KFI MEGA OOPS.....Undumped F-bombs....

[CTListener]

I quite clearly said his rights were violated. I in no way "justified" what happened to the Japanese Americans and their internment in World War II, which I think most people agree was wrong, and definitely against the American Constitution, of which I am a proud supporter. What I did was contrast the treatment he received at the hands of the American government versus the treatment Americans received at the hand of the Japanese government.

It sure is strange how the same people who go to great lengths to let you know that they support Ukraine after the Russian invasion don't seem to understand their very own country was just as mercilessly attacked by the Japanese in 1941.

Let's be clear about this: Without the Japanese attack in Pear Harbor, there are no innocent civilians in Hawaii killed, there is no loss of life for thousands of US servicemen, there are no internment camps and there is no Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is what happens when you start an unprovoked war.

George Takei is a coward who will never talk about those things. Furthermore, I have heard him talk about the internment camps many times, but never once about the blessings he received afterwards. America, like all other countries, has its faults and makes mistakes. In George's case, it did much to atone for them.

You pooh-poohed the Takeis' internment with your "for a short time," as if they were in the camp overnight or for a few days rather than a year and a half, then you added "they all lived," again as if to tell Takei "So what's your complaint?" You dragged his "latent homosexuality" into the discussion as if he should have been eternally grateful just to have gotten into UCLA despite his hidden trait being offensive to "polite society." You bring up Pearl Harbor and -- correctly -- Japanese atrocities and say that Takei and his family wouldn't have been interned if the attack and atrocities hadn't happened. That MIGHT be borderline acceptable had Takei been a Japanese citizen or had been engaged in pro-Japan activities before Dec. 7, 1941. But Takei was 5 years old and just as American as you and me, and to suggest that he somehow deserved to be locked away, far from his California home, for "a short time" just because of his ethnicity is hideously wrong. You also called him a coward. I see no evidence of cowardice in Takei's not qualifying his criticisms of the American government's internment policy by mentioning how horrible Japan was, as if his not doing so somehow indicates he doesn't accept that fact. If you can cite statements by Takei that diminish the attack on Pearl Harbor and/or Japanese atrocities, please do so. Otherwise, if I may quote Joseph Welch, "Have you left no sense of decency?"

 

[Mikey Radio]

If @frankberry were still awake at this late hour, I'd wager he'd be posting here to move this thread back to the original subject. Somehow this has gone from KFI airing F-Bombs, to the treatment of George Takei's family and other Japanese Americans during the war, and how he somehow attended college regardless of the fact he was homosexual....And Asian. SMH.

My hat's off to you, though, @ChannelFlipper - At least you made it through your diatribes without using racial epithets to refer to Latins or the Japanese. You're growing!

 

[ChannelFlipper]

You pooh-poohed the Takeis' internment with your "for a short time," as if they were in the camp overnight or for a few days rather than a year and a half, then you added "they all lived," again as if to tell Takei "So what's your complaint?" You dragged his "latent homosexuality" into the discussion as if he should have been eternally grateful just to have gotten into UCLA despite his hidden trait being offensive to "polite society." You bring up Pearl Harbor and -- correctly -- Japanese atrocities and say that Takei and his family wouldn't have been interned if the attack and atrocities hadn't happened. That MIGHT be borderline acceptable had Takei been a Japanese citizen or had been engaged in pro-Japan activities before Dec. 7, 1941. But Takei was 5 years old and just as American as you and me, and to suggest that he somehow deserved to be locked away, far from his California home, for "a short time" just because of his ethnicity is hideously wrong. You also called him a coward. I see no evidence of cowardice in Takei's not qualifying his criticisms of the American government's internment policy by mentioning how horrible Japan was, as if his not doing so somehow indicates he doesn't accept that fact. If you can cite statements by Takei that diminish the attack on Pearl Harbor and/or Japanese atrocities, please do so. Otherwise, if I may quote Joseph Welch, "Have you left no sense of decency?"

CT, while I disagree strongly with most of what you wrote, I commend you for at least arguing the issue in an appropriate manner. MY guess is (horrors!) we may agree on more than just one thing, given enough time.

There are few other posts here which are absolutely slanderous and beyond the pale, snarkily implying some level of racism which I strongly object to. I have been on this board (and its predecessors) for over 25 years and have never reported a single post to a moderator - I am a big boy and can take whatever is dished out, and over the years I have received plenty. That said, I have reported two on this thread.

I am pretty sure the moderator will wisely say it is either time to end this thread or at least move it back to its original topic, which is the appropriate course of action. This discussion has gone completely off the rails, especially where decency and respect for fellow-posters is concerned.

 

[Yabadabado1]

Stations generally don’t turn them on and off depending on what they’re airing. They’re there. If something outrageous happens, it’s a safety net. As we see from this conversation, it’s infrequently used.

I find this sorta strange. Cleveland Indians......ooops, Guardians, baseball broadcasts have WTAM as the oirginating station that feeds all the other stations in the network. So I can tune to another station and hear the game but if I tune back to WTAM, I'll hear a delay of a few seconds. I doubt very much I'm going to hear Tom Hamilton drop an "F"-bomb on air. I know I've heard stuff from the crowd below that wouldn't pass muster but it's usually not noticeable unless you're a nerd like me who pays attention to what you can hear from below, I'm assuming a "crowd noise" mic that's potted down fairly low. I could see a board op or engineer or someone hearing an F-bomb or worse drop and hit the dump button. I would think that if they're feeding the stations from the main studio, they'd have a delay all across the board on all the stations unless they're sending out one or two signals, one with a delay and another without OR they're just running a delay through their end for the WTAM signal.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Spoken like someone who hasn't read the Times in a long time.

I will say that I cancelled my Times subscription several months ago because I got tired of the "partisan adjectives" inserted to color hard news stories. While it does a good job of covering the news, the news writing could be less partial in its writing.

In one of my journalism classes on a planet far away... we were taught about bias-instilling adjectives could bias stories. One example was using physical descriptors for news makers as in:

a. In a motion presented by freshman Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
b. In a motion presented by novice Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
c. In a motion presented by apprentice Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
d. In a motion presented by casually dressed Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
e. In a motion presented by independent Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
f. In a motion presented by first-term Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...

Obviously, this is the same as today adding "Trump ally" or "anti-vaxxer" or similar in an article that has nothing to do with national politics or vaccinations. This is what I found to increasingly be part of the Times writing.

This reminds me of something I have mentioned before that happened decades ago in Ecuador. Those of us involved in the news, including the resident correspondent for Newsweek, the France Press delegate and several local editors for radio and print, would get together after any Ecuadorian news event that got covered outside the country. We compared TASS, Prensa Latina, the BBC, Reuters, AP, UPI and local media. This was a "shall we go for another round" gathering of comrades, not a doctoral dissertation review.

Things went from opening sentences that included "Yanqui Imperialists moved today..." to "in an effort to accelerate oil production..." to "indigenous rights were put in peril again...". All about the same item regarding improvements to the oil-exporting port of Bahía de Caráquez.

 

[Yabadabado1]

I will say that I cancelled my Times subscription several months ago because I got tired of the "partisan adjectives" inserted to color hard news stories. While it does a good job of covering the news, the news writing could be less partial in its writing.

In one of my journalism classes on a planet far away... we were taught about bias-instilling adjectives could bias stories. One example was using physical descriptors for news makers as in:

a. In a motion presented by freshman Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
b. In a motion presented by novice Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
c. In a motion presented by apprentice Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
d. In a motion presented by casually dressed Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
e. In a motion presented by independent Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...
f. In a motion presented by first-term Councilman Adams, an amendment to the zoning rules was offered...

Obviously, this is the same as today adding "Trump ally" or "anti-vaxxer" or similar in an article that has nothing to do with national politics or vaccinations. This is what I found to increasingly be part of the Times writing.

This reminds me of something I have mentioned before that happened decades ago in Ecuador. Those of us involved in the news, including the resident correspondent for Newsweek, the France Press delegate and several local editors for radio and print, would get together after any Ecuadorian news event that got covered outside the country. We compared TASS, Prensa Latina, the BBC, Reuters, AP, UPI and local media. This was a "shall we go for another round" gathering of comrades, not a doctoral dissertation review.

Things went from opening sentences that included "Yanqui Imperialists moved today..." to "in an effort to accelerate oil production..." to "indigenous rights were put in peril again...". All about the same item regarding improvements to the oil-exporting port of Bahía de Caráquez.

Sounds like Bill Applegate VP & GM of WOIO. The news under him was disgusting. No sense of decency. "Cleveland police arrested slimeball XXX XXX of Parma today", ""Disgusting pukeball was arrested in Shaker Heights today for pooping on car hoods. He should get LIFE in prison for this horrendous act." ALL "bad" people were scumbags, slimeballs, piece of crap, whatever bad adjective they could call someone. Editorializing by the anchors. Everybody was guilty until proven innocent. Basically appealing to the the lowest common denominator of viewers. I quit watching and if those anchors went off to another station [which some did] I refused to watch them. The anchors should have showed some guts and said that this was beyond the pale and, if they had ANY journalistic integrity, should have flat out refused to do it. Sports reporters also Players of opposing teams were "dirtbags" or worse. Surprised the weatherman didn't get in on the act "Mother Nature was a bastard today and rained on everyone's parade. She should be taken out and shot!"

 

[radiojomo]

The horrible incident from last year shows, mostly, ugly reverse racism. But it also shows frustration by Hispanics at being near a full majority of the population while being considerably under represented in all aspects of society.

There have been a few comments in the entertainment world about how Blacks now overwhelmingly outnumber Hispanics in movies and TV, while there are vastly more Hispanics in the US than African Americans.

But in LA, the population is 48.1% Hispanic and just under 8.5% Black. Yet the LA City Council of 15 persons has only 4 Hispanics while there are 3 Black members. Proportionally, there should be 7 Hispanic councilpersons and one to two Black members with the remainder balanced between non-Hispanic white and Asian representatives. While there is no quota system on race in elections, the dis-proportionality causes resentment and creates bias within different ethnic and racial groups.

I listened to the entire hour of audio. I also couldn't help but agree with some of the points about representation.

Cedillo said, “From the Comptons to the Gardenas … you can’t throw a rock without hitting a Mexican." That is very true about Los Angeles. I mean Cedillo wanted more of Koreatown in his district because he wanted more "raza."

Despite being called Koreatown, the vast majority of the residents in that neighborhood are Hispanic.

It's also worth noting the original poster who shared the audio on Reddit wrote, “If Rick Caruso wins the Mayor’s race, he will clean house at City Hall, including making sure Nury Martinez is out.”

Hmmmmmm....

 

[radiojomo]

Nine words: None of them are on the ballot this year.

My best guess is the leak was meant to dissuade confidence in establishment politicians as "crooked," amid the emergence of a new non-establishment mayoral candidate.

 

[DavidEduardo]

If @frankberry were still awake at this late hour, I'd wager he'd be posting here to move this thread back to the original subject. Somehow this has gone from KFI airing F-Bombs, to the treatment of George Takei's family and other Japanese Americans during the war, and how he somehow attended college regardless of the fact he was homosexual....And Asian. SMH.

My hat's off to you, though, @ChannelFlipper - At least you made it through your diatribes without using racial epithets to refer to Latins or the Japanese. You're growing!

The issue here relates to media treatment of ethnic and minority groups. But when we have approval of some posts from Scott Fybush and Michael Hagarty, I'd say the subject is appropriate although some of the comments are going to get a hard look.

 

[radiojomo]

Thank you for mentioning this. It demonstrates the profundity of almost ancient bias against one group of California peoples who were here long before the gold rush and the transcontinental railroad.

Many contemporary Hispanics whose post-WW II relatives were not deported can relate to the building of Dodger Stadium and the prejudices against the zoot suit culture and even, before it was trendy, the Mexican diet.

With half the LA City population now being Hispanic, it is surprising that so few Hispanics are on the City Council and how some other groups are over-represented.

That's not even accounting for the thousands of undocumented individuals who live in LA and don't get to vote...

Hispanic students account for the vast majority of LAUSD registrations, yet many of their parents don't even get to pick who gets to sit on the board.

 

[DavidEduardo]

If @frankberry were still awake at this late hour, I'd wager he'd be posting here to move this thread back to the original subject. Somehow this has gone from KFI airing F-Bombs, to the treatment of George Takei's family and other Japanese Americans during the war, and how he somehow attended college regardless of the fact he was homosexual....And Asian. SMH.

My hat's off to you, though, @ChannelFlipper - At least you made it through your diatribes without using racial epithets to refer to Latins or the Japanese. You're growing!

The issue here relates to media treatment of ethnic and minority groups. But when we have approval of some posts from Scott Fybush and Michael Hagarty, I'd say the subject is appropriate although some of the comments are going to get modified.

 

[DavidEduardo]

That's not even accounting for the thousands of undocumented individuals who live in LA and don't get to vote...

Name a country that allows non-citizens to vote in their elections.

I owned a dozen stations in Ecuador, had an Ecuadorian family and was active (too active, in the end) in local politics. But I could not vote because I was not a citizen.

Hispanic students account for the vast majority of LAUSD registrations, yet many of their parents don't even get to pick who gets to sit on the board.

I lived the same situation. I was processing a citizenship application, but until I became naturalized, I had a voice but no vote.

 

[DavidEduardo]

My best guess is the leak was meant to dissuade confidence in establishment politicians as "crooked," amid the emergence of a new non-establishment mayoral candidate.

Then whoever released it has a horrible sense of timing. It will be "old news" by the time mayoral elections come up again.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Name a country that allows non-citizens to vote in their elections.

I owned a dozen stations in Ecuador, had an Ecuadorian family and was active (too active, in the end) in local politics. But I could not vote because I was not a citizen.

I lived the same situation. I was processing a citizenship application, but until I became naturalized, I had a voice but no vote.

David, Do undocumented Americans get to vote in Mexico? What about Ecuador?

Edit: I read too fast, I see you already answered regarding Ecuador above. From your post you seem to imply the same for Mexico too

 

[Bongwater]

These songs were in rotation 24 hours a day. The audience likely owned copies of these albums. Songs like JET AIRLINER, SHOW BIZ KIDS, MONEY, WHO ARE YOU, and others were aired unedited for many years. We didn't drop a song from the playlist just because it might have one profanity in it. I don't remember any listener or anybody else ever complaining about it. These were FM Album Rock stations and the FCC never made any inquiries. It seems ridiculous now that Classic Rock stations bleep out the words that once aired for decades. Many people had no idea that Lou Reed was singing about Transvestite Prostitutes in WALK ON THE WILD SIDE either.

Back to the thread topic, I doubt that KFI will be hearing from the FCC about this latest incident...

I remember all that prior to 2004. No one was bothered by a single fleeting, barely heard f or s-bomb in a song. If it was the artist who sang it, that's art and it would be untouchable without an insanely costly and ultimately pointless civil case that the then Supreme Court-if it ever got there, would have most likely thrown out on it's face. (This Supreme Court however....)

But now we've had presidents and members of Congress who have openly used hot language. So the decorum is changing and whether we like it or not, the Rubicon has been crossed. And if politicians can use hot language and be heard on broadcast TV and radio, but artists can't. Then we've got a terrible damn problem, to say the least.

And an unsustainable one. Because if you ask a random hip-hop fan in any non-descript suburb what their favorite radio station is, most wouldn't say "Power 105", they would say "Spotify" or "YouTube". Because they're not censored. And it's also been this way in Active Rock, CHR and Alternative for quite some time now too. Listen to the unedited latest chart hits and count the songs with profanity in them.

And as commercial radio formats, they're all hurting especially bad lately. And that's not a coincidence. Radio listeners simply don't like to be treated like children. And they know they don't have to be now.

 

[radiojomo]

Name a country that allows non-citizens to vote in their elections.

I owned a dozen stations in Ecuador, had an Ecuadorian family and was active (too active, in the end) in local politics. But I could not vote because I was not a citizen.

The point I was trying to make was this: The Latino representation on the LA City Council is so disproportionate to the number of Latinos living in the city, both documented and undocumented.

 

[radiojomo]

Then whoever released it has a horrible sense of timing. It will be "old news" by the time mayoral elections come up again.

Maybe not with mail-in ballots? I just got mine yesterday and I live in OC. Not sure how many will fill them out this early, however..

 

[DavidEduardo]

David, Do undocumented Americans get to vote in Mexico? What about Ecuador?

Nowhere. In Colombia there are nearly 9 million undocumented Venezuelans, and they can't vote either.

Edit: I read too fast, I see you already answered regarding Ecuador above. From your post you seem to imply the same for Mexico too

Very few US journalists understand that citizenship and nationality are separate concepts in Mexico.

In general terms, Mexican nationality is based on both the principle of jus soli and the principle of jus sanguinis. The Mexican constitution also makes a distinction between nationals of Mexico and citizens of Mexico. The legal means to acquire nationality and formal membership in a nation differ from the relationship of rights and obligations between a national and the nation, known as citizenship

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_nationality_law)

Here is "nationality" defined in Mexico:

As in most other countries in the Americas, Mexican law differentiates between nationality and citizenship. Nationality is the attribute of the person in international law that describes their relationship to the State, whereas citizenship is given to those nationals (those who hold Mexican nationality) who have certain rights and responsibilities before the State. The 34th article of the Mexican constitution establishes that Mexican citizens are those Mexican [nationals] who are 18 years of age or older, and who have an "honest way of living". Mexican citizens have these rights:

• vote in all elections;
• be elected in all elections
• gather or associate freely to participate in the political affairs of the nation;
• enlist in the Mexican Army or the Mexican National Guard to defend the Republic and its institutions, and
• exercise the right of petition.

 

[DavidEduardo]

The point I was trying to make was this: The Latino representation on the LA City Council is so disproportionate to the number of Latinos living in the city, both documented and undocumented.

Correct. Logically, half the council members should be Hispanic. But logic and politics make strange bedfellows.

 

[Yabadabado1]

So, if I'm getting this right.....if they're here in the USA illegally, they can't even apply for citizenship, probably for fear of getting deported? I would say if they are here legally and are upset about representation on various city government bodies then it would behoove them to become American citizens so they CAN vote and change that. My great-grandparents didn't come over here and demand that everyone start speaking Gaelic or Russian to appease them. They studied hard, learned the language and became American citizens. Matter of fact, a lot of kids I knew back in the 80s had grandparents and parents that were able to escape Nazi Germany and they wasted no time in becoming American citizens.