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.

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.

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.

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.

Some radio personalities refuse to grow

It's been what...four or five months since we last listened to WZBH?  Today broke that streak when I happened to tune in.  After two years, one would expect some maturity developing in the morning show team, but, alas, both Crank and JJ are stuck in their adolocent mentality and Sarah lurks somewhere in the background.

Oh, and they still fudge the truth of a story to get their digs in on a group of people, in this case...yes, you guessed it...gays.

The story concerned San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Cullivers' homophobic remarks on a radio station.  In Crank and JJ's version of the story, all Culliver said was that he would feel uncomfortable in the locker room with a gay player and then they railed against the "mind control" efforts of the NFL forcing him into sensitivity training.  From Crank and JJ's standpoint, Culliver simply voiced a concern and he shouldn't have to apologize nor attend sensitivity training.  Crank and JJ still operate under the mistaken belief that free speech means one can say whatever they want, whenever they want, and where ever they want.

The facts of the story paint a different picture than what Crank and JJ wanted us to believe.  The most obvious observation of the interview is it is a testament to the failure of our education system.  Culliver can't speak a coherent sentence.  The man would be best to keep his mouth shut, play football, and just let fans think he's a smart guy.

What Culliver didn't say was he would be uncomfortable in a locker room with a gay guy.  What he did say, no bones about it, is gays don't need to be playing football, at least not on his team. 

Lange asked Culliver if any members of the 49ers were homosexual or if he had ever been approached by "gay guys".

"I don't do the gay guys man, I don't do that," Culliver said. "Nah, we ain't got no gay people on the team."

"They gotta get up outta here if they do. Can't be with that sweet stuff. Nah, can't be in the locker room."  (source: Global Post) 

 He went on to say that if a gay guy were playing for the team, he'd be best not to tell anyone until ten years after he retired.

This may come as a surprise to Crank and JJ, but if one is speaking in public on behalf of the company he works for or the audience will associate his comments with the company he works for (in this case, a football team and the NFL), the employee (in this case, the football player) is expected to keep his personal opinion to himself and represent his company in the best possible light.  San Francisco 49ers have a nondiscrimination policy and support the gay community, at least that is 49ers' official, public stance. 

By no stretch of the imagination can Cullivers' words be interpretted as him saying he would be "uncomfortable" in a locker room with a gay player.  He made it very clear there is no room for gay people on his team nor in his locker room.

What cracked me up most about Crank and JJ's glossed over commentary was when JJ stated he'd be uncomfortable with a gay guy in a locker room checking him out, too.  What sort of arrogance can one person hold to believe he's all that to be worth staring at in the shower?  I'll give you a hint, JJ.  You ain't got it, as our unoffical poll of gay men in Baltimore shows.

Yes, their commentary was problematic, if not downright offensive.  It perpetuates the myth that gay men are oversexed perverts that they'll check anyone out, even JJ.  I can almost guarantee that if Crank, JJ, or anyone else ever showered in a locker room with other guys, odds are good there was a gay guy in there, and no one was staring at anyone. 

The military is testament to that.  Look how many gay guys have served or were serving before the ban on openly gay members serving was lifted.  They all showered with the straight guys, and guess what?  They didn't ogle the other guys.  Of course, both Crank and JJ shirked their civic duty of serving in the military, but if they were as active in sports as they claim, it's safe to say they most likely showered with at least one gay guy who they didn't know was gay.

Once again, if Crank and JJ had done their homework, they wouldn't have touched this story.  WZBH and Great Scott Broadcasting does, after all, have a nondiscriminatory policy.  Perpetuating myths in a effort to justify homophobic remarks and keep the gay people separated, you would think, is a violation of that policy. 

But, hey, I do give credit to Crank and JJ for at least trying to tone down their anti-gay rhetoric.  They still need to join Culliver in a sensitivity class, though.

You can’t say anything on radio anymore, but let’s shoot the immigrants

We were treated to an entire first hour of whining about how one can’t say what they want on the radio any more.  Heck, even Phoebus made the same comment on his show the night before.  Crank, JJ, and Sarah carried the sentiment a step further.  They blamed the evils of FaceBook for allowing anyone to complain about what they hear.  Of course, these people jump on FaceBook for no other reason than they want attention.

This is what happens when a station hires a bunch of inexperienced, non-professional kids to sit behind a microphone.  What do Crank, JJ, and Sarah base their entire career on?  That’s right.  They complain about everything they read on the Internet and, obviously, they complain about FaceBook and its contents.  Why do they spend four hours every morning complaining about what they saw on the Internet?  Obviously for the attention.  You see, it’s ok when they do it, but not when anyone sitting at home does it.  Go figure that logic.

Here’s the reality of it, since Crank, JJ, and Sarah are a little confused.  The station didn’t hire you because they thought you should have a public platform to say what you want when you want.  They didn’t even hire you because they thought what you had to say was relevant.  They hired you to entertain and attract listeners.  The more entertaining you are, the more listeners tune in.  The more listeners tune in, the more ad revenue is generated.  The more ad revenue generated means bigger profits for the station and maybe a bigger paycheck for those behind the microphone attracting all the listeners.  Tee the listeners off and you lose the ad revenue.  Lose enough ad revenue and you might lose your job.

Listeners who use the Internet to air their opinions about the entertainment they are hearing is a much more effective way to gauge the appeal of a show among fans than the old-fashioned way of mailing a letter to the station.  Back in those days, it was easy for stations to ignore the genuine sentiments of listeners than it is today.  Today, that letter gets posted on FaceBook instead of thrown away once the station received it, and, sometimes, huge sentiments of agreement over the complaint erupt.  The average listener has a more effective tool to air his complaints, and, yes, get the attention of the advertisers sponsoring potentially offensive shows.  To the non-professional behind the microphone, that power is a threat, not an asset.

Unfortunately, this past week, we let the ball drop.  Three days in a row, JJ plainly stated we should shoot the illegal immigrants as they crossed the border.  (Ok, JJ only wanted to shoot them two days in a row.  On the third day, he wanted to feed them to the sharks for Shark Week.)  What he said is akin to saying, in a different time and place, let’s fire up the ovens and invite the Jews for the Great German Bake Off.  There is no justifying JJ’s sentiment.  (We should have made note of the sponsors advertising during these segments, however, the three of us who listened over the course of the week were never in a position to jot down the advertisers.  We’ll do better this week.)

Such sentiments are born out of bigotry, if not racism.  You won’t hear JJ complain about the estimated half a million illegal Canadians in this country.  You won’t hear him say we should build a wall along our northern border and post snipers along the wall to shoot anyone trying to enter this country illegally.  It doesn’t matter to him that the few terrorists thwarted at our borders were stopped at the Canadian border, yet none were ever stopped at our southern border.  See, Canadians are White and speak English so they’re all right.  It’s the brown-skinned, Spanish speaking ones ruining this country.

Can one talk about illegal immigration on the radio or is that a taboo subject?  Of course one can talk about it.  If the prejudice and bigotry didn’t get in the way, how could the show have gone?

It was only a couple of months ago, JJ reported that for the first time, Asian immigration outpaced Latino immigration.  Companies needed more skilled laborers and they found them in Asia.  If Rush Limbaugh is to be believed, for the first time, Latino immigration is at an all time low, if not reversing.  With the economy down, jobs simply aren’t here and many Latinos are going home.

With a little real-life research, not Google research, Crank, JJ, and Sarah could’ve learned that Perdue in Salisbury has a huge Latino workforce.  Sit in their employee break room, as one of us did while waiting for a job interview, and one is hard pressed to find anything written in English.  Even the company newsletter is written in Spanish.  The one of us who applied for a job with Perdue didn’t get the job, probably because he was the wrong color and spoke the wrong language.

Then there was the push a year or two ago to limit the number of work visas granted to immigrants to work in the crab houses.  A Dorchester County councilman tried to argue that teaching a Mexican to shell crabs was easier and cheaper than training a local born citizen.  Think about that.  He believed that teaching a Mexican, who most likely never saw a blue crab in his life and probably didn’t know English, would be easier to teach than a Dorchester County native.

Now a clearer, and more accurate, picture of the immigration problem emerges.  The immigrants aren’t a bunch of criminals looking for a free ride.  They are coming here because companies are giving them jobs.  And if enough immigrants with the right skills aren’t coming, companies go looking for them.  Immigrants aren’t stealing American jobs because, given a choice, companies don’t want to hire Americans.

Take it a step further, and look at the Chick-Fil-A controversy.  We know JJ is not against same sex marriage because of religious beliefs.  We truly believe that if JJ were to walk into a Church, the windows would explode and the pews would erupt in intense flames.  It’s fine he’s against same sex marriage and even stated so.  We know homophobes are against gay marriage and it’s not a big deal.

JJ, however, supported Chick-Fil-A and boasted of eating their delicious chicken sandwiches.  Guess where that chicken came from?  Yup.  Some Latino at Perdue cut it up, packaged it, and shipped it out to Chick-Fil-A.  Chick-Fil-A uses Perdue chicken.  So while supporting Chick-Fil-A’s owner’s right to voice his opinion on same sex marriage, JJ inadvertently supported Perdue bringing immigrants over to supply the chicken.

Look, you can say anything you want on the radio.  What we, and maybe other listeners, object to is passing off prejudices and bigotry as fact and not looking at the whole story.  If you’re not professional enough to present the facts and the whole story and keep your prejudices to yourself, perhaps you should step away from the microphone.  It’s too much responsibility for an amateur to handle.

Crank's uneventful return and while we're at it - Matt's re-invention of himself

After a build-up all weekend, the big surprise on The Worse Show With JJ and Sarah this morning was Crank's permanent return to his old spot.  Our one word response - bittersweet.

For those who haven't been keeping up with the local radio soap opera, here's a quick run down.  About two months ago, Matt left WGMD for a new job on an AM station in Lexington, KY, WLAP.  Before we could stop celebrating Matt's departure from Delmarva, news came quickly that Crank was assuming Matt's old position at WGMD.  Using his real name, Crank launched a new career with The Andrew Murr Show.

Less than two months into his new career, the lead morning man, Dan Gaffney, abruptly resigned his position after 27 years on Delmarva radio.  Andrew, aka, "Crank", promptly filled his position.  Something was happening over at WGMD, but with all the FaceBook chatter from Crank, Dan, Matt, and a few others with WGMD, we haven't figured out what the truth to the shake up is.  We really don't care.

A couple of weeks after Dan's resignation, Andrew found his way back to WZBH and resumed his old character, Crank.  In the first 45 minutes of the show, Crank and JJ managed to ridicule gays, Iranians, and obese people.  The ads over the weekend didn't let us down.  The Worse Show Ever did get worse, worser, worsest, and worser worsible - just to make sure JJ understands what is being read to him here.

Sadly, Sarah was forced in the backseat, again.  Just when she was finding her character, one that we enjoyed being played off of JJ, she has been demoted to the token female on the show.

Despite Crank's FaceBook explanation of why he left WGMD after two months, we're pretty sure Crank is a smart man and realized he didn't have what it takes to be an engaging solo talk show host.  Despite the alleged offer of more money to stay on, he probably realized when WGMD got done with their axing shake up, he'd be the last one on the butcher block.

On a side note, we beg to differ with JJ about Crank not "looking gay".  We're not sure how one "looks gay" unless the reference is towards the flaming stereotype that most people automatically think of when they hear "gay".  But let's back up a minute here.

Remember awhile back we said we might take a trip to Baltimore and take an unscientific poll on JJ's gay sex appeal?  One of the two women in our loose knit group is friends with a guy, who is gay, and lives in Baltimore.  He agreed to take us on our tour of the gay bars if we were serious about it.  We've already taken the virtual tour through the links he provided.  After looking at some of Crank's pictures on the WZBH website, we all agree Crank looks gay.  He'd fit right into the leather bar as a cub.  JJ fits right in as the Daddy bear.  (We hope we got the terminology right.)  Yes, we've been doing our homework, something we would like to see Crank, JJ, and Sarah do more of before doing their show.  And, yes, we're tentatively set to hit Baltimore this Saturday and we'll take Crank's picture along to test his gay sex appeal, too.  Of course, we were supposed to go two Saturdays ago, but one of us backed out last minute.  We'll see what happens this Saturday.

Matt, on the other hand, is in Baltimore and will be heading back to Kentucky in a day or two.  We figure he needed a break from the complex lies he is telling his KY fans about himself.  After a rant a month or so ago about militant gays trying to get him fired just before his wedding, he posted a thank you, of sorts, to Dan Gaffney when Dan announced his resignation from WGMD, Matt's old station.  In a nutshell, Matt made the claim that Dan took a chance on him that allowed him to break out of the rock format boredom and do his own thing.

Recently, he posted that his year anniversary since leaving WZBH was coming up.  He claims that he "took a leap of faith" and accepted a job at a rinky dink station that gave him the experience to jump to a bigger station in Kentucky.  For being the "truthsayer of [whatever station he's at this month]", he sure can spin a good lie.  (Wow, three jobs in a year.  He sure can't hold down a steady job, can he?)

We'll set the record straight.  Matt was fired from WZBH.  That's the only logical explanation for his doing the Monday morning show and then posting in the afternoon that he wouldn't be returning to the show and WZBH wouldn't allow him to do a farewell show.  We then had to wait almost two weeks for his announcement of his "big job" at WGMD. 

Contrast that with Crank's departure.  Dan Gaffney announced Crank's coming onboard at WGMD a week and a half before Crank left WZBH.  On Crank's last day at WZBH, he got to say goodbye to his WZBH fans.  And two months later, WZBH welcomes him back.

None of us are rocket scientists, nor geeks sitting in Mom's basement, but even we know a firing when we see one and Crank wasn't fired.  We didn't even need a couple of beers to figure that one out.  Sorry, there was no "leap of faith" to voluntarily leave a full time position for a part time position at a smaller station.  Matt was fired and had to take whatever offer came through.  Maybe some day Matt will find the moral fortitude to tell his fans the truth instead of spinning fanciful tales.  (Following this argument is Matt's fanciful tale in his own words.)

Some fans out there may be wondering why we are so persistent with detailing what really happened instead of letting Matt say what he wants.  Two reasons: first, Matt owes Delmarva a huge apology for that partcularly offensive show on Aug 19, 2010 where he railed against gays, Blacks, and women.  Second, and a lesser reason, is during election time, he went on and on about Christine O'Donnell admitting on TV she tried the Wiccan religion when she was in college and wondered how, twenty years later, she could be calling herself a Christian and running for public office.  We stated it before and we reiterate.  We want this blog to be a testament to Matt's early days so that in twenty years when he decides to run for public office, some young upstart on the radio can dig up the dirt and ask how a bigot who freely expressed his homophobic, racist, and sexist views could possibly be a serious candidate the people would want. 

We believe in karma, but sometimes, it doesn't hurt to lend it a hand.

Matt's own words on leaving WZBH:

Matt Walsh

I'm reminded that next week will be my one year anniversary in talk radio. I've been in the broadcast business for five but only in talk for one. A year ago I decided to leave my full time gig doing a morning drive rock show for a part time position hosting a late night talk program in the same market on a smaller station with a weaker signal. It was two months before my wedding and I was taking the biggest gamble of my career. WGMD had never had a four hour local night host so my show was initially a try-out situation. But it was an opportunity to do talk radio -- which had been my single goal for at least 7 years-- so I put my faith in God and grabbed it. A few weeks after my wedding my position was converted to full time. About 7 months later I signed a contract with WLAP to host afternoon drive in the awesome town of Lexington, a city 40 markets higher. So that sums up the past year, not that you asked. It's crazy to think that only a year ago I was on rock radio in southern Delaware playing tazer trivia and forcing the intern to lick the inside of a dumpster (don't ask).

If I could just tell you two things I've learned that I'm sure you already know: 1) If you dream big you have to be prepared to take big leaps. 2) If you're waiting for the ideal time to make a huge change, I promise you it will never come. Me, I'd rather die of exhaustion wandering in the desert than on a bench in the bus terminal surrounded by the rotting carcasses of my broken dreams and untapped potential. I don't exactly know what I meant by that last part but screw it, just go with it.

JJ makes the same mistake as Matt

“I don’t care if some guy living in his Mom’s basement puts this on his blog,” JJ defiantly stated as he went on a short rant.  “You know this is going to make his blog.”

Well, no, JJ, your little rant this morning wouldn’t have made our blog, but we’re more than happy to oblige you.

For the last two weeks, I have been writing our next review based on what we all have heard over the last month.  After this morning’s show, the other four critics said I could go ahead and write what I wanted.  I am condensing the two week’s worth of writing I have already done down to three sentences.  What a huge, and enjoyable, improvement in the Worst Show Ever with JJ and Sarah.  Sarah has stopped trying to be “one of the boys” and is developing an engaging on air personality.  JJ has mostly stopped qualifying what he says with the stale “No homo” comment. 

Now to make JJ happy and rip into today’s show.

JJ covered the news like he does every morning.  He apologized for “getting political” before covering the news about Chic-Fil-A.  We’ve noticed JJ has started “apologizing” before talking about some news story, much to our dismay.  We’re still wondering why he apologized today before going into his short rant.

In case you aren’t up to speed on this particular news story, the owners of Chic-Fil-A stated they are against same-sex marriage and the statement, brought to light by an alderman in Chicago on why Chicago should deny Chic-Fil-A a permit to build another restaurant, has caused a mild tempest on the radio and Internet, mostly among the far right conservative Christians.

The gist of JJ’s argument, backed by Sarah, was that the owners of Chic-Fil-A are entitled to hold their own opinions and their personal opinions shouldn’t play a role in whether or not people will eat there.  JJ’s and Sarah’s editorial comments on the news story were spot on and actually shocked the two of us who caught the segment.

The only comment JJ made that we could object to, if we wanted to nit pick, was his comment that gays shouldn’t flaunt their homosexuality because it makes him uncomfortable when another guy tries to hit on him.

Here’s the bad news, JJ.  We’ve all seen your picture and agree that no gay guy in his right mind would hit on you.  If flaunting ones sexual orientation is asking someone out, we suggest you stop flaunting your heterosexuality and making so many woman uncomfortable in your presence.  We’re sure there have been plenty of women who have struggled with how to politely turn your advances down.  If a gay guy has ever approached you, you now know how you make some women feel.

But, honestly, the two of us who caught the show didn’t find his comments offensive, just ironic.  And we applaud both JJ and Sarah for taking an objective, yet firm stand on why we should ignore the lunatics and continue eating at Chic-Fil-A.

Where JJ strayed from thoughtful editorial comment with a twist of irony was his rant about probably making a blog written by some kid living in Mom’s basement and that he didn’t care if he did make the blog.

  Wow.  Flashback to the old days of Matt and Crank when they tried to convince listeners that some social recluse of a geek living in Mom’s basement was behind this blog and they didn’t care either.

In fairness to JJ, he may not have been talking about this blog, but we are unaware of any other blog that regularly reviews the programming on WZBH and particularly the morning show.  If there is one, please let us know.  We’d be interested in reading their take on WZBH’s programming.

If he were talking about this blog, let me set the record straight since I write almost everything on here based on what the other four and I talk about.

There are five of us.  All five of us listen to WZBH.  Like the kids today, we get bored and play with all the electronic toys.  We hear something, we text each other about it.  On Saturday nights, all or some of us show up at the local bar, the only one we have down here, and, while waiting for our turn at the pool table, we talk about what we texted about all week.

The writing falls on me because the other four agree I do a much better job than they could.  None of us are kids or live with their mom.  In fact, I am the second oldest and old enough to be JJ’s father.  The youngest in our loose knit group isn’t old enough to be JJ’s mom, unless she wanted to be the topic of the daily dumbass, but is old enough to be Sarah’s mom.

We are puzzled.  Since we started paying attention to WZBH after Matt’s particularly offensive show on August 19, 2010, we have noticed almost every DJ whining about the average American being more interested in the latest reality TV show than to get off their butts and make a change that matters.  We have done that.  Whether or not this blog has facilitated the many changes at WZBH since that day in August two years ago is immaterial.  What we have shown is expressing one’s opinions at least professionally, if not intelligently, gets people’s attention and may facilitate change.  Why, then, do all the people, fans included, who complain about the average American not caring to make an effort to change something turn around and try their damnedest to make a group of grown adults who are trying to do something to make a change look like some lonely kid living in Mom’s basement?  Some advice, JJ.  Go to Matt’s FaceBook page and ask him how that tactic worked out for him.

As a side note, JJ, the two of us who caught the morning show today called in, but not to talk about your little morning rant.  It’s not the first time any of us five have called in, either.  We’re both annoyed at you calling us “brother.”  We’re not your brother because, if we were, we’d have to kick your ass. 

For fans of this blog, here’s a cliffhanger for you.  In texting this morning, the idea of conducting an unscientific poll on JJ’s sex appeal with gays came up.  We think no gay guy in his right mind would want to ask JJ out.  We want to know if our bold statement is true.  We’re thinking of taking JJ’s picture (and just his picture, not who he is or any information about him) to some gay bars in Baltimore and see what sex appeal he has in the gay community.  If we’re wrong, we’ll retract our statement and apologize to JJ.

Heaping more blame on gays

In the past couple of weeks, Crank and JJ have blamed gays for emo kids, slow progress on the Freedom Towers, political correctness run amok, and yesterday, for terrorist sympathy.

Crank started a story about Al Jazeera, an Arab newspaper, being allowed to interview detainees in Gitmo.  Crank rhetorically asked, “Why would we let an Arab organization into a military base?” JJ unhesitatingly answered, “Gay marriage”.

What ensued was a good ten-minute rant by JJ denigrating gays for causing America to “lose its backbone”.  Crank took a backseat and mostly quietly agreed with JJ. 

We had flashbacks to the old Matt and Crank days.  If it weren’t for JJ’s distinctive, irritating voice trying to imitate a stereotyped dumb blond, it could have been a Matt segment.

Since the other four of us can’t agree on how to approach this review, or simply don’t care, I will go it alone.

In answer to Crank’s question, “Who would allow Arabs onto a military base”, the answer is “Heterosexual divorce.”  We were a strong country until about forty years ago when heterosexuals decided they didn’t need a reason to divorce and the no-fault divorce laws came into existence.  Heterosexuals can’t keep their word in business, politics, or religion so it should come as no surprise that they can’t keep their word in the bedroom, either.

Once the heterosexuals got their way and could divorce with no reason at all, we’ve been sliding down a slippery slope.  Heterosexuals started living together without getting married.  Then they said, “Screw that and let’s just screw without the commitment.”  The heterosexual dating scene became an acceptable and legal prostitution ring filled with cheap, and sometimes not-so-cheap, one night stands.

Their religious leaders turn a blind eye to all the decadence around them and cry, “Persecution!” when moral people dare to speak the truth.  Then all the heterosexuals rally around the Constitution claiming they have the right to live their lifestyle the way they choose.  After all, God didn’t punish King Solomon for having 700 wives and a thousand concubines so who are we to judge?

To shield their decadent lifestyles from the truth, heterosexuals invented political correctness to effectively block the truth from harming them.  The heterosexuals are running this country into the ground and straight to Hell, but we can’t say that because we might hurt someone’s feelings.

And that’s why Arabs are allowed on our military bases.

See how easy that was?  Of course, I don’t believe a word of my explanation, but I hope some readers will get the point. 

One thing all five of us agree on is Crank and JJ need to go.  Their show started out as a bright new change in WZBH’s programming, but is slowly morphing back to the old style of White, heterosexual male is good, everyone else is bad.  They’ve been testing the waters with gay bashing and last week moved to immigrant bashing.  They have proven themselves to be homophobic xenophobes.

If you caught yesterday morning’s gay bashing routine and more or less agree that the programming was out of line, please let the sponsors know how you feel.  The list below is the local companies who unknowingly sponsored JJ’s hate-filled rant when WZBH decided to run their ads immediately following the segment.

• Old Pro Golf in Ocean City – website at http://www.oldprogolf.com/
• Pizza Mambo in Ocean City – FaceBook page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pizza-Mambo/100853133292894 Please note JJ narrated the commercial.  I wonder if Pizza Mambo approves of such a spokesperson.
• Primo Hoagies in Ocean City – website at http://www.primohoagies.com/
• Holly Kia in Selbyville and Felton – website at http://www.hollykia.com/

Can mantyhose be used as a gag?

Judging by today's dumbass segment, it looks like WZBH is returning to its glory days of gay bashing.  Even the only female DJ at WZBH jumped into the fray.

Today's dumbass centered on the new "fashion trend" of men wearing pantyhose, marketed as mantyhose, among other names.  Crank and JJ reported the mantyhose is all the rage in Europe and they're heading for an American debut.

JJ blurted out, in disgust, that this "fairy dust" fad must've been started by a homosexual.  As Crank and JJ discussed the fad with disgust, liberal amounts of gay bashing were thrown in.  Sarah jumped in the fray, boldly stating that if a guy approached her wearing mantyhose, she'd "punch him in the face."

The message conveyed was clear.  Gays are ruining this country and manhood.  The fad, like gays, is disgusting.  And, at least for women, it is acceptable to punch someone in the face because you don't like what they wear, especially if that person is wearing something that makes you believe he is gay.

Here's what they didn't tell you.  Gays did not develop the mantyhose nor promoted it.  Emilio Cavallini of Italy did.  We don't know if the 67-year-old Cavallini is gay or not nor do we care.  We do know that he quit college and started designing a pantyhose collection in 1970.  That business has grown over the last forty-two years to a multi-billion dollar company.  He's hugely popular in Italy and Europe.  While women's wear is his design speciality, he has branched out to menswear and unisex wear.  The "fad that's all the rage in Europe" accounts for 2-3% of his pantyhose sales.

With five minutes of research, we learned gays had nothing to do with the mantyhose.  One man, who would normally be hailed as a capitalist success story, did.  We also learned the fad, based on total sales, appears to be more media hype than a fad.  Nothing like media hype to boost sales of a product.

Crank and JJ need to go back to the other side of the Bay where they came from.  Sarah should be sent back to her trailer park to cook beans and franks for her man. 

We don't know why the Western Shore keeps sending their trash over here, but, hey, take your trash back.  We're not a bunch of dumb rednecks who appreciate any form of entertainment because we can't produce our own and Delmarva is not a dumping ground for your no-talents.  WZBH should get rid of Crank, JJ, and probably Sarah and replace them with real local talent.

At $27 per pair, mantyhose is too expensive to waste on a pair of entertainer wannabes.  I encourage anyone reading this to send a 99-cent pair of pantyhose, or even used ones you don't want any more, to Crank and JJ with instructions of how to wear them as a mouthpiece.  We're sure Crank and JJ mumbling through a pantyhose gag would greatly enhance the entertainment value of the show.  You can mail your pantyhose to:

WZBH STUDIOS
ATTN: CRANK AND JJ
20200 DUPONT BOULEVARD
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

Include a google map so they can find their way back to the Western Shore where they belong.

Daily dumbass? Nope, dumbasses of the year.

Out of the five original critics, two of us are left and occasionally tune in.  Overall, we are happy to see WZBH clean up their programming style and the addition of a woman deejay is refreshing.  Then there's the morning show....

JJ is a domesticated version of Matt, but a lot smarter. 

"Smarter?" you might ask.

Yes, smarter.  He plays the part of a goofball who stumbles over words larger than two syllables.  We figure he's either really dumber than an oyster or he's smart enough to play the dumb oyster role to get away with saying just about anything.  Fortunately, he takes fifteen minutes to get to a point and we usually switch stations after two minutes.  Only ocassionaly will we suffer through the full fifteen minutes.

We've been disheartened the last month or so with Crank and JJ's subtle gay slurs and their definition of a real man.  Like we said before, the thirty-something duo are trying to pass themselves off as high school locker room jocks.  They succeed with conveying that image about as well as Madonna pulled of acting like a virgin or Newt Gingrich pulls off being a moral, upstanding conservative.  Crank and JJ would be a Hell of a lot funnier and more entertaining if they acted like the thirty-somethings they are and not the 16-18-year-olds they wish they were.

But that's not why they earned the dumbasses of the year.  They earned the title because of their report on today's daily dumbass.  In case you missed it, today's daily dumbass was some gaming company that launched a promotion of a new game by sending copies into space.  The copies were tagged with a GPS system and the idea was when the games came back to earth, fans could track where they land and get a free copy.

The first copy fell in a protected virgin forest high up in a 150-foot tree.  Fans hacked their way through the protected forest, cutting down many trees along the way and started hacking at the old tree.  They were promptly arrested.  Crank and JJ could not understand why the fans should be arrested for cutting some trees down.  Trees, after all, would grow back so no harm done.

Crank and JJ expressed today's self-centered attitude prevalent among those under forty.  The forest was not only protected, but it was a special forest.  It was a virgin forest.  Very few virgin forests are left in this country.  We all have grown up in the scarred landscape of less than a hundred-years-old and many people probably figure our forests today are what our settlers seen when they first arrived.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

A virgin forest is five hundred, even a thousand-years-old.  It has never been clear cut to the ground and has very few, if any, invasive plants growing in it.  It's as close to what the settlers saw when they first came to this country as we'll ever see.  Cut it down and the invasive plants take over and the forest withers away.  It would take many centuries of careful management to get the forest back to where it has been for the last five or ten centuries. 

Yes, we agree the gaming company is the daily dumbass.  What responsible corporation would send their trash into space to fall wherever it may fall?  The decision makers at the company should be arrested for littering and abetting the destruction of a protected forest.  The fans of the game were rightly arrested.  None should get a slap on the wrist by paying a fine and doing some community service.  All should be hauled off to jail and the key thrown away.

Crank and JJ have cemented their title as dumbasses of the year for defending the fans who valued a game over natural beauty and are well on their way to vying for the dumbasses of the decade.  Competition for that title is stiff, though.    Madonna and Gingrich are giving them a run for their money.

 

Listeners are still wasting their time

Dubbed the Worst Show or not, Crank and JJ have chosen the wrong noun to describe what happens in the morning.  "Worst" is debatable, but we object to "Show".  Show implies something memorable.  There's been nothing memorable on the Crank and JJ's show since we last posted a little over a month ago.

"So what warrants this post?" you might ask.  Simple.  Two of our critics listened to two days of rants against male European fashion invading this country.On Thursday, they prefaced the topic with typical sexist remarks of a "real man" works hard and the woman cleans the house.  A "real man" has no need to start wearing women's clothing.

Our two critics brushed the segment off as an exception to their normally innocuous programming (based on what little all five of us actually listen to now-a-days) and reassured themselves Crank's wife and JJ's "significant other" would be thrusting scrub brushes in their hands when they got home as punishment for making such pre-adolescent remarks about women.

But we should've known how insecure little boys really are.  Today, they carried the topic further so they could get some gay bashing time in.  If you're a little boy getting slapped around by your woman for every little thing you say or do is wrong, it is perfectly understandable why you would turn around and lash out at others you erroneously believe you can slap around.

Hard cold facts.  Most people on Delmarva couldn't find Europe on a globe much less know what the latest European fashion is.  In fact, most people on Delmarva don't care where Europe is on a globe much less what the latest fashion trends are.  European fashion trends invading America might warrant a one-liner comment and then move on.  It's a non-issue ranked right up there with Hollywood glamor and what that Chinese gal did while sewing the jeans you're wearing right now.

We're convinced Crank and JJ are not sexist, racist, or homophobic.  We are convinced they are little boys trying to be men.  Real men haven't a clue what the latest fashion trend is, much less what the latest European fashion trend is.  Perhaps if their women weren't slapping them around so much at home, they'd be a little more secure in who they are and what they are doing.  And then maybe Delmarva would be treated to the highest rated "Worst Show" ever recorded.

Labeling people a sure sign of bigotry

Listening to bits and pieces of the Matt and Crank program this morning, we’ve finally pegged the way the program comes across as pushing an agenda of bigotry, even if the commentary, itself, does not express prejudicial views.

In the first segment, Matt talked about a FaceBook page where the person ranted against Mexicans who come into the place of business and speak Spanish instead of English.  Because the post was so poorly written, Matt turned the rant into one of his own of how we need to learn English before complaining about Mexicans who don’t speak English. 

“Ok,” you might be thinking, “where is the bigotry?”

Matt, unfortunately, made the same mistake the FaceBook person made.  Anyone in this country who speaks Spanish is a Mexican.  While he made his point that we do need to learn our own language, he consistently pointed out that the Mexicans need to learn English, too. 

If the FaceBook person posted from the southwest, there’s a good chance the person speaking Spanish was Mexican.  Many Mexicans do cross the border into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California looking for work.

Outside of the southwest, the biggest influx of Latino immigrants are from El Salvador and Guatemala, you know, the two countries we funded civil wars in during the 80’s and left their countries and economies in a shamble.  After funding their death squads and destroying their countries, why should we be upset that they are coming here to look for ways to support their families.  It’s the least we could do for them.

Because they speak Spanish does not make them Mexican.  In fairness to Matt and Crank, maybe they really believe Mexicans should learn English, but the El Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Peruvians, Spaniards, and Lord knows who else don’t need to learn English.  And why just the Mexicans who speak Spanish?  There’s an estimated half a million illegal Canadians in this country and it’s a safe bet some speak French.  Maybe because they’re White, we tend to ignore their transgressions.  Only the Mexicans were worth targeting because they have brown skin.  And if you go back to the June 23^rd program where Matt expressed his fears, again, about the White race becoming extinct because the other races are having more children than White people, the bigotry message all ties in.

The next segment talked about a woman who tweaked the breasts of a TSA agent at the airport when the agent was searching her.  For some reason we don’t understand, Matt and Crank needed to point out that the woman was an elderly Chinese woman.  Crank even felt a need to pipe in that maybe in her country, tweaking breasts was an acceptable response much like the French who kiss each other’s cheeks. 

When we, at the Critics Page, see someone of a different ethnic origin, we don’t automatically assume they must be immigrants.  We have to ask.  Why would Crank hear “Chinese” and automatically assume she must be an immigrant?  We brought thousands of Chinese people over here to build our railroads that connected this great country of ours during the 1800’s.  Our use of their labor wasn’t much different than our use of slave labor, but the point is Chinese people have been in this country for many generations.  Many people of Chinese decent in this country are as American as any person of European decent. 

While talking about this woman at the airport becoming a folk hero, Matt referenced the “gay flight attendant” who yelled at the rude passengers and then bailed out.  None of us at the Critics Page followed the story so we don’t know if the flight attendant ever made his sexual orientation an issue, but why would Matt feel a need to make an issue of it?

When telling a story, adding some description to the characters adds a dimension to the story, and, sometimes, is necessary to tell a good story.  In these three examples, we cannot figure out why the ethnicity or sexual orientation of the characters was important to mention and be harped upon to make the point both Matt and Crank wanted to make.  Yes, immigrants to this country should make an effort to learn our language.  Yes, tweaking a TSA agent’s breasts is a bad thing to do and certainly isn’t worthy of folk hero status.  Yes, a fight attendant yelling at passengers and bailing out is nothing to cheer about.  Pointing out the ethnicity or sexual orientation of the three characters in each story serves no other purpose other than to be a vain attempt at perpetuating the negative stereotypes of certain groups of people.  The implied message is straight, White, Christian males wouldn’t behave so badly.

Verbally abuse 'em all at once

Matt and Crank are starting the week off with a bang.  Instead of verbally abusing one minority group, they created a mythical person that wrapped several of their normal targets for verbal slaying into one character.  How does a gay, Black woman in a wheelchair sound?  It wasn’t until the end of their spiel that it dawned on them they could make her a Muslim, too.

We found it ironic that Matt would boast about making another audio clip making fun of a gay, Black woman in a wheelchair, but accidentally deleted it instead of saving it.  We were spared the clip, which, as Matt said, was probably a good thing since airing it might have gotten them fired.

According to Matt, he’s seen plenty of gay, Black women, but none in a wheel chair.  We’re still trying to figure that one out.  We’re almost positive that each of us at the Critics Page has probably went to school with, worked with, drank beer with, and hunted or fished with gay people.  We're probably doing any one of those thing with gay people now.  We can’t say for sure because none of us have figured out how one can look at a person and know they are gay.  And if we think really hard about people we have known or know now and suspected that maybe they were gay, we still fall way short of being able to claim we’ve seen plenty of gay people much less “plenty of gay Black women”.

We’ve come to the conclusion that if Matt stays out of the gay bars when he goes home to Baltimore on the weekends, he’d see a lot less gay people.  Well, he could always still make them up in his mind as if they were real people he’s seen.

What would a Monday morning be without Matt and Crank pushing their bigotry agenda?  We can predict with fair certainty what else Matt and Crank have in store for Delmarva listeners the rest of this week.  They’re on a mission to keep women and minorities in their place somewhere behind and below White heterosexual Christian males and we can be guaranteed to hear more of that message as the week drags on. 

Oh well, we suffered through their sterotyped ridicule this morning so we share part of the clip we were able to record with you, the reader who may have missed this morning's segment.  Forgive us, but we don't like suffering alone.

Audio clip of this morning's show

Gay bashing is back in style with Matt and Crank

With all the issues there are to talk about that affect the average Delmarva resident, Matt and Crank chose to go on a gay bashing spree followed a couple of days later by talking about "truth". On Thursday, Matt discovered that the state is considering raising the Bay Bridge toll to eight bucks, something the rest of us knew about for over a month. We figure Matt and Crank are too busy worrying about who is kissing whom than to concern themselves with the real issues facing all of us who call Delmarva home.

They wasted two segments of their show talking about a gay couple in Kentucky who dared to splash around in a pool together and – gasp – kiss. Sure, they tried to hide their gay bashing by saying if the couple were a straight couple, they’d be offended over the behavior, but admitted that they are more offended because the couple were “two dudes.”

Where it got really twisted and perverted was when Matt claimed he wouldn’t want his children, if he had any, exposed to such disgusting public displays of affection and questioned what sort of perverts would get turned on enough to kiss each other when there are a bunch of “half naked kids running around.”

We, at the Critics Page, have been to our share of public pools, beaches, and swimming holes. We’ve seen plenty of public displays of affection from men and women horsing around, holding hands, and – gasp – kissing. Sure, we all could pick out an instance where we felt the couple should take it to the motel room, but, in general, such public displays of affection happen every day every where and not just at the public pools. How else are our kids going to learn appropriate public behavior between two adults who love each other if they don’t have role models to learn from?

Not one of us have ever seen a bunch of kids running around a pool and thought, “How did these half naked kids get that couple over there turned on enough to hold hands or steal a kiss?” We’ve always seen a bunch of kids running around in their swimwear having a good time. We have to ask. What sort of pervert thinks of kids running around a pool as being half naked?

Matt and Crank believed they were being coy by whitewashing their gay bashing, but their message was clear. Gays don’t belong in public acting like straight couples because they are all pedophiles.

A couple of days later, they try to justify their bigotry by talking about “truth.” The gist of the segment with a philosopher amounted to a discussion of whether being tolerant of others who aren’t on the side of “truth” means we should start accepting their version of “truth”.

Not only did Matt and Crank confuse facts with truth, but so did the philosopher. The philosopher did make one good point that whooshed right over Matt and Crank’s collective heads. The philosopher cautioned that we need to be humble and recognize that what we think is the truth may actually not be the truth. That caution didn’t stop Matt and Crank from making their not so subtle point that their bigotry should be tolerated and accepted because they speak the truth and because they have truth on their side, they shouldn’t be silenced for speaking it. We beg to differ.

Today, Matt and Crank spoke out against same sex marriage. They threw up the usual, predictable conservative Christian smoke screen to make a non-point. But what could one expect from two who were told by their bosses that same sex marriage is a topic they aren’t to talk about, but they figure if they refer to it in Pig Latin, that somehow that fourth-grade language trick lets them off the hook because they are talking about agay arrigemay and not gay marriage?

This, we’re sure, may come as a shock to Matt and Crank, but marriage has been redefined over the centuries – no, thousands of years – and continues to evolve. In this country alone, people didn’t marry out of love until about a hundred years ago. Prior to around 1900, most marriages were performed to enhance one’s (usually the man’s) social and financial status. There’s a reason George Washington didn’t have children with Martha, but all up and down the East Coast, you can see the signs of “George Washington slept here.”

We understand that Matt and Crank are part of a generation that believes the world began around the time they were born so it may come as a surprise to them to learn that the Supreme Court did, in fact, define marriage in 1967, back when at least 16 states still had laws that a White person couldn’t marry a Black person. The Supreme Court decided that marriage was a basic civil right between two consenting adults and a state would have to show a compelling reason to deny that right. It wasn’t until the DOMA Act around 1996 that further refined the 1967 definition to mean “a man and a woman.”  The DOMA Act redefined the 1967 definition and, like DOMA's supporters, fails to provide a "compelling reason" to deny marriage to a same sex couple.

Since Matt and Crank decided to compare same sex marriage to bank robberies (We’re still scratching our heads on that one), we’ll do an analogy of our own. Matt and Crank claim that no state outlaws gays and lesbians from marrying. Gays and lesbians are free to marry as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. That certainly means their rights aren’t being infringed upon.

We actually have an example in case law of such warped logic being shot down. Some cities had decided that since we have the right to bear arms, denying the ammunition wouldn’t infringe upon our rights to own a gun. Various courts said no way. It is infringing on the right to own a gun because what good is a gun without the ammo.

Every state that has adopted some form of the DOMA Act into their laws or state constitution has negated two consenting adults’ basic civil rights much like the laws outlawing ammunition negated one’s right to own a gun.  What good is marriage if love isn't the foundation?

Listening to Matt and Crank tackle the issue of same sex marriage is akin to eating a Big Mac for dinner instead of a solid square meal. Sure, the Big Mac satisfies the hunger, but it has little nutritional value and leaves a lot of fat hanging around your middle.

To our surprise (ok, not really surprise), we came in on the middle of their gay bashing spree. For some odd reason, Matt and Crank think they are talented in the video-making department. They pass off half-truths and stereotypes in poorly done voices in attempt to further validate their bigotry. Since our schedules have changed and we’ve been unable to record the programming reviewed here, we treat you to Matt and Crank’s own video they boast about on air and is posted on the official WZBH website. Yes, they just can’t treat gays and lesbians with any sort of respect. We view their own video as further proof of their agenda to validate and spread their bigotry as the “truth”.

On Friday, Matt posted on the official Matt and Crank FaceBook page linked through the official WZBH website that about forty years ago, White people were brainwashed into not having kids and now White people will go extinct. Again, he carefully couched his words so as not to say, “White”, but careless enough to say “we’re doing it to ourselves’, so readers know what he is talking about. While we at the Critics Page do not subscribe to the Stormfront mentality of race preservation like Matt does, we do strongly urge Matt and Crank not to have kids. We’re certain God didn’t mean for everyone to reproduce and we’d like to think Matt and Crank top God’s list of people who shouldn’t procreate.

In fact, with Matt and Crank’s incessant pushing of an agenda that White, heterosexual, Christian males should rule the household and world and everyone else should be secondary followers, we’ve come to the conclusion that Matt and Crank should slither back to the other side of the Bay where they came from. Hey, thanks for spending some time over here and spending your money here, but you’ve overstayed your welcome. Heck, we’ll support a Bridge toll ten times higher than the proposed eight bucks if it would help keep unwanted foreigners like Matt and Crank off our peninsula.

Award of the week goes to listener Drew

(Bear with us, Drew.  Your award comes at the end of our segment.  You know how award shows go.  You have to trudge through to the end to see the important part.)

Despite our busy spring, we have caught bits and pieces of WZBH programming this week.  Christ Steele and JJ are going strong and both steer clear of potentially inflammatory comment.  Sure, JJ still vehemently denies wanting to get married, much less have kids, but we at the Critics Page strongly feel that a sizeable portion of our population should refrain from breeding - and probably marrying, too.  We mention this because we feel JJ should at least be acknowledged for his positive contribution to Delmarva, and the world, for spreading the message to leave the breeding to those who are more qualified than he to have children.  We certainly don't view his commentary as being anti-marriage or anti-kids.

 Matt and Crank bored us with more mundane, adolescent gibberish all week.  One serious topic they hit upon dealt with hate crime legislation.  Innae Park reported on the case of someone being charged with a hate crime for beating up a transsexual in a local fast food joint.  Matt felt a need to protest the idea of hate crime legislation, claiming that if someone is beaten up in a mugging, that crime of assault is no different than the transsexual who was beaten up for no reason other than being different.  The gist of his argument was that if we're all are to be treated equally, why is the person who beats someone out of hatred treated differently than the person who beats someone in a robbery scenario.

  

On the surface, the argument sounds good, but we ask, "Why does someone, who is speeding ten miles over the speed limit, given a lesser fine than someone who is speeding twenty-five miles over the speed limit? Speeding is, after all, speeding, whether it is one mile per hour over the limit or a hundred."

  

We could go further.  Killing someone is killing someone, yet the law breaks killing someone down into different degrees: first, second, third, involuntary manslaughter, and voluntary manslaughter.  The penalties for the different charges vary greatly.  Some first degree murders are eligible for the death penalty while others aren't.  But killing is killing.  By Matt and Crank's reasoning, whether you're a serial killer butchering hundreds of people or the drunk driver who drank three beers and is over the legal limit, if you kill someone, face the lethal injection.

  

Intelligent people know the reason the law is so varied in any crime is because of the motive, intent, and impact on the community.  Someone speeding a few miles over the limit is a good excuse to make the state more money, because we know politicians can't balance a budget and they need the extra cash.  Someone speeding twenty-five miles over the limit is probably an aggressive driver and an accident waiting to happen.  He/she needs to be punished more severely in hopes he/she will slow down and make the roads safer.  If you've ever been pulled over for speeding, depending on how fast you were going and the flow of the traffic, the officer will often lower the speed he/she quotes to you so you get the lesser fine and points.  After all, their job is to make the state money - not to get speeders off the road.

Intuitively, we know there is a world of difference between a serial killer, someone who carefully plans a murder, someone who acts in a crime of passion, someone who meant to intimidate or scare someone and the action resulted in a death, someone who did something stupid that resulted in a death, and someone who got behind the wheel feeling perfectly sober, but an accident that may or may not have been his/her fault resulted in a death.  Should all these people who killed someone be treated the same?  By Matt and Crank's logic, killing is killing so why aren't they all given a death penalty trial or a slap on the wrist of temporary insanity?

  

So a transsexual walks into a fast food joint and is beaten up by someone who has a problem with transsexuals.  At the same time a couple of blocks away, someone else is beaten up by someone who is trying to rob the victim.  What's the difference? 

  

Simple.  Motive and impact on the community.  Everyone living in a community knows they may be a victim of a robbery.  No one expects to be a victim of a crime simply because of who they are.  Black, White, Christian, Muslim, male, female, able-bodied, disabled, young, old, straight, gay, reasonable weight, obese - doesn't matter.  We all expect to be able to walk in public and not be beaten up simply because we don't meet someone else's standards.  Hate crime laws address the difference - and seriousness - in crimes motivated out of one's prejudices and bigotry.

Matt and Crank were, in effect, saying that a transsexual getting beaten up for being a transsexual was the transexual's fault for being a transsexual.  The transexual should've taken his beaten and the offender should've been charged with an assault charge that could've resulted in two to three years prison time instead of the added five to ten years the hate crime legislation may add to the sentence.  Beating up someone because of who they are isn't a serious crime warranting more jail time.

  

One thing we do agree with Matt and Crank is that hate crime legislation protects one group of people that shouldn't be protetected..  Every protected group is protected because the individuals were born with their skin color, ethnic background, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability (or became disabled through genetics or accident), and, of course, age.  One protected group, however, is purely choice, that choice being religion.  One's religious choice should not be a protected group.

  

As the beers keep flowing, here, we all agree that one's religion should not be protected under the discrimination laws or the hate crime laws.  Religion is a choice.  One isn't born a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Spaghetti Monster in the Sky, Christian, or...   One's religion is chosen.  You make the choice and if we decide to beat the crap out of you for your choice, oh, well, simple assault and no added ten years for the hate crime.  Matt and Crank, we're sure, would agree with this as long as the religious person getting the crap beaten out of them was any religion other than Christian. 

  

Fact is, at the Critics Page, we're all for the sport of bringing back the time honored tradition of feeding the Christians to the lions.  Tickets to that event would outsell the Superbowl.  That wouldn't be a hate crime, would it?  We're only talking about feeding the lions the holier-than-thou Christians, not real Christians, so there shouldn't be any objections, right?  C'mon, Matt and Crank.  Help us out here.

  

Now to our award for the week.  All week, at least during the parts we listened to, Matt and Crank preached to us heathens about heaven and our childish views of it.  They lambasted Steven Hawkins for his claim that there is no heaven.  Matt and Crank offered no insights as to how we should view heaven.  They only ridiculed those who held the childish views of spirits floating in the sky or those who claimed there was no heaven.

  

Now, we're faced with the end of the world in about another fourteen hours, a story Matt and Crank ridiculed for at least two days, and yet we still have no idea of what heaven is as described by Matt and Crank.  We only know whom we're supposed to laugh at for their silliness of claiming the Rapture is coming - at least, we know because Matt and Crank has told us whom to laugh at.  Today, they came up with their Rapture-Rama type game where callers could answer some questions, and this "machine" would determine if the caller would be raptured or doomed.

 Chad was the first caller, and failed.  He's doomed. 

  

Drew called in and made rapture.   He was saved, hallelujah!  When Matt asked him how he got through life without enslaving a whole race of people, Drew answered that he was an atheist, so he didn't get drawn into all that organized religion bullshit. 

Drew, if you are reading this blog, you have won an all expense paid trip (and we mean an unlimited credit card for a full seven days) to anywhere you want to go.  You made Matt and Crank look like idiots in that suave, calm manner we all can appreciate.  To claim your prize, Drew, please read the fine print below.

The Critics Page offers one unlimited credit card for a full seven days to be spent by recipient known as Drew on the contingency that either one or all of the following named agree to pay for the credit card in full:  Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Hugh Hefner, Matt Walsh, Andrew Murr, leading drug cartel dude down in Mexico (cash only for him).