How To Use Toilet Paper

Stop Clogging Up that Hole, America

Bobbie L. Washington

Just now·4 min read

You probably heard of the expression “I learned something new every day”. It’s been around for a long time and the origin of the phrase remains a mystery. So, what have I learned today? That toilet paper has no instructions. I kid you not. Go take a look at any toilet tissue package and you won’t find any. Toilet paper was patented in the United States starting in1883 and has been around in China since the dawn of the 6th Century. With that sort of history, you’d think that there was some sort of instructions to use it. Alas, this isn’t the case.

Our knowledge and use of toilet paper have been passed down from generation to generation with no clue as to how to dispense of this flimsy instrument. 2020 has been a bell-weather event when it comes to toilet paper. During the COVID pandemic, people started hoarding the product to the point that purchase limits were placed on the products. That was because there weren’t any instructions used in the administering of toilet paper. It’s a product that constantly gets overused but I’m here to instruct you on the correct way to use toilet paper after years of going at it alone. So, here goes.

For the purpose of these instructions, certain parameters must be stipulated. The first one is that we must be using two-ply toilet paper. You can’t use any single-ply toilet paper because the process won’t adequately cover the affected area. The second stipulation is that the two-ply toilet paper must have perforated edges and be of standard width and a standard toilet roll. If you have the standard roll, you’re ready for your instructions.

When you use your brand new roll of toilet paper, don’t just tear into the roll. It’s a precious commodity. Carefully peel back the layer that’s adhered to the roll. Once you’ve successfully done that, carefully tear off two sheets at a time until you have pulled four sets of 2 sheets each. Next, I want you to fold the two sheets over to the other sheet. You should be now looking at a stack of four sets of two. You are now ready to use the toilet paper.

The second stage is the usage part of the process. As with the first phase, there are stipulations involved in this process. The first stipulation is that you must not have diarrhea. Diarrhea, also known as the squirts, the trots, poot juice, the Brie Larsons, the angry corn-holio, the taco bell special, is a heavy toilet paper user. The second stipulation is that you must have a regular diet because your “product” must have the consistency of peanut butter on a good day. If your product is a little bit harder and you’re putting out what is commonly referred to as the dingle-berries, eat more vegetables. Let’s start wiping, shall we?

Take one of the two-ply stacks and bend over to a 90-degree angle. Your body should be parallel to the floor. In this position, you should be fully accessible and ready to meet the toilet paper. Take the toilet paper and wipe it only once and discard the first stack. You may look at it for consistency and for health reasons as well. Make sure no blood is in your “product”. Now take the second stack and repeat the process but with this second stack, you’re going to fold it and use it one more time. Discard this and repeat again for the third and fourth stacks by repeating step two. By then, you should have completed the process. If you feel like the process hasn’t adequately satisfied your needs, you can easily pull off two more squares, and that all depends on what you’ve eaten but four stacks on average usually can handle an event.

But what about toilet paper like the ones in Walmart where they use those industrial toilet paper with no perforations? What do we do, Bobbie, what do we do? Well, you pull of segments that should be the length coming from your wrist to the tips of your longest finger. Pull off five sheets and do the same processing technique. If everyone would do this, there wouldn’t be a need to horde toilet paper, toilet bowls need not be clogged with excessive toilet paper, and plumber’s butt crack can be reduced to a minimum. Can we do this America? Can we do this, the world? Teach your children how to use toilet paper properly, your toilet bowl would greatly appreciate it.

WRITTEN BY

Bobbie L. Washington

Architectural Designer, Writer, Music Composer, Photographer, Film Editor, Project Manager, Producer, Director

Chidi & Eleanor & Love in The Forever After

 

Donald Trump Lost to The Most Powerful Political Party: The Journalism Party

Perhaps it was inevitable perhaps it was fate, perhaps it was the perfect storm. Whatever the reasons, it was not meant to be for Donald Trump to have a second term in office. Prior to the pre-pandemic days, the economy was very healthy and robust, no new wars were started, unemployment figures were all at an all-time low across every demographic were just some of the accomplishments thanks to the leadership of Donald Trump. But you wouldn’t know that in these last four years with him as president. During his term, there were very few positive things written or spoken about Donald J. Trump. Why was that?

From the very moment, Donald Trump came down his escalator at Trump Tower and threw his hat in the ring for President of these United States, his campaign was already being criticized as a joke by journalist and political pundits. Many saw him as a “one and done” candidate with no prospects of reaching the prize. As the 2016 campaign rolled on and Trump emerged the victor, the idea of him becoming president was even more ludicrous to many as he was going up against the formidable Hillary “Rottweiler” Clinton. Clinton had been anointed president-elect early on in the contest. They had already measured her crown as the winner. A lot of that foregone conclusion was due in part to some old skeletons in Donald Trump’s closet that came calling. A pornstar, an old interview talking about grabbing women by the pussy, his taxes, were enough to sink any other candidate but Trump never bowed his head or had any shame that would destroy any other candidate. We all remember the fate of the Senator, Gary Hart, campaign and his subsequent demise from the 1988 Democratic presidential candidacy. The level of standards to prove an allegation was much lower during that time. The journalist didn’t need verification of a story as they claim with the Hunter Biden allegations. No, just a rumor was all that was needed to crush a person’s political ambitions.

Senator John Edwards (D) also had his scandal during his 2008 run for the presidency when it was revealed that he had fathered a child outside of his marriage. The story originated for a tabloid newspaper found in the checkout lines of the grocery stores. The National Enquirer broke the story of John Edwards’ affair but it wasn’t taken seriously because of the source, a tabloid newspaper. As the layers kept peeling back, the story had merit and the mainstream media was forced to cover it. You could feel the reluctance of reporting the story mainly because of the political leanings in journalism. John Edwards was the golden boy, the heir apparent to be president. It was too bad that he cheated on his terminally ill wife and he couldn’t keep his dick in his pants as the media elites couldn’t crown him the next best thing.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, persevered in spite of himself. On election night four years ago, he emerged as the victor to the presidency. At that moment, shock from the political pundits and journalists were beside themselves seething with rampant vitriol. Donald Trump was their rabies as they foamed at the mouth. How could he, of all people, be president? This wasn’t the playbook that was scripted. Hillary was supposed to be THE president. She was history in the making.

Instead, the knives came out for Trump on that very night. As I watched, NBC News correspondent, Richard Engle began suffering from Chicken Little syndrome. He started prognosticating that the world will burn up under Trump in the direst situations. On CBS, the same atmosphere was prevailing with the Trump victory. We were doomed and the planet would burn in hellfire for the next four years. At that moment, a new playbook was formed and that was to make Trump’s first four years in office as unpleasant as possible. Trump would quickly discover that the Journalism Party would be his worst opponent that he would ever face in politics.

To describe Trump’s relationship with the mainstream media is beyond antagonistic. What started off as small skirmishes with the media quickly grew to outright hatred towards Donald Trump. There was no coloring between the lines. The media outright hated Donald Trump. Trump’s character was that if they bite him, he was going to bite back. Calling journalism fake news didn’t swallow easily with the media. Known for attacking politicians without any push-back was a normal process for the media. They had the last word on everything. Trump, however, wasn’t going to play their game. He had a Twitter account and was using it without a filter. He called out those who would attack him. Sometimes you wished that he could have used some discipline with Twitter but as he kept using it, some of those comments started to land hard on the media.

These seasoned journalists were hitting back at Trump and him hitting back at them felt like this was a stupid middle school fight with no settlement. Some rumors about Trump and his business dealings still had not died away and then the Russia collusion hoax instituted by Hillary Clinton to derail his administration came rumbling in at a taxpayer tune of $40 million only for it to come to the conclusion that there was no Russian collusion. The media didn’t do any vetting or verification at all like they are claiming now and swallowed that dick of a story whole. They went with it as if there was some proof but as the hoax started to unravel, there were a lot of Democratic players mixing the soup of deceit with the collusion narrative. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow went with the narrative and exploited the story throughout for months and in the end, had nothing to show for it except her credibility to report honestly and without any bias.

But bias seems to be the order of the day with the journalist as they went about in reporting on the White House and Donald Trump. In her daily briefing with the White House news pool, Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, had many a contentious verbal exchange for a litany of reporters. In one of several exchanges with CBS reporter, Paula Reid, Reid quoted back something President Trump had said but she had truncated the statement that gave the impression that he had implied something completely different but when McEnany asked where was the rest of the statement, Paula Reid said, “That’s all they gave me.” McEnany gave her the rest of the quote as Reid sat there with egg on her face. McEnany gave it back to the news pool with her binder full of incidents where the media failed to live up to its obligation of reporting fairness but what she also did was pissed them off and thus made her their enemy and for associating with Trump. This wasn’t the first time statements have been redacted from reporting. NBC’s Chuck Todd of Meet The Press ran an interview clip from a CBS 60 Minutes interview on Attorney General, Bill Barr. He truncated the interview that gave the impression that Bill Barr implied something totally different. Todd is supposed to be an experienced journalist but feigned ignorance as to what happened and issued an apology. But these types of errant reporting and subsequent retractions never hit the front pages or the top of the headlines. Once they are out there, the public has to digest it and suffer through the deceit as if it is the gospel. The journalism tree has born plenty of bad fruit these past four years.

It’s very obvious to many that the news outlets have been in the hunt for Trump even in sit-down interviews. Trump’s last contentious interview was with 60 Minutes with Lesley Stahl. It seems as if Trump had had enough of the sit-downs as they had become increasingly contentious because they became eventual hit pieces of things that he already had said or the meaning and intent behind what he did say. Even the questions that were being asked had a tone with it. That tone was more in an accusatory manner. His town hall meeting with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie was nothing more than an interrogation from Guthrie for the first twenty minutes. Joe Biden, over on ABC, has being lobbed the grandpa underhanded pitch at five miles per hour. It was smart on his handlers’ part to keep his campaign in the basement and avoid the looming scandal that was dogging him. Suffice it to say, the scandal wasn’t given any traction as the Journalism Party chose not to pursue it by now wanting to vet the story but they were conveniently absent for vetting during the Russian collusion hoax. Let us not forget the impeachment fiasco Nancy Pelosi instituted under the most circumspect rationale.

Now all of that evaporates with Biden in office. I think after the first year that there will be a buyer's remorse when it comes to Joe Biden. He never was hit when any hard questions and when he did, he refused to answer them and instead used Trump as the enemy that we needed to fear. He ran on the fear campaign with his three minutes press briefings. For him, social distancing was an advantage. He had enough space to escape questions from some of the press that wasn’t subscribing to the Journalism Party. Those with the hard questions were a whole team of one.

Joe Biden has inherited the moniker of questionably being duly-elected because of the voting irregularities coming from several states. Numbers in favor of Trump were bestowed to Biden. Ballots coming in after the deadline supposedly were physically stamped with a postmark of the previous day. None of the allegations are going to go away from the 70 million who voted for Trump. Biden received votes from people who were not supporting him but supporting the idea of voting Trump out of office. Herman Munster could have received the Democratic nomination and won because he wasn’t Trump. The Journalism Party ignored Biden’s gaffes and verbal stammering where it seems as if they had abdicated their duties and responsibilities as keepers of the credo to freedom of the press.

If there was any collusion going on, it has been media collusion with the Journalism Party. Twitter and Facebook conspired to squash the Hunter Biden story. None of the major networks and CNN would discuss the story and go with the narrative of the Russian disinformation smear campaign from people who never saw the documents. A lot of people have stopped listening to the news from the network of late. Many are getting their opinions from YouTube and from other voices like Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, and Tim Pool to name a few. Their political opinions have been spot on with more concise reporting than the major networks and without any bias. I personally have stopped listening to the networks as it became clear that they were being selective in their reporting. It was as if they were surgeons selectively cutting out the good things Trump had done and just reporting things that they perceived as questionable or unethical. I was listening to NPR News one day and there was a Trump story where they only mentioned half of the reporting and there I was yelling at the radio because the selectively left off the part that would have added context to the story. They have lost me as a listener. How much coverage was given to Trump on the peace initiative he performed with Saudi Arabia and Israel and others? How much coverage was given to Trump on the renegotiated NAFTA trade policy? Where was the coverage on him permanently funding historically black colleges?

The Journalism Party won this but what have you wroth in elevating Biden to the highest office in the land? Like Trump said, “Joe, you’ve been in office for 50 years. What have you done?”

 

Film Review: Antebellum

The Horror is That There is No Horror Just Pretentious Wokeness

As a declaration, I had grown weary of movies involving slavery, and seeing another black woman wearing that red pattern scarf on her head just didn’t excite me. Movies about slavery is a no-go. Halle Berry played one wearing the requisite scarf and I didn’t like it. I refused to watch 12 Years of Slave because how many times can you keep telling a variation of the same story? I placed those feelings aside and decided to check out Antebellum based on how it was promoted. The trailer showed promise of something different with the genre. It hinted that it would be something on the horror spectrum. Little did I realize that this would become something of a very false narrative.

Lionsgate’s Antebellum opens up with a moving shot of some plantation filled with slave quarters. I would have to give credit to the location scout for finding some very realistic slave quarters even if they are refurbished and restored to their past horror. We see what amounts to life on a southern plantation that’s being held in the custody of confederate soldiers along with the madam of the plantation, Elizabeth, played wickedly by Jena Malone, and her young no-name daughter played by Arabella Landrum. Most of the events in this scene is typical slavery action of them recovering a runaway slave and that aftermath. In this mashup of action is Veronica / Eden, played by Janelle Monáe. You can hardly recognize her as she is not lighted properly in these initial scenes.

As this scene continues, you as the viewer are trying to figure out what is going on, and did they cut out some scenes to jump to this point? It seems like we have just dropped into the middle of a scene without any context as to how we got to this point. It’s confusing as you question the ability to comprehend. Your only obligation is just to sit back and wait for some sort of transition to take place and after 39 minutes, you finally get the overdue shift in the storyline.

Veronica/Eden wakes up from a sound sleep next to her husband. Was this a dream? The directors and writers are playing fast and loose with the story and with you. They misdirect and lays out false premises to the story. In this particular story arc, we get to know more about Veronica/Eden. Veronica is a Ph.D. doctor whose life is surrounded by the trappings of someone with class and distinction that comes with the accolades of having a professional and successful career. She has a daughter who comes attired with the finer things a kid blessed with having parents who are successful.

As the layers unfold surrounding Veronica’s life, we slowly come to the conclusion that Veronica is a pretentious snob that she wears like a badge of honor. Everything that she does, everything that she speaks, everything that she wears permeates with the stench of fame, money, clout, prestige, privilege, and hubris that she is totally oblivious to. All of this is amplified by her friend, Dawn, played by Gabourey Sidibe. With these two women in the room, they suck all of the air out of the room with their snobbery. If this was a movie about the ugliness of people’s souls, it would have been a better exploration into horror as these two did not fare well in the realm of likable characters. Dawn berates an admirer at a restaurant that is so devastating that you felt empathy for the guy who had to stand there and get a dressing down from this woman because he sent a drink over to her only to get verbally humiliated by the Sidibe character.

At this point, you have no investment in Veronica and Dawn to root for. Early on, Veronica was speaking at a symposium and it was just boilerplate black talking points with put-downs on the patriarchy. There was nothing new here nor any sort of twist on the tired rhetoric heard so many times by so-called Black Lives Matter talking heads. As with a lot of movies with female leads in these last few months, the demon of wokeness rears its ugly head once again. It’s gotten very tiresome as many film-goers have gotten tired of what they’ve been seeing. At some point in time, we will look back at this time and examine the impact woke culture has done to the film industry and to the financial bottom line. It seems as if the directors and writers still haven’t learned a thing after seeing what happened with Terminator: Dark Fate, Birds of Prey, and Charlie’s Angel, to name a few. We’re at the 2/3’s mark at this point and the writers and directors have decided to let us in on the story.

You see, this isn’t a horror story at all. It’s a kidnapping story. The directors and writers have played a game of three-card Monty, a shell game of where is the pebble? It’s not all about racism, it’s about a class system masquerading as racism and it definitely not a horror film. The trailer where we see a figure walking in a reverse crab position was actually Veronica escaping her captor. The culmination of the ending is typical and unremarkable. At this point, you still don’t have any feelings to root for Veronica. She’s an empty unsympathetic character through and through. She eludes her captors, she somehow doesn’t get struck by any of the bullets being shot by an automatic weapon. The biggest target they could have hit was the horse she was riding on and they failed to do that. By the way, Veronica is an accomplished equestrian based on the photos of her in full dressage competition, how Mary Sue of her.

I have to give it to the directors, you made a trailer that enticed your audience to check it out but you failed in the product. I should have gone with my first instinct and avoided the film based on the premise. Shame on me.

 

Netflix’s Cuties is Lost in Translation

The Controversy is Well Earned

I went in watching Netflix’s Cuties, also known as Mignonnes, giving it ample room to not prejudge it as it swirled with controversy over the claims of sexualizing children. The film, directed by Maïmouna Doucouré, is a tale of a young Muslim girl who becomes envious of a group of her school friends who’s commonality is provocative dancing. Oh, and the girls are 11-year-old’s. On a whole, the film is not that remarkable. It’s a typical family that happens to be Muslim. They have similar problems compared to anyone else’s family living with preadolescent pubescent children. It’s a slow film.

As I kept watching it, I waited for any signs of controversy and it slowly walked into the scene in the form of one of the young actress who wears the glasses. I can’t give you a name as they are not household names. Anyway, the glasses-wearing girl saunters onto the school playground wearing a very tight red dress and, I guess, crop-top piece. Again, she’s 11 years old. This is a French film so perhaps the dress standards for preadolescent girls are less restrictive for school attire as she was not the only girl wearing a tight-fitting dress. Her close friends were also wearing tight-fitting clothing and with one, a very short miniskirt. So now, the plot of the film has shifted and you’re drawn away from that and unto what these preteens are doing and it’s just worthless immaturity.

The film is now about the girls' objective of entering a dance competition. Getting to that point is a questionable task filled with the young girls watching another girl dance troupe that contains a bit of nudity. Again, since this is a French film, exposing children to nudity may be okay to do. Here in America, they do careful editing to give the illusion of exposing children to dangerous or questionable elements. As far as I know, this scene could have been implied. But there was a scene where the lead actress was on a toilet and she’s using it and goes through the motion cleaning herself. I’ve seen adults do this but not children.

As you continue to watch this, you know have lost all interest in the main subject of the girl’s struggle to conform with her Muslim tradition while trying to appease her newfound friends and practicing for the dance competition. The lead actress steals a phone and she uses it to talk to glasses and look up videos of strippers performing. She uses those images that inspire her to mimic the stripper’s move and she incorporates that into their routine. The moves are highly suggestive and yes, inappropriate for 11-year-old girls to be performing. There is also one scene where the girls are dancing in front of two men very provocatively and it is here where you can fully understand the controversy because they are 11-year-old girls. These young girls aren’t just twerking, they are simulating sexual intercourse and rubbing their hands on the butts and genital areas.

I understand this film has won some sort of award and the actress, Tessa Thompson, has come to the defense of the film and the director because she’s a black woman. Just because she’s black doesn’t make her work immune from criticism and it doesn’t make the film in any shape or form to be avant-garde. Cuties are not any of this, it’s a wet dream for only one kind of person, let’s call them Epstein-steins, yeah, that dreaded monster, an Epstein-stein. This film is nothing more than a child exploitation film. You would figure that since a woman directed this that she would have brought a sense of sensibility to the film but there are female Epstein-steins out there too.

The lead actress does the ultimate Epstein-stein move as the director films her to remove her pants and then her underwear and photographs her genitals and send that photo out to everyone. Was this necessary? There are no consequences for this action, she gets chastised at her school but she seems not to care. Her mother finds out and again, she slips out and goes to the competition. She shoves her adversary into a canal and makes her way to the competition where she and the three remaining girls do the stripper routine and the director shoots close-up shots of the girl's crotch and butts. Okay, this is enough. I’ve sat through this thing and found no redeeming values with this. Netflix made a huge mistake in buying this and airing this. People have discontinued their subscription because of this film. Why the hardheads, Netflix? Why make your subscribers choose between this Epstein-stein flick and Stranger Things? Your stock took a big hit behind this film. You have a huge black eye behind this. You are going to have to do something to get those subscribers back and, more importantly, you need to listen to your subscribers,. They had given you fair warning of their intent to end their subscription if you went ahead and show this Epstein-stein film.

Films are supposed to entertain, to inspire, to make you smile. This film just left you disturbed. There was a film, another French film, that had an 11-year-old and a 13-year-old girl in it and one teen boy. The name of the film shall remain nameless as it to was controversial as these girls went full nude. One of the girl’s mother had photographed her in nude and semi-nude poses as she was still young. Years later, the woman has made claims that her mother took advantage of her along with other allegations. I wonder if Epstein-steins like France?

NASA Thinks It’s A Good Idea To Bring Alien Life Back from Mars

I’ve Seen That Movie and I say, OH HELL NO!

NASA has launched it’s the latest mission to Mars. The expedition is called Mars 202 Perseverance and its objective is to return to the Red Planet d search for signs of life, ancient or otherwise, collect it and somehow return to earth with it. There has been a lot of hoopla surrounding this declaration from many in the egghead community of scientists and the nerd world. The excitement is nearly palpable. This mission will introduce a new piece of hardware into the exploration of the surface of the planet. There will be the Mars Helicopter making aerial maneuvers for a wider view to the surface that the Mars Rover could not accomplish. The Perseverance rover has better state-of-the-art technology for exploration of the Jezero Crater and a long-dormant lake bed on the surface of the planet. It will be able to bore into the surface with better proficiency algorithms. It is NASA’s contentions of finding any signs of life, collect it, and return it back to earth. While this may be a scientifically genius of an idea, I would ask, has anyone ask this question, “What if we bring back something that will wipe out life on this planet?”

If Mars had life, what caused it to disappear? Most kids and some adults have envisioned themselves taking the helm of some version of a starship exploring the stars. It’s a healthy avocation to dream in such grandeur while remaining earthbound. We envision being James T. Kirk, discovering new planets and new civilizations. But James T. Kirk’s star trek had protocols in place when it came to not interfering with civilizations that were not technologically advanced in order for them to avoid upsetting their own pace into advancing their civilization.

I don’t know if NASA has any policy or procedure when it comes to them removing signs of life from another planet? If I were on a starship and I came across any lifeforms, living or dead, one of my top ten protocols would be to keep those particular lifeforms, living or dead, on that planet and not introduce it into earth’s atmosphere.

When NASA brings back whatever sample they discover, are there any protocols to keep that sample quarantine for the duration it’s in this atmosphere? They know nothing of what this sample may contain. Would it by a biological threat or not? If they want to witness what an agent that so far can’t be contained, they should take a closer look at what COVID-19 is doing to this planet. As of this writing, there are over 18 million with the contagion and over 671,000 deaths with no signs of abating.

Who’s bright idea was this to bring back Mars samples in the first place? Who was the deciding factor in greenlighting this? It’s not just the NASA took an action that is beyond the scope of their decision making prowess, it’s a decision that should have been made by a committee of an across the board panel of people from all walks of life and by other countries as well. NASA is wanting to bring an alien to this planet and we’re cool with this? NASA is not an autonomous body. It’s a government agency spending billions of dollars on taxpayers' monies on space travel, space stations, shuttles, satellites, etc. Now they want life from Mars. Shouldn’t we get a vote on this because this is really important? Somewhere in the national election, there should have been a referendum on whether or not we should bring back any life from Mars.

It seems as if I’ve seen this movie before with some thick-as-a-brick, arrogant, hardheaded, pompous, asshole of a scientist who is hellbent on ignoring opposing facts, the science or anything else that tells him (it’s always a man) that his science is flawed and should not be attempted. But the knucklehead obfuscates, cajole, lie and does the unthinkable and gets the project off only to find that his bullheaded logic was flawed and now the whole planet is doomed.

We’ve seen this before in countless TV and movies. The X-Files covered the subject of alien parasites. Of course who could forget Alien and the sequels. That would be my second protocol should we land on an alien planet. Do not go near any plants that open up when you get near it and don’t just stand there waiting for something to happen because if you come back with something that has eaten through your spacesuit and is stuck on your face, neck, back or any part of your human anatomy, your ass will be left behind.

Is it too late to stop this particular option of bringing back alien life from another planet? Should we consider initiated certain protocols that could easily affect things on Earth? Should NASA not take it upon itself to make decisions of this nature that could have an impact on more than just the United States but also having an impact on a global spectrum?

Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate at the agency’s headquarters in Washington has stated that “Perseverance is going to make discoveries that cause us to rethink our questions about what Mars was like and how we understand it today. As our instruments investigate rocks along an ancient lake bottom and select samples to return to Earth, we may very well be reaching back in time to get the information scientists to need to say that life has existed elsewhere in the universe.” That may be all well and good but when your face is slowly being melted off, the last thing you are thinking about is rethinking about where we are in the universe, your face is melting thanks to a Mars alien spore.

Mars has been there for billions of years. Our puny understanding of Mars is like being on the scale of a 1,000-year-old Sequoia tree and a seedling. We’re the seedling of limited knowledge. These NASA scientists are talking about converting Martian carbon dioxide into oxygen. I believe that was an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, Total Recall, where they worked on Mars and didn’t know that an ancient civilization had machines that could convert the atmosphere into breathable air. It seems as if NASA is starting to believe in science fiction than scientific facts. There is the old saying that you must learn to crawl before you walk. Well, we’re not even in the crawling phase as yet. We’re still in the Fallopian tube traveling down the canal waiting to get introduced to the sperm but wait, there some sort of sheath preventing the sperm from reaching that egg of knowledge. We’re not ready for that journey, it’s still too far away. We still haven’t mastered the speed of light yet and until we do, let’s leave the alien life resting comfortably on their home planet.

Netflix’s Warrior Nun Is Pretending to Be a Lukewarm CW Show

It Never Rises to The Level of Its Own Derivative Cliches

Sometimes Netflix can give us some movies and TV shows that keep us enthralled from the moment it presses play. We love Lucifer and The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina and we stood on the edge of our sofa for Sandra Bullock’s heart pulsating movie, Bird Box. So we know Netflix can produce some hits and it can rescue some hits. Such is not the case for Warrior Nun in its first season run ten-episode premiere.

The Warrior Nun moniker sounds like it was born in the ’80s and made by the Israeli film company Golan-Globus/Cannon Group who gave us such film titles as Revenge of The Ninja, Fist to Fist, The Delta Force, Death Wish 4: The Crackdown, and Gas Pump Girls. Some of the titles sound like porn films if you’re not careful.

With Warrior Nun bestowed on this series, you’re already assuming certain things if you went by the trailer and you’d be oh so wrong. Warrior Num is a comic book adaption of Warrior Nun Areala by Ben Dunn. The trailer was presented was a deceptively insidious magic trick of the lowest order because what you saw was not what you got.

To begin with, Warrior Nun stars people whom you never heard of. The lead performer is a woman named Alba Baptista. Her character is Ava, a quadriplegic 19-year-old woman who has been in an orphanage since she was seven after she and her mother were in a car accident that left her mother dead. Ava’s first scene is that of a dead girl. Her death was attributed to suicide but we come to learn that this wasn’t the case. Her body is in the basement of a religious order. The Warrior Nuns, there is an order of them, have just returned from a battle that has left one of them, their leader, gravely injured. The Warrior Nuns are battling evil forces as they are after what they are calling, the halo of Adriel. As the contingent of evil makes their way into the inner sanctum of the church, Sister Shannon, played by Melina Matthews, carries the halo embedded in her back. As the forces move closer, Sister Shannon lay dying as Sister Beatrice, played by Kristina Tonteri-Young, comes forth with what looks like a branding iron and removes the halo from her back. She takes off with the glowing halo as it is held fast in the branding iron. A bad guy tackles her and the halo is knocked loose to the floor. He attempts to pick it up and you understand why Sister Beatrice has transported it with the branding iron. The bad guy picks up the halo and his fingers immediately dissolve.

Sister Beatrice retrieves the halo and continues her journey to the basement and places the halo in the back of dead Ava as a temporary hiding place. There are some decent fight sequences in this scene as we watch Ava flinches her way back to life. As she returns to the living, she wakes up to the battle with a newfound ability to use all four of her limbs again. So, what does she do, she takes off. Now here is where this series starts to go off the rails and I place every aspect of this derailment on the writing.

For the next four episodes, Ava is a poorly written character. In this first episode, we go along with Ava as she gives an internal monologue about what she is experiencing. For someone who has just risen from the dead and is walking around town, she is rather composed and not grasping the entirety of what just happened and why? As a viewer and a person with working common senses, the main thing you are asking yourself is that twelve years, Ava’s muscles have not worked so there should have been some serious muscle atrophy involved. She also should have had some weight loss in her legs and armed and also demonstrated some weight loss with her body and some bedsores judging by who took care of her. Ava pops up full-breasted and ready to go. We move off these glaring observations that have been overlooked or ignored and now this show has become a formulaic checklist of teenage angst issues. We see them being checked off one by one. The first checklist, the prospective love interest. Ava runs into JC, played by Emilio Sakraya, a grifter of sorts who, along with three of his friends, take up residence in luxury homes while the people are away. Ava joins JC and company as they take up residence in these people's home, wearing their clothes and eating their food. Here is where Ava is just a one-dimensional character. Her current concern is hooking up with JC. But here is the flip side of that. She’s never had a sexual experience, not even kissing, and yet this is the focus. You want to like the character but she makes it too easy not to like the character because the character is too involved with her won selfish needs to care about the ramifications of her reborn life or her absence of the quadriplegic life. She’s enjoying the lifestyle JC is giving her.

JC and company abandon her at a party they crashed and somehow, he finds her on the beach days later. That’s just too convenient and improbable to fathom.

This drawn-out exposition goes on for four episodes. There is little Warrior Nun action and when there is, it’s sparse. The saving grace in character development goes to Toya Turner who plays Shotgun Mary. Shotgun Mary is not a nun but is a warrior in her own right and knows how to use a shotgun, thus the moniker, as she does effectively on the bad guys. I would have preferred more action with her and Sister Beatrice’s fighting style. We do get to see that in later episodes but that’d short-lived. It seems as if the producers of this show were looking at the insurance premiums and deciding that it was too expensive to shoot more than two action sequences in an episode so they just brought back the drawn-out exposition thing again.

The checklist thing continues, Ava and JC have sex, and the whole “she’s a virgin” thing is never discussed. JC is never mentioned again after the demon shows up and she takes off running away again. Why did they devote so much time, emphasis, and five episodes to this character only for him the completely vanish? There is the requisite bad guys' checklist. There is the double-cross checklist. There is the “she’s a dumb as cotton candy” checklist and “she’s a naive twat” checklist as well. Overall, this felt worthy of being a CW show in the Supergirl/Batwoman vein in that it’s totally convoluted and saddled with poor writing.

To be fair, the Ava character is poorly developed. The path she takes is purely illogical. The self-narration is annoying and should be eliminated and is unnecessary. This was nothing more than a paint by numbers teen wannabe drama with nothing left in the tank. The strange thing about Warrior Nun is that it ended on a cliffhanger but after seeing these ten episodes, do I really want to make a return visit if the writing doesn’t improve and I mean, hire some writers who know how to write action and not waste time with seven and a half episodes on exposition, long, drawn-out, adds nothing to the plot, boring exposition.

Jimmy Kimmel’s Apathetic, Insincere, and Belligerent Apology

When an Apology is Not an Apology

James Christian Kimmel also is known as Jimmy Kimmel, is an American television host, comedian, writer, and producer. He is the host and executive producer of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, a late-night talk show that premiered on ABC on January 26, 2003, at Hollywood Masonic Temple in Hollywood, California. This is how Wikipedia describes him, as a TV host, writer, and comedian. Jimmy Kimmel, at this stage of his career, finds himself submerged in a bit or two of controversy, like many celebrities with Internet history, surrounding past comedic bits that were questionable and more importantly, obtuse in stark contrast to a more sensitive audience. What did Jimmy Kimmel do you ask? Well, he has joined this particular club of individuals who’s comedic history has brought an unwarranted highlight to their past performance. Jimmy has joined the likes of Howard Stern, Tina Fey, Jimmy Fallon, TV Producer, Bill Lawrence, Julianne Hough, Ted Danson, Billy Crystal, and the list keeps getting longer and longer for people who’ve donned blackface or showcased it in the TV shows for comedic purposes.

Jimmy Kimmel’s transgression was performing in blackface as he portrayed the NBA player, Karl Malone. To be honest, when I first saw Kimmel as Karl Malone, I couldn’t believe what IO was seeing. Jimmy was doing a bit in blackface as Karl Malone and he was getting away with it. He portrayed Karl Malone as a mush-mouth talking idiot with no consequence for his actions. Social media wasn’t that important during that time and nothing was done to admonish Kimmel and the only thing you could take away from this is the aspect of white privilege.

You would think that this would be the only blackface Kimmel had done but I recently watched Steven Crowder, a YouTube influencer, showing Kimmel in blackface again but this time he was portraying Oprah Winfrey. To make matters worse, his blackface Oprah was standing on a Latin woman’s stomach. The Latin woman was a housemaid. So, not only did he marginalize Oprah, he marginalized the Latin woman in a degrading fashion. That’s another strike against Kimmel.

You’d think that this would be enough but there’s more arsenal in Kimmel’s intolerant comedic tropes. Did you know that he put out a racially slurred rap album back in 1996? On this album, pretended to be Snoop Dog as he rapped this racially charged “Christmas” song where he invoked the N-word throughout the song. Know you would say that oh, it was in the 90’s so who cares and Kimmel was in radio then so anything goes with the atmosphere of shock-jock sensibility. I would strongly take exception to that. I was on the radio during that time and it was an AOR classic rock station with a morning drive time shock-jock talk show format. I was the sole black person there in a sea of white faces and I was also the head comedy writer and executive producer of the show. Elevating the discourse from perceived stereotypes wasn’t difficult to do when I was there. The comedy was a lot smarter and sharper by not relying on the notion that humor had to degenerate to a level so base that it’s cruel, harmful, and hate-filled. Kimmel’s comedy was just that, cruel, harmful, and hate-filled. And he kept getting away with it.

As he got more comfortable sitting behind a desk and interview other celebrities, he saw himself being more important in social issues. He self-promoted himself to the level of being an influencer with his talk show being his platform. He could talk about whatever he wanted on any subject without any impunity. With the election of Donald Trump, Kimmel had his political punching bag and his monologue was peppered with “Orange Man Bad” shtick that it was all he ever seemed to want to talk about. For me, it was one too many “jokes” and I had enough. There was no humor, no funny in any of his talking points, just an onslaught of visceral attacks on Donald Trump. The late-night guys need to go back and look at some vintage Johnny Carson material and how he handled politicians. It was funny and not mean and attacking and filled with vinegar as these crop of talk show hosts are doing. They stopped being funny in 2016.

Kimmel has been dodging this pile of excrement his entire career. He has gone on record saying that “I have long been reluctant to address this…“ 

Unfortunately for Kimmel, he’s in the public eye now and past misdeeds become the anchor around your neck and the hope of someone throwing you a life preserver slips even further away as you drift from the shoreline. But what can a late-night talk show host do? Well, he offers up righteous indignation unapologetic apology.

Kimmel has already mastered the unapologetic apology before. In his late-night attack on Vice President Mike Pence, he went after the VP for delivering medical supplies to a Virginia health care center. Mike Pence joked about delivering empty boxes after delivering filled boxes of supplies. But Kimmel had edited the video to show only the portion where he could mock the VP. The backlash was swift and Kimmel was forced to issue an “apology”. But in doing so, it wasn’t an apology but more of a continuation of the “Orange Man Bad” tactic where he danced around issuing a sincere apology to Mike Pence.

Fast forward and Kimmel find himself having to issue an apology for his past misdeeds but once again, it’s not his fault, it’s other faults for bringing up his unfunny comedic deeds. Kimmel is a narcissist to the nth degree who gets validation from his own ego. He offers up an apology but it’s like a carefully placed field of landmines as he goes after others for, as he puts it, “I know that this will not be the last I hear of this and that it will be used again to try to quiet me. I love this country too much to allow that. I won’t be bullied into silence by those who feign outrage to advance their oppressive and genuinely racist agendas.” He doubles down and draws a line in the sand with this approach. He’s failing to recognize that he is politicizing his misdeeds for all the wrong reasons. He wants to place the onus away from him while wanting to maintain his status as “the people’s champion” in his own image. This will not go away until he strips away his ego and fully owns up to his closet institutionalized racism that became ingrained in him subconsciously. And what will his network, ABC, do?

Do they take him at his word or do they take the option of what they did to Roseanne Barr? Roseanne was let go of her successful sitcom in 24 hours. If she had bags and boxes to pack, they didn’t give her time for her to hit the door. She did the unthinkable, she commented about Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the Obama administration, comparing her to an ape. Roseanne said she didn’t know Jarrett was black and it was a bad joke. Well, 24 hours later, Roseanne is out, the show is canceled and comeback as under a different name because the show makes money for ABC. But how will they handle Kimmel?

He used the N-word multiple times, he’s donned blackface multiple times, he’s impersonated black people in unflattering ways under the umbrella of comedy so how can ABC justify firing Roseanne while keeping Kimmel? Kimmel’s misdeeds are more serious than Roseanne, from this perspective. I do understand and get youthful indiscretions and saying bad jokes that are in poor taste and we’ve seen a lot of people getting canceled of late with the loss of their livelihoods. Kimmel, in his derisive apologies, has missed the opportunity to get ahead of this. Instead, he has languished this out even longer because he sees himself as some social justice advocate and he should get a pass on this because he’s Jimmy Kimmel? I don’t think so.

The Woke Cancel Culture is McCarthyism 2.0

Only Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais Refused To Bend the Knee

For a brief moment, I will be giving you a quick history lesson that is very significant going forward. There was this man named George Santayana. Do you know who he is? Well, congratulation if the name is familiar to you and for those who don’t know who he was, he was a philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist. He is best known for this line that has been bastardized over the years. The line is, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I’m sure you’ve heard of it in some varying degree of iteration. This saying will be important as we continue with the history lesson.

Now, do you know who Joe McCarthy is? Joe McCarthy was a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin who served for ten years from 1947 till his death in 1957. He is best known for giving the U.S. of something known as ‘The Red Scare’, the widespread fear of the promotion of communism and for also giving the American populous McCarthyism, rightfully named after him for making false allegations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence during the late 1940s and the early 1950s. These accusations caused people to lose their jobs and be put on a blacklist as being un-American. Did you know that Lucille Ball, Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Danny Kaye, and Orson Welles was just a few of the most notable figures who were blacklisted at the time?

That brief history lesson was important as it shines a very bright light on to what is known as the woke cancel culture. The woke cancel culture is plain and simply McCarthyism 2.0 only it’s in warp speed. I’m not sure where cancel culture came from or how it manifested itself into what I refer to as a cancerous lesion to the social media platforms. If you participate in any social media platform, you must be perfect, saintly, virginal, free of controversy, you must tow the perfect line of inclusion, diversity, provide all the boxes to check and most importantly, your past should be free of blemishes and if it is not, you’re doomed, cursed and will suffer the moral outrage from a faceless entity that now holds your life in its anonymous hands.

How did the wake cancel culture become this behemoth? I will speculate that it became prominent in 2018 when it was announced that Kevin Hart was supposed to host the upcoming Academy Awards in 2019. It was one of those plumb position any comedian would give their right eye to have, to host a show that reached a global audience in one day and to increase your brand personally. But for Kevin Hart, that wasn’t the case. Some people went back to Mr. Hart’s history and found ten-year-old jokes that he did that, in today’s climate, was deemed socially problematic. These were ten-year-old jokes told by a comedian who is known for ribald humor. That didn’t matter. He said the jokes and for the woke cancel culture community, he must be fired from the Academy Awards. He would have to apologize, he would have to lay prostrate to the woke cancel culture and beg for forgiveness, he would have to humble himself to the queen of the homosexual party, Ellen DeGeneres and Kevin Hart reluctantly bent the knee. It was a knee that wasn’t bent too long as Kevin stood back up and held his ground for his past comments and stopped making apologies for something that wasn’t a mistake.

But the knee he bent was already established. The woke cancel culture had its first victim and it tasted fine. They were hungry for more and the hunt was on. In the past few months, we’ve seen a variety of woke-cancel-culture claim victim after victim for past Twitter posting, for current Twitter postings, for taking an opposing side on an issue, for speaking off the cuff with a general phraseology that was claimed as misgendering. The 1959 song, Baby It’s Cold Outside, was canceled as it was deemed to be a song about date rape or non-consensual sex. Gone With The Wind, a film that came out in 1940 depicting the South during the Civil War era, was canceled by HBO for being offensive. I’ve never seen the film because I chose not to see it because of the depiction and because of the Hollywood segregation with the awards ceremony where Hattie McDaniel received her Oscar while being seated near a back wall out of sight at a segregated table because of the Jim Crow laws at the time. However, the film was made and it won Oscars so regardless of your feelings, you are the one who decides to view it or not. I chose to look at its depiction of American blacks and I have consistently chosen to not view it. That doesn’t mean that it should be canceled. It’s still a history lesson.

And there have been numerous firings in recent weeks surrounding past statements and current statements associated with the organization Black Lives Matter. You can’t give your opposing opinion regarding this group without receiving the wrath of cancellation from the woke community. It is forbidden to have an opposing opinion, your free thought has been criminalized. Hartley Sawyer, an American actor on the CW television series, The Flash, was fired after old tweets surfaced that were deemed offensive. I read them and at worse, they were really bad jokes from someone’s attempt to be crudely funny. He has made his apologies and accepted his responsibilities for his action but why was he fired for old tweets that had nothing to do with his work on the show? What makes his jokes worse than someone like Andrew Dice Clay or the late Sam Kinison? Would the late Richard Pryor be castigated for his humor by today’s standards? Some would say that all words have meaning but in the context of which they were given. Hattie McDaniel Oscar's acceptance speech cited her saying “being a credit to her race”. That’s a cringe statement but it was acceptable during her time and also appeasement to the white culture.

Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais have maintained their sanity in these volatile moments. Ricky Gervais has called out this cancel culture and still has maintained his humor and ignored the attacks against him by just switching off their rhetoric. Dave Chappelle has ignored the shouts and cries for him to be canceled by attacking them with such aplomb that it’s like watching a skilled surgeon remove a diseased liver and replacing it with a new one. If you were offended, you’d also have to say that it did feel good with the technique.

The battlefield theater of the woke cancel culture war is being littered with an ever-growing body count. There is no pleasing them in this skirmish. Filmmakers tried appeasing them but to disastrous results. The list of films trying to go woke went broke. Charlie’s Angels went broke, Terminator: Dark Fate went broke, X-Men: Dark Phoenix massively flamed out and went broke, Birds of Prey went broke, Ghostbusters 2016 flamed out. But you wouldn’t know it from the woke cancel culture who didn’t support these films when they came out. They blame the usual suspects, mainly white heterosexual men.

We are literally burning ourselves up alive. They are rioting in the streets destroying and burning properties that have nothing to do with the death of George Floyd. Social media platforms are accepting this behavior as if it is in an abusive relationship with a partner as they refuse to acknowledge the destructive nature of that misadventure. The old McCarthyism lasted nearly a decade. How long will McCarthyism 2.0 last? For me, it should have ended in 2018but because of Twitter, that unrepentant festering malignant tumor of a social media platform that turns comments into gangrenous sores has allowed the rampant spreading of sick individuals who infect the social strata to its nth degree. Why did you bend the knee, Kevin Hart?

Joe Biden: You Ain’t Black

The Race-Baiting Politics from a Dinosaur of The Jim Crow Era

How does one ignite a firestorm of controversy? If you’re Donald Trump, you just merely exist and stand in front of a podium. If you’re Joe Biden, you agree to an interview with a black American rapper and for some reason, cross a line where you’ve insulted the host and half of the country because you believe that what you are saying has no consequences all because you are a Democrat and served with a person who made history when he was President and you were lucky to win the lottery and run as his vice-President. I had contemplated whether or not to contribute to this discussion but as the hours ticked by, it became apparent that I must add another perspective to the discourse.

In dissecting his interview with Charlemagne The God, Joe Biden took on a persona that I found to be disingenuous. The main thing that stood out was that he had altered his speech pattern to accommodate the supposed audience Charlemagne The God attracted and that was a mainly predominately black audience. He was pandering. Joe Biden isn’t the first liberal to pander to the black community. Hillary Clinton has done it on numerous occasions, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has entered into that world as well. As Joe Biden kept going down that path of thinking that he had won the right to speak as he please without any restrictions, you could get a sense of foreboding that would leave a long-standing stain on the presumptive presidential nominee. The time was ticking down with seconds left in the interview as a rushed Joe Biden wanted to score some black points on the board when he said it, the three words that would resonate across the country and across the globe, “You Ain’t Black”. He then ended it with wild hand gestures as he proclaimed to check his records with what he has supposedly done for the black community and that the NAACP has endorsed him in past campaigns punctuated with the verbal edicts of, “Come on, man,” as if Charlemagne and he have been long-standing friends having a beer.

Joe Biden entered this interview with a set of assumptions, that his past association with the former president gave him a lock with black voters, that black voters will always vote Democratic, that black voters think monolithic and have a hive mindset, that he didn’t have to do much but speak some “jive” as that character did in the film, Airplane, to relate to the black audience. Joe Biden got it wrong on several counts that placed him in the position that he is in now.

This, however, isn’t Joe Biden’s first gaffe with language. It’s been memorialized on video for the world to see where he starts off on this train of thought but somewhere in him telling a story, the train hops off the tracks and derails. Sometimes he recovers but in this case, he may have a hard time trying to recapture his low tone energy. It seems as if Joe Biden is an ancient artifact of a vestige from long ago. I want to go back and revisit Joe Biden’s speaking pattern in that interview. Why did he alter his speech pattern? The easy and simplest of answers was that he was talking down to Charlemagne because Joe Biden saw the perception that Charlemagne didn’t have the intelligence to speak in an elevated conversation. It’s been noted in a recent study that white liberals do talk down to minorities if they feel like a conversation is directed to someone named Shea-nay-nay versus someone named Emily. If that was the reason, an intentional reason at that, then Joe Biden was calculating and condescending to his host because for me, it was the tone that got to me. I see a lot of tone with the White House press Corp whenever they are speaking to Donald Trump. Their tone is condescending, aggressive, and bent with an accusatory intent whenever a question is raised. Tone means something these days and Joe Biden’s tone was to talk down and condescend.  It reminded me of my last doctor’s visit with my eye doctor. The doctor used basketball metaphors to explain to me about the condition of my damaged eye. It pissed me off as I told him to stop using basketball metaphors and just explain to me why I won’t have sight in my eye, I’m intelligent enough to understand what you’re saying. I haven’t seen the doctor in three years because of that.



Here is the other thing, the use of the word “ain’t”. I’m classified as black and I don’t use that word in any of my language or writings. I had some very strict English teachers who hammered that into our heads that the word “ain’t” was not to be used in speaking and writing. I recall a long time ago where I was a key witness in a federal case where the opposing attorney made this proclamation where I have supposedly said something that had the word “ain’t” in it. I laughed in that attorney’s face because the use of that word is foreign to me. For Joe Biden to use it was a disrespectful gesture to a degree. Did he think that by using it that he was relating to some uneducated faction of black voters? He wouldn’t have done it if the audience he was trying to reach was white or Asian or even brown.

Joe Biden’s “You Ain’t Black” was a statement on marginalizing the black community and adding a divisive element. When it comes to politics, if you have an opposing viewpoint, you’re not black or not black enough. For me, I stopped buying into The democratic way of thinking after experiencing no significant change over several Democratic presidents. The promises were the same, the rhetoric was predictable and the results were the same. I’m no Republican either but my leanings are as an Independent moderate conservative, the kind of swing voter that can change the outcome of an election. I don’t speak about my position in crowds because it’s no-one’s business with the added caveat of someone deciding if you’re truly black. Politics is a hostile community these days especially if you wear a red baseball cap, it brings out the crazy liberals every time. Black conservatism is a real and growing thing but the divide is strong within the community with where one allegiance lie. The skin color doesn’t change, just the politics. The problems are still the same, racism, police shootings, poverty, etc. At one point in this country, black people were proud Republicans thanks to Abraham Lincoln. John F. Kennedy changes that and history was lost.

Joe Biden just stirred up the pot with his three little words and that just goes to show you how disconnected he is from a man who lives in his own community, as he says, that he only ventures out whenever campaigning is needed. Joe Biden’s mental capabilities have become an issue of late. He’s stumbled and uttered some nonsensical affirmations that call into question his ability to take on the role of commander-in-chief. I am still wondering as to why Joe Biden took on the persona of thinking he was still living in the 50’s Jim Crow south when he was in full pandering mode with Charlemagne The God. Did a light switch pop on in his head to start speaking as he did? I don’t feel as if this one will be so easily dismissed or forgotten. His campaign spokesperson, Symone Sanders, claims his statement was in jest or a joke. That’s a severely weak reach. Biden calls it being too cavalier.

I have friends who are white, two of them I consider best friends. Neither one of them feels that they can say anything that they would perceive as being too cavalier when it comes to race. We’ve had healthy discussions on race and in the end there has to be a sense of respect and comfort with one another to even delve into the discussion of who we are as a collective let alone race. Bernie Sanders hasn’t renounced his candidacy as yet, Hillary Clinton is waiting in the wings and Andrew Cuomo is in the batter’s box waiting to be called in. This presidential run has just gotten murkier,