Rant #2,467: Bits and Pieces

Yes, today we return to the land of Bits and Pieces, where we cover stories that maybe do not demand full Rant coverage, but that certainly needs at least some mention in this hallowed blog.

So let's dive right into it. Here goes:

Survivor TV Show Tackles Sexual Impropriety: I don't know if you still watch "Survivor," the granddaddy of all the reality shows, but this week's episodes--they had two--dealt with a problem completely out of left field for the series, and it turned what had been the most blase and boring season in the show's history into something way beyond that description.

The whole ball of wax started with one of the older players, Dan, a talent agent from Los Angeles, perhaps being a little too cozy with some of the younger female contestants. He would spoon them when they slept, would put his arms around them during the day, would put his hands on their sides and their hair, and yes, he was kind of leechy and disgusting.

One of the younger contestants, Kellee, a student, took offense to these actions by Dan, and she supposedly rallied the other younger female contestants into complaining about Dan, who all had claimed had inappropriately touched them too. They even did it to his face, and he categorically denied doing so,

'Enter into the fracas the oldest female contestant, Janet, a lifeguard, who decided to take her younger counterparts' feelings to heart--rather than her own game play--basically saying that they were playing more than a game now, it was more of taking a stand against sexual harassment, whether on the TV show or in life.

(In an unprecedented move, the show's producers--including host Jeff Probst--took aside the cast and spoke openly about how they should treat each other on the show. In fact, Dan was taken aside and told that his behavior would not be tolerated if it continued.)

What then happened was what made the shows so interesting. With the exception of Kellee, all the women who had earlier claimed to have been inappropriately touched by Dan reneged on their beliefs, actually sided with Dan, and came down hard on both Kellee and Janet. In fact, Kellee was voted off the show in one of the biggest blindsides of all time--she had two immunity idols, and neglected to save herself with them.

Anyway, now that it was quite clear that the younger women would not be backing Janet--and simply used the charge of sexual harassment as part of their game play--Janet was put on the hot seat, apologizing for thinking that the charges were real and backing these women, who obviously spoke out of two sides of their mouths about what had happened.

Janet did not get voted off, nor did Dan--another contestant, who incredibly spoke eloquently about supposedly "male empowerment" and how the rules between men and women were changing, did get kicked off, adding to the surreal situation.

However, I think Janet learned a stern lesson about life that goes way beyond "Survivor": sexual harassment is real, but it is often in the eye of the beholder. And yes, the chance to win $1 million, or the chance to move on with your career, or the chance to move up the food chain in your chosen profession, often trumps what some would call "sexual impropriety" and others would call "playing by the rules of the game."

Sad, but true.

Disney+ Streaming Service Goes Politically Correct From the Get Go: Premiering this week, the Disney+ streaming service has already caused a firestorm of comments on both sides of the ledger for running disclaimers before some of its movie fare stating that viewers should know that a particular movie might contain various racial stereotypes that might have been acceptable when the film was made, but in the completely stressed-out 2019, are not acceptable.

The disclaimer reads, "This program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions."

Yes, and the newly branded "racist" movies include such classics as "Peter Pan" and "The Jungle Book."

This is utter PC nonsense run amuck. These supposed "racist" movies are all family fare, and I think most viewers--even the youngest viewers, who are too young to have any idea what the fuss is all about--could see that no harm was portrayed by any of these supposed racist films.

Even more recent movies--like "Toy Story"--have supposedly been scrubbed of any such possible connotations.

And while you are at it, why not outright ban or at least put disclaimers on "Gone With the Wind," "Casablanca," and heck, even "The Wizard of Oz," all of which have some themes in them which are overtly racist or make fun of certain members of our society.

This is utter nonsense by the ultra-PC Disney Corporation, and you just know that Walt Disney is spinning in his grave at the current situation.

Nobody says he was a perfect human being--reports are quite the contrary--but he made family fare for the respective time period that these works came out, and I don't think people need to be told about such things.

But that is the work of the PC Police, who certainly live to tell us what to think, what to say, and what to do.

And while we are at it, let's ban "Oliver Twist," let's ban "To Kill a Mockingbird," let's ban "Tom Sawyer."

Let's ban all books and movies that don't conform to the current intolerant climate, one in which the "good guys"--the police--are thought to be our enemies and the "bad guys"--felons--are thought to be the good guys.

And if you listen to popular music today, how can the PC Police try to govern our viewing habits but give a free pass to our listening habits, where certain music talks about vile and disgusting things, freely uses curse words, and uses the most vulgar of terms as if it meant nothing?

Gimme a break, Disney, give us all a break and let us enjoy something for once without having to bow down to utter nonsense.

My Current Job Situation:

That is all there is for today. Have a great weekend, and I will speak to you again on Monday.