Maritime Morning - Andrew Krystal

The controversy over Duane “Dog” Chapman continues. It began when his son, bizarrely, sold a confidential cell phone recording of their racial epithet-laden conversation to a tabloid, which was subsequently made public on the internet.

Dog’s son, apparently, has a black girlfriend, and the father’s concern was that his bounty hunting team’s natural inclination to use racial epithet’s (the same way rap artists do) might prompt offense; moreover, she might then “out” the team as anti-black in a public forum.

Keep the dirty n-word talk between the team, Dog was saying. In the tape recording he can be heard to express fear that if his son’s girlfriend revealed their salty, trash-talking ways that their own media position might be compromised.

What is less virtuous? Speaking privately, to an intimate, and using racist terms, or exposing what is private in order to diminish (in this case his own Father) and inflame and offend?

In the Middle Ages, you were condemned for what you thought, or what others thought that you thought. In modern times, you are judged by your actions, your deeds. In novels, and in plays, and in movies, characters are defined by their actions and their choices, as so in life.

Dog Chapman did not intend to offend. Nor did he direct the racial slur at an individual.  Dog was paranoid of offending Blacks for political purposes (which, understandably, for many, is not enough). His paranoia, however, was not enough for him to remove his reflexive use of a racial epithet on a regular basis while on the job or socializing with his rough-and-tumble posse.

The person who offended Black North America in this instance was Dog’s vengeful son — - not Dog directly. This is not even a revisiting of a Michael Richards-like tirade (remember the Seinfeld star’s n-word rant at a comedy club?). Dog never employed a racial slur directly at anyone. So, should he be condemned? Sure. Using racial slurs in any context is wrong. It is wrong when Blacks use it too; yet, look at Dog physically. Look at what you have.

What do you expect from a guy who looks like that — with circus-like hair and a leather-bound demeanor that is all biker bravado, biker sensibilities and swagger, and who is, himself, an admitted former criminal?

We want our cake and we want to eat it too. We want the rough-around-the-edges anti-hero, the reformed bad-guy, but we expect that person to manifest themselves as a Sunday school teacher on a Harley. It is not reality.

The real question is should someone be condemned for what they say in private?

People use taboos as intensifiers in private all the time. It doesn’t make it virtuous, but what is? Half of the taboo expressions used are used only for effect – because they are bad to say — and are not taken seriously, or are even physically possible. Think about it. And how many people do you know who really are romantic with their parents (as in Motherf*****)?

Is Dog Chapman a closet racist? That is a legitimate question of any celebrity as grand, gossipy, speculation. Does it matter if he keeps it to himself? What if the hockey player is a bad parent or husband? What if the singer is a bad son to his parents? Like the hockey player, it only counts if he doesn’t score.

No human being can survive such big questions of character for it is hard to really determine the measure of a man’s soul.

Can Dog catch the bad guy and get his bounty? Was Dog horrified at being considered a racist? Even if it is for economic and political reasons, doing and saying the right things in public are what matter most.

Who was it who said something about casting the first stone?

Please feel free to post a comment on the blog below (I usually get long emails sent to my radio address instead).

Next week we can look forward to the opening of Parliament and the fireworks there.

Meantime, the fall-out continues over the MacDonald/Mackay brokered deal with the Feds over the Atlantic Accord.  Many believe it is a sell out. I think they’re wrong. It is better than what we were given in the budget. It is pretty much the same thing as Martin signed. You can villianize Harper for backtracking, but you can’t blame Peter for his efforts — the Conservatives aren’t wrong all the time you know! People will say, well, you can’t say it’s a good deal because you haven’t seen it; well, you cannot decry what you haven’t seen either!

The motivation for Harper to get even with Bill Casey and Danny Williams probably means we will do well with this new deal. What is really happening now — and I can hear it with callers — is rank cynicism. People just don’t believe anything, nor do they trust.

On Monday we’ll look at the coming bird flu pandemic — it may eventually kill millions. Don’t buy in bulk!

Also, next week, “what’s wrong with the Americans”? Now they want flight lists for planes not even landing in the U.S. just flying over (?!).  Where will America’s paranoia end? Is any of this Homeland security hysteria effective anyway? it is a bureacracy that seeks its own power with fragile predicates, or any basis in reality.

Instead of just looking at security procedures, why not look at foreign policy as well?