How To Get Fired

I caught a little media blurb over at Media Bistro yesterday about ESPN firing one of their announcers, a one Ron Franklin. It didn't get into a lot of detail, briefly stating that "Franklin was pulled from last Friday’s Chick-fil-A Bowl broadcast after making derogatory comments towards colleague Jeannine Edwards." Now, I've never heard of Mr. Franklin, so I wasn't so much concerned about him as much as I really wanted to know what he said. So I looked into it. I wasn't sorry.

Before I continue, can I just point out an absolutely ridiculous side note? The Chick-fil-A Bowl? Really? Am I the only one who thinks that sounds totally asinine? Is this what we're looking at from now on? Corporate sponsorship that totally takes over the name of the game? There are some pretty silly sounding names out there. It's going to get interesting if we just let them start having their own bowl games (because they can) and naming them after themselves (because they own them and why wouldn't they?). Oh, wait. I just looked up all of the different names of bowl games and this is going to require its own post. I came to that conclusion after learning that there are over thirty different bowl games and one of them is the GoDaddy.com Bowl. And that's not even the silliest. So tune in tomorrow for Bowl Game Insanity, Part Deux!

Back to Mr. Franklin. I went over to USA Today for a little bit more of the story as to what he had said that was enough to get him fired. It seems that this Jeannine Edwards was talking with ESPN announcer Rod Gilmore. Apparently, Mr. Gilmore's wife had just been elected mayor of Alameda, California. (Good luck with that.) At some point, Mr. Franklin joined the conversation and for some unknown reason said to Ms. Edwards, "Listen to me sweet baby, let me tell you something . . . " She claims that he said that "...with a condescending tone." Yes, I think that if we can assume anything from a sentence that starts off with "Listen to me sweet baby" its' going to be that it's in a condescending tone. I got that without any initial clarification, though it was nice to have my initial assumption confirmed.

Oh, but if you're thinking it stopped there, it did not. "Edwards says she told Franklin not to address her like that." That seems like a fairly reasonable next step, considering that they were in the work place. But then, in a move that doesn't seem like a fairly reasonable next step, considering that they were in the work place, Franklin replied, To which Franklin said, "OK, then listen to me a-hole."

I'm sure it's wrong of me, but I laughed when I read that. Who the heck says stuff like that? To your co-worker no less! Don't get me wrong. There were plenty of co-workers that I would have loved to have said that to. (And I wouldn't have started out with "sweet baby" either. Nope, I would have gone straight to a-hole!) But that's the first rule of having co-workers. You don't call them a-hole to their face. While you're working. With them.

And even though he was fired, I'm under the impression that he was fired because he wasn't apologetic enough. Actually, he wasn't apologetic at all, as Ms. Edwards says that he did not apologize to her. The guy is 68 years old. There's a point in people's lives where they stop feeling like they either a) need to apologize, or b) care to apologize. Mr. Franklin is clearly past both of those points. And it won't matter because I'm sure that someone out there will hire him to do whatever it is that he does sometime in the near future. Hopefully they won't mind being called an a-hole once in a while.

Now THAT'S A Response

What you are about to read is one of the most awesome letters I have ever come across. And really, I wouldn't have come across this at all if it hadn't been for something called The Last Angry Fan. It appears to be sports related and, if I'm judging on this item alone, completely awesome. It seems that back in 1974 (why it took this long for something this great to be known to the public is beyond me) there was a disgruntled Cleveland Browns fan who was also a uptight asswad. He seems very concerned about spectator safety due to the reckless abandon with which other rowdy fans are endangering innocent bystanders. By throwing paper airplanes. Read on. I swear. (If it's not big enough, just double click the image and that should enlarge it. If it doesn't click on the link above and read it there.)

Seriously, how are you supposed to reply to something like that? I can't even imagine why that guy even had season tickets. He clearly doesn't quite understand what comes along with going to live sporting events. (He's obviously not an Oakland Raiders fan. I'm pretty sure that team has a prerequisite that you be a convicted felon and are capable of hurling a D battery onto the field from the back of the upper deck.) And just how much attention do you want to pay to a nimrod like that guy? He's obviously an attorney, so I guess it could get ugly, unless....it was responded to in such a manner that only a genius could conceive of it. (Side note: Scott and Mark, this guy is clearly from your tribe. You will be proud, as he is one of your own.) Behold, the response!

I don't know where Mr. James E. Bailey, General Counsel, is to this day, but I hope he is alive and well, living a life of prosperity and has had a statue made in honor that is prominently on display in a town square somewhere. Well done, sir. Well done, indeed.

Attention, Some Of You Walmart Shoppers

Unclench your underwear, America. The case of the weird, racial, overhead announcement at the Walmart in New Jersey has been solved. Now, in case you didn't follow the story last week, here's the scoop:

A bunch of people were shopping at a Walmart in New Jersey. (Yes, pretty much a dream come true, hanging out at the New Jersey Walmart. May I continue?) At some point, someone gets on the intercom and says, "Attention, Walmart customers. All black people, leave the store now." Ooh. Awkward.

As you can imagine, the silence in the store likely made it the most quiet that the store had ever been. As you can also imagine, black patrons shopping at the store were far from amused. Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty sure that the white folks weren't all that amused either. But the black folks were justifiably a little irritated by the whole thing. Really? Irritated. In what way?

According to an article over at Yahoo! Finance (why it's in the Finance section is a little unclear to me, but the article seems accurate, so I'm going with it), immediately after this odd announcement was made "...a manager quickly got on the public-address system and apologized for the remark." None the less, a rather angry mob (sans pitchforks and torches, as they were all being used for health care protests) gathered and was essentially saying things to the effect of "We need to know if this is the sort of thing that Walmart tolerates." Now, even though I know how this story ends, even if I didn't know, I'd go on ahead and guess that it is not the sort of thing that's tolerated. Call it a hunch. Call it my ability to put my finger right on the pulse of corporate America. Call it what you will. But I'd go ahead and guess that it's not OK with them.

And it wasn't. See, at this particular Walmart, all of the intercom commands were on a list right there next to the intercom. And apparently, the intercom was in an area where it is able to be accessed by not only employees, but rogue patrons with odd senses of humor as well. All someone would have to do would be to walk up to it, punch in the appropriate keys (say star-one-star) and then announce to the entire store "Attention, Walmart shoppers. Human kidneys are now on sale for half off in Sporting Goods." Never mind why a kidney is considered a sporting good in this scenario. The point is that it could happen just like that. And that is pretty much where my sympathy or whatever it is for this story ends because after this point, things just get a little too histrionic for me.

See, a 16-year old (who is pretty clearly an a-hole) was later arrested for doing this. He was charged with was charged with harassment and bias intimidation. The New York Daily News reported that "Authorities said it was unclear if the announcement was ad-libbed or premeditated and said they were investigating a second youth who accompanied the arrested teen to the store." Wait. What now?

They're unclear as to whether he thought of it right then or if he had planned this out? Is this a death penalty case? Why in the world would that make a difference? ("So...did you plan ahead of time to be this much of a jackass, or did it just hid you all of a sudden as you were looking at that Ninetendo Wii?") And what are they going to investigate the second youth for? He didn't do anything (from what I can tell). Can they charge him with "Being in the company of an a-hole"? "Accompanying an a-hole to a retail establishment?" I don't think that they can. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't. Investigate away. Let me know how that turns out. Or don't.

Then I read that Yahoo! News reported that "Officials say several people have come forward and expressed interest in getting counseling." Translation: Several people are thinking about suing because they want the money, not because they needed counseling over a rogue statement made over a Walmart PA system by an errant 16-year old. Who are you people that you would need counseling after hearing that? If you need actual counseling by an actual counselor, I'm going to suggest that the next time you're in Walmart (if you can get over your obvious PTSD) that you buy yourself some sort of a helmet or headgear to protect that soft, soft dome of yours. Good Lord....

Seriously, some of you folks need to get over yourselves. Folks, for example, like a one Sheila Ellington, a storegoer at the time of the incident. She said, "I want to know why such statements are being made, because it flies in the face of what we teach our children about tolerance for all...If this was meant to be a prank, there's only one person laughing, and it's not either one of us." I don't know what she means by she wants to know why those statements are being made. It's as if she thinks that they were sanctioned by Walmart. And again, I'm going to have to say that I'm pretty sure that they weren't. Pretty sure. (What size is her head?)

Really, I understand why this sort of a thing would be upsetting to black folks who were shopping at the time. It's upsetting to white folks who were shopping at the time. It's upsetting to black and white folks who were not shopping at the time. But to be saying that you need counseling is ridiculous and to be asking questions like, "We need to know if this is the sort of thing that Walmart tolerates" is about one of the most ridiculous questions that you could possibly ask in this sort of situation. First of all, what do you think they're going to say? "Oh, sure. We tolerate this. No problem. Stop by next week on Nazi Tuesday for the full extent of what we'll tolerate." I don't think that's going to happen.

Seriously. According to the article, "Officials for Wal-Mart Stores Inc said the announcement was 'unacceptable'." Really? Oh! So, it's NOT acceptable to get on a PA system and tell all black people to leave the store? Look, if you're the sort of person who needs Walmart to SAY that it's unacceptable, now you know! They've said it's unacceptable. Are you happy now? Again, what else would they say?

My point here is that some things that happen are just that. They're things that happen. They don't have to have a deeper meaning other than someone is an a-hole. Actually, a lot of the time, that's the most obvious meaning of a lot of things. But you know what it was about this whole incident that I think surprised me the most? Have you ever been in a Walmart or any large store when there's an announcement made over the PA system? You can't understand a word that they're saying most of the time! It sounds like someone with marbles in their mouth is gasping for air. That anyone could understand the little jerk at all might really be the story here.

Mel Gibson's Horrible PR

Mel Gibson must have the worst PR people on the planet. I'm not kidding. They're horrible and he should fire them immediately. Then again, if he's so clueless that he doesn't understand the logistics of staging somewhat of a comeback after a general dislike amongst the public due to fairly harsh anti-Semitic rants after being arrested for drunk driving, then maybe it's not his PR folks and maybe it's just because he's an a-hole.

Let me just recap a few key moments in the Mel Gibson story before going on to the ridiculousness that is him being unable to grasp that people aren't quite over the whole thing just yet. Here's what happened: Back on Julyl 28, 2006, ol' Mel was arrested for DUI. He wasn't as drunk as you'd think, given his behavior which was seemingly unending swearing and cursing and a string of anti-Semitic statements which, according to TMZ consisted of, among other gems "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?" My favorite part was when he asked a female officer "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?" Priceless.

He did issue a statement afterwards which consisted of, among other apologies, "I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said. Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior." He also included that "I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state and have already taken necessary steps to ensure my return to health." Fair enough.

Gibson subsequently did whatever he was supposed to do in the eyes of the court and got his record expunged. That was only four years ago. Who knew that you could get your record expunged so quickly? Not me. I thought that stuff had to be on there for a minimum amount of time that I thought that time would have surely been longer than four years. You have to buy special insurance after you've had a DUI for seven years, but you can make it like it never happened after four? Interesting. Do you still have to buy the insurance? Never mind. I digress.

So, fast forward to present day where the world is waiting upon the release of Gibson's first movie since his drunken anti-Jew tirade in Malibu. Something called Edge of Darkness. Now, when you're making movies that cost a gazillion dollars, that means that you have to have at least a gazillion dollars worth of people watching the damn thing in order to make a profit. Or, at the very least, in order to commandeer the sort of salary that you do in the future. Bottom line: Mel Gibson wants people to see his movie. He also wants them to forget about everything else in the world besides his movie. That would include your life, his life and certainly his past.

Over there at CNN we learn of Gibson being interviewed by a one Dean Richards of Chicago's WGN-TV. Richards asks Gibson if he thinks that the public is ready to accept him back into their movie going lives again. Gibson appears to be perplexed by the question and actually had the audacity to ask him what he is referring to specifically. Oh, come on! Are you serious?! What in the world could he be referring to specifically?! His new cat? I don't think so!

He then gives a response that makes him sound like he just got done filming Point Break or something (it's a surfing movie, just in case you couldn't place the reference there). He says, "That's been almost four years, dude. I've moved on. But I guess you haven't." Did he just call him "dude"? I think he did. That's an odd choice of words for someone who, by my account, should be rather humble. This country isn't all that forgiving of any kind of racism, real or perceived.

Richards then tried to elaborate a bit and get more of an answer out of Mel by asking him if he thought that the public had moved on (just as much as Mel had, apparently). Mel replied with, "Well, I certainly hope so. That was a while back, and I've done all the necessary mea culpas, so ... let's move on, dude." Again with the dude. Interesting. And not the least bit apologetic for his behavior, either. Huh.

But wait! There's more! Richards thanks him for his time. Gibson chugs down the last of his coffee or whatever it was that he was drinking. They both say goodbye. Gibson still has a live mike on him. Richards can still hear him (and so can everyone else). Gibson says clearly and directly, "A**hole." Nice.

You know what, Mel? You don't get to decide when this is over. You don't! The public does. You don't get to decide when people are supposed to stop asking you about this thing. You don't. You don't get to go out there and make a gazillion dollars off of your movies and not think that people might want to know what kind of a person that you are before they watch your movies. Granted, I don't know how many people actually make the determination about what movie they're going to see by their level of like or dislike for the star. And your being so flippant about it shows that you don't give a fat rat's ass about continuing to be apologetic about it. And it's going to make folks question whether or not you really were ever apologetic in the first place.

I'm not saying that someone should have to go through the rest of their life having to apologize for one thing that they might have done in the middle of an extremely drunken stupor. (If that were the case, all I'd be doing is apologizing.) But I am saying that if you're a public figure and your paycheck depends on whether or not the public likes you, I suggest that you make the public like you and if that means apologizing until we're all sick of hearing it, then that's what it means.

Now, if Mel had any decent PR folks, they would have told him to answer those questions with something along the lines of "You know, every time I am asked that question or every time that comes up, I am horrified at my behavior all over again. It haunts me every time I think of it and I'm continuing to work on things every day to make sure that I'm never in such a situation again where I behave in such an atrocious manner ever again." THAT would be good. (I'm for hire, by the way. Inquire within.)

Mel can choose to handle it the way that he is choosing to do so. That's fine. He shouldn't expect a whole hell of a lot of public sympathy if that's the way he's going to go, however. And calling the reporter an a-hole? Well, that's just uncool, dude. But what's even more uncool is not even being able to man up and say that's what you did. Granted, I'm not so sure that, in his situation, that he would be able to admit it, but I'd prefer he stay quiet about it, as opposed to the current lie that he is telling which is that his "a-hole" comment was not directed at Richards, but was rather directed at
"...Gibson's publicist Alan Nierob... who was "pulling faces" (at Gibson) during the interview." Oh, please.

Is that the best you can do? Seriously? And Mel came out and said that? Oh, wait. No, no he didn't. It was his jackass PR guy, that Alan Nierob, who said that on Gibson's behalf. Well. That explains everything, doesn't it? This is not going to get any better for Mel Gibson with ol' Nimrod Nierob at the helm. And I can almost guarantee that any interviews after this point that Mel Gibson does will definitely contain questions about "the incident". Seriously, who wouldn't be interviewing Mel Gibson from this point on and NOT be able to ask him about it just to see what he comes up with? (And for God's sake, those of you who do interview him, make sure that his mike is live for at least a good 30 seconds after the interview is over. I'm pretty sure there's some good stuff to be had there!)

The video of Gibson calling Dean Richards an a-hole is below. Enjoy!