Karla's Kolumn

I have not been able to fathom the complete hypocrisy of the entertainment world. I'm not talking about the allegations against Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood actors and industry executives. What he and other Hollywood types did and have done is despicable and inexcusable.

What I am talking about is that in Hollywood, until last year, those types of actions have seemingly been excused away and accepted. I don't know what changed but it is good that it did.

I'm talking about the fact that "Baby It's Cold Outside" became unacceptable this year by some, but anything Eminem sings/yells is acceptable. If the Christmas song is offensive why isn't every gangsta rap song?

I'm talking about the "apologies" for working with, yup, you guessed it, rap artist R. Kelly.

Allegations of inappropriate relations with girls and young women have been ongoing since 1992. For 26 years. But now, only after the docuseries "Surviving R. Kelly" airs is anyone actually taking notice. There are investigations announced and other artists including Lady Gaga are apologizing for having collaborated with R. Kelly on projects; projects that were between 1992 and today, projects that were in the midst or in between allegations.

Does Hollywood and the music industry have to wait to condemn actions until it becomes politically correct to do so? Unfortunately, I think so and that's sad and wrong. If behavior is wrong, it's wrong, no matter who you are and no matter if it is politically correct to say so or not.

~~~

Now let's talk walls and government shutdown. I said when this shutdown happened it was going to be a long one because I do not see either side giving in, which is stupid because the immigration issue should have been taken care of long ago.

Everyone seems to agree, and has for decades, that something has to be done at the border. I don't believe like the extreme left in open borders because we don't have room or resources (as we have seen) to take care of them. And, in 2006, then Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006 for 700 miles of fence along the border.

Call it a fence, call it a wall, call it "more border security" (there's a general, nondescript term that means nothing), call it whatever you want, the fact is, illegal immigration (that's what it is, people entering the country illegally) is an issue that needs to be dealt with. It is, unfortunately, an issue that is somewhat like health care - both parties say it is something they need to address but they never do.

When he was in office, President Ronald Reagan approved an amnesty bill granting amnesty to nearly 3 million immigrants who had entered the country illegally. The hope was for sweeping reform so the country would not be faced with the same problem later on. Guess that hope was lost.

President Reagan, according to a National Public Radio article, was quoted as saying in 1984, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally."

Here we go with being politically incorrect. Unlike the far right that wants to deport all illegal immigrants, I agree with Reagan. I believe there are people who are working hard and have made a good life here in America and would work to become citizens had they not, years ago, entered illegally. Perhaps they came with their parents, perhaps they were smuggled in, whatever the case, once here illegally there is no path to citizenship. Why?

Why not provide a path for citizenship? Provide a certain amount of time for them to begin the process. If they don't or have no desire to become citizens then - here we go again with PI - deport them.

Yup, that's right, I said it, because if they don't want to become citizens then why are they here?

I'm not talking about those seeking asylum, and if we can be honest the thousands coming here are not all asylum seekers. According to the American Immigration Council, "asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a "refugee." The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future 'on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.' Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980."

Let's all be honest, some are coming for the American dream, others because they've been encouraged by groups to do so.

My message is don't enter the United States carrying the flag of your country. If your country in Central America was so wonderful that you would fly that flag then why are you fleeing said country to come to America.

And here's, another politically incorrect idea. If our foreign aid to these Central American countries is not working -and it must not be otherwise why are people fleeing poverty and danger - then stop the foreign aid and use it to help pay for border security (but come up with an actual plan, like say a wall or a fence or more agents), and let's work to help people migrating legally to this country.

~~~

And, in the words of Piers Morgan, it has been a rough week to be a man. In his column for the Daily Mail, mailonline.com he writes, the American Psychological Association released a set of guidelines that condemned traditional masculinity as 'harmful.' It's basically saying that it's wrong, and harmful, to be masculine, to be a man."

Then he notes, following on the heels of the APA article, comes the release of the razor company Gillette's two-minute commercial asking "Is this the best a man can get." The company in 1990 started its "The Best A Man Can Get" campaign." I know this because I was taking an advertising course in college and we discussed the commercial. I remembered the slogan because we laughed about it at a Super Bowl party that if a razor is the best a man can get then men were in trouble.

Gillette used the question in their latest commercial to try and bring awareness to the bullying and harassing actions of some men.

However, many men have taken exception to the ad, feeling it is an attack on all men, they feel that Gillette and the APA are saying all men act like this.

All men don't, in fact, act like those degenerates in the commercial.

But I am not here to debate the APA report or the commercial. What I thought of as a woman watching the commercial is that when people think of bullying they seem to always think of boys beating up other boys, stealing lunch money, horrible hazing incidents. When they think of sexual harassment they think only of men sexually harassing women.

So, here comes the PI moment, people that think that would be wrong. Women, young ladies and girls can be some of the biggest bullies, manipulators, deceivers and harassers. But men can't say that without getting in trouble. I'll probably still get in trouble, but less so since I am of the same gender I'm talking about. But who more so is qualified to talk about women's actions than a woman, so here goes.

I have seen women on power trips in the workplace over other women and over other men. It's not a pretty sight and makes for very uncomfortable working conditions.

I have seen the bullying in school when I was growing up. Years later I had a classmate who said she felt I had been a bully and I have thought about that and thought about my own actions and how I treated other girls in school. It may not have risen to the level of "bullying" but yes, I probably didn't treat some of my classmates the way I should have, with respect.

We can all learn to treat each other with more respect.

Basically through all of this I am saying what I think Gillette is trying to say - we can all do better, but that goes for men and women.

NOTE: If this had been a politically correct column then this space would have been left blank so as not to offend anyone.