Hannity’s War On Spring Break (or Freedom To Have Fun)

Hannity Spring BreakThe purpose of Sean Hannity’s War On Spring Break baffles me because his shaming of kids having fun sounds sort of…Nanny State-ish…does it not?

Now, I could be cynical and say that Hannity really doesn’t care what happens during Spring Break, but it does give his show a chance to act outraged while simultaneously showing constant images of bikini-clad college coeds. But remember, we’re outraged!

Here’s one of Hannity’s tweets on his Spring Break coverage:

To which I responded:

And here’s another response to another one of Hannity’s tweets on the subject:

I then received a predictable response proclaiming that today’s kids are behaving far worse than recent generations: 

These blanket admonitions are the type of comments that truly rile me up!

I despise the, “In my day, life was totally awesome, and filled with nothing but candy canes and unicorns” statements. How soon people forget.

As you can see for yourself, I take Mr. Harader to task for such a ridiculous comment. How can someone say kids are acting more irresponsible today than ever before? Seriously, the Rolling 20’s didn’t put shockwaves into the social norms America, and the rest of the civilized world? Are we going to say the 1960’s were exactly like The Donna Reed Show? Can someone argue with a straight face the 70’s were docile and tame? If so, then what were all of those Cheech & Chong movies trying to convey? How to drive safe when your car is filled with smoke? While Nancy Reagan told Americans to just say no in the 80’s, many were saying yes to all kinds of debauchery and songs by Men Without Hats! And, though I’m nostalgic about my 90’s, trust me, just watch the videos from Woodstock ’99, and tell me if things are worse today than they were then.

College students acting crazy for a week in their lives isn’t new, and it’s never going away. If they’re old enough to fight wars, then they earned the right to have fun.

And this is coming from a person who never attended a Spring Break party! No, I’m not bitter at all!

If there’s something that 20 year olds are going to tune-out, believe me, it’s going to be older and out-of-touch cable personalities begrudging them their American right to party.

That’s not to say there aren’t idiots in the crowd who will do some downright stupid things. Of course, there will always be those people. Just look at Donald Trump.

The libertarian streak in me says, however, that you’ve got to let adults be adults.

George Harrison once said something to the effect that through experience we gain knowledge. Those experiences come in all kinds of different forms in different stages of life. Sometimes, letting your guard down for a week is just one of those experiences Americans should cherish.

I knew plenty of college students who simply went home during their Spring Breaks. I knew some who did alternate spring break activities, like building or repairing homes, for example.

The point is we all have the right to make a choice. That’s what being an American is all about, right?

Shaming girls for being drunk while wearing bikinis, while showing said girls on a non-stop video loop, is sad and hypocritical for Hannity and his anti-Spring Breakers. Think about it: What would Hannity do without Spring Break? He’s making money by exploiting his fellow Americans for having fun, which is the real outrage.

Besides, judging from statistics, Southern conservatives probably aren’t all that mad since they’re most likely to order subscriptions for Playboy and other publications of the kind.

For the articles, of course.

Here’s a clip from Hannity’s “expose” I just had to share. The male panelist believes that we should tell girls they’re weak. That’s wise. Then, after a little arguing, the entire panel agrees that Spring Break should be “shut down.”

Why in the world would they want to hurt Spring Break towns and cities’ ability to conduct commerce? We’re talking big money, here, and anti-Spring Break advocates want to interfere with the free market!

[email protected]

Wednesday Indie Music Day–Speedy Ortiz


Like this week’s Monday Music Minute, the Indie Music Day pick is also a day late. Illness, work, and daily life are all to blame! There’s not enough time in the day, I tell ya!

On last week’s First Day, I played Speedy Ortiz for the very first time. I’ve always been intrigued by this Massachusetts band’s sound, and I just had to air a portion of “Raising the Skate” from their sophomore album, Foil Deer. There’s something of a 90’s sound to this song, which explains why it hit a chord with me maybe.

Just remember, Sadie Dupuis is not bossy, she’s the boss!

To learn more visit their website, Facebook, and Sadie’s twitter page, if you wish.


Monday Music Minute (Belated)–Jay Webber


Caught a bit of a bug over the past weekend, so I’m a day late posting the Monday Music Minute.

This week’s song comes courtesy of my First Day show cohort, Michael Percha. On the show last Sunday, Michael highlighted a song from Michigan native/singer-songwriter, Jay Webber. Click the link below to hear Michael’s intro for Jay’s lovely song from Innocent Child called, “Little Town.” It’s a nice folky/jazzy tune, and I thank Michael for sharing it with us and the rest of the WSGW audience!

To hear more of Jay’s stuff, please visit his website, Facebook page, and don’t forget to check-out iTunes to hear Jay perform a variety songs live, including “Little Town.”

Monday Music Minute with Michael Percha–“Little Town” by Jay Webber.

[email protected]


Rock On Friday–Nu Shooz


Yes, I liked a lot of 80’s pop, and I’m not ashamed to admit it!

I did admit to the First Day audience last Sunday on how I so loved “I Can’t Wait” by Nu Shooz when I was a kid 1986, and continue to love it to this very day.

Perhaps it’s nostalgia. Perhaps it’s Valerie Day’s voice. Perhaps it’s her husband’s 70’s R&B style rhythm guitar work. Perhaps it’s just a song that lyrically and musically reached me. There’s sometimes no explanation as to why certain songs reach us.

Here they are performing “I Can’t Wait” on Solid Gold. The video quality isn’t the best, but you get to see Nu Shooz on the stage some 30 years ago! Gotta love 80’s fashion.

Here’s something cool. I found this video of Valerie and John Smith performing “I Can’t Wait” in 2013. It sounds like the crowd is into it, and why wouldn’t they be?!?!

It Rocks!

[email protected]

Stephen A. Smith–Stick To Sports


You can hear today’s “Pat Political Point” from WSGW’s First Day in which I took ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith to task for failing to understand basic American history. The transcript is below the fold.

Pat Political Point from the 3/22/15 edition of WSGW’s “First Day.” Response To Stephen A. Smith


ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith knows how to make news, I’ll give him that.

In an effort to show he’s his own man and doesn’t follow the heard, Smith made some remarks at some symposium recently, in which he berates African Americans for voting heavily Democratic for the past five decades.

According to Smith, there’s a solution:

“What I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican,”

As you can hear below, Smith gives a shoddy history lesson as to why blacks flocked to the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights legislation was signed into law in 1964:

From what I’ve read, Barry Goldwater is going against Lyndon B. Johnson. He’s your Republican candidate; he is completely against the civil rights movement. Lyndon B. Johnson was in favor of it — civil rights legislation. What happens is, he wins office, Barry Goldwater loses office, but there was a Senate, a Republican Senate, that pushed the votes to the president’s desk. It was the Democrats who were against civil rights legislation — the southern Dixiecrats. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it.

Ummmm….YES!!! That’s exactly why black America became solid Democratic Party voters, Stephen! Not only did LBJ sign the bill into law, but voters also remembered who pushed the legislation in the first place: JFK!

Let’s face it, Johnson used the ghost of John F. Kennedy to push the Civil Rights Act into law. Kennedy became the symbol of the bill, which thereby forever connected the Democratic Party to the bill itself!

Stephen A. Smith is also incorrect when he says the Senate was in Republican hands. Not true. Now, he’s not completely wrong in saying Southern Dixiecrats fought the bill. They most definitely did.

However, as Dave Weigel astutely points-out, opposition to the Civil Rights Bill depended more on geography rather than on party:

But the Democratic Party of 1964 was still the party of the South. As Harry Enten helpfully demonstrated, in 2013, the division on the Civil Rights Act wasn’t between the parties. It was between Southerners and Northerners. All but one Democrat from a northern state—West Virginia Robert Byrd, who served until his death in 2010—voted for the act. All but one Southern Democrat voted against it. Every single Southern Republican opposed the act; 27 of 32 northern Republicans voted for it.

And Weigel notes that with the Democratic Party landslide of ’64 (again, thanks to the Ghost of JFK), many Democrats defeated northern Republicans:

The Democratic landslide of 1964 wiped out some of the northern Republicans, replacing them with Democrats who voted for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Only two Republicans voted against that bill—a better ratio than the Civil Rights Act had brought about. One of them was South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who’d left the Democratic Party for the GOP in September 1964, partly out of protest over—yes—the Civil Rights Act.

See, the Dixiecrats left the Democrats and flocked to the GOP, and so did their voters. That’s why the South has been difficult for Democrats since 1964.

Even LBJ predicted the hardship Democrats would face for the next 50 years after he signed the bill into law. Why? Because Democrats would forever be linked to the Civil Rights Act!!!

While I don’t necessarily disagree that groups should be monolithic in their voting behaviors, the history kind of explains why blacks tend not to favor the GOP.

It’s a history that Stephen A. Smith apparently doesn’t understand exists.

That wasn’t the point, I guess. The point was for Smith to go viral with his statements, and to have people like me debate his points.

In that area, Huzzah, Mr. Smith!

Listen to Smith’s comments below:

[email protected]

Where Libertarianism Goes Wrong

officialsOn face value, I can see why a person should be allowed to buy tickets to a ballgame or concert, and resell them at a higher price to another customer if they wish.

After all, it’s your property. If you want to sell tickets for a more expensive price, a cheaper price, or just give them away for free, you should have that right.

It’s an argument I sympathize with, which accounts for my ambiguous feelings around this new proposal in the Michigan legislature:

Selling your tickets to sporting or entertainment events for more than face value would no longer be illegal under a bill that passed a state House committee Tuesday morning.

The bill — HB 4015 — was resurrected after failing to gain traction in the Legislature last year. It passed on a straight party-line vote of 5-3.

Ticket resellers, like Stub Hub and Neal Brand, an attorney from Southfield and CEO of USA Entertainment, supported the bill, saying it should be a fundamental right for people to sell their tickets at whatever price they can get.

Okay, this sounds reasonable enough.

Until you read further down The Detroit Free Press article, and understand why people like the Dow Event Center’s Matt Blasy have strong objections to the bill. Ticket scalpers can bulk purchase tickets, and then jack-up the prices when they try to re-sell them.

“This bill will make a bad situation even worse,” he said. Scalpers using banks of computers try to purchase all the tickets and then list them at incredibly inflated prices.”

That’s a problem, and perhaps supporters of this bill should ponder this inevitable result.

Scalping will persist with or without this bill, but at least a law is on the books to punish those caught trying to hurt others.

And that’s where libertarians sometimes lose me. They don’t want a referee in the game. They just want a free-for-all in the marketplace with very little supervision. That kind of environment gives power to the very few while everyone else is left-out in the wind.

As a fan of sports (and a former little league referee), I like having officials at games. Sure, like government, sports officials get things wrong from time-to-time. Detroit Lions fans know what I’m talking about! Yet for whatever calls they get wrong on a nightly basis, officials provide order to games. A free-for-all sounds fun, but the results are disastrous.

I think I just decided I’m against this bill.

[email protected]