Site moved to matthewdicks.com/blog, redirecting in 1 second...

42 posts categorized "Current Affairs"

February 17, 2012

Falik took the bathroom. What should Dicks name?

William Falik is my kind of guy.

In honor of his father’s 100th birthday, he donated $100,000 dollars to Harvard Law School in order to provide financial assistance to students who are pursuing a less profitable career in public-interest law.

When offered the opportunity to name something at Harvard in honor of his father as well, Falik decided to be unconventional:

“The only thing I ever thought of naming - with my last name - was a men’s room,’’ says Falik. He proposed that it be called the Falik Gentleman’s Lounge, but the powers-that-be at the World’s Greatest University didn’t go for it, settling instead on the Falik Men’s Room. (Falik said his father had an excellent sense of humor and took great pleasure in the naming opportunity.) Remarkably, this isn’t the first men’s room to bear his name. A few years back, he made a generous donation to the Berkeley Repertory’s Roda Theater, and as a result, male patrons spend part of intermission in the Falik Gentlemen’s Lounge. “There’s humor in this, of course. But, most importantly, it was a donation in honor of my dad as he celebrated his birthday.’’

image

There are few things I admire more than a lack of pretension and the ability to be self-deprecating. William Falik seems to possess these qualities in great measure. 

He also leaves me wondering what I might choose to bear my equally suggestive last name when I make my fortune and become equally philanthropic. Falik has already taken the idea of naming the men’s room, so I need something new and original. Something truly befitting this burden of a last name.

Thoughts? Ideas? Please?

December 30, 2011

My awkward, uncomfortable gay moment

From a piece in The Daily Beast:

Eric Dondero, a former longtime aide to the representative, has written a post at Rightwing News defending Ron Paul against charges of racism and anti-Semitism but also acknowledging that the congressman is “personally uncomfortable” around gay people.

My first reaction upon reading the piece was to laugh out loud at the thought that anyone could be uncomfortable around gay people.  Especially a physician and a congressman with more than twenty years in office. 

You’d think that at some point, professionalism, education, experience and maturity would supersede any unfounded prejudice or personal discomfort.   

Why sexual orientation would even be in the forefront of another person’s mind is beyond me.  I have gay friends, but their homosexuality is not the single most defining aspect of their character.  Yes, they are gay, but they are also fathers, husbands, golfers, designers, builders, attorneys and friends. Their sexual orientation is just one small part of who they are as human beings. 

The thought that anyone might be uncomfortable around them for one small aspect of their character is ludicrous.   

But then I was reminded of a time when I was younger and found myself feeling especially uncomfortable in the company of a gay friend.

Not the personal discomfort that Ron Paul allegedly feels, but discomfort just the same. 

For the story, I’ll call my friend John.  John and I were managing a McDonald’s restaurant in Massachusetts at the time.  I was about 23 years old, and John was about ten years older than me.  I knew that John was gay and lived with his boyfriend, but we had never spoken about his sexual orientation, nor had he spoken about it with any other employee in the restaurant as far as I knew. 

John was still in the closet, but the closet had a transparent door.  His sexuality wasn’t exactly a secret.  It was more of an elephant in the room.  No one was going to mention it unless he mentioned it first, and during the first year we spent working together, he never did.

Then John and I were sent to a conference in Wellfleet, MA, a town on the tip of Cape Cod.  What was supposed to be a three hour drive turned into five because of the summertime traffic that we fought the whole way. 

About an hour into the drive, John and I were listening to music on the radio.  I was driving, and we had been sitting in a comfortable silence for quite a while, lost in our own thoughts.  Then without saying a word, John reached over and switched off the radio, took a deep breath, and said, “I know you know that I’m gay.”

The statement took me by surprise, but after overcoming the initial shock, I remember feeling immensely relieved that John’s homosexuality was no longer an unspoken fact hanging between us.

“Okay,” I said.

“Okay what?” John said.

“Okay, it’s true that I knew you were gay.  But I figured that it was your business, and if you wanted to talk about it, you would.”

John said nothing, so I kept talking.

“But you know that I don’t care if you’re gay.  Right?  It doesn’t matter to me.”

“And I know you know that I like you,” John said.

To say that this took me by surprise would be an understatement.

“No,” I said, measuring my words carefully.  “Actually, I didn’t know that.  I thought you had a boyfriend.”

“I do, but you didn’t know?  Kelly didn’t tell you?”  Kelly was one of our fellow managers and a close friend.

“No,” I said.  “But it’s okay.  I mean, you know I’m not gay. Right.  I’m dating Christine.  I like girls.  But it’s okay.”

“God, I’m so embarrassed,” John said. “I thought you knew.”

“Nope,” I said.  “But it’s fine.  No big deal.”  I wanted to change the subject as quickly as possible, for both John’s sake as well as my own. 

“But I really like you,” John said and proceeded to spend the next fifteen minutes telling me why he liked me so much. 

And that was the moment, the only moment in my life, that I felt uncomfortable around a gay person.  My age probably played a big role.  Being young (and much younger than John), I wasn’t equipped to deflect his amorous declarations with humor and empathy. 

It was also 1993.  Even in Massachusetts, it was uncommon to meet a gay person who so openly stepped out of the closet.  The subject of gay rights was not exactly a part of the national conversation at the time.  Gay characters has not yet broken onto the television landscape.  Yes, Massachusetts had barney Frank, but this was still new ground for me. 

Having John tell me that he was gay was a relief.

Listening to him explain why he was willing to leave his boyfriend for me was another story.

I also suspect that our physical setting played a role in my discomfort.  We were trapped in a car together for the next three hours, and we would then be spending the next two days at a conference, sharing a hotel room and almost every minute together.  As John continued to list my positive attributes, I had no way of extricating myself from the scene.  Collecting my thoughts.  Seeking counsel from a friend.

For the next two days, it would just be John and me. 

John, a man ten years my senior, who was suddenly eager to profess his love and ready to dump his live-in boyfriend of two years for me.

At that point, I was uncomfortable. 

Probably not the kind of uncomfortable that Ron Paul allegedly feels around gay people, but the kind of discomfort that I might have also felt had John been a girl who I was not interested in dating.

Though I have to admit that had John been a girl, my level of discomfort would not have been so great.  Perhaps because I had been hit on by girls I did not like before and had learned to handle those situations, but also because I was 23 and had never had a gay friend before.

Suddenly this friend and colleague was speaking to me in a way that no man had ever spoken to me before, so yes, I was uncomfortable. 

Eventually I found a way to break into John’s monologue and explain to him that I was dating Christine and would never have those kinds of feelings for a man.  I suspect that I was unnecessarily harsh in making these statements, mostly because I wanted John to stop and partly because I was annoyed at his choice of time and place, and this led to a new, much longer period of silence as the tires of my Chrysler LeBaron continued to devour Interstate 495. 

I remember that we began speaking again after crossing over the Bourne Bridge.  John expressed embarrassment for what had transpired, and I tried to assure him that he shouldn’t feel this way.  I remember saying, “Don’t worry.  I’ve hit on plenty of girls who weren’t interested in me.  This is sort of the same thing.  Right?”

He agreed, though I don’t think he really felt this way. 

Hitting on a girl and having her ignore you is one thing. 

Being rebuffed by a colleague who you then have to spend the next two days with is another thing entirely.

I also remember telling John that he would have been better off waiting for the ride home before telling me about his feelings.  “It was poor planning on your part,” I said.  “You had no way to escape if it didn’t work out.  You suck at this kind of thing. Huh?”

That made John laugh, and though tension remained between us for the two days spent together, it got better as the hours and days ticked by.

Eventually we returned to our restaurant and settled into our familiar routines.  John never spoke openly about his sexuality to me again, and though I would occasionally ask how his boyfriend was doing, I never spoke about it either.

But that makes sense.  Right?  I don’t talk about my sexuality with my straight friends, so why would John’s homosexuality ever become a source of continued conversation?  John was gay, but that was only one aspect of his character.  In my world, it was more important that he was an effective manager, a responsible person, and a trustworthy friend. 

Still, at the time, it felt as if the elephant had returned to the room, and I felt bad about it.  John had shared something very personal with me, and as far as I knew, he had only shared that information with one other person in our restaurant.  In failing to ever speak about it again, I suspect that John’s embarrassment over our conversation in the car never completely went away. 

That conversation had become a second elephant in the room, and in many ways, a much larger elephant.

Had I met John later in life, and had that conversation taken place ten years later, I suspect that I my level of discomfort would have been minimal.

Perhaps nonexistent. 

I also suspect that I would have handled it in such a way as to strengthen our friendship rather than hinder it.  John needed someone much smarter and much wiser than me that day.  He needed someone who could’ve recognized his extreme vulnerability in that moment and said something to lighten his load and somehow transform his declarations of love into something more positive.

Because of my discomfort, I just wanted it to end as quickly as possible.

I’ve always regretted not handling it better.

December 23, 2011

Mark Twain got it right. Scott Bennett got it wrong.

No surprise that Mark Twain managed to turn a simple notice about a stolen umbrella into an amusing reward for the capture and execution of a small boy. 

image

Also no surprise that Scott Bennett’s newspaper farce did not go quite as well

image

The Pennsylvania man wrote an obituary for his mother (who was still alive) and got it published in the local paper in order to get paid time off for bereavement.

Unfortunately (for Bennett), relatives called the newspaper after the obit was published to say that Bennett's mother was actually alive and well.

Unconvinced, Bennett’s mother paid a visit to the newspaper to confirm her liveliness.

Bennett was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and fired from his job, of course.

Somehow I feel like Mark Twain could’ve pulled off Bennett’s ruse much more effectively.  And more amusingly. 

Scott Bennett was simply out of his league.

December 04, 2011

It’s got everything. Opposition to authority. A First Amendment battle. And the stupidity of the demanded apology.

The story of Emma Sullivan is one of my favorites of the year.

Sullivan is the eighteen year old high school student who tweeted that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback "sucked" after his visited her school earlier in the day.  

The college-bound senior disagrees with Republican Governor’s positions on abortion and gay rights.

Sullivan thought the tweet to her 60 Twitter followers would go mostly unnoticed, but then she got called to the principal's office.

Doing a routine search of the governor's name on social-networking sites, Brownback's communications director, Sherienne Jones-Sontag, found Sullivan's tweets and reached out to her school to demand an apology. Sullivan's principal acquiesced, and ordered Sullivan to draft an apology to send to the governor.

Sullivan refused, and Brownback was ultimately forced to apologize after the story was reported by the media and gained national attention. 

"My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize.  Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms."

This story is good on so many levels. 

As a frequent challenger of authority in high school and beyond, I always love a story in which the little guy with the big mouth wins.

I am also an ardent supporter of First Amendment rights and have been forced to defend my own First Amendment privileges in the past when those who disagree with my opinion seek to silence me or otherwise hinder my wellbeing.  I am also happy to see the First Amendment score a victory for those under attack for their willingness to speak out and express their opinion.  

But best of all, it’s a rare and glorious day when the person stupid enough to demand an apology is then forced to apologize instead.

As you may know, I am a frequent critic of the demanded apology.

It’s the kind of scenario so good that you’d think it too contrived if presented in a movie or on television.  But in real life, it’s the best of all possible circumstances. 

Emma Sullivan.  One of my heroines of 2011.

November 07, 2011

Fear not. There is a perfectly legal means for students and teachers to bully students different than them.

A new bill requiring public schools to enforce anti-bullying policies passed through Michigan’s Senate on Thursday.

Good news. Right?

But at the last minute, Republican lawmakers added an extra line to the bill saying that bullying on religious or moral grounds is exempt from punishment.

Seriously. This actually happened. 

The bill allows students, teachers, and other school employees to use “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” as legal justification of their harassment.

As long as the bully took place on those grounds, it cannot be punished, regardless of how many times it happened or even if it continues. 

The bill was already seriously flawed before this unconscionable line was added.  Republicans only agreed to bring the bill to a vote if it did not require school districts to report bullying incidents, did not include any provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they failed to act.

But by effectively legalizing bullying on religious and moral grounds, they have taken a law originally designed to protect children and turned it into a perfectly legal means of harassing a homosexual student by hiding behind Leviticus 20:13.

Had I included something like Michigan’s new law in the plotline of one of my novels, I suspect that my agent and editor would have scoffed at such an implausible notion.

But this isn’t fiction.  And yet it’s real. 

How could something like this happen?

August 08, 2011

Disappointment can be entertaining when you aren’t the one being disappointed

New York City Starbucks have begun to cover up some of their electrical outlets in order to to eliminate the customers “who spread all their papers out and stay for hours on end, turning a coffee-shop table into their makeshift cubicle,” says a Time magazine piece on the subject.

The move “reflects a growing trend of coffee shops trying to discourage squatters from hogging seats while spending little.” 

This is the kind of story that makes my heart soar, not because these squatters impact me in anyway.  I don’t drink coffee, and while I have been known on rare occasions to sit down in a Starbucks to write, the ungodly scream of the milk steamer, combined with the incomprehensibility of the language that is spoken in those shops, makes it a place where I cannot concentrate for very long.

No, it’s not that these squatters inconvenience me. 

Instead, I approve of this decision simply because I like to imagine the look on the faces of the laptop squatters when they return to their favorite coffee shop/work area, only to find their power source eliminated.

It’s that image that brings me happiness.

In a perfect world, I would have the time to camp out beside these former power outlets and spend the day watching the squatters approach their favorite table only to realize that their plans for electrical subjugation have been foiled.   

It’s a pleasure drawn from suffering and cruel amusement, I know. 

But if I’m being honest, it’s also the sole reason that this story attracted my attention in the first place. 

Sort of my own personal version of watching a NASCAR race to see an accident, but with fewer potentially dire consequences.

August 01, 2011

My simple but effective solution to the idiots who text in the movie theater

The Star Telegram reports that 220 pound Dale Fout, who describes himself as “a pretty big guy, broad, not fat”, is suing 132 pound Brenda Godwin after she assaulted him for texting during a movie in a local theater. 

Mr. Fout states::

"I got a text, and I responded to it because it was something important. It was something that was on a deadline situation, OK. I held it against my chest purposely where I could barely see it. ... I could text but hide the majority of the light coming from the phone.

She said something. I couldn't make it out. That's why I turned. She was probably saying something like, 'Get off your phone.' I turned, and she pushed. She just happened to push my neck at the time my neck was in an awkward position. Kinda like having a little fender bender, and you get a little whiplash in your neck, you know."

According to Godwin, she reached over and tapped him on the shoulder to get his attention.

The police stated that they remain neutral in these situations but added that "assault by contact is usually not something like this. It's usually a shove."

There are lots of things wrong here. 

First, Fout’s first two sentences:

"I got a text, and I responded to it because it was something important. It was something that was on a deadline situation, OK.”

No Dale, not okay.  If you are on a deadline, don’t go to the theater. 

YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO TEXT DURING A MOVIE. 

You are told so prior to the movie.  I don’t care how close you held the phone to your chest. 

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEXT DURING A MOVIE.

If you’re on a deadline, stay home or set your goddamn phone to vibrate.  When you feel the vibration, get up and leave the theater.  Then text. 

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TEXT DURING A MOVIE.

I also have a problem with a grown man suing a woman half his size for an assault which took place from a sitting position when, by his own admission, it did not include the punch or slap that he most certainly deserved.

A shove, Dale?  From one bolted-down theater seat to another?

Have you forgotten what it is to be a man?

Texting in movie theaters has become an conundrum for me as well.  When people choose to talk in theaters, either on the phone or to one another, I always go on the offensive to stop them.  Standing up, I point myself in the direction of the offenders and let them have it, secure in the knowledge that the voices that I am hearing are surely being heard by others, and therefore I am doing everyone a favor by silencing them despite my temporary disruption.

I received a round of applause once for letting two women in the back row have it. 

But texting is new and challenging for me.  Yes, the glow of the goddamn cellphone is disturbing me, but it might only be disturbing me.  The phone might be angled in such a way that only I can see it.  If I were to rise and verbally assault the offender, as I have done in the past, I might be creating an even larger disruption that the rest of the theater does not need or want. 

And the glow of a cellphone can reach far and wide, so in order to stop these idiots like Dale from disturbing the movie, I might have to talk over two or three rows of people just to get the offenders attention. 

It’s a real problem.  I’m still not sure what to do in these case.  But I have a solution. 

I would like movie theaters to run a new “No texting” request prior to the movie.  It would require the assistance of a well-known, well-respected, utterly unimpeachable actor. 

I choose Matt Damon, but others will do as well. 

Damon comes on the screen and says the following:

Hi, I’m Matt Damon.  Thanks for coming to the movies today.  Listen folks, don’t turn on your cellphone until the movie is over.  No talking, no texting, no checking IMDB halfway through the film to see what other movie you saw that guy in.  None of that nonsense.  Okay?

And listen, if you do turn on your cellphone to talk or text, I am charging the rest of the theater audience, all of you decent, sane, reasonable people who would never be so stupid as to start texting or talking during a movie, to immediately put a stop to it.  Call that loser out.  Tell them to put the damn phone away.  Shame the jackass into doing the right thing.  And rest assured in the knowledge that you will be supported by the rest of your theater going brethren. 

Right everybody?

The people who make these movies have worked too hard to have their labors spoiled by some dumbass who can’t wait to text, and you have spent too much money to see this movie to let some dumbass spoil your enjoyment with his or her cellphone. 

Sometimes it’s easier to take a stand when you are given permission to and when you are guaranteed support.  I hereby give you permission, and your fellow audience members are now charged with instantly supporting you.

Go ahead dimwit.  I dare you to text or talk now.   

Enjoy the movie, folks.

My friends think I’m crazy, but I honestly believe that a message like this, delivered by an actor like Damon, would solve almost all our talking and texting problems. 

Admittedly, it probably would not have deterred Dale, but no solution is ever 100% effective.   

Any man who is willing to sue a woman for a tap or even a shove in a movie theater after being stupid enough to text is beyond help.

In Dale’s case, the woman should have clobbered him.

And I think Matt Damon would agree.

July 31, 2011

Overkill. Literally.

Killing your wife is a terrible, heinous, immoral act, even if she has been nagging you for years. 

But it takes an especially evil man to build an electric chair in order to kill his wife. 

What was this guy thinking?

Did he think the electric chair wouldn’t be noticed by the police?

Was he going to tell authorities that she had accidentally jammed a fork in an outlet?

Had Mr. Castle conducted his own private trial, found her guilty and sentenced her to death?

Thankfully, his wife didn’t fall for his electric chair bit and managed to escape. 

It probably looked too much like an electric chair.  

And then, as if to guarantee the bizarre nature of the story, Mr. Castle attempted suicide by cutting his wrists open with a knife when he had a perfectly good electric chair available

Poor planning and not so great under pressure.  Not exactly the qualities you look for in an effective killer.

July 15, 2011

Black and invisible

Quick.  Name me the last three missing or murdered children who you can think of excluding Caylee Anthony.

Done?

Okay.  Now tell me how many of those children are not white.

And while we’re at it, how many are not female and not blond? 

In fact, name just one missing or murdered child who was not white.

Or one missing or murdered person who was not white.

Just one.

Can you?

If you’re like most people, you probably named Elizabeth Smart, Madeline McCann, Jon Benet Ramsey, and perhaps Susan Smith’s nameless murdered children.

Maybe you included Leiby Kletzky, the eight-year old who was recently kidnapped and murdered in Brooklyn.  If you did, he is probably the only boy on your list.   

If you included adults, you might have mentioned Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy or Polly Klaas.

You probably didn’t mention Everett Conant’s three boys, who were shot and killed by their father last week, because that story, while covered in the print media, has not become a national fixation. 

But Conant was a man, living in Wyoming, and his children were boys and not blond.  Nor did Conant attend any parties or wet tee-shirt contests after shooting his children.

The devil, my friends, is in the details.  

In fact, you were probably hard pressed to name a single African American or Hispanic child or adult who had gone missing or was murdered.

And yet there is not a lack of cases from which to choose.  

For example, in January of this year, while the media was covering the preparations for the Casey Anthony trial, D’Hari Black, 27, and her husband, Keith Black, 29, of College Park, Maryland were found guilty of felony murder in the death of 11-month-old Keith Black III. They were also convicted for felony cruelty to children for the abuse of their 2-year-old daughter, Kyara.

Where was this story covered?

As far as I can tell, a short piece appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution and another in the Atlanta Examiner.

That’s it. 

I was only aware of the case because I lived in College Park years ago and was thinking about using the town as a location in my next book.  I was doing some researching on the town and stumbled across the story.

Some might say that the Keith Black murder case was not sensational enough.

I believe that Keith Black was not white enough.

I found the intense national interest in the Casey Anthony trial bizarre and unfortunate.  Thousands of children are murdered each year, so to focus so much attention and scrutiny on one case strikes me as a twisted and gruesome form of reality television.

Not that it hasn’t been done before. But it’s no less surprising each time it happens. 

And yes, I realize that the unusual details of this case compelled people to pay attention, but when you choose to focus our time and energy on a medium that refuses to acknowledge that black and Hispanic children are kidnapped in this country just as often as white children, and when you choose to tune into a medium that places a premium on cute, blond female victims, you contribute to the problem. 

And there are things that you can do to change it. 

Prior to the birth of my daughter, my wife and I would watch The Today Show each morning while getting ready for work, and about every three months or so, they would report on the disappearance or murder of a white girl.

In the years I watched the show, I cannot remember seeing a single one of these stories in which the victim was not white and female.    

Each time one of these stories came on, I would leave the room or turn off the television, refusing to provide my attention to a news organization that is hell-bent on sensationalizing the best looking white victims of kidnapping and murder in this country and ignoring all victims of color.

Did my actions change anything?  Have I helped to solve this problem? 

No and yes. 

No, it did not change the way in which the media continues to report these stories, but perhaps if others follow suit, things will eventually change.  Maybe the tragic story of Keith Black III will be reported by a news organization like The Today Show, or better yet, perhaps we’ll stop treating these stories as reality programming altogether.

But even if I am the only one boycotting these stories in all of America, that doesn't make my actions foolish or a waste of time.  Doing the right thing in the face of blinding indifference is still a fine thing.

But yes, my decision to ignore these stories does make a difference as well.  It makes a difference in my life.

I have not followed the Casey Anthony trial.  I have not read the stories or watched the trial or even engaged in conversation about the case, and to be honest, if it wasn’t for updates popping up in my Twitter stream, I would probably know absolutely nothing about it. 

I chose to invest my time and energy elsewhere.

Last week I read a book in the doctor’s office while sitting next to a woman who was reading about the case in People magazine.

I listened to music, podcasts and audiobooks for untold hours while exercising beside people who spent their workout watching the trial on television.

I discussed parenting with a friend while others around us were discussing the trial and the actions of Casey Anthony.

In the end, I feel like I made better use of my time.  While so many fixated on the excessive coverage of these tragic circumstance, I engaged in activities that were meaningful, productive and a lot less sleazy.   

And six months from now, when the tragedy of Caylee Anthony has been replaced by a different, white, probably blond girl and the details of the Casey Anthony trial fade into obscurity, I will ask myself:

Did I miss out on anything by ignoring the trial of that mother who probably killed her daughter?

Am I lacking any vital information?

Do I regret not tuning into the story like so many others?

The answer will be no, because the answer has always been no. 

It was no with that blond girl, and it was no with that other blond girl, and it was no with that missing mother of two, and it was no with that other blond girl.

I don’t know much about any of them, which is about how much I know about Keith Black and all the other missing and murdered children who are not white and not blond and not female. 

July 10, 2011

If you are going to perpetrate a fraud, please don’t be stupid about it.

While I don’t support fraud, I can understand engaging in it for profit’s sake. 

When there is enough reward, the risks can sometimes become reasonable.

But when there is little or no benefit to the fraud, or the risks seriously outweigh the rewards, I have to assume that anyone attempting such a thing is as stupid as they come.

The recent revelations about the cheating taking place by Atlanta school teachers is a good example of this.  For the possible reward of improved test scores, increased job security and satisfied administrators, teachers and principals chose to place their careers, the public trust and possible prison time on the line by changing answers on standardized tests and facilitating student cheating during testing periods.   

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.  

The risk-reward ratio in this scenario is ridiculous.   

And I have to wonder:

Hasn’t anyone in the Atlanta school system read FREAKONOMICS or the related literature on school cheating?  Identifying cheating has become a simple examination of the data.  From the privacy of their nondescript cubicles, statisticians can look at a set of assessment data and determine which teacher is cheating and which one is not.

It is simply a matter of pressing a few buttons on a calculator. 

Making the attempt at fraud even more stupid. 

An even more egregious case in point:

The CBS television affiliate in Boston recently falsified the images of the fireworks display from the Fourth of July in order to improve the quality of the footage. 

Boston-based executive producer David Dugar admitted that the station had shot well known landmarks such as Fenway Park, Quincy Market, and the State House prior to the fireworks show and then superimposed these images into the video footage before airing it to the public.

Dugar defended his decision by claiming that the show represented entertainment rather than news, thus placing him squarely in the same camp as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann in terms of his ability to admit fault. 

Viewers began calling into the Boston Globe on Friday to say it was impossible that the fireworks could have appeared over the famous city landmarks when they were launched in the opposite direction from the Charles River.

Once again making the attempt at fraud even more stupid.

So the CBS affiliate comes across as looking foolish and incompetent, and for what?

Had they not been caught, to what advantage would the falsified video footage have served?  Were the producers hoping to create a social media buzz about the remarkable quality of the broadcast in hopes of drawing more viewers next year?

Do they really think that a fireworks display on television is buzz-worthy?

Does the advertising that they sell before and after the fireworks really amount to much in the grand scheme of things?

Was there any money at all to be made had this fraud been successful?

And what did the television station risk?

In addition to the embarrassment that they have experienced on a national level, they have now transformed their fireworks broadcast into the only one that should be avoided next year.  In their short-sighted and inexplicable effort to boost ratings for a blip on the programming radar, they have found a way to make their fireworks broadcast the only one in the history of television that cannot be trusted. 

In addition, they managed to damage the reputation of their station in the process.

Like I said, I’m not defending fraud, and I don’t recommend that anyone engage in it.

But if you decide to do so, at least be smart about it.  Make informed decisions and ensure that the risks are balanced by the potential benefits in the event that your fraud is successful.

Adding immorality to the world is bad enough.  Don’t add any more stupidity in the process. 

We have plenty of that already.