What is Matt Walsh doing now?

For those who care, or even remember Matt Walsh, Matt announced today that he is leaving radio for good. We first caught wind of this about a month ago, but facts were nonexistent. The program director at WLAP in KY only said his show was being cancelled.

 

Just like when he was fired from WZBH, he has made his leaving sound as if it were voluntary. Three radio stations in as many years - we doubt he left voluntarily. At least this time he admits two things - one, more people read his blog than listened to his radio show (out of a national audience, he has at least 91,000 fans), and, two, he lacks any real life experience, which may account for his lackluster radio performance.

According to Alexa, Matt has a strong fan base of stay-at-home Moms, but is extremely under-represented among males, and males and females with some college or higher education. That strong fan base of stay-at-home Moms will carry him for a decent living as a blogger, but we have to wonder if maybe his tune on working Moms and the feminist movement that fought for equal pay will change. Raising twins is no cheap task and running a blog with a fan base of less than 100,000 doesn't earn one a solid middle class salary. If he and his wife have to make the decision that his wife needs to get a job, I hope he is thankful for the many generations of women who fought for equality in the workplace.

 

Matt is also a speaker at the Great Home School Convention, so blogging isn't his only new career. Public speaking, especially at events supported by his strong fan base of stay-at-home Moms, may be in the offering.

 We know, because he would never tell anyone otherwise, that he won't be freeloading off the unemployment system like all the rest of those freeloaders so we wish him well on his blogging adventure. There's always flipping burgers to help make ends meet while he tries to get his blogging career off the ground.

For those who may have lost touch with Matt you can visit his blog.

 

Crank in a star pangled mini skirt

A couple of us made the mistake of listening to the morning show promptly at 6:00 am.  We vow not to make the mistake again, but, Hell, we're five drunk rednecks and at least one of us will probably listen again.

Crank came out attacking his own wife for pointing out that an actor in some movie or show was Portuguese.  The gist of his argument... or dare we say, prejudice... was the actor was a nobody until he came to America and American actors, rah-rah, are the best. 

Crank's defense of everything America as being awesome and everything not-American ( as far as TV and movie entertainment goes) was "so what?", left at least one of us with an image of Crank in a star spangled miniskirt doing cartwheels in celebration of the Great American Way.

Crank, denying his roots, and Phoebus, trying a lame attempt to claim some foreign royalty ancestry, are typical responses of those raised with a family disconnect and lost heritage.  Only Sarah spoke up in defense of being proud of one's heritage, but, alas, she's just the token female on the show, which means Crank and Phoebus had all the say.

Here's a news flash: most Americans are proud of their heritage and where they came from and the sentiment to boast of one's heritage is the very definition of being American. 

Denying one's heritage by thumping one's chest and declaring, "I'm  American" to the exclusion of where his/hers ancestors came from is the definition of a spineless slug trying to fit in his/her environment.

Conclusion of the ten minute segment a couple of us listened to?

Sarah needs to step up to the plate and tell the other two to shut the Hell up because she's talking.  She has a lot to say and it's not getting through.  Adam Levine, voted the sexiest man, claims on a Proactive commercial that his acne prevented him from being "assertive".  What's your excuse for not being assertive, Sarah? 

Phoebus needs to get out from behind the microphone and experience the real world so that he won't have to pretend some royal heritage. 

Crank needs some salt poured on him so he'll just wither away.

We might tune in next week.

Nah. 

After the holidays, maybe. 

Merry Christmas everyone!  Thank you for being a fan of this page. 

The Worse Show Ever's one-dimensional blandness

For the most part, we haven't been listening to WZBH. A couple of days ago, one of us listened in the afternoon and caught a blurb for The Worse Show Ever. The short spot epitomizes the shallowness and blandness of the morning crew.

Crank posed a question that appears on on the Common Core standardized test for our schools. The question: "You have three people and four horses. How many feet do you have?" Answer: six because horses have hooves and not feet.

The debate between Crank and Phoebus was if the question was really a math question or a riddle. Standard in-the-box thinking that really made the morning crew look more stupid than what they thought the question made the test look like.

Point 1: The question is a poorly constructed sentence. People are not property so "you" cannot "have" people.

Point 2: Is it a math question or a riddle? It's a reading comprehension question doubling as a math question. The question tests one's ability to understand what is read and then tests one's ability to count. Crank and Phoebus failed on both accounts.

Point 3: If we look at the question from the standpoint of the expected answer, there aren't six feet. There are the three people and "you" or four people total, which makes eight feet.

Point 4: In the strictest sense, the question "How many feet do you have" will always be two regardless of how many people "you have". While we're pretty sure that Phoebus has 12 toes, not necessarily divided evenly among his two feet, he still has two feet. We're pretty sure Crank has two tiny feet. So either one reading the question should have answered two, because they only have two feet just like most everyone else has.

Maybe it's just us, but we find multi-dimensional thinking to be entertaining. The shallow, one-dimensional thinking of the morning crew has us switching the radio dial or, as has been for the last month, simply not listening at all.

Ranters rant against ranters

You know, in any given group of five people, there always has to be one jackass. Guess what our jackass did today? She listened to about an hour and a half of the morning show.

The gist of the first hour of the show amounted to a rant against people who rant against stuff. Ahh, the irony of it. Of course, Crank quickly pointed out that their rant against ranters didn't include them because how else could one do a show unless they're ranting? About twenty minutes into the rant against ranters, Crank clarified that they (the morning crew) were "above the average person", which is why their rants aren't really rants.

Confused?

Yup. We never have understood why the public figure behind a microphone or behind a camera somehow feels, and truly believes, that what he or she does is somehow different than what the average person does. Does receiving a weekly paycheck to rant somehow make one a more qualified ranter?

Last week, the morning crew saw fit to make fun of Hallmark's decision to change the words to a classic Christmas carol from "gay" to "fun". It should be noted that, as far as talk radio hosts go, a lot of the the talkers across the radio dial had fun with Hallmark's decision. In fact, Susan Monday on Delaware 105.9 had an entire call-in segment on the "controversy".

There wasn't anything new in the morning crew's rant against Hallmark. Tune to any talk radio station, you would hear the same rant. Pull up any blog on the Internet, and you would read the same thing. In fact, we're willing to bet that as Crank and gang sang off key to make their point, ten YouTube videos were already posted with better off key singing to make fun of Hallmark's decision.

There is so much the morning crew could do to set the radio dial on fire. Instead, they choose to use ten parts water to one part gasoline for their show and when their fire doesn't ignite, they whine about all the other people, which probably includes their listeners, who already beat them to the punch line.

JJ has left the WZBH stage...

This is what we get for listening to WZBH only once or twice a month - a missed job opportunity.

One of us was going to listen to JJ tonight, but he wasn't on.  Turns out he left WZBH for Ocean 98.1 sometime within the last couple of months or so.  The jury is still out on the replacement show. 

In fact, we're not even sure if the show is hosted by a local DJ or is a nationally syndicated show.  It'd be really sad if WZBH, a station promoting the shop local message, has decided to outsource its departing local DJ's position with a nationally syndicated show instead of hiring local talent to fill the vacated spot.  We mean, it's not like Delmarva has high unemployment in a limited job market or anything, right?  Besides, if WZBH offered a job to a local, unemployed talent, how could the morning show make fun of the unemployed freeloading off of unemployment insurance?

The daily dumbass no one at WZBH will report

Two of us happened to listen to The Worst Show Ever Monday morning.  Listening is not what makes us the daily dumbass.  Listening with the hope that maybe the show would be funny is what makes us the daily dumbass.  As Albert Einstein pointed out - insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

We've pointed out, on more than one occasion, that what makes the morning show such a tedious, humorless, bore is the monaural hosts running the show.  Mono recordings lack depth and direction.  Can't get a more apt description of the morning show than that.

WZBH will be hard pressed to produce an engaging show with depth and direction as long as the powers that be at the station choose to retain a self-centered, everything-is-about-me yapper, who lacks any real life knowledge, but is full of conservative-think slogans that sound good, but lack substance.  Compounding the problem is the powers' that be decision to team the yapper up with a puppy, who lacks any real life experience to be able to connect the dots on any given subject without first consulting the hippest conspiracy site available.  At least the powers that be decorated the station with a wallflower, you know, like one of those singing bass novelty items.  Every once in awhile, the yapper or puppy will push a button, and the wallflower entertains us with a couple of sentences that don't add any depth or direction to the conversation, but does let the listener know her batteries are still working.

Monday's show paints a perfect picture of the above description.  In typical conservative slogan speak, collecting unemployment is a form of a free handout.  Freeloaders rather collect unemployment than go to work. 

As we stated as far back as the Matt Walsh days when unemployment was at its peak, collecting unemployment is not a free handout any more than letting your health insurance pay for a medical procedure is a free handout.  All workers pay a premium to fund each state's unemployment insurance program.  Employers match the premium payment, usually two dollars for every dollar the employee pays.  Unemployment insurance is just that - insurance.  It is no different than your health insurance or car insurance.  And one doesn't get to collect unemployment benefits indefinitely.  Most state benefits end after six months.  Congress has extended benefits during these hard economic times, but, at most, one can collect benefits for an additional six to eight months.  One can't make a "career" of collecting unemployment benefits. 

Food stamps and welfare is a favorite topic of conservative slogan throwers to bash about so, of course, the yapper couldn't resist.  The freeloaders on the food stamp and welfare programs need to get a job.  Facts, of course, don't support the conservative slogan speak.

Sixteen percent of Americans receive food stamps, with almost half of those recipients (49%) being under 18 and another 8% being elderly.  Of food stamp recipients, almost half live in a household with an income from employment.  The average monthly benefit received for an individual is $133 and for a family, $247.  Go ahead.  Try to feed yourself on that budget. 

Welfare is even skimpier.  Four percent of Americans receive TANF/AFDC (welfare) benefits.  The average monthly payout to a family of four is $900, which translates to $5.62 an hour.  Go ahead.  Try to raise your family on that wage. 

Even if we add the two programs together, the average recipient receives benefits equivalent to $7.16 an hour, just below the $7.25 national minimum wage.  Before you are tempted to claim that a recipient on one program must also be on the other program, keep in mind that only ten percent of food stamp recipients are also on welfare.

Now compare the rates of welfare and food stamp recipients to the poverty level.  The poverty rate stands at 15% and is defined, for a family of four, as $11.32 per hour.  The median wage of a retail worker is $10.15 per hour.  Ironically, or maybe by design as America loses its traditional middle class manufacturing jobs to foreign markets, 19% of those employed nationwide work in the retail industry, an industry that pays more than half of its workers poverty level wages. 

In fact, we can connect the dots further.  In a typical, national chain retail store that employs 150 people, 95% of the employees earn at or near poverty level wages, and that's assuming all employees work full time (40 hours per week).  If both adults in a household work in the retail industry, their combined income would still fall short of the median household income of $51,000.   

All of these figures, while not readily available, can be found by digging through various government websites.   But our monaural hosts have no interest in adding depth to a discussion.  Cheap slogans and empty rhetoric is about all one can expect from a morning crew sadly under-qualified to talk about any subject with any degree of expertise.  It is a whole lot easier to deride imaginary lazy people and throw around empty slogans than it is to talk about facts and interpreting those facts in a meaningful manner.

We still earn the daily dumbass reward, though.  We'll listen to the Worst Show Ever, again, in the near future and, sadly, we'll still expect different results.  This time, though, we're stacking the odds in favor of a different outcome by providing a cheat sheet.  Household Incomes Remain Flat Despite Improving Economy will hopefully inspire at least one of the hosts (our bets are on the wallflower) to break the formulaic mold that has become the staple script of the Worst Show Ever and challenge the empty and uneducated rhetoric to add depth and direction to the show.

A whole day's review

We all made it a point to listen to as much of WZBH as we could today.  We listened from the morning show, around 9 am, until Doug McKenzie's show, around 6:30 pm.  We skipped JJ's show because we were pretty certain he had nothing worthwhile to say except to talk about other dumbasses.

Worth noting, in the overall programming, was the absence of dumbass stories.  As we mentioned before, dumbass stories peppered the daily programming heavier than pepper on a dish of blackened catfish, and, like blackened catfish, burned the senses until they were numb.  Captain Blue and Doug McKenzie have made a positive move towards a more palatable, and less numbingly burning, programming.  Their shows were a pleasant surprise from what we had expected.

Here's the run down:

The Worst Show Ever:

Let's just say the show lives up to its name. 

We've given up hope on Sarah.  Sarah gladly accepts her role as a wallflower following the lead of Crank and Phoebus and will never blossom into the gardenia of talent we though she was capable of becoming.  It's sad, really.  On another radio station in another venue, she could be real, entertaining talent.  Stuck where she is, she'll never blossom.  She really needs to break out the bull whip, crack it hard, and tell Crank to shut the Hell up and tell Phoebus to get a real life.  Once she has those two whipped in place, listeners will have a chance to hear her real talent.  As long as she plays the wallflower role, though, we can only hope this young woman is learning her craft while other stations are reviewing her résumé, and then she'll explode on the scene with the fury of a woman scorned when hired by another station.  Three of us (the men) are waiting for that day.  The two women (out of jealousy, no doubt) want to see Sarah fall flat on her boobs.

Phoebus, as we mentioned before, lacks any real life experience to be able to relate to anyone above a high school graduate or the Forrest Gumps of the world.  For someone who formulates his worldview from infowars, one would think he'd have figured out he is nothing more than a pawn in the government's plot to dumb down America to make the populace easier to control.  Phoebus shows a good potential, but he needs to advance to the other end of the board to become a queen and let his true talents shine.  The only way he can get to the other end of the board, quickly, is to leave radio, man up to his civic duty and pursue a four year stint in the military or, at least, pursue a career outside of a four-by-four room while sitting behind a microphone. 

Crank, on the other hand, needs to go through a midlife crisis.  He's almost there so we may not have to wait that long.  A man who goes through a midlife crisis changes his wife, changes his career, and either comes out more successful than he ever was, ends up in jail, or begs for change at the intersection of any road he can stumble to.  No matter the outcome, when Crank goes through his midlife crisis, he will change careers and listeners might once again enjoy a morning show on the radio.  Yes, Crank, we tire of the everything-is-about-Crank routine.  You managed to take a story of The Wheel of Fortune and turn it towards you.  Even Forrest Gump knows what a curio cabinet is.  Then you managed to take eight of Sarah's top ten wingman ploys and turn them towards you, as in you're the best wingman ever.  It'd be different if you were funny about it, but, instead, you come across as that annoying Chihuahua that just has to be the center of attention.  Be a man and go through your midlife crisis, already.  We all agree we'll flip you a quarter at the intersection.

Captain Blue:

We all love Captain Blue's laid back style and we enjoy his "Question of the Day".  Today, his question was about what embarrassing thing did your neighbors catch you doing or what embarrassing thing did you catch your neighbor doing.  The segment was mildly entertaining, but we know from past questions, that segment can be very entertaining.  With a segment like that, a listener can't expect top performance every time, but, in that time slot, no one is listening to the DJ anyway.  They want music.  The little break, even at its worst, is entertaining.  What we don't understand is how Captain Blue snuck three country songs in the lineup.  We went to Phoebus' infowars site and we think we understand.  There's an ultra-secret society, originally founded by retired rodeo clowns, whose sole mission is to rid the world of all forms of music except country music.  Phase one members infiltrated prime time TV's reality shows, like American Idol and X Factor. Country singers have become big on these shows, so phase two has begun.  Members of this ultra-secret society (it's so secret, no one knows its name, yet) have begun infiltrating radio stations.  Pop and rock stations were the easiest to infiltrate, and that's why Captain Blue, as a member of this ultra-secret society, had no problem sneaking in three country songs in the lineup.  We don't know what the three songs were, but one of them was by Shine Down.  Three country songs during the show is five too many.  We're onto the top secret plan, Captain Blue, so knock it off.  If you want to convert your listeners to country music, take a real challenge.  DJ on a hip hop station and sneak your country music in through that venue.  Yeah, we know that's like Phase Eleven or something, but be bold and advance your career. 

Doug McKenzie:

Doug McKenzie has always been a class act for us.  He didn't disappoint, today.  It was with his show we realized we weren't deluged with dumbass stories.  He quoted some news, gave his laid back commentary, and then played music.  We always liked his "like it or leave it" plays.  We liked his song today, but, dang it, not one of us (the four who heard it) can remember it.  Something about elephants, we remember that much.  For sure it'll be played again and we'll figure out what the song is and who does it.  One shocking note in his program: he played a country song we heard earlier from Captain Blue.  This time, one, of the two of us who heard it, remembered the song because she was shocked to learn that Slash played the guitar.  "Here's to us" by Halestorm belongs out in Texas, not on a rock station.  C'mon, Doug.  Don't get suckered in by Captain Blue's evil plot to make all music country music.  Go back to digging up classics like you did with "Jerry was a racecar driver" by Primus.  Since that day, over a year ago, we haven't heard you dig up forgotten classics, but those classics would be better than a country song being passed off as a rock song.  Don't you agree?  

An interracial sex change operation would improve the show

All week, we listened to various segments of The Worse Show Ever.  All five of us listened at various times independently of each other, but not one of us listened to an entire show.  Lord no.  It's hard enough getting through maybe a half hour's worth of the show voluntarily on any given day.  Only a sadomasochist or Brian at the end of the whip of his dominatrix could, or be forced, to listen to more. 

We listened with one purpose: determine the factors of the show that make it as exciting and entertaining to listen to as it is to listen to a cricket chirp in the vacuum of space.    We've come up with two ideas.

• All three hosts are conservative in their thinking.  Sarah leans more towards the moderate conservative side, but Crank and Phoebus definitely lean towards the far right side with a healthy dash of conservative-Christian thinking thrown in for good measure.  Expecting three hosts, who more or less think alike politically, religiously, and philosophically, to create sparks that will entertain the masses is like lighting a line of gunpowder and expecting it to fill the sky with colorful sparks on the Fourth of July.  If you want colorful sparks that entertain, you add volatile chemicals to that gunpowder.  Our suggestion: can Crank and Phoebus and team Sarah up with a local oyster and a hulking man aiming to become the next Precious.  No one would care about the oyster, but Sarah vs Precious Wannabe...yup, we'd listen for four hours a day, five days a week....and even more.
• Assuming an oyster and a Precious Wannabe won't take the job and we're stuck with Crank and Phoebus, then neuter Crank and glue those parts onto Phoebus.  Lord knows Phoebus could use a pair.  Here's the problem: no matter what segment of the show the team (term used loosely) are doing, Crank is the alpha male chihuahua with a compulsive need to be the center of attention despite the lack of possessing any endearing qualities;  Phoebus is the beta male bulldog too timid to challenge the alpha male, but bold enough to turn around and fart in the chihuahua's face once in awhile; and Sarah is the alpha female collie waiting patiently for the testosterone to settle before showing everyone who's the real boss.  After neutering Crank (great ticket sales opportunity, by the way), maybe Crank will realize he doesn't have to be the center of attention (like every chihuahua has a compulsive need to be); Phoebus can fart his way off of center stage (because bulldogs really aren't all that bright, but good at farting); and Sarah can gracefully take center stage to save the show (because we all learned way back in the fifties that collies are the smart ones who always save the day).

Yup, we wanted colorful sparks to entertain us this past week and instead we ended up in a noisy dog pound.  Too bad the dog pound is a no-kill sanctuary.  We'll skip all the yapping sure to come next week.

 

Sarah should be the star of The Worst Show Ever

Sarah had two of us in stitches this morning.  This morning's "Friend or Foe" segment was about a couple in New York who installed an outdoor shower.  Both Phoebus and Sarah took the "foe" side citing, among other things, that kids, nor anyone, should be exposed to a daily routine of nudity. Crank took the "friend" side and argued that no one except perverts should be spying on the showering neighbors.

Claiming that it is normal for anyone to look, Sarah said, "Women can't help but look when something pops out at them. Yes, Sarah, most women and gay men can't help but to look.

Sarah's passionate defense of a person's natural tendency to look, not just a pervert's tendency, zoomed over Crank's head. Phoebus sort of caught it, but downplayed her comment. It may have taken until commercial break before Sarah realized just how funny her comment was, if she realized it at all.

Sarah should be the star of the show. She's funny without even trying to be.

We're probably going to jail

Note to our readers:  The letter below is NOT a review of WZBH programming.  We posted it here for three reasons.  First, the letter is too long to send through the White House contact page, but we did provide them as much of the letter as their character limit allowed with a link to here for them to finish reading the letter.  Second, we hope fans of our critics page will help make this letter go viral just in case the President doesn't really care what five, White rednecks have to say, but would be forced to listen if enough other people made it a concern.  Third, we wanted to show the targets of our normal reviews at WZBH that we're equal opportunity critics.  We don't just pick on WZBH.

Dear President Obama: 

In response to your press conference today regarding the George Zimmerman case, you are correct - we all need to do some soul searching, but not by the side of the coin you implied during your press conference.  Let me suggest the following:

1. The executive branch (that's currently you and your administration) and the legislative branch (that's Congress) have no business sticking their noses in most state issues.  The Zimmerman case was one such issue.  The Justin Carter case in Texas is an example of where the federal government did have reason to voice an opinion on a state issue, but chose not to.  In that case, a teen in Texas posted a sarcastic joke that a Canadian reported to authorities and the Texas teen was promptly arrested and spent five months in jail until just recently when an anonymous benefactor posted bail for him.  He still faces up to ten years for his joke he posted online.  Whenever a complaint from a person in a foreign country can get an American citizen arrested for what he posted on the Internet, that should be of federal concern and should warrant a press conference.  I suppose since Justin Carter is a White boy, his civil rights and free speech rights aren't worth protecting in the eyes of our federal government.  Perhaps you, and every member of Congress, should read the Constitution and learn why you, every member of Congress, and every American, should be concerned, and even outraged, about how easy it is for a citizen of another country to get an American citizen arrested.
2. In light of the fact that Justin Carter, the good ol' White boy from Texas, is facing a possible ten-year jail term for his bad joke authorities have labeled as "terroristic threatening", why did you not talk about the New Black Panthers leader's public and Internet "terroristic threatening" of "declaration of war" against "Whitey's neighborhoods"?  Why are you nor anyone in Congress outraged at the double standard of justice being applied to the New Black Panthers leader that gives him a free pass to threaten in all seriousness, but the teen in Texas gets thrown in jail for posting a bad joke?
3. While most Americans of all races and ethnicities understand the injustices all minorities in this country have suffered throughout our history and the historical basis for racial sensitivities today, one thing we all should have learned is not to make the same racist mistakes our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have made, yet you, many in Congress, outspoken community leaders and media personalities are repeating the same mistakes made generations ago.  Let me enumerate those mistakes for you:
1. Whether or not George Zimmerman is a racist, the actions of one person is not reflective of an entire race of people.  Your press conference only confirms to many people that yes, the actions of one is reflective of the attitude of many.  Remember when we were taught that not all Black people eat watermelon and play basketball?  Not all Black people are promiscuous coke addicts?  Not all Black people live off of welfare and foodstamps?  Not all White people are racist or harbor racist attitudes, either.  To imply otherwise, as you did today and many others have been doing everyday since the Zimmerman verdict, is a racist attitude.  Period.
2. To the best of my knowledge, Hispanics in this country never owned slaves, never joined the KKK lynch mobs, nor ever enacted the Jim Crow laws, yet, somehow the actions of an Hispanic-American citizen is generalized to the White-American citizens as an example of the racism that still exists in the this country.  Sorry.  Ask any White person if George Zimmerman is White, and they'll tell you, no, he's Hispanic.  Remember when we were taught that not all Black people look the same?  Apparently, to Black people, anyone who is lighter skinned than themselves is White because all White people look the same.  When you, many in Congress, and many leaders in the media spotlight point to a person of an ethnic minority and imply or claim that person is representative of the racism of White people, that in itself is racism.  Period.
3. When a complaint from a citizen in another country lands an American in jail because he made a tasteless joke, an American who happens to be White, and you, no one in your administration, no one in Congress, and no one in the media spotlight - all who have expressed concern or outrage over the Zimmerman case - expresses concern or outrage over the violation of the teen's civil and free speech rights in Texas, one can only conclude that the silence stems from racism against White Americans.  Either that or you, your administration, members of Congress, and those who are always in the media spotlight don't really care what our Constitution says and what it stands for.  Take your pick.  Either way, you and everyone else standing in concern or outrage over the Zimmerman case end up looking like hypocrites, at best.  Racists, at worst.

Today, you encouraged America, and implied you meant White America, to do some soul searching.  I agree.  You, members of Congress, and the media spotlight grabbers need to do some serious soul searching.  In this country (again, read our Constitution), one is innocent until proven guilty.  The law failed to prove Zimmerman guilty of murder or manslaughter.  For anyone to imply that racism factored into the law's inability to prove guilt is only a reflection of the racist attitudes one holds within him/herself, not a reflection of racism in White America, in general.

Sincerely,

 

A concerned citizen who doesn't want the FBI knocking on his door for expressing his opinion, no matter how poorly done, just like what landed Justin Carter in jail.

Sarah and her Pom-Pom Boys

All week we've heard Sarah's little blurb promoting The Worst Show Ever.  It goes something along the lines of Crank, who some people confuse with Frank, and Phoebus, who some people confuse with Phobic or some such.  Sarah, well it's really hard to confuse Sarah.

How about Tara, Mara, Cara, Farah, or our favorite, Coffee Girl?  C'mon, Sarah.  At least us three guys are rooting for you (the two women in our group are jealous).  It's time to take the reigns of the show and demonstrate to the two little boys what intelligent and funny, combined, means.  Tell you what, Sarah.  You take control of the show, like you were born to do, and us three guys will come down there and force Phoebus and Crank to don cheerleader outfits to rah-rah you on.  Then we'll post the video on YouTube headlined as "Sarah's Best Show Ever with her Pom Pom Boys.

Crank and Phoebus are gay

A few days ago, we reviewed The Worst Show Ever hosted by Crank and Phoebus. Sarah had the day off. 

 On that show, Crank had to have reassurance from Phoebus that straight pe...ople don't publically flaunt their sexuality before launching into a story about his experience at a mall. Phoebus agreed that straight people don't publically flaunt their sexuality and we were regaled with a tale of a mall full of gay people all talking about having sex with each other. The short quip bordered on disgust on Crank's part.

If straight people don't publically flaunt their sexuality, then why did Phoebus offer to help Crank have sex with his wife this morning? Yup, that's right. We were "entertained" with Crank's desire to have more rhythm to make a baby and Phoebus offered to grab his ass and push to get the rhythm going.

If we are to believe Crank and Phoebus from the other day that only gay people flaunt their sexuality in public, then I guess we can conclude Crank and Phoebus are gay.

A pretend dysfunctional family needs drastic intervention

We're all partying for the Fourth of July because, well, it's an excuse to party. It's not like our freedom really means much anymore, but it's still a good excuse to get drunk.

Listening to The Worst Show Ever this week, we have, after a few, ok, quite a few beers tonight, arrived at a conclusion of what really lacks in the morning show. One word: family.

"What?" you ask.  

 The answer is simple. Successful morning show hosts come across as better than best friends. They come across as being a family. Crank, Phoebus, and Sarah come across as being complete strangers pretending to be a dysfunctional family.

 Crank is the controlling, alpha-male. He didn't get the alpha-male position by virtue of earning it. He got it by being there much longer than either Sarah or Phoebus. When Phoebus and Sarah came on the scene, they deferred to Crank's seniority.

As listeners to the show, we'll set a few facts straight.

Crank is a no-talent. He is not humorous nor does he give insightful views to today's issues. His only talent is to take extreme stories and try to paint them as average stories. He is incapable of taking the extreme story and making fun of it. He is only capable of taking an extreme story and asking why our society has devolved so much as if the extreme is the norm.

Phoebus is immature. His talent is growing and The Worst Show Ever is a good venue for the development of his talent. Unfortunately, he forgets he is performing for everyone and not just the listeners who think like he does. After about another ten years of experience, real life experience (and not radio experience), he might actually be funny. Sadly, he is stuck with the radio experience and what he learns from Google and will never be able to relate his humor to real people. He needs to take a sabbatical to gain some real life experience.

Sarah is stuck as the coffee girl. She makes some really funny comments that go unnoticed by the male dominated show and, obviously, from the male dominated WZBH station.

The Worst Show Ever is controlled by Crank. He speaks 90% of the time. Phoebus speaks 9.9% of the time. Sarah speaks one or two sentences here and there.

Here's where the dysfunctional "family" comes in. Crank yaps around like a little Chihuahua and there's nothing funny about a Chihuahua other than how annoying they are. Phoebus and Sarah defer to the chihuahua's seniority at the station and play along. They let the little guy with a big bark rule how the show will proceed.

Our conclusion: Crank needs to be fired. Phoebus needs to quit and gain real life experience outside of the microphone. Sarah needs to take over The Worst Show Ever.

Why do straight people have to flaunt their sexuality?

Yesterday morning, Crank asked the question, "Do heterosexual people flaunt their sexuality?"  Phoebus answered no.  Sarah was silent because she wasn't there.

Once Crank had agreement that straight people don't flaunt their sexuality in public, he launched into a tale of his experience at the mall.   Gay people were everywhere and they all were openly talking about having sex with each other.  The experience wasn't one gay couple in one store.  "Every" store had gay people shopping and talking about sex.

We don't know which mall Crank went to that was crawling with gay people, but we can say that not one of the five of us even remotely experienced what Crank claimed he experienced.  We're not just talking about the Salisbury mall, either.  Between all of us and all the places we've been, we're talking about the Salisbury Mall, at least three different malls in Baltimore, the mall in Dover, a mall in Chester, PA, a couple of malls in Denver, CO and several malls in Phoenix, AZ.  We're also talking experience from two of us who are old enough to be Crank's Dad and experience of three of us who are old enough to be Crank's Mom or Dad if they started a family at a young age.  Still, not one of us can relate any experience even remotely similar to the mall experience Crank described - ever in our entire lives. 

Heck, remember when we all went to a few gay bars in Baltimore to see who had the most gay sex appeal - Crank, JJ, or Sarah?  (Crank unofficially won in the gay leather bar, by the way.)  Even there we did not hear or experience the kind of scene Crank described at his mall. 

On the other hand, we can relate a few stories where we witnessed a couple, usually a young man and young woman, who, by their actions, made us wonder if all the local motels were booked and they had nowhere else to go but the mall.

We wrote Crank's tale off as a fisherman's tale with a homophobic twist and we wouldn't have expected anything less from him when talking about gay people.  Like the fisherman who is prone to extreme exaggeration to make him look like a real fisherman, Crank is prone to extreme exaggeration, almost to the point of lying, not that there's really a difference between extreme exaggeration and lying, to make it appear gay people are oversexed perverts with no public couth.  Our guess is, through his eyes that view the world around him in stereotypes, he saw two people who "looked" gay to him, thought he heard something said that had sexual undertones, and we got the story that the mall was filled with gay people who could only talk about sex.

Thank God straight people don't flaunt their sexuality publically the way all those gay people at the mall flaunted theirs, huh?  That's what Crank and Phoebus told us yesterday morning.  Then why, this morning, were we entertained with Crank's method for getting his wife in the mood while Sarah and Phoebus jumped in with their sexual innuendos to bolster the story along.  Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-s?

After three years, we have never heard Crank, nor any DJ, talk respectfully about gay people, whether JJ has to remind us his comment isn't "homo or anything" (yes, JJ, we caught a bit of your show where you made the comment, again, but chose not to review it) or Crank regales us with his mall tale or talks about "furrier people".  (If you recall, even though Crank's "furrier" story was about people who think they are an animal, he chose a gay couple to illustrate how weird "furrier people" are.  Do the math.  If gay people make up 3% of the population and "furrier" people make up less than 1% of the population, then Crank should've picked a heterosexual couple to accurately portray the average "furrier" person and not the only gay "furrier" person in the country to illustrate the point.)  Crank has taken a more subtle, albeit less frequent, route to denigrate gay people, but the fact remains - gay people are fair targets for stereotyped bashing. 

Neither WZBH nor Crank ever apologized for that particularly offensive gay-, race-, and women-bashing show back on August 19, 2010 that motivated us to launch this blog.  While the homophobia, racism, and sexism is greatly toned down and less frequent from the days of Matt and Crank three years ago, it is all still there.  Women take a backseat to the men and that's how Sarah became the coffee girl on the show and gay people are oversexed, weird perverts and that's why not one DJ ever talks favorably or at least respectably about gay people.  The only positive observation is that racism appears to have disappeared from the regular lineup.

Let's bully 'em

The Worst Show Ever put on an interesting show that fired all five of us up.  Crank, apparently, has too much time on his hands.  He started the show out with his review of a reality show on TV called "Living Below Zero", a documentary, of sorts, about new age hippies living in the rough above the Arctic Circle. 

Before we go any further, let's make our stance clear.  There is no such thing as "reality TV".  It is all staged.  Does any sane mind truly believe that people who want to escape the drama of modern life would invite a TV crew to their community to document their daily lives?  Of course not.  The story is made for TV, and idiots buy into it as if it were the real thing. 

The conversation slowly morphed from the new age hippies to "furries", people who dress up, and act like, animals.  Crank even played a quip of a guy who acted like a dog. 

With the two stories involved, all three hosts agreed that weird people would be better served with a "punch in the face" because the weirdoes need to be kept in check.  We shouldn't have to play nice with them and they need to be bullied into behaving in the proper manner because insane is insane.

We couldn't agree more.  Weirdoes need to be bullied into their place. 

But let's put a dose of reality into the conversation, first.  The new age hippies, they are made for TV and are getting paid big bucks for their antics.  Losers, like Crank, are watching the show, which drives advertising dollars, and those new age hippies aren't stupid.  They are getting a healthy slice of those advertising dollars.

The "furriers"?  Heck, none of us ever heard of these people.  Our guess is that some desperate, or maybe mentally unstable people, have gone an extreme route to gain fifteen minutes of fame, and maybe some advertising dollars.  Not one of us five can say that we know, worked with, met, or passed in the Walmart, one of these "furrier" people.  We can say, unequivocally, that any person who claims to "lead a life of an animal" is plain psycho and we don't feel like we're being politically incorrect for stating the fact, despite what the morning crew would like us to believe.  Our conclusion is that losers, like Crank with too much time on his hands, actually discovered this "furrier community" and believed it to be real.

But we do like the idea the morning crew put out that bullying the weirdoes to keep them in check is a good thing.  That is why all five of us agree that every listener should call in to the morning show and ask the coffee girl to deliver a coffee, black, with plenty of sugar and cream on the side.  Lord knows she wouldn't be able to get the cream and sugar just right, so let's be politically correct and ask for the cream and sugar on the side.   

All five of us watched that documentary about the ginger kids.  Cartman had it right.  Ginger kids aren't right in the head.  But let's be politically correct and call in to the morning show and ask if the ginger kid wants some ginger snaps to go with his coffee that the coffee girl brings him every half hour.

For the hairless dwarf, or more aptly termed, hairless troll, let's be as politically correct as we can and ask him if he thinks he ever can achieve a better status of the penises he looks up to every day when he is asked to "look me eye to eye."  

Sorry, five thumbs down (we don't count the extra thumb on one of our reviewers) for this morning's show.  Start out your show with something people can relate to.  There's lots of things listeners can relate to other than the old guy holding up the convenience store line, or a TV show that was nauseating, or a news event that shows how far we have devolved as a country.  Maybe some mornings have a line in the convenience store running faster than one can put his purchase on the counter, a TV show that was particularly entertaining, or a news event that shows how far we have evolved as a society. 

Oh, yeah, we forgot.  Usually only the extreme and the extreme negative generates advertising dollars.  At least, that's what the experts in the industry tell us.

Sarah going solo

Saturday morning, all five of us made it a point to listen to Sarah's solo performance. Us three guys listened because we knew she was more than the coffee girl. The two women in our group listened to Sarah, well, to be bitchy. (Fortunately, only one of us five actually writes these reviews, so I'll let the two women stew some more when they read that comment.)

We all agree that when the sun came up and there wasn't a cloud in the sky, Sarah gave a weather forecast of "mostly cloudy". The two women in our group texted, unequivocally, "What? The bitch couldn't look out the window and see that forecast would be wrong?"

Us three men responded, "She's not getting paid to be a weatherman. She's getting paid to read whatever comes across her desk and play good music." And play good music she did.

As far as 3/5ths of the reviewers of this site is concerned, Sarah's perky, happy voice made our Saturday morning sunny side up. Majority rules so who gives a damn about the other two reviewers?

Quick, what color is the guy?

We've been listening to WZBH and The Worse Show Ever off and on for the last few weeks.  Captain Blue and Doug McKenzie are still spot on as entertaining DJs, projecting an image, through sound, of professionalism.  As we already mentioned in our previous review (Lights Out With JJ is not entirely his fault ), we could do with a lot less of the dumbass-style quips as they are overdone throughout the day and night from everyone starting with the morning crew, through Captain Blue, Doug McKenzie, and ending with JJ.  (We've never listened to WZBH during the time slot after JJ and before The Worse Show Ever so we don't know if the dumbass-style quips are continued through the night and early morning hours.)  Perhaps it's just us, but when we tune into any radio station, we expect to hear lots of music and little talking.  When the DJ does talk, we like to hear about the music, the song, or the artist and little else. 

For a morning show, we expect to hear entertaining talk by characters who have built an image of themselves, through words, that we can identify with.  Maybe one character makes us laugh.  Another makes us see something we hadn't thought about.  Maybe one makes us rethink what we thought about something.  No matter what, we want morning show hosts who compel us to tune in every morning just to hear what they are going to say next.  They make us wish we were friends so we could enjoy a round of beer with them because they are that entertaining.  Crank, Phoebus, and Sarah fail miserably. 

We have pinpointed exactly why we really don't care if we tune in or not - lack of creativity and repetitiveness.  Yesterday morning (Wednesday), for example, Phoebus regaled us with a story of his experience at a convenience store.  The story was very much like the story of Crank and Phoebus on a quest to find a Mexican store or Crank's experience with an old man holding up the line at a convenience store. 

Need more examples of repetitiveness and lack of creativity?  These are stories we've heard more than once over the last few weeks. 

• Crank's complaining that he isn't as strong or physically fit as he used to be.  Yes, we know.  You've hit middle age and every seven years from here on out, you'll notice radical changes in your body.  Quit whining about getting old and try telling us what most of us don't already know.
• Descriptions of bathroom habits or lack of toilet paper.  We're sure a sizeable segment of listeners are driving to work and eating breakfast at the same time.  On more than one occasion, we have switched stations so we could eat our breakfast without being grossed out and never bothered to switch back.  Makes us wonder how many other listeners have done the same.
• Vehicles each host drives.  Really, who cares?  Try telling a funny story about driving the vehicle instead of trying to convince us what is "manly" and not.  Vehicles are vehicles and hold no entertainment value.  What happens because of the vehicle or happens in the vehicle is the funny, creative story.
• Obama and his demon wife.  Yes, we get it.  Phoebus and Crank don't like Obama and his wife.  Now try telling us why you don't like them.  Name calling is why the "sticks and stones" comeback was written for first graders.  By the time one makes it to a radio career, we sort of expect more than the elementary school style of making a point.

For readers who may be new, of the five of us behind the reviews, only one does the writing.  As we discussed the contents of this review, the other four issued me a challenge: write a creative paragraph retelling Phoebus' experience at the convenience store to hammer home the point of the hosts' lack of creativity.  No, I am not a professional writer and I don't fancy myself to be a good, much less creative, writer, but I don't back down from a challenge, either.  So here goes.

This morning, on my way in, I stopped at the convenience store to get my breakfast of tostados.  Not one of those fancy, big name convenience stores, mind you.  An old Mom and Pop style convenience store that's probably fueled up '57 Chevys and hasn't changed since.  Don't ask me what kind tostados I got, either.  They all are stuffed with the same ingredients, but are just given different names. 

There's no one in the store when I walked in, but I heard a lot of commotion in the back.  I grabbed my breakfast and waited at the register to check out.  I guess at four in the morning I'm like most people and really don't pay attention because I thought I was alone in the store.  As I'm standing at the register, I hear breathing behind me.  Startled, I turned to glance at who stood behind me.  A huge, hulking man with breakfast in hand stood patiently in line.  This guy was big enough to be a Raven's linebacker.  I don't know how I missed him when I came in, but there he was.  I stole my glance and faced the register.  I could still hear the hulking man's breathing.  I could picture his nostrils flaring in and out with each breath like a bull's.  I could feel his expressionless, dark eyes watching the hairs on my neck rising. 

A loud shriek emanated from the back room.  Chickens squawked in a frenzy as a small dude emerged.  As he walked behind the counter, I asked him what all the commotion was about.  He answered, in a heavy accent, "Making chicken wings."  As the sweat dripped off this scrawny guy's face, all I could think was the chickens must have won the fight.  Heck, judging by the guy's stature, a canary could have won the fight.  He must've been outmatched by the chickens.

Now, keep in mind, I am not a professional writer and my version of Phoebus' story is a first draft written in twenty minutes because I'm a slow typist.  Now, quick, what color was the hulking man standing behind me?  If I was somewhat successful at my descriptions, you not only pictured what the hulking man looked like, but you also pictured what the store and the scrawny man looked like.

Now here's Phoebus' story, paraphrased since I don't have a recording of the show.

This morning, on my way in, I stopped at this hole-in-the-wall gas station to get my breakfast of tostados.  Yeah, all tostados are the same.  They just have different names. 

There's no one in the store, but I hear a lot of commotion in the back. I go up to the counter and there's this big, hulking Black guy behind me. So it's just me and this big, Black dude waiting for the guy in the back.  

There's a lot of loud, squawking sounds, like chickens, and this little dude, no bigger than three-foot something, comes out of the back, dripping sweat. I asked him what he was doing. He said, "Making chicken wings." I think he was an Indian dude or one of those foreigners. (In Phoebus' defense, he only added the ethnicity of the store clerk because Crank asked. Crank has a hang up about knowing that all the races and ethnic groups of people are behaving in the manner stereotypes dictate they should behave.)

Ok, we give it to you that being creative while writing off the cuff and being creative while talking off the cuff with other people involved in the talking are two different things and about as comparable as a clam to an oyster.  But, like we have reviewed many times during Matt Walsh's days, why did Phoebus feel it was necessary to state the hulking guy behind him was Black?  His race had nothing to do with the point of the story, as bland as the story was.  In fact, the hulking guy had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the story. 

We know why he pointed out the ethnicity of the store clerk.  Crank needed to know and Phoebus did such a bad job of story telling, Crank had no idea of how to picture the store clerk. 

We can't say Phoebus is guilty of bigotry or even stereotyping.  The guy behind him probably was a Black guy, even though this big, hulking Black guy had no further bearing on the rest of the story so why even mention him, much less state his race? 

Of course, one has to scratch his head when the whole story is taken into consideration.  After Crank asked what the ethnicity of the store clerk was, the stereotyping began.  People who work the overnight shift at a convenience store are shady characters.  They aren't too bright and certainly shouldn't be seen in the light of day. 

This is where Sarah blew her chance to shine as the intelligent star of the show.  After Crank had stated his description of overnight workers at a convenience store, Sarah asked, "But Crank, didn't you work at one on the overnight shift?"

Crank blew her point off.  "Yeah, and I probably shouldn't have been seen in the light of day back then." 

Come on, Sarah.  You had a chance to shine as a star.  Instead, you backed down and let Crank and Phoebus do the talking.  What?  Did you have to get up and get more coffee and donuts for the guys?

Yes, there was a reason Phoebus felt a need to state the hulking guy's race and Crank's need to know the ethnicity of the store clerk.  Only they know the reason.  We can only guess that non-creative minds need to have every detail spelled out for them and non-creative minds feel a need to spell out every detail for everyone else.  We have to wonder, though, if they didn't really want to go off on a different stereotyping bash fest at the beginning of the story in the same manner they stereotypically bashed overnight store clerks.

Phoebus and Crank carried on the story of bashing overnight convenience store clerks to an anti-climatic end.  Like we all do when they talk about bathroom habits, the two of us who were listening switched stations and called it a day for listening to WZBH.

Lights Out With JJ is not entirely his fault

We did, finally, over the last couple of weeks tune in on "Lights Out with JJ". Definitely his comfort zone and uncreatively predictable. He plays lots of music, which is good, and we know better than to criticize his playlist. He plays what the recording industry wants him to play and he has little room to be creative with the playlist. We like his "Acoustics at Eight", even though the song plays as late as 8:32, and he keeps his commentary to a minimum, another good quality a DJ can have when most people want to hear music, and not the DJ.

What we don't like is his "Nightly Dumbass" reports. If JJ were the only one reporting the dumbass stories throughout the day, the short segment would be an endearing aspect of his show. Unfortunately, every DJ from the morning show through Captain Blue and Doug McKenzie has their own dumbass quips, so, enough already. Play the music or shut up.

Dumbass stories are entertaining once or twice throughout the day. Whatever happened to the days when DJs talked about the music, the groups, and the "behind the scenes" tidbits of information about making the music, the group, or the history of the song, itself?

It's not JJ's fault. The era of great DJs ended over forty years ago. Back then, DJs got listeners pumped up about the music, music the DJs chose, loved, and believed in. "Barefoot in Baltimore" by the Strawberry Alarm Clock in the late sixties, for example, made a regional hit, but not a national hit. The song made a regional hit because the local DJs loved the song and played it as if it were a hit and didn't relegate it to a special time slot like "Local Produce" of today.

Unfortunately, the record industry put a stop to DJs playing what they loved and started dictating what should be played to make money. Songs like "Barefoot in Baltimore" could be played in a special time slot when most people aren't listening to the radio, but couldn't be played when the record industry decided the songs they wanted to make money should be played. That left the DJs with nothing more than to promote commercial music and talk about dumbass stories.

Creativity, from JJ, Captain Blue, Doug McKenzie, or the morning crew would be a refreshing change, but, unfortunately, the pimp (the recording industry) has dictated to the prostitute (the radio station), what the Johns (the DJs) are expected to do to get paid.

By the way, what happened to the groundbreaking female DJ? The lineup is looking more and more like young, White male. Crank is about to be retired to the nursing home, JJ shortly behind him. The fact that both made it to or past thirty and are still employed baffles us.

Our predictions for the morning show to air on Apr 18

All three will talk about the Boston Bombing and the latest developments.  They will claim the "dark skinned" suspect is proof the bomber must be Muslim, as the three strongly suggested in today's show, citing the pressure cooker bomb as a favorite for Muslim terrorists to use.  If any have done their homework or a caller calls in and points out that the initial reports were in error, and the suspect is a "White male", the talk will quickly change to how the "mainstream media" can't report anything correctly and misleads the public especially on important news.  Whether they stick with the initial report of a "dark skinned" suspect or accept the "White male suspect", there will definitely be discussion on the ridiculousness of our politically correct society because some people found the "dark skinned" description to be "racially insensitive".  They'll want to know why, when a suspect is described as "White", those same people don't get upset with that racially insensitive description.  Then the discussion will devolve into a free-for-all rant about the hypocrisy of special interest groups, of Black leaders like Jackson and Sharpton, and of the "mainstream" media. 

What they won't talk about is their use of stereotypes today to strongly suggest the bomber must be Muslim and their error is why one shouldn't use stereotypes to opine about anything until all the facts are known.  In fact, they will imply that their jumping to conclusions based on stereotypes and incomplete facts is some how justified.  The "how" they'll justify their comments we won't predict, but they will vaguely explain.

In case there is a time stamp error on this post, we wrote this prediction at just before midnight on Apr 17, 2013.

For those who want the latest facts we could find, WBOCposted a good story on the media frenzy earlier in the afternoon and how CNN, Fox, and the AP were too hasty while the three major networks (CBS, ABC, and NBC) were more cautious in their reporting.

Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary

This morning, the morning crew, particularly Crank, had a shining moment.  We actually thought they had a grasp on what the word, stereotype, meant.  While talking about the Boston Bombing, all three referred to the unknown bomber as a terrorist.  When callers began to make the connection of terrorist to Muslim, Crank made it clear that they were using the term to refer to the violent act and no one should be jumping to conclusions based on stereotypes.  Terrorist did not automatically equate to a "brown skinned person".

Just when we thought that maybe, finally, Crank and team were beginning to understand the word, stereotype, Crank and Phoebus launch into a story of their adventure of trying to find a Mexican store.  To find the store, Crank relied on stereotypes.  He figured a Mexican store would have to be located somewhere along a railroad track so he and Phoebus turned down Railroad Road in Georgetown.  At first, Crank was disappointed, or, more accurately, frustrated, because he was certain his stereotyped view of a Mexican store being located on a railroad track should be true, but none was to be found.  They turned around, and the stereotype "was so obvious", they missed the store on the first pass.

Anyone with a high school education or GED could tell you that where Mexican stores are located is not based on a stereotype, but is based on deductive reasoning.  If, for example, they wanted to find a high-end retail store, like a Neiman Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue, they would know to look in a big city around the wealthier side of town.  They wouldn't find the store along railroad tracks.

If they wanted to find a middle-range store, like a Walmart or Target - you know, those stores where the poor middle class people shop, but expect to be treated like their wealthier peers on the other side of town - they would know to look outside of the city, on a major thoroughfare, somewhere between the outskirts of the city or town and the suburbs.

If they want to find a locally owned store that caters to everyone else, they'll look where the store's targeted customer base most likely lives.  They probably wouldn't find the big name stores, high-end or middle range, in these areas. 

Through deductive reasoning, a Mexican store is going to cater to the Latino customer base.  They will open a store where there is a concentration of Latinos.  Here, on Delmarva, Latinos tend to be low-skilled, low-paid agriculture workers or shellfish and chicken processing workers.  They can't afford to live in the middle range of town, much less the high end of town.  The Latinos congregate in the poorer sections of town where the poor middle class people think they are too good to live at.  No one wants to live along railroad tracks, so the rent and property values are definitely in the range of the average Latino worker.  It makes sense, then, that the Mexican store will open in the same neighborhood.

Deductive reasoning.  Elementary my dear Watson, elementary.  No stereotyping involved.  Now, if only Crank and team could learn that.

Stereotypes and the one Crank fits

The gang on the morning show still don't get it.  While covering a story of a relatively unnoticed news event of some Blacks being "outraged" over a comment made by someone that Black people are funnier than White people, Phoebus asked how could a positive comment be a stereotype. 

Long story short, since we've been answering this question for over two years now: there is no such thing as a positive stereotype.  Enough said.

Phoebus then went on to make an offhand comment that if they were to use a stereotype to be funny, they'd get fired.  To that, we say, "Good!" 

Again, as we've explained over the last couple of years, using stereotypes show a lack of creativity and original thinking.  It is relying on clichés to entertain or make a point. 

If WZBH were to fire them for using stereotypes - instead of complaining about the policy, they should be thanking their bosses for pushing them to be creative without relying on clichés, or stereotypes.

Of course, we know they won't get fired.  Later in the day, a clip from their show aired as a promo.  Crank talked about Phoebus' "gay card" or something equally bland.  Crank equated bright, neon pink that glows in the dark to being gay.  Hey, we give Crank credit.  He double-layered stereotypes with his comment.  Gay men are not real men (gay stereotype) so the color has to be neon pink (gender stereotype).

Was Crank's comment funny?  Of course not.  A ten-year-old could've come up with the quip.  Funny how we, as listeners, kind of expect to hear something that we haven't already heard in grade school a few decades ago.  Yes, Crank, you're entertaining adults, not grade schoolers.  Drop the stereotypes from your repotoire and at least try to be funny. 

To the faithful listeners of rock music, remember, Aerosmith's favorite color is pink and we really doubt any of those guys are gay, despite the long hair, earrings, neon colored spandex, and a colorful bandana tied to the microphone. 

For those who want to hold on to the mistaken belief that stereotypes have at least a kernel of truth to them, here's our favorite.  In the gay leather world, there are bears and cubs.  Cubs are younger men, usually under forty, who are short, small in stature, bald, mustachioed or bearded, and wear at least jeans, tee shirt (preferably black), and boots.  If you don't know what Crank looks like, wander over to the WZBH website and take a look at his pic.  Then click on the Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend website and look at Bryce Cain, winner of the 2013 Mr. Mid-Atlantic Leather contest.  (We think the runner up on the left is what Crank will look like in another fifteen years.)

Now you be the judge: based on the stereotype, wouldn't Crank make the perfect Mr. Leather?  C'mon Crank.  You are what gay leathermen look like and it's ok to come out of the closet now.

Sylvester, the ailing cat

The verdict is in.  Phoebus is a bland, predictable, no-talent.  When he was solo at night, we suspected as much, and often wondered what his Sylvester, the ailing cat voice was all about.  Now that he is on the morning show, we don't have to wonder any more. 

Friday morning, he did (not performed, because performed implies talent) a skit titled "50 Shades of Gay", supposedly a parody of a popular novel, "50 Shades of Gray".  Quick, if you didn't hear the sketch, what do you think Phoebus did? 

If you guessed a lispy, stereotyped "gay voice" that substituted adolescent euphemisms for certain body parts in describing a sex scene between two men, you would be almost right.  The "gay voice" was more like an ailing Sylvester the Cat done in different octaves to signal different characters than it was a "gay voice".   

We need to talk about what a "gay voice" is.  Simply put, it is an effeminate-sounding, lispy voice used by comedians over forty years ago, when gays first started "coming out", to make fun of gay people and strengthen the belief that gay men are not real men.  Sure, some men, both straight and gay, have a "gay voice".  Most men, and most gay men, do not have that voice.  But that fact doesn't stop comedian wannabes today from using the "gay voice" to signal a gay character, even if they don't mean it to be offensive, as it was meant to be when used over forty years ago. 

Comedians who rely on stereotypes to be funny walk a very thin line between being funny and being offensive, especially if the comedian doesn't belong to the group of people he is making fun of.  It can be done, but obviously not by Phoebus.   

Andy Dick's Gay Barbie Song is an example of a funny parody.  He uses a "gay voice" to poke fun at his jealousy over an American pop icon, Barbie and Ken.  One could over-analyze the song and deem it offensive, but when one first hears the song, one can't help but laugh.  The humor is unexpected and pokes fun at the fakeness of Barbie's world compared to the real world.  Who couldn't laugh at the line, "I guess Ken likes boobs made of fake parts"?  Andy Dick (and, yes, we catch the pun of his last name) uses the "gay voice" to poke fun at Barbie's world, not to make fun of gay people. 

Along comes Phoebus and tries a parody that pokes fun at what?  Who knows?  The unimaginative title of the skit, "50 Shades of Gay" falls flat and tells the listener the skit is probably intended to make fun of gay people.  Unfortunately, his "gay voice" is not a "gay voice" at all, but a voice of Sylvester the Cat with the flu.  He proceeds to read an excerpt from the book, "50 Shades of Gray", substituting stale euphemisms, like steak sandwich, for certain body parts and different octaves of his ailing Sylvester the Cat voice to signal different characters.  The question remains: what the Hell was he poking fun at?  We don't know. 

He certainly wasn't making fun of the book, "50 Shades of Gray".  We doubt he even read the book to know what to poke fun at, and we're pretty sure he is aware that his audience, the average WZBH listener, not only hasn't read the book, but only has a vague idea what the book is about.  "50 Shades of Gray" is not a Barbie and Ken type pop icon everyone is familiar with. 

He couldn't be making fun of gay people because he simply read an excerpt from a book.  He must've been making fun of Sylvester the Cat and adolescents who still think "steak sandwich" is a funny euphemism.  After several beers, that is the only explanation we could come up with. 

Given WZBH's past record of gay bashing (remember the real man quips?), the station would be best to leave the gay jokes and parodies to the professionals on other stations who can tastefully pull it off.  Phoebus (as well as Crank and JJ) need to lose their fascination with everything gay.  It's getting as old and stale as Phoebus' latest skit.

Getting the facts wrong - again

Crank is proof God stuffs oversized egos in little packages.  Crank is upset, or maybe more accurately, irritated, by or last review.  Crank and Phoebus spent a few minutes reviewing our comments, but, like most anything they have to comment on, Crank's version is high on egocentricity and low on facts.  We'd like to set the record straight.

- The Critics page is not a "hater page".  How can one hate something that has given them so much amusement over the last couple of years?

- We don't have it "in" for Crank.  After a particularly offensive show back in Aug 2010, Crank's then co-host Matt Walsh issued a challenge to all listeners complaining about the content of the show to go ahead and call the station and try to get them fired.  We took Matt and Crank up on the challenge.  We've been having fun ever since.

- Despite Crank's claim made to a caller, Crank, nor anyone from WZBH or Great Scott Broadcasting, ever contacted us about appearing on the show.  For the record, we're not interested in fifteen minutes of fame (or infamy) anyway.

- Our review that Crank takes offence to has nothing to do with our belief (or lack of belief) that people don't or shouldn't judge other people.  The review has everything to do with Crank's claim that they get paid to judge people.  We like to think Great Scott Broadcasting pays the morning crew to entertain people, not judge them.

Here's the low down.  Crank is like a little chihuahua.  When a chihuahua starts its yapping, most everyone has a flash of drop-kicking the yapper through the goal posts, but they don't drop-kick the little thing because, somehow, that little yapper has endeared himself.  Crank is no different.  No, we're not trying to get him fired and we're not picking on him.  When he starts yapping, we start writing.  Writing is more humane than drop-kicking.

For the most part, we catch the morning show once, maybe twice a week, which is why our latest reviews center on the morning show.  Our verdict is still out on Phoebus.  We like him because he plays Devil's advocate with Crank and we haven't heard Phoebus impersonate an ailing, Sylvester the Cat lately, but we still don't know what to make of him.  We wish Sarah would have her own show instead of playing the coffee girl.  We vow to listen to Lights Out with JJ one of these nights, maybe.  One member of our group can listen to JJ for about two minutes and his review would be one sentence: JJ's an idiot.  The rest of us might be able to expand on that.  We have caught Captain Blue, but how does one write a review on a funny, professional DJ?  He's good at what he does, much like Doug McKenzie is good, too.  Reviews of these two would be a boring read.  Hmmm, that could be a challenge, though.  Believe it or not, criticizing is easy.  Praising is a lot harder.  Maybe we do need to challenge ourselves.

Crank makes a startling revelation

Crank made a startling revelation on this morning's show that was an eye opener for us.  We've been operating on the premise that morning show hosts get paid to entertain their listeners.  According to Crank, they get paid to judge people.  The only people we know who are paid to judge people are judges, and they have strict laws to abide by to pass judgement.  We've said it as far back as the Matt and Crank days and we'll say it again: Crank needs to go home to the Western Shore.  We think it would serve WZBH well to hire a morning show host who thinks his/her job is to entertain people, not judge them.

Shocking, utterly shocking!

The two of the five of us who listened to The Worst Show Ever, this morning, were shocked - not once, but twice.  First, when talking about Manti Te, they questioned why the NFL should need to know Te's sexual orientation because it is illegal to ask a prospective employee any personal question, including their sexual orientation.  Crank, Sarah, and the guy we don't care about (ok, Phoebus - we're starting to care) all agreed the NFL had to be breaking laws wanting to know Te's sexual orientation and supported Te's right to play football regardless of his sexual orientation.

In a later segment, they asked listeners what they thought of Million Mom's call for a boycott of Geico for promoting beastiality.  In prefacing the story, they mentioned Million Mom's other boycotts, including Ellen DeGenres for being lesbian.  Again, all three stepped up to the plate and dismissed the past boycotts and Phoebus went so far as to mildly scold the "homophobes".  Yes, he used the "H" word.

Considering WZBH's, and particularly the Morning Show's, past record of discussing gay topics, we never expected to see a 360-degree turn around in attitudes towards gays and lesbians.  As long as the trend at WZBH is to portray gays and lesbians in a positive, and respectful, manner and continues on a regular basis, the occasional gay joke could be entertaining, or simply in bad taste and not funny.