There's no hiding from sexual content anymore

When I was a kid, I used to like watching the Academy Awards every year.

It was always fun to see all the movie stars gathered in the audience, and to see who each year's big winners were. Though I remember feelings of incredulity on more than one occasion when a "Star Wars" film failed to win Best Picture, my overall memories of those shows are good ones. After all, it was almost always a pleasant evening spent with my family.

But the Oscars have become something different today. Not only is the telecast mostly a colossal bore of self-congratulation, it's become something quite a bit less family friendly. It's not something I'd be comfortable letting my children watch.

After all, consider host Jon Stewart's opening monologue. His very first joke of the evening referenced "make-up sex." And, less than two minutes later, came humor at the expense of teen pregnancy.

Usually, I'm a fan of Stewart. His political satire is some of the best comedy being performed today. But some of the material he presented at Sunday's Oscars seems better suited for his regular 10 p.m. cable time slot, than during network prime time.

But the Oscars telecast is only a small part of a much larger problem. Sex is everywhere we turn these days, and for the parents of small children, it's becoming next to impossible to maintain a wholesome upbringing.

I understand that as a parent, it's my responsibility to monitor what my kids watch on TV. And that's what my wife and I try to do. If our kids are watching TV, it's almost always something like "Spongebob Squarepants" or "Hannah Montana." If there's a program with adult fare — sexual content, language or violence — that my wife and I want to watch, we can always wait until later in the evening, thanks to the magic of the DVR.

But it's not just the shows that give us trouble these days — its the commercials. Sure, sexuality in commercials is nothing new. But lately, more and more advertisers have moved beyond the pretty girl in the beer commercial to sexual innuendo that barely passes for innuendo.

One that comes to mind is a series of commercials aired by NBC to promote its new series "Lipstick Jungle." The spots clearly showed a couple in the throws of what can only be described here as "hanky-panky." And while there was no nudity or specific language, it was pretty to clear to anyone — including the 8-year-old and 5-year-old in my house — what was going on.

Now it would be one thing if this ad was airing at 9 or 10 o'clock at night. But NBC was airing these ads during the 7 p.m. hour, a time slot that used to be called the "family hour." It's pretty pathetic when you can't even watch TV at 7 o'clock at night with your family without having to routinely tell your kids to cover their eyes.

But the overt sexuality of our culture isn't limited to TV. We can't even go to local grocery store without our kids being exposed to headlines like "8 tips for better sex" or "10 things guys crave in bed" every time we check out.

It wasn't so bad before my kids could read. But those days are gone forever. And while their eyes are still more likely to gravitate to the nearby candy shelves, the day is near when my wife and I are going to have some explaining to do. And as tough as it can be to be a parent these days, it would be nice if we didn't have stuff like this thrown in our kids' faces.

I don't want to be a prude. I'm a proponent of free speech, and I'll defend further than most the rights of anybody to print or broadcast pretty much whatever they want to.

But it seems there's a level of common decency and good sense that's being ignored these days. Parents ought to be able to take their kids to the grocery store without having them exposed to smutty magazines in the checkout aisle. Parents ought to be able to watch TV shows at 7 o'clock without having to hear sexual jokes or having to sit through commercials rampant with material that would have passed for pornography 30 years ago.

I realize there's a harsh world out there, and the day will come when my kids have to face it. But as a parent, I should get to decide when that day comes. And today is simply too soon.

Who is Barack Obama?

As many readers no doubt already know, Sen. Barack Obama may be a radical Muslim terrorist. That's the message of a widely forwarded e-mail making its rounds, and if something appears in a widely forwarded e-mail, you know it has to be true.

But here at The Talker, we have unearthed evidence that reveals that the presidential candidate may be something even more sinister than a radical Muslim terrorist. He may be (gulp) ... a Canadian.

The picture below has not been digitally altered in anyway. It provides ample evidence of where the senator's loyalties may really lie.


Yes, that's the Maple Leaf flag behind this would-be president. This is very scary to think about what may lie ahead for this country. Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's candidacy.

Bidding farewell to a heck of a good guy

I am terrible at remembering birthdays.

Oh sure, I know my own. And I know my wife's and kids'. And I know the birthdays of my immediate family — my mom, dad and sister. But that's about it. I could probably make a pretty good guess for my niece and nephews, but when it comes to anybody else — grandparents, in-laws, friends — I'm pretty much clueless. I think there's a November in there somewhere, but that's honestly just a stab in the dark.

However, there is one other person's birthday which I've always managed to remember. It's the birthday of a man named Carl Balvanz. His birthday was June 23. For some reason, I've always managed to remember that one. Perhaps it's because Carl's birthday was exactly one month before my own. Or maybe it's because Carl was just a heck of a good guy.

Carl Balvanz was a close friend of my family. He passed away last week following a 2-year battle with cancer. He was 80 years old. Having moved from my home state of Iowa several years back, it had been years since I had seen or spoken to Carl or his wife Dorothy. But his passing has launched a good bit of nostalgia for me.

I can't say I was close to Carl. He was more my parents' friend than mine. But when I think of my childhood, and the assorted people who came in and out of it, Carl was one of those people who was always there. There are but a handful of people whose names appear in both my baby album and my wedding album, and Carl and Dorothy's names are among them.

When my wife and I got married nearly 11 years ago, I knew that there wouldn't be a whole lot of family friends from Iowa who would make the seven-hour trek to Blytheville to attend the wedding. But Carl and Dorothy did. They were the only groom's guests who were not blood relatives or college buddies. That always meant a lot to me, and it shows the kind of people Carl and Dorothy have always been.

I have a wide range of memories of gatherings between my parents and their friends. I remember camping trips, nights playing cards and pool parties. Carl and Dorothy were part of so many of those.

For a long time, Carl and Dorothy had a pool in their backyard. Some of my earliest memories of swimming are from that pool. I remember kicking around the pool in a big black inner-tube. When Carl would come toward the pool, my sister and I always knew he would jump in and make a giant splash, so we would kick as fast as we could to get to the other side of the pool.

But it was at another friends' backyard pool a few years later when Carl taught me how to swim. Or at least how to doggie-paddle. He bribed me with a gumdrop if I paddled a few feet to him. Then he backed further away, upping the ante to two gumdrops. This continued until he coaxed me into paddling across the entire shallow end, for a grand total of 10 gumdrops. Oddly enough, he never got around to paying up. I guess I'll have to forgive him.

When people would describe Carl, they would inevitably refer to him as a "good guy." Indeed, he was. Most of my memories came through the eyes of a child, but I always knew him as someone who was kind, gentle and warm-hearted. He was always nice to me, and he was someone I knew I could trust.

It was no secret that Carl's health was failing. I knew for months that his cancer was winning the battle, and thanks to some phone calls from my parents, I knew early last week that the end was near. So when my mom called to tell me Carl had passed, it wasn't a surprise.

Yet I was struck by the grief I felt in my own heart as the reality of his passing set in. Even though life takes you in different directions, and you leave childhood behind, you always kind of expect the fabric of your youth to always be there. I've seen elements of my childhood fade before, but it's mainly been trivial things — old hangouts being torn down, or favorite teachers retiring.

But rarely has it been a true human loss. And that's what losing Carl has been. It's not just a piece of my childhood that's gone; it's a face, a soul. And what's more, I know that there will be more to come. After all, time keeps marching forward, and nothing lasts forever. And so, I grieve. I grieve for Carl today, as I will for others in the future.

And yet, at the same time, there is happiness. There is comfort in knowing that I was lucky enough to have had my life’s path cross paths with Carl Balvanz’s. And I know that every time June 23 rolls around, I will think of him. I will remember his kind ways and fun-loving nature. And as long as I do that, and as long as all who knew him and loved him do the same, his memory will live on.

"Cluster signs" clutter up community

From the files of "Ways to Make Blytheville Look Better," I offer the following:

Those cluster signs we see at area strip malls — the ones that feature a bunch of itty-bitty signs on one tall structure — I say we get rid of 'em.

You've probably seen what I'm talking about. There's one in front of the Dixie Heights shopping area. There's one at Porter Commons. There's another at the little strip mall known as "Magnolia Square." My basic point is they serve very little purpose other than to provide unneeded vertical clutter in a community already battling to make itself look nice.

I've noticed more and more of these sign clusters appearing in the last decade or so. As this coincides with the time I move to the South, I'm not sure if they are a phenomenon of this region, or if they are simply part of a new trend in poor signage. I do know that they are not unique to Blytheville. Drive to Memphis or Jonesboro, or pretty much anywhere else, and you will see sign clusters cluttering up everyone's landscape.

But whether these signs are new or old, regional or not, what is certain is their lack of usefulness. In a nutshell, I just don't think anybody uses them. In Blytheville, for instance, you either know where Benny Bob's is, or you don't. You either know where Payless Shoes is, or you don't. You either know where H&R Block is, or you don't. You either know where Gamestop is, or you don't. The itty-bitty signs out front don't help you.

If you don't know where one of these businesses is, you'll find out, either by someone telling you, "It's in the strip next to Wal-Mart," or "It's in that little shopping area on East Main." Or you simply look at the building itself for the storefront you need. At Porter Commons, where you approach the center from an overpass, it's quite easy to scan the storefronts for what you're looking for.

What you don't do is scan the array of tiny notebook paper-size signs located in a cluster on one post located by the roadway. It's virtually impossible to efficiently find anything in such an array, especially when most small businesses don't have a recognizable logo; and when you're traveling in four-lane traffic at 35 mph or more.

If you were on foot, or if you were stopped at a red light, I could see how these signs might have some use. But that's not the case here in Blytheville. Around here, the only way you can really get a good look at these sign clusters is if you pull into the parking lot and stop. And if you've done this, you might as well just look down the storefronts for what you're looking for.

The reason these signs are such a problem is that they contribute to what I see as a significant issue in the East Main-Interstate 55 area: Too much vertical clutter.

Next time you're heading west across the I-55 overpass, toward Blytheville, take a moment to survey the scene. There is an inordinate amount of vertical objects cluttering the landscape. Sure, many of these are necessary, from the commercial signs for individual businesses, to the directional signs of the highway department. But many others are useless. There's several giant poles that are not even in use. There are numerous road signs that are redundant or unnecessary. And there are about a million utility poles, some of which are most certainly superfluous.

Heading east over the overpass, it's nice to see our new restaurants, but the vertical clutter, ranging from a glut of utility poles to the Porter Commons cluster sign, weakens the overall aesthetics.

I think it's stuff like this that separates the communities that look "nice" from those that don't. It's something you might not even notice, especially if you drive by it every day. Yet it's the kind of thing that contributes to a community somehow just not looking as nice as others.

Lord knows that there are numerous problems facing the city of the Blytheville, and I concede that some problems may be of greater importance than unsightly sign clusters. But if we really want to make our city look better, we ought to tackle the issue of vertical clutter.

When the day comes again to consider changing city codes, a rule banning cluster signs would be a welcome move.

YMCA ramblings

There seems to be a bit of spin going on out there in regard to an article in last Wednesday's CN about the Blytheville Family YMCA.

In the article, we reported on a meeting held Tuesday, in which YMCA boosters appeared before a joint meeting of the city of Blytheville's Parks and Recreation and Finance committees in an effort to secure funding from the city. There are questions as to what the city obligated itself to. Y boosters say the facility was promised $30K a year for three years; city officials say nothing was ever promised. While who-said-what-to-whom-and-when remains in question, what's not in doubt was the overall theme of Tuesday's meeting: That without the $90K from the city of Blytheville, the Y's future in Blytheville is precarious.

And that's what the story said. And there's been no complaints about it. In fact, several folks have gone out of their way to note that the story — written by Managing Editor Mark Brasfield — was right on the money.

What's being attacked, is the headline: "Y may pull out without city cash."

On several fronts, ranging from community chatter to a letter to the editor, it's been suggested that the headline is somehow "misleading." And while that charge has been thrown out on numerous occasions, we have yet to hear a reasoned explanation of what, exactly, is "misleading" about it. Indeed, the headline seems to follow the crux of the article — that the YMCA was counting on the money from the city; and without it, it faces an unknown future.

The folks who have taken over the Y have done a bang-up job getting this thing off the ground. And that goes for everyone from the officials from Memphis, who have shown they actually know something about running a YMCA, to the local boosters, who have made it all happen. And no one can blame them for wanting to look on the sunny side of things. But if there's a financial issue like the one described in last week's committee meeting, the public has a right to know about it, and our readers have a right to headlines that reflect the true nature of the situation. Sugar-coating the news with pleasant-sounding headlines isn't helpful to anybody.

Bob the Builder calls Barack Obama

Hey, Obama .... Bob the Builder just called. He says he wants his catch-phrase back.

What, exactly, is a 'liberal'?

You hear a whole lot of political jargon thrown around these days. And perhaps no words are hurled with more reckless abandon than the labels "liberal" and "conservative."

There was a time when I could have told you what those words meant. But these days, I haven't a clue.

Of course, if you look them up in the dictionary, you can learn that "liberal" supposedly indicates someone who is "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." Likewise, "conservative" is used to describe someone who is "holding to traditional attitudes and values and is cautious about change or innovation."

Well, those definitions may have once held true, but we all know they've been outdated for years.

Though the meaning of the labels has evolved through time, it has still been relatively simple to understand the difference between a liberal and a conservative, at least until recently. In simplest terms, liberals were in favor of big government, seeing government as a positive agent of change. Conversely, conservatives were in favor of small government, seeing government as the problem, not the solution.

Of course, there were other nuances to it all. On social issues, liberals tended to favor greater acceptance of things like homosexuality, environmentalism and civil rights. Conservatives, on the other hand, tended to be the traditionalists, with family and religion being the key motivators.

Needless to say, for a long time, it was pretty easy to look at a politician and observe whether he or she was a so-called "liberal" or a so-called "conservative."

But that's not so much the case anymore.

Exhibit A is President George W. Bush. Under the Bush administration, the size of the federal government has grown at a rate not seen for decades. Bush has created an entirely new government department, and launched the country into a nation-building campaign. To top it all off, Bush has signed nearly every spending bill to cross his desk.

Now, social issues aside for the moment, that description sounds to me like somebody who is pretty enthusiastic when it comes to big government. Yet if you ask pundits around the country — or George W. Bush himself — you'll be assured that the president is, in fact, a conservative.

Doesn't quite add up to me.

Exhibit B is Sen. John McCain, a current candidate for president. McCain is a candidate who opposes wasteful government spending, opposes gun control wants to make abortion illegal. His campaign calls for tax cuts, and he's a proponent of a strong military.

Now, based on what I've always understood the terms to mean, McCain seems to pretty clearly embody many of the ideals of the "conservative" political spectrum. But alas, this is not the case. According to the wise folks on talk radio, McCain is, in fact, a died-in-the-wool liberal. Apparently his habit of reaching across party lines is a big no-no for true conservatives.

So now, I'm confused. If a big-government president like George W. Bush is a "conservative," and somebody like John McCain is now classified as a "liberal," something obviously changed when I wasn't paying attention. Either the meaning of the words has again morphed, or I never understood them in the first place.

Regardless, I think I'm going to base my voting decisions this year on something other than small-minded political labels.

White Death turned away

Well, it looks like the Great Winter Storm of 2008 has mostly missed the Blytheville area once again.

Kudos go out to all those who kept their heads about them in the face of the wintry forecasts. That includes all the local public schools that resisted any knee-jerk temptation to close their doors at the first sign of crystalized water falling from the sky.

But thumbs go down to all those who took part in the traditional pre-snow panic that inevitably takes hold around here anytime snow or ice is remotely part of the forecast. That goes to all those who rushed to Wal-Mart to stock up on milk and bread; all those who assumed school would be canceled Thursday and/or Friday, and failed to plan accordingly; and those handful of entities who did abruptly shut down Thursday afternoon when some snow and ice briefly appeared.

We may or may not have another taste of winter precipitation before the winter is over, but here at The Talker, we hope everyone remembers not to panic. It's just snow. It's not White Death.