Catch "The Fine Print: We're Calling B.S."

Listen to our show live every other Saturday at www.blogtalkradio.com/thefineprint. Next show is October 12, 2013 at 6pm! Also, take a listen to the archive shows. Like us on Facebook and/or follow us on Twitter @TheFinePrintBS. Comment, share your thoughts and show ideas, or raise your own outrageous objection!

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The Fine Print of Being Unloved


Any of us who are lucky enough have had someone in our lives (parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, teacher, etc.) tell us we are good, beautiful, talented, special, or something. However, those of us who have been living in this world without rose-colored glasses on have long had to face the fact that not everyone is lucky and not everyone is loved. 

In "Ebony the Beloved" by Hannah Spivey, the main character, Ebony, was anything but loved. *somewhat of a spoiler alert* She was always told she was ugly, not smart, had nappy hair, dressed weird, etc. She was stripped of her self-esteem, first by her own family, then by her peers in school. There was no one to say she was special, smart, or loved.

She was bullied relentlessly in all areas of her life.  She tried to fade into the background and be “good,” but in the end, she ended up homeless and alone in the world.  We are reminded that kindness can come from the unlikeliest of places, as Ebony is taken in by a woman who works at her school.  Ebony is taken under the wing of the woman’s niece, a young woman who has a history of sexual violence and domestic abuse herself.

Through these new relationships, Ebony meets a famous song artist who looks, on the surface, like God’s answer to all of her problems.  Remember, Ebony has not been taught how to love and to be loved.  She doesn’t know how people are supposed to treat her.  In fact, at the age of 16, she has come to EXPECT to be mistreated.

This man turns out to be anything but God’s gift.  He wastes very little time in becoming possessive and cruel.  It was a short jump to his becoming sexually violent and extremely abusive.  Yet again in her life, Ebony became a victim and a prisoner at the hands of this man (a wolf in sheep’s clothing) and his mother.  It boggles the mind that people could be as cruel as depicted in this book.

Finally, however, Ebony decides to no longer be a victim, which she accomplishes in dramatic fashion by stabbing the guy to death after he raped her and violated her again and then burning the mother alive.

While extreme (think a cross between “Precious,” “For Colored Girls,” and whatever other movie is the cruelest you can think of), this book does highlight a number of issues that are very real.

1.       The cycle of abuse.  Where a child or person is exposed to abuse or subjected to abuse themselves, it shapes their thinking and emotions.  Often, it causes the person to put themselves in bad situations or to remain in bad situations because it is what they know and are familiar with.  This person would be vulnerable to continued abuse in their lives because they are more accepting of abuse.  It becomes a standard for them, whether consciously or unconsciously.  Most often, it is not conscious.  People often don’t acknowledge their abuse as a means of coping, but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and it doesn’t mean it has not affected someone mentally and emotionally.

2.      Bad parenting.  This book took bad parenting to a whole new level; however, in less extremes, we see the same themes repeated all around us.  Parents who never have a positive thing to say to or about their children.  Treat their children as if they are the problem and a burden.  Put their own selfish hang-ups and problems on a child.  Have no consideration for a child’s emotional well-being because of the ill-conceived thought that the child is fine as long as s/he is fed and clothed.  I could go on.  Basically, bad parenting is the set up for long term failure for a child.  To overcome that foundation is difficult and doesn’t happen often.

3.      Perpetrators know how to spot the defenseless and vulnerable.  If you’ve ever wondered why a particular person always seems to be a victim, the answer is likely because, as past victims, they are vulnerable to those who would exploit that vulnerability.  Predators go for the perceived weak and defenseless.  Perpetrators of sexual violence, abuse, and neglect often feel a weakness within themselves and will lash out at someone in whom they see a weakness.  Knowing this, it shouldn't surprise us that perpetrators, often, were once victims themselves.

4. It takes strength of character and courage to decide to no longer be a victim.  While I don't condone murder, victims do have to slay whatever demon is keeping them from realizing true freedom and happiness.  This, more than anything, is what I hope a reader would take away from this book.  To go from victim to survivor takes, first, making the decision.

On Saturday, September 15, Bryan and I will be going over some of the more striking themes in
this book, speaking with the author, Hannah Spivey, about her thoughts and experience in writing
it, and speaking with Kelly Burkes, a victim advocate who has experience working with victims
of domestic violence and sexual abuse.  This is not a show to be missed, whether or not you've
read the book.  Your hosts will be taking on some hard realities in a way that only we can. 
Real talk and no B.S.!

Tune in!

Sety B.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Bryan Babcock's Update

Last night on The Fine Print: We're Calling B.S. we talked about the situation between Chad Johnson and Evelyn Lozada. Did everyone catch last night's episode? Well if you didn’t:

Chad Johnson, who has been Chad “Ochocinco”since his legal and oh-so-random name change in 2008, proposed to Evelyn Lozada of Basketball Wives fame in 2010 after only 4 months of dating. How did he propose to her? He proposed WHILE he was playing a video game called “Call of Duty” which is all fighting and shooting. Romantic, huh? But he did lay a 10-carat ring on her, so I’m sure that made her more forgiving. Their relationship has been the hot topic on the last couple seasons of Basketball Wives. One of the most famous moments was when Chad and Evelyn were having a conversation about fidelity. Evelyn basically tells Chad that if he wants to have sex with someone else, go buy a box of condoms and be honest with her. Well, this dysfunctional pair moved forward with wedding plans, even amidst numerous rumors and arguments of Chad cheating. At least one somewhat intelligent move: they had a pre-nup. They wed on July 4, 2012, the tale of which was to be aired on their own reality show, Ev and Ocho. Well, lo and behold, on August 11, 2012, just 39 days after the wedding, Chad was arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence charges. Apparently, Evelyn found a receipt for a box of condoms and confronted Chad about it. Somehow a scuffle ensued and Chad is alleged to have head butted Evelyn in the face. A bleeding Evelyn went to a neighbor’s apartment where the neighbor called the police and told the dispatch how Evelyn was bleeding. On August 14, 2012, Evelyn filed for a divorce.
Now are you all caught up about the discussion last night? At the time I did not want to get into too much detail on my opinion of the situation (The show is only supposed to be an hour in length.). I did state to the public that I would post the longer version of my thoughts on our blog. Well, here it goes … I hope you’re ready for the mayhem.
From a domestic violence perspective, I'd venture to say whatever happened to Evelyn she probably had coming. I am not advocating for abuse AT ALL. I am, however, stating that karma is a bitch … and so is she. We have witnessed for a few seasons Evelyn's violent and outrageous tendencies. We have seen a woman who gets aggressively angry at the flip of the switch. I am hard pressed to rush to her defense in any situation when the violence has been turned on her. It's hard to sympathize with a victim who is usually the aggressor. It’s more of a comeuppance of sorts.
More than that, let's look at the violence that occurred. Chad Johnson "head butted" Evelyn. Stop for a minute and think about this. A man who takes on 250lb brick walls as a career head butted Evelyn (who is 5ft tall if she's that) and she lived to stumble to a neighbor. Let's be realistic here: if Chad did that to Evelyn, she would not have survived to tell the story. I sense some fabrication here. I'm not saying his head did not make contact with her head. I am saying that the story does not plausibly play out the way she told it. And her history of telling the facts is a bit murky at best. From a lawyer standpoint, I just don't see what she is saying as fully credible. My thoughts are she got too big for her britches, attacked a man for doing exactly what she instructed him to do, and in the struggle to get her off of him, his head made contact. Chad is typically the guy who laughs at everything negative towards him; now all of a sudden he head butts someone for coming at him? It all just doesn’t play out as completely correct.
So what did happen? I don't know, nor do I want to know. Neither Evelyn nor Chad is on my list of priorities. Nor is their situation a case to take up for domestic violence. If I were either one of them I'd probably beat the other. That’s not an example to say abuse is wrong. So we all need to pack up that incident, admit both of them are sorry, and both are getting their comeuppance for their actions. They deserve each other, and this was a good example that they should be their own island and the rest of us can stay out of it.
Now, we also looked at this relationship from a marriage standpoint. First, after 4 months of dating you get what you get in a marriage. You can’t expect to be prepared to enter into a lifetime contract after 4 months. The problem is no one thinks of the marital contract as lifelong anymore. It’s until I don’t like you anymore do we part, not death.
These two never stopped to think about who they were marrying. Chad bought a trophy gold-digger wife; Evelyn got paid for her services. That was the arrangement, and it could have been easily solved by Evelyn becoming a call girl. It would have accomplished the same thing. But to arrange such a business under the guise of a marriage is disgusting and an abomination of the marital structure. Again, these two get what they deserve here.
So despite people’s immediate reactions to the situation there are four things everyone should take from the situation: 1) You reap what you sow; 2) Marriage is a sacred institution not to be violated; 3) Never EVER hit a man if you aren’t willing to get hit back …EVER!; 4) Who gives a f**k about Chad Johnson and Evelyn Lozada?
Any questions? … Questions?? …Okay.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Calling the White Man's "Race Card" Bluff ...

Yes ... I said it, and I intend to say much worse right here and now.

Recently, the Republican ticket, backed by Fox News and all those that have never understood race issues (including many African-Americans who have forgotten what's it's like to be "Black") have intentionally mislead the public by taking on the Obama campaign directly over Vice President Biden's "back in chains" comment, calling it the mark of a "desperate" campaign as President Obama defends his running mate against bipartisan criticism. I, for one, have been appalled that people like Romney and Ryan would actually play "the race card" on behalf of the Black people in attendance at Biden's speech. And what has been worse is that African-Americans have jumped on their bandwagon. As if they weren't enough of a drag on the race with their self-righteous indignation towards those Blacks that remember the White man has not always been a friend, now they are actually co-signing two White's (who couldn't care less about Black people if there weren't still voting rights watchdogs out there making sure we all can still legitimately vote in this election despite their best efforts) ridiculous racial accusations. I have a rant in my heart on this. Would you like to hear it? Here it goes ...
The Fine Print: We're Calling "B.S." will have a real discussion about playing the race card. "Playing the race card" is an idiomatic phrase that refers to exploitation of either racist or anti-racist attitudes by accusing others of racism. The phrase is commonly used in two contexts. In the first and more common context, it alleges that someone has deliberately and falsely accused another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage. In the second context, it refers to someone exploiting prejudice against another race for political or some other advantage. There will be times when it is inappropriately used; however, there are instances when its use has been very much applicable to the situation. This show will not air until September 1, 2012. In light of this latest incident, I thought it was time that I get the conversation started early on that particular show. Join me as I break down this race card moment, and feel free to give your own input.
The VP sparked the controversy during a campaign rally in Danville, Va., where he was attempting to argue that the House GOP budget, partly written by newly-minted GOP vice presidential running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, gives an indication of the Republican presidential ticket’s values. The VP stated, “Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the – he said in the first 100 days he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, ‘unchain Wall Street.’ They’re going to put y’all back in chains."
Immediately following this the news was all abuzz, and the race card was played. The world of fools has gone “all in” on this hand and will not let up, doubling down in fact. In the process they have mislead the gullible public into co-signing the foolishness and publicly calling for an unwarranted apology. They have even taken to pulling Santita Jackson (Jesse Jackson’s daughter) out of her Fox News cubbyhole and paraded around to denounce the comments as if she didn’t know better. Well, it might not be farfetched to say she doesn’t. This one little word, “chains,” has caused an irritating stir in my life because now I have to read about all these people’s stupid reactions to it. There are better things going on in the world besides a phrase taken out of context in the most blatant way.
But this situation has really caused a question to be raised. Lately people are so quick to fault someone for playing the race card—but here this is clearly a false instance of using it—and in a moment when there should be fault, it’s on the person who never made the situation about race. Why are we not attacking Romney and Ryan for taking this comment to a racial point? Who is actually making this a racial issue to distract citizens? Looks like the White devil to me, and I meant it as a racial remark (just so there's no need to clarify later).
What no one wants to admit, especially not Romney/Ryan, is that the VP continued his same dialogue later that day:  “The last time these guys unshackled the economy, to use their term, they put the middle class in shackles. That’s how we got where we are.” Does this clarify things for you? It does for me. In fact, it really just confirms what I already perceived his statements to mean. I unlike some others did not immediately say that because Biden used the term shackles in a rally that was packed with Blacks, he was trying to make a slavery remark. And even if he was making a slavery remark, he made the remark that Romney was pro-slavery … and I’m not convinced that wouldn’t be the truth if Romney had his way. Nothing about Romney’s behavior would suggest he cares about Black people (Kanye, do you agree?), so maybe he’s pro-slavery. I don’t know, and he’s never given much information about his plans for office. There could be a master race plan in his mind for all I know. But the wanna-be slave master in Romney's subconscious is not on the table of discussion right now. Regardless of my trail-off, Biden was not actually making a racial reference. So we can stop with the discussion. Romney and Ryan just need to fold on this one; those two are holding some bad hands.
Romney has really shown himself as a big stack bully, and I for one won’t allow someone so far removed from reality to steer the conversation in a way that steps outside the true issues: what can you really do for the economy? What’s your plan? What will it cost? And where will you get the money from since you will cut taxes and spending at all levels of government (including income-producing agencies)? What’s your experience that is any different than anyone else’s? These are answers I want. Only one of the two candidates has been President before, so only one has presidential experience. And if you are going to convince me you should replace him, you’re going to have to do more than point out his failures, and start showing me what you will do to pull us out of the hole your party previously put us in. Am I the only person who remembers Former President Bush put us in this hole? So far I see Bush version 2.0 but with less war, and more handouts to the wealthy on the backs of the middle and lower classes. I don’t believe for a second that Ryan’s fiscal intentions will happen; his belief in the free market system is so unsupportable by anything but his internal will it borders religion. I don’t like religion in my government; I want it to work for all, not just those that believe. It seems like too much to ask for nowadays.

Does anyone agree with me on this one? Am I the only one that doesn’t find a racial moment in this situation? Talk to me people. Let’s start the conversation now before we air.

--Bryan Babcock

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Breaking Gender Boundaries

Living in a world of labels usually works well for most of us.  Labels are our way, as humans, to make sense of our surroundings.  And I'm the first to admit that I'm more content when things make sense to me.

However, the downside to living in a world of labels is the tendency to forget that all things in life aren't clearly labeled.  With this "forgetfulness" comes the urge to judge and reject those things that don't fit quite so neatly.  This is what we have done with sex and gender.

Everything, even down to the words we use, is given a gender or is assigned TO a gender.  The classifications are always the same: male and female.  But, if we look at the world around us, we see that, often, people, animals, and even plants don't fit so neatly into those classifications.  There are biological men who are psychologically women.  There are babies born with male and female sex organs.  There are people who don't identify as male or female, but prefer a third gender. 

In true human fashion, we have taken to assigning labels to that which refuses to be labeled.  So, now we wrestle with terms such as "homosexual," "transgender," "transsexual," and "intersex," just to name a few.  Well, "The Fine Print:We're Calling B.S." presents, "The Fine Print of Gender Identity."  We're going to discuss gender identity, the labels we apply, the difficulties people face, and how the law plays into it all. 

To get you all thinking, here is a scenario for you to consider, and one Bryan and Seterria will discuss on the show this Saturday, August 18th at 6 pm.  Question: What does gender and sexuality mean to you?  Are all beings strictly male or female?  Something to ponder: An intersex baby is born.  [Depending on the medical definition used, as much as 1.7% of human births are intersex.]  The baby has more masculine physical traits, so the parents decide the baby will be a boy and raise him as a boy.  However, the child has always felt like a girl and, as an adult, is attracted to men.  Would you call the child homosexual?

Comment here, on our Facebook page "The Fine Print: We're Calling BS", or hit us on Twitter @TheFinePrintBS.  Get some more insight and voice your opinions on air on Saturday, August 18, 2012, at www.blogtalkradio.com/thefineprint or call in between 6-7pm 619-924-0870.  We welcome all comments, from the sadly sedate to the awfully outrageous. 

Real Talk with no B.S.!