed in public do so in such a discrete manner that the actual suckling is not even noticed, and the odd creepy voyeur hoping to catch a peek of nipple is likely to be disappointed.

And yet, despite discretion and the often barely perceptible hint of the actual breast and/or nipple, many people (and organizations) still take great offense when a mother tries to breastfeed in public. Due to complaints or management prudishness, women are still asked to leave stores, restaurants and other public places–essentially treated as pariahs–because of their breastfeeding.

However, in a rare example of sensibility, the federal government and all 50 state governments have enacted laws to prevent breastfeeding from being treated as “indecent exposure.”  Unfortunately, there is still a large swath of the population that seems to feel that breastfeeding is indecent, if not downright pornographic.

Breasts are beautiful, both aesthetically and functionally, and a mother providing natural sustenance to her child should be considered with reverence not with disgust.

What do you think? Hash it out!

–Originally published September 14, 2015 by Hash It Out!

Will the Real Harris Faulkner Please Stand Up!

Will the Real Harris Faulkner Please Stand Up!

Posted on by • Posted in Humor, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

—Sept. 4, 2015

A Fox News anchorwoman is suing Hasbro Toys for more than $5 million alleging that the company’s plastic “Harris Faulkner” hamster, sold as part of the popular “Littlest Pet Shop” line, shares her name and resemblance. The company’s portrayal of anchorwoman Harris Faulkner “as a rodent is demeaning and insulting,” states the lawsuit, filed earlier this week in a U.S. District Court. The rodent’s name wrongfully appropriates Ms. Faulkner’s name, which is an insult and impairs her professional credibility as a journalist, claims the suit. The physical resemblance allegedly shared by the plastic rodent and anchorwoman includes professional appearance, complexion, eye shape, and eye makeup design. Ms. Faulkner is also “emotionally distressed” and “insulted” by being associated with a rodent chocking hazard, as the toy packaging warns of the hazard for “young children.”

Ms. Faulkner has been a Fox News anchor for 10 years, and hosts the daytime show “Outnumbered” and anchors the weekly “Fox Report Weekend” show. Rodent Faulkner has been on toy shelves since 2014, and is sold as part of a package with another rodent, a hamster named “Benson Detwyler” (no word yet on whether any people named Benson Detwyler are consulting their own attorneys on the matter). The lawsuit seeks $5 million in damages, attorney fees and any profits the company made off the toy rodent.

How do we hash this one out?

Let’s consider the name first. There seems to be little doubt that the anchorwoman and rodent share the same name, and that the anchorwoman was named first. However, the anchorwoman’s full name is Harris Kimberly Faulkner. There’s no “Kimberly” in the rodent’s name, which certainly could be said to distinguish the two. The lawsuit also states that Hasbro “willfully” appropriated Ms. Faulkner’s name, which begs the question of how she might have come to that conclusion. Does she have the minutes from a Hasbro strategy session in which an employee suggests using that anchorwoman’s name for their new rodent toy?

And what of the name “Harris Faulkner,” does this lawsuit suggest that Ms. Faulkner plans to sue anyone who “appropriates” her name? Is the theoretical 15-year-old Harris Faulkner of Charlotte, NC in danger of being sued in 10 years when she starts making money as a writer for Cuddly Toy magazine. Or let’s say a porn star “appropriates” the name?–we suppose that there’s little doubt that this would lead to litigation from Anchorwoman Faulkner.

But what gives her the sole right to the use of the name? Her fame? Has she Trademarked it or something? Ms. Faulkner’s lawsuit does not make any claim to the Trademark of her name, but does assert that Hasbro has falsely claimed the Trademark for the rodent. Thus if neither party in the suit has legal title to the name, is the issue even open to consideration from the court?

That leaves the resemblance issue. What do you think, does the rodent look like the anchorwoman? Perhaps the anchorwoman has “image issues,” because we’re just not seeing the resemblance.

Professional appearance? Frankly, we just don’t think the rodent looks all that professional. Sure the rodent’s hair is nicely coiffed, but what’s with that giant butterfly hair piece (or perhaps more importantly, does the anchorwoman sport one of those, too)?

Complexion? If the anchorwoman has a two-toned face, we’re just not seeing it. For that matter, we’re not finding much of a match at all between the rodent’s skin and the anchorwoman’s.

Eye shape and eye makeup design? Not seeing that either. The rodent’s eyes are round and so bugged out that they take up more than 60 percent of her face, while Ms. Faulkner seems to have normal eyes appropriate for her face. As for the makeup, well, sure, the mascara is perhaps a bit similar, but there’s a noticeable lack of any underlining on the rodent’s eyes. And while not mentioned in the suit, the rodent’s eyes have a nice shade of blue, but we don’t see a hint of blue in Ms. Faulkner’s eyes.

Finally, what of the poor rodent? Perhaps Harris the Hamster should consider a countersuit. Say along the lines of defamation of character and slander?

—Originally published Sept. 4, 2015 by Hash It Out!

Is Caitlyn Jenner Costume Justified?

Is Caitlyn Jenner Costume Justified?

Posted on by • Posted in Political Correctness, Social Commentary • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

—August 29, 2015

Another Hash-It-Out! blog about Caitlyn Jenner? Really?

Yeah, sorry, but he/she is in the news again, and he/she definitely stirs up some significant issues for debate. Like this blog referring to Caitlyn as he/she. How dare we not refer to Caitlyn by his/her self-identification.

The LGBT community insists that self-identification should be all that is required to establish one’s gender; however, biologically, Caitlyn remains very much a man. Meanwhile, on the legal spectrum every state has different laws regarding gender change and the legal definition of male or female. California has among the most liberal laws regarding gender change in the nation, but we don’t know whether Caitlyn has actually taken the steps needed to be legally female.

With the biological transition definitely absent and the legal aspect unclear we will continue to refer to Caitlyn as he/she. As for those staunch defenders of self-identification, we ask: if a man takes rabbit hormones, surgically attaches rabbit ears to his head, and insists he be treated like a rabbit, are you really going to treat him like a rabbit?

But, we digress. The latest Caitlyn Jenner news is the “massive outrage” spurred by the introduction of a Caitlyn Jenner costume. According to dozens of different news organizations, Internet social media sites like Twitter and Facebook erupted in outrage and anger as news of the costume spread. While costume retailer Spirit Halloween was the named perpetrator at the heart of the Internet backlash, it should be noted that several Halloween costume makers are offering Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner costumes of different varieties, not to mention of questionable taste.

There are two issues here: First, is the outrage justified? And second, is the outrage truly “massive?”

Let’s address the second question first. We found it quite interesting how dozens of the news articles regarding the controversial costume were so similar to each other. In fact, most of the articles published the same quotes from both leaders of the LGBT community and supposedly random social media tweeters and commentators. A Tweeter identified as “beki,” who Tweeted, “the caitlyn jenner halloween costumes are disgusting. being trans isn’t a ‘costume’ and treating it as such is ignorant & transphobic,” must be among the most quoted people by the media this week, her tweet being so prevalent among the Caitlyn Halloween costume stories.

Given the reported size of the public outrage, we decided to look for it on the Web. Interestingly, Tweets about Caitlyn Jenner Halloween costumes began back in early June. These early tweeters primarily focused on how Caitlyn Jenner would definitely be one of the most popular costume ideas for 2015, with many Tweeters proclaiming their own intention to don such a costume come Halloween, and only a few Tweeters suggesting that it might be offensive. The first photo of the Spirit Halloween Caitlyn costume was posted on July 24, and yet still, not much sign of outrage….

Then on August 21, a Huffington Post blog came out calling the Caitlyn costume the “worst idea we’ve heard all year.” That article spurred a few negative Tweets, which accelerated coming into this week, but by no means does it appear that this was a mass outcry of fury regarding the costume. In fact, the killing of Cecil the Lion (see Hash-It-Out July 28 blog: Iconic Cecil the Lion Slain by Dentist, Moronic Human Killed by Gator) marked more fury on Twitter by hundreds of thousands of Tweets. Yet by August 25, dozens of news organizations had posted similar stories about the alleged mass social media outrage (LGBT PR machine in high gear, perhaps?). We also looked at other social media sites for commentary on the issue, and sure, found plenty of commentary expressing outrage, dismay and other emotions about the costume, but found equal, and in many cases more, commentary decrying the political correctness of those criticizing the costume and of the news media reporting on it.

Also to be noted is that many of the news stories pointed out that a change.org petition had been started on Monday to demand that Spirit Halloween stop producing and selling the costume. As of Saturday morning about 13,500 apparently outraged people had signed the petition. We wouldn’t call 13,500 mass outrage, and also note that this number is smaller than the more than 15,000 people who have signed the change.org petition demanding the Olympic Committee revoke Caitlyn Jenner’s 1976 gold medal.

As for the first question–is the outrage justified? Well, if you are a member of the “easily offended and outraged” club (i.e., the politically correct) the answer is obviously, “yes.” Caitlyn is the club’s newest sacred cow, joining dozens of other groups and individuals who should be treated with unquestioned reverence (as an aside, we’d like to note that we know of another easily “outraged and offended” club that thinks its ok to execute those who dare insult their sacred cows–scary….).

But why should Caitlyn get the sacred cow treatment? He/she is a self-made, attention-seeking, public figure, and thus should be subject to the general public’s scrutiny and resultant commentary, the latter inclusive of caricature and parody, which would include Halloween costumes.

And frankly, we’re finding this year’s “Dentist and Cecil the Lion” costume far more distasteful, but we’ll certainly withhold our outrage because we don’t believe in sacred cows.

–Originally published August 29, 2015 by Hash It Out!

Iconic Lion Slain by Dentist, Moronic Human Killed by Gator

Posted on by • Posted in Favorite Blogs, Social Commentary • Tagged , , • Leave a comment

–July 28, 2015

Cecil is dead.

Who? you ask.

Cecil. Cecil the Lion.

OK….

cecilthelion-e1438117510903Cecil the Lion made international headlines this week after being killed illegally in Zimbabwe by an American dentist who allegedly paid about $55,000 for the privilege. Cecil was Zimbabwe’s most famous lion and a star attraction at Hwange National Park. The 13-year-old lion was also part of an ongoing Oxford University research project and was wearing a GPS collar to trace his movements. The hunter and/or his guides reportedly tried, but failed, to destroy the collar, which researchers used to trace Cecil’s last movements, and ultimately discover his headless and skinned body.

The lion was apparently shot by a crossbow after being lured out of the park at night by the guides who dragged a dead animal from their vehicle. The dentist, Walter Palmer, hit Cecil with a crossbow bolt, but the injured lion managed to get away, only to be tracked down 40 hours later and dispatched with a gun shot. Two Zimbabwean guides have reportedly been arrested, while authorities are still searching for a third. No word yet on whether charges will be laid against the Minnesota dentist.

A spokesperson for Palmer, meanwhile, said that his client is “obviously quite upset over everything.” But we’re not sure if that is just in reference to the flooding of his dental office Facebook page with angry comments and threats, and an online petition demanding justice for Cecil. The petition, which went online this morning, had garnered more than 40,000 signatures by mid day.

The dentist is apparently a well known big game hunter who is in the archery record books for slaying an elk with a bow. He was also reportedly arrested by Wisconsin wildlife officials in 2008 for illegal bear hunting. A Flickr photo album by Trophy Hunt America contains shots of Palmer posing with a variety of dead animals, including a white rhinoceros, of which there are only about 20,000 left in the world.

Conservationists in Zimbabwe and around the world are bemoaning the loss of Cecil, noting that Cecil is the 23 or 24th collared lion to be killed in or near Hwange. Conservationists have pointed out that the dentist paid just $50,000 to kill an animal that was worth millions of dollars in tourism revenues. Along with Cecil, the illegal hunt also likely means the death of Cecil’s six young cubs, as the next Alpha male will probably kill them so as to assert his own bloodline within Cecil’s former pride.

Well, with one (plus six for the cubs) strike against the animal kingdom, I suppose we should balance this out with a strike against the human kingdom. Earlier this month in Texas, 28-year-old Tommie Woodward was killed by a large alligator. Woodward was reportedly killed by the  large gator after jumping into a bayou marked with signs stating: “No Swimming–Alligators!”  Not only did Woodward ignore the signs, but a marina employee reportedly told him to “[p]lease do not go swimming, there’s a big alligator out there. Just stay out of the water.”No_Swimming_sign

Woodward’s last words before screaming for help were reportedly, “Fuck the alligators!”

OK, so this doesn’t even nudge the balance beam, but I tried.

–Originally published by Hash It Out!, July 28, 2015.

Death by Fireworks Call for “Darwin Awards!”

Death by Fireworks Call for “Darwin Awards!”

Posted on by • Posted in Social Commentary • Tagged , , , • Leave a comment

—July 6, 2015

Among the more interesting headlines on our newsfeed this morning was: “Man shoots off firework from top of his head, dies instantly.” According to the article, 22-year-old Devon Staples of Calais, Maine had been drinking and shooting off fireworks with his friends, when he decided that it would be a good idea to light a re-loadable fireworks mortar tube that he had placed atop his head. His friends reportedly urged him not to do it and thought that they had successfully convinced him to stop, but then Devon lit the fuse and the resulting explosion effectively removed his head.

Devon’s brother, Cody Staples, said his brother “was not the kind of person who would do something stupid. He was the kind of person who would pretend to do something stupid to make people laugh.”

Really?

While Cody undoubtedly knows his brother better than most, we’re inclined to believe that Devon truly did do something stupid, and that he will undoubtedly be in the running for a Darwin Award.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Darwin Awards, they “commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives.” Named after Charles Darwin of “Theory of Evolution” fame (or infamy, for those who believe evolution is bunk and the earth and all its critters were created 10,000 or so years ago), Darwin Award winners must “eliminate themselves from the gene pool in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species’ chances of long-term survival.” For more information go to:  http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/.

Devon was not the only American killed by fireworks this past weekend. In Grant County, Indiana, 41-year-old James Drake died when he was struck in the face by a “fireworks shell” while checking to see why it had not detonated. Well, it decided to detonate and caused “extensive facial trauma” leading to death. In Elkhart County, Indiana, 44-year-old Jose Magallanes was found dead in his back yard, after neighbors reported a “loud boom.” The death was ruled accidental blunt force trauma to the head caused by an explosive fireworks incident.

A 12-year-old boy was killed in Nashville, Tennessee, when a mortar-type firework exploded in his hand causing fatal chest injuries, and a 47-year-old Scott Jeffers of Detroit, Michigan was reportedly killed when a large firework shell he was holding exploded near his head. No word on how or why the firework exploded “near his head.”

With the exception of the 12-year-old whose young age makes him ineligible, these other gentlemen might also make good Darwin Award nominees. While perhaps not as blatantly foolish as lighting a large explosive mortar tube sitting atop one’s head, these men did manage to place their noggins up close and personal to high explosives. We’re not talking about firecrackers here–these were high explosive, really-big-bang pyrotechnics. And we’re talking about pyrotechnics that needed an ignition source. These fireworks didn’t just light themselves….