
Image: Dave Whamond
Filed under News

Around 1990 I met a woman who once worked for the now-defunct Braniff Airlines. She was the aunt of a close friend, and somehow we got to discussing business practices and how things function in the corporate world. I was already working for a major bank in Dallas. She noted how the former president of Braniff refused to accept the reality of bad news. Anyone who dared to step into his office and present him with less-than-stellar information about the company’s dire finances was promptly terminated. On the day in 1982 the company filed for bankruptcy, she mentioned that employees didn’t get paid and, in some clerical settings, they literally went ballistic and destroyed many pieces of equipment and office furnishings as retribution. I was shocked, but said I didn’t blame them.
In the summer of 2011 I landed a contract technical writing position with an IT firm in Dallas. One of the senior technical writers had worked for Braniff as a flight attendant until they went bankrupt. She confirmed what that other woman had told me two decades earlier. Braniff employees didn’t receive their last paycheck and lost their patience.
You don’t have to be a business owner to understand that bad news is an inevitable burr in daily operations. It comes with territory, but some people handle it better than others. The same goes for comedy. Cultural shifts can make individuals more or even less sensitive to certain aspects of their surrounding environments.
The U.S. currently has a president, however, who has no problem calling people names and making fun of them, but suddenly draws the line at people mocking him. “You’re a horrible person” is how he often prefaces a response to someone who asks him a question he finds intolerable. But, as I wrote in a previous essay, it appears the demonic world of American politics has become riddled with the emotionally fragile.
Last week conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed by a young man while holding an outdoor question-and-answer session at Utah Valley University. The 31-year-old Kirk left behind a wife and two young children. Right-wingers immediately jumped into the chaos and started pointing fingers at liberals and the entire Democratic Party.
“Democrats own what happened today,” South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace groused to reporters the day after Kirk’s death. “I am devastated. My kids have called, panicking. All the kids of conservatives are panicking.”
President Trump ordered flags flown at half-mast in honor of Kirk; something he didn’t do in the bloody aftermath of the January 6, 2021 riots on Capitol Hill.
It’s ironic, though, because Kirk once said that gun-related deaths were merely a price to pay for Americans’ right to own firearms. “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment,” he stated matter-of-factly in 2023. Now he’s being lionized as a martyr to conservative ideology.
Kirk also believed firmly in free speech, declaring that saying even “contrarian things” is acceptable. I have to agree with that statement. But, as the adage goes, be careful what you wish for…
The general concept of free speech is now under attack, as it always has been with Trump and his MAGA mafia. Recently the Federal Communications Commission ordered the ABC network to cancel or at least suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s nightly talk show, after he commented on Kirk’s murder. Kimmel didn’t gloat over the assassination; he simply pointed out that Trump supporters are using it to enhance their own anger.
For some folks, free speech only seems to have consequences or responsibilities when someone says something they don’t like. How free should someone be with their own words? You can’t threaten to kill someone or you can’t call them a rapist without tangible proof. Slander and threats of violence aren’t covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Banned Books Week 2025 is coming up soon, and I recollect a news piece I saw back around 1986 – the centennial anniversary of the Statue of Liberty. Several foreign-born and newly-minted American citizens discussed the oppression they escaped. One woman, a Russian, noted that she was a reading a book at an outdoor café, when said she suddenly got the feeling someone was watching her. But she remembered she was now in the United States – and she could read just about anything she wanted, even in public, without fear that someone would report her to authorities for being a traitor or disruptive; merely because of what she was reading.
Is that where we’re headed? People need to watch what they read, as well as what they say? Or is the First Amendment now subject to political interpretation?
Do any of us want someone else to determine what we say and read? I’m not willing to give up that type of freedom. No one should.
Image: Dave Whamond
Filed under Essays

Recently American Online (AOL) made a stunning announcement: they’re shutting down on September 30 – this year. As in one month from now! What had once been THE email service for many internet users has apparently run its course and – like most lifelong politicians – is no longer relevant.
Introduced in 1991, the screeching sound of AOL dial up served as the soundtrack of those early days of the cyber universe. I definitely remember it! AOL came with my first personal computer in March of 2000. The “You’ve got mail” voice alert was exciting at the time.
The influx of broadband remedied the nails-on-chalkboard tone that signaled a connection to the internet. But, as with dial phones and 8-track tape players, AOL may have become a victim of technology. It’s just what happens with technology and trends.
Despite my initial love for AOL, I had two major clashes with them; the second of which severed our relationship forever. In February 2004, AOL published a piece on how Christopher Columbus allegedly used Leap Year Day of 1504 to trick the indigenous Taino people of Jamaica into providing food for him and his stranded crew. In the comments section, someone posted a completely unrelated remark; something to the effect of “no one has suffered like the Jewish people.”
I have no idea what prompted it, except ethnocentric arrogance. But I replied with a remark that included the term “politically correct bullshit”. Apparently that hurt someone’s feelings, so they reported me to AOL who promptly deleted the verbiage and suspended me from commenting for a short period. In other words, AOL did something that reeked of juvenile behavior – they put me on “probation”.
“Excuse me?” It was bad enough I could hardly understand the customer service representative through her heavy accent. Like several U.S. companies at the turn of the century, AOL had outsourced their technical support and customer service to India and other parts unknown. But, when she told me about the probationary status due to my foul language, I retorted, “You don’t place me on probation! I place you on probation!” I was a paying customer, plus the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that foul language was protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Neither truth would change their cyber mind.
Seven years later I committed another more egregious act – in the minds of AOL leadership. I emailed a nude image of myself to a close friend in a joke message. This time it was AOL who got their feelings hurt and literally shut down my email address. I had to scramble to find another service and settled on Gmail. But I kept thinking – if everyone who used foul language or sent a nude photo got banned from the internet, well…you wouldn’t have an internet!
My father – who was born in 1933 – told me that, as a kid, he thought the voices he heard from the radio were from tiny people inside the device. Radio was a popular form of technology in the 1930s and 40s. Then television, then computers and now…well, who knows what will come up in the future.
Goodbye to AOL. And life continues. Like technology itself, it always does.
Filed under Essays

The CBS television network is one of the most storied media outlets here in the U.S. It officially launched in September of 1927 as a radio network – a major news source at the time – before transitioning in 1941 into the new medium of TV. The assassination of President John Kennedy in 1963 led CBS to expand their weekly evening news broadcasts from 15 to 30 minutes, which remains a staple of mainstream news outlets.
In 1960 a young journalist named Dan Rather joined CBS, and in 1981, he took over the helm of the network’s nightly evening news broadcast from another legend, Walter Cronkite. Rather had already established himself as a premier journalist. From his live coverage of Hurricane Carla in 1961 to the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the horrors of 9/11, Rather had few equals. But, in the fall of 2004, he encountered his final nemesis – and perhaps one of the most unlikely: a conservative Republican political figure with a fragile ego, incumbent U.S. President George W. Bush. After five lackluster years as Texas governor, Bush ran for president in 2000 – and won in a controversial decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. He became only the second U.S. president to follow his father into that esteemed role. One issue that arose early in Bush’s presidential campaign was his decision to join the Texas National Guard upon graduating from Harvard in 1968. He reenlisted four years later and then – allegedly – transferred to Alabama to work on the presidential campaign of George C. Wallace, a renowned segregationist. Whether or not Bush completed his second stint in the National Guard has never been resolved. He served at a time when the Vietnam War was raging and positions in any state’s national guard were highly valued for draft-age men.
The same conundrum befell Bill Clinton when he announced his candidacy for the presidency in 1991. Conservatives were quick to denounce Clinton as a “draft dodger”, but held off criticism of Bush years later. But when Dan Rather began his quest to determine the exact nature of Bush’s so-called military service, right-wing hound dogs quickly pounced. How dare Rather question the integrity of their contemporary savior! After Bush won the 2004 election (in contrast to 2000, when it was strictly an electoral college victory), the pseudo-Texan’s anger manifested quietly and nondescriptly in Rather’s termination from CBS.
The move pleased conservatives, but outraged liberals. It mirrored a similar move by CBS against Rather’s colleagues, Connie Chung, a decade earlier. Chung began her journalism career with CBS as a Washington, D.C., correspondent in the 1970s. In 1993, she became only the second woman and the first Asian-American to headline a major network news broadcast, when she became Rather’s co-anchor on the CBS Evening News. Two years later, however, her stint with the network crashed after interview with the parents of another conservative Republican with a fragile ego.
In November 1994, Republicans gained control of both Houses of the U.S. Congress for the first time since 1954. And they didn’t just win – they won a super-majority in each chamber. There were at least 3 factors: Clinton’s attempt at a national healthcare program, a ten-year ban on assault-style weapons and queers in the military. All three were anathemic to American conservatives, and the new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, stood at the helm of their angst. A Pennsylvania native and Ronald Reagan acolyte, Gingrich first arrived in the U.S. Congress in 1979. When Bill Clinton became president, Gingrich led the loud, yet unofficial call, to slaughter the former Arkansas governor’s reputation.
In the spring of 1995, Connie Chung traveled to Georgia to interview Gingrich’s parents. His mother, Kathleen, sitting in her kitchen, chain-smoking and speaking barely above a stage whisper, noted her son’s disdain for the Clintons – not just the President, but also First Lady Hillary. When pressed by Chung, Kathleen Gingrich said Newt had called Hillary Clinton a “bitch”. Chung chuckled and seemingly expressed surprise.
The interview rocketed across the news spectrum like a lightning bolt. Newt Gingrich openly announced his rage (and refused to acknowledge whether or not he’d described Hillary Clinton as a “bitch”). Nonetheless, he accused Chung of taking advantage of people who weren’t “media savvy”. In response, Chung asked how “media savvy” does someone need to be when they’ve welcomed a national news figure into their home and have three cameras and several studio lights set up around them. CBS severed Chung’s contract.
Now, some two decades later, CBS has bowed to the ego of yet another conservative Republican: President Donald Trump. They recently announced the cancelation of the long-running “The Late Show”, which will officially end in May 2026. Comedian Stephen Colbert has hosted the show since 2015 and has been one of Trump’s most prominent critics. This announcement comes as a surprise, but in reality, shouldn’t be. Previous host David Letterman frequently mocked President George W. Bush – and never shied away from his barbs. Every political figure in the U.S. has been the subject of disdain and caricature. Anyone who enters American politics with a thin skin normally fries in the broth of farcical verbiage. But it sort of comes with the territory.
Yet I can’t help but notice that attacks on journalism and popular culture have come from the conservative wing. The right-wing fringe that once openly-mocked diversity and inclusion now seems to bristle at the sound of tawdry jokes and comical jibes. And liberals are the wimps?
Spare me the anxiety!
Personally I was the subject of extensive bullying throughout my school years and even into young adulthood. But I survived the maelstrom and I’m still here. In a nation that values free speech and a free press, it’s frustrating to know that journalists and comedians are ostracized for criticizing or questioning anyone – least of all political figures. In fact it pisses me off and makes me wonder what’s next. The U.S. currently has a president who insulted a large number of people and deliberately fomented a physical assault on our government. Threatening physical violence and slandering someone’s reputation are actually illegal. But, in the current, political climate, personal fragility is obviously subjective.

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like me, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
Filed under News