Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Apprentice: Randal IS Evil!

The Apprentice: Randal IS Evil!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Loyal readers, I watched, with extreme delight, as Randal was awarded a “position” with the Trump organization (not to go off topic, but I think his choice to work on the Atlantic City casino revamp was poor. Good luck pulling that billion dollar bomber out of its nose dive.).

Believe it, or not, I had secretly rooted for Randal all along. No, I’m not a bandwagon jumper. I honestly felt Randal was one of the most talented, and educated, participants ever to grace this reality template. He proved himself week after week, never losing a task he had control of. As for everyone else who participated, I say “blah”. Yes, I said blah.

I know, right now you’re belly aching “what about Rebecca, and her broken ankle?” For that, I will give her some credit, but, if you want to talk about someone who toughed out a broken ankle, then I give you Bobby Baun. For those of you who don’t know, Bob played the overtime period, in game 6 of the 1964 Stanley Cup finals, for the Toronto Maple Leafs, and scored the game winning goal. Then, two days later, played game 7 in its entirety, eventually going on to win the cup, and yes, he did all this with a broken ankle! To me, that’s toughing it out. Hobbling around on some crutches, not so much. But, I digress.

The reality is Randal deserved to win. Those of you, who disagree, give your head a shake (preferably close to something sharp). Randal will be an asset to Trump, no doubt. How can I be so sure that Randal was the best choice? Wasn’t he too nice to make it in the cannibalistic environment that is New York City? Hah! Randal proved he’s got what it takes not even two minutes into his victory.

Trump, in a plotted move, attempted to pull the “everybody feels good” stunt when he inquired to Randal about Rebecca, prodding him to admit that she, too, was deserving of a position with the Trump organization. Randal, in all his post victory glory, was having nothing to do with this sad display. He shut her, and this lame exploit, down tout sweet. And with a chorus of boos ringing in his ears, Randal made it known that there was room for only one apprentice, him. As he put it, “this was The Apprentice, not The Apprenti.” And with that, Randal stood, and extended his arms wide in victory. No one was going to dim his spotlight, not the production crew, not even Trump.

Bravo, Randal! Bravo! You, my friend, have shown America the way, the Evil Office way. For this I can only smile, and nod in approval.

I write many articles about this very type of behavior, maybe you’ve read one? Some of you agree with my Evil rants, rightly so. Some of you make it known, that such behavior, was to be avoided in the workplace, okay, I can see your point. But, some of you even went so far to call these deeds childish, unnecessary, and detrimental to the overall health of an office. To you, I can now laugh louder than before.

Randal proved my point. If you want to play with the big dogs, leave your compassion at the door. There is no room in a business career for it. You want to be compassionate? Find another career. Or, better yet, save the Mother Theresa act for after hours.

Personally, I’m very charitable, but do I bring that into my office? No, my acts of humanity are for my eyes only, not a tool for self promotion. My feet are firmly planted on the ground, not on a soapbox. But, when the office door closes, it’s all business.

You can disagree all you want. I know you will. In the end, though, I know that the selfish path is the safest path. Do you honestly think Trump became a millionaire by being compassionate? How about Gates? Anyone who’s read his life story knows that theft, manipulation, and greed were his tools to become one of the richest men on the planet. His recent charity, I believe, is a direct result of his marriage. His wife, bless her soul, was able to see through the fog of war, to a higher purpose. But that’s easy to do when you’re sitting on a pile of gold.

For the rest of us, until the day we can light cigars with hundred dollar bills, we’d better learn that emotional detachment is essential for personal success. The ladder you climb is only one person wide. If compassion drives you to want to stop, and let someone pass, then be prepared to have the soles of their shoes planted firmly in the middle of your face as they leap over you. And, in the end, the pain of my truth hurts a lot less than a wing tip kicking you in the face.

Ramble on.

Powered by

About T Stoddart

  • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    Oh you and your two-bit cynicism. There was nothing evil about Randall’s decision at all. It was the right thing to do; hiring both would have simply devalued the competition.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Oh you and your knee jerk reaction. I think my article, if you read it, says that Randal’s decision was in his best interest, all compassion aside. And it was Evil.

    He could have easily said “okay, hire Rebecca too”, and everyone wins. But he didn’t fall to the pressure. He applied a selfish attitude to his decision. Do you really think he would have suffered if he brought her on board? Give me a break.

    This “competition” is nothing more than a soap box for Donald. So get with it. Randal would have been everyone’s best friend if he gave in. Now, he has to apologize to America for making his decision. Don’t believe it, check his website when it comes back online.

    Why would he make such a statement if his choice wasn’t an issue? Because his decision was selfish. And, last time i looked, such behavior was evil.

    I applaud him for having the balls.

    Don’t agree, I don’t care. But that’s me just being selfish.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Well, Unknown, there are only a few ways that I know of. Here they are in no particular order:

    1) Be born into a wealthy family, don’t murder your parents and maybe they’ll leave something for you when they do die.

    2) Conduct illegal activities. These could include selling drugs, working for the Government, or join your local mob.

    3) Find someone who has invented the next big thing and steal it from him. Just make sure he is too broke to go after you legally.

    4) Sell your internal organs. Or someone else’s.

    Thanks for commenting, I hope this helps.

    T.

  • http://www.tantmieux.squarespace.com sadi ranson-polizzotti

    i don’t really applaud him. i see where he’s coming from and he fought for it, but if Trump felt that she too deserved the job then he should have had the balls to say so and not leave it up to, let’s face it, this kid. This kid was selfish and proved that and was graceless as well, playing to the audience while she sad there dumbfounded, knowing she would have said Yes had it been him (this i’m pretty sure of… i could almost guarantee it). He’s an ass for being an ass and only proved that on national television and once again, The Donald proved that he really cannot make decisions on his own.

    Pathetic.

    She’ll be the one to get a better job at the end of the day…. and kudos to her for her grace. IN my book, she won by handling herself with such dignity.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Santa, beat it. And, learn how to type.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Sadi, you hit on something important. No one really loses on this show. They all go on to do the circuit. And the longer you go on the show, the more money and public/private speaking engagments you get.

    Rebecca will do fine. Would I be pissed if I was her? Maybe, but you have to wonder what she would have done in Randal’s position?

    Plus, Donald did take the shine off of Randal for even putting him in such a situation. I thought it was a little underhanded.

    But, as the saying goes, all publicity is good publicity.

    Thanks for commenting.

    T.

  • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    I know what your article said. I think you’re confusing your terms, tough. Randall acted in his own self-interest, but that is not synonomous with selfish. He would be “selfish” if he was ruthlessly unfair. He wasn’t — quite the opposite, in fact, as he was absolutely respectful of Rebecca and fair to her from beginning to end. He won the contest because he was the best, and “sharing” that victory would have been wrong. There’s nothing ruthless about the way the game turned out.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Rodney, confusion is not on my list. Self-interest and selfish are the same terms. What is at the center of self-interest? A desire to do what is right for you. What is selfish? An action that is in your own best interest.

    Just because someone is respectful, does not make them fair. His act of respect does not take away his selfish action in the end does it?

    Why do you think the term backstabbing came into being? It defines a behavior that is at the very core of this issue.

    If he really was a nice guy, he would have had no problem bringing her along for the ride.

    No, he was selfish. And good for him.

    Evil is as Evil does.

    T.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Well, well, the great censor in the sky has put an end to the feud. I guess he/she was in the mood for giving also. Thanks for giving me peace.

    T.

  • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    Randall, You are confused in every sentence. Selfish is not mere self-interest; it’s a ruthless self-interest that operates to the exclusion of others. Randall, in playing the game and in arguing for himself, did not treat Rebecca unfairly, and given the nature of the game, his final action was perfectly defensible. There was no backstabbing to it at all — Trump threw him a challenge and he did nothing underhanded in claiming the victory for himself. Backstabbing suggests he had somehow betrayed Rebecca, that he had promised something he did not deliver, or that he owed her something he did not deliver. He in fact owed her nothing. They were opponents, and if you had watched the show earlier in the season you would have seen that she was just as tough as he was. What he proved in the end was that he was a nice guy, but no pushover. He played the game with perfect fairness. You seem to believe that ethical behavior is a hindrance to success, and that when anyone succeeds it automatically means they are as shallow and vulgar as you are. I submit that his actions throughout the season prove otherwise — prove in fact that you can be both tough and fair, which is why he won.

  • http://h T

    Rodney, you’re hilarious. Get off the soap box. If you really understand business, which you don’t, you would know that underhanded is what Donald is known for.
    I was not calling Randal a backstabber, I said that is where the core of this idea came from. The idea that people can be both nice and mean. And how it is essential for business survival. Plus, If you did read my post, I called Donald underhanded for putting Randal in that position. Read before you jump to conclusions.

    I did watch the show from the begining. And really toughness has nothing to do with good business sense. You can stand tough all you want but that still won’t close the deal.

    As for fairness. Give it a rest. Fair has no place in this conversation. Fair does not exist in business, and if you were in business, you would know that.

    Ethics? Don’t make me laugh. Talk to Enron about ethics, talk to Microsoft, talk to Donald about ethics. No, Rodney, ethics are not your friend. Hide behind them if you will but you won’t get far.

    Capitalism is about making money. It’s a game. If Randal doesn’t adopt Donald’s standards, then guess what? He’s gone. Work for Donald for a month and you’ll learn and fairness, and ethics, will only get you a kick out the door.

    Rodney, I know how to play the game. You don’t. And because of that you label me shallow and vulgar. Again, I say, get your head out of the sand and take a look around. Business is a vulgar, shallow beast that has no time to play nice and fair.

    Go to New York with that baggage and you’ll get devoured in a New York Minute. And if you can’t take it, stay home and keep posting.

    T

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Oh, and Rodney, for your information here is a definition of self interest.

    Self-interest (Self`-in”ter*est) (?), n.

    Private interest; the interest or advantage of one’s self.

    and here is selfish:

    Selfishness is a primary or sole concern with one’s own welfare.

    Boy, how they are the same!

    T.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    T: Capitalism is indeed about making money but also has to operate within a legal and ethical framework, even in New York, does it not? I feel you’re being a little harsh on Rodney.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Chris, c’mon now.

    First of all do you honestly believe big business resides inside such confining limitations? Do some research on WalMart. All big business resides on the edge of ethics and legality. Why is it that every fortune five hundred company has at least five lawyers on staff at all times?

    Check out the oil companies. They are far from ethical. As for their actions of pollution and over development, well, if we live long enough, we may see a court case make it through all the red tape their lawyers throw at the courts.

    Business is no place for a discussion of these matters.

    As for me being mean. I don’t mean to sound immature but the name calling was not started on my end.

    So, Chris, I’m sorry if you feel that my words are harsh. But the truth sometimes stings.

    T.

  • http://rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    T, There’s no point in replying to such a banal catalogue of it’s-a-jungle-out-there cliches. Clearly you have watch a lot of “Dallas” and Wall Street. (Do they let you bring your own TV down there in the mailroom? How nice.) I am glad to learn that you don’t actually think Randall is a backstabber, and merely misspoke when you implied he was earlier. As to your definitions, the key phrase is “primary or sole.”

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Fortunately, Mr T, (ta-da!) that’s why there is the whole field of corporate law and, especially in your green and pleasant land, lots of lawyers to police it. If you’re not mean, you sure are a little cynical or jaded. Lucky for you there’s a holiday coming up soon…

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Rodney, you’re a joke. You can’t prove your point so you have to skip to personal insults, if that’s what those lame attempts are. Again, you seem to think I called Randal a backstabber, re-read the article, I AM FOR RANDAL. Geez you’re thick headed.

    And, if you think I reside in the mail room, you’re misinformed. I right these articles because I learned from experience. These experiences come from being out there “in the jungle”. So you can take jabs at me all you want. I’m not the one hiding behind references from the ’80’s.

    So, Rodney, get back in the time capsule and watch Wallstreet again, it’s based on the life of a real person. And it’s about as close to real business as you’re going to get.

    Go back to your virtual life, my friend. Because it’s people like me who are in the jungle waiting for naieve people like you.

    Reply all you want, I’m done with you.

    T.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    First off, I wrote “right” above in my post when I meant “write”. I must have been blinded by my blood thirst. Or choking on my bitterness, right Chris?

    I do want to say how ironic it is to tell me that there are “lawyers” who are conserned with ethics!

    That’s so friggin funny. A profession that charges $40.00 for a fax is concerned about ethics.

    No, Chris, I am not bitter. I have been accused of this before but I am not. At my base, I am very positive about life and work. I write about what I see, hear, and live. Your experiences may be different, I don’t know. But in the world of business I have come to know, life is cut throat.

    As for christmas coming? I’m bitter about all the shopping I have left to do.

    T.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Come to think of it, there are several typo’s. Here, for the last time, I will correct myself to spare others the time in pointing them out to me.

    Concerned not conserned. And naive, not naieve. That was a bad one….man, I must have been choking on some serious rage to let that one go.

    Alright, so we are clear that in my moments of spirited replies, I type like crap.

    Serenity now!

    T

  • Joe

    Black men usually stand behind “brothers” and “sisters.” Had Rebecca been African-American, I have no doubt that Randal would have encouraged Trump to hire her as well. Instead, Randal indulged his considerable racism and revealed himself to be so incredibly and foolishly selfish.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Broad brush in use: “Black men usually stand behind ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters.'”

    Um, who is calling whom “racist?” I am sorry Mr. Joe, but your statement comes out of right field for me – how in the heck can you point to Randal being pigmentationist in all of this?

  • Monique

    I enjoyed the whole season… until the very last episode! I’m SHOCKED that Trump had to ASK Randall what he thought about giving her a job… and I’m also SHOCKED that Randall said no…. It’s amazing to me… he had the chance to give a fellow contestant the chance to change her life… just as he had been given a few moments before… Did he not feel secure enough with himself and his abilities? Perhaps he was afraid she would outshine him!!! I’m not saying she was better than him in the tasks… I think, actually they were pretty equal. I’m not even saying that she HAD to get a job, as well… but since Trump gave Randall the opportunity to allow her to be employed as well, I think it looked poorly on him to say what he said!!! If Trump wanted her to have a job that badly he would have just given it to her…

    I do think that Randall was afraid this was going to happen from the beginning of the finale!!! Did you pick up on what he said about why he should be the next Apprentice>??? He said, bla bla bla.. and then at the very end he said,”and that’s why I deserve to be the one and only sole apprentice.” Did you notice that??? I really think he was getting a vibe that because Rebecca was so impressive to Trump that he was going to offer Rebecca a job!!

    Anyways… I blame Trump more than Randall… maybe Trump shouldn’t have made the offer.. especially if he wasn’t going to do it without Randall’s “blessings!!!” It’s just ridiculous!

    Monique

  • http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/ Rodney Welch

    Keep in mind, though, this game is ABOUT there being only one winner — not two, not three, not 16. It’s about 15 people getting fired and ONE PERSON winning. Trump should never have made the offer, and Randall was right to refuse it.

  • Brandon

    Randal said she should not be hired tonight. He never closed the door on the fact that she could be hired at all. And in the fact that in the end it all comes down to what Trump wants anyway. He could hvae easily turned around said you know what Randal I was testing you to see if you would make the right choice, blah blah blah, you’re fired, rebeccca is hired or something. For all we know Trump hired her the next day. And one decision in someone’s life doesn’t make them good or evil. You have to look at the sum of a persons life and choices to determine that. People on blogs and online have been so quick to judge Randal and say what they what they would have done. The fact is everyone could say what they would have done,but hindsight is 20/20 and it wasn’t your choice to make it was his.In any competition the goal is to win, and thats all he was doing. Also how is it that only that one action was considered yet throughout the whole process everyone said that Randal was too nice and needed to be tougher. So through the whole process he is nice, he then makes a decison and all of a sudden he is evil. Way to give the guy a chance people jeez.

  • Oneguy

    Randal made the right call. Trump was wrong to put him on the spot. EVERYONE in the competition made it clear that they were there to be the ONE chosen. As well, it was not a draw. Randal WON (he played the game better and had a far superior eductional and professional record)- though I will concede that he is not as pleasing to the eye as Rebecca. He did not tell Trump not to hire Rebecca. He said that on the night, there should be only one winner – and he was the clear winner. Business is business (which is the theme of show)and Rebecca’s inclusion would have detracted from his victory. Randall made the right business decision by fully claiming what he had EARNED.

  • Canadian Man Of Honour and Letters

    DISFORTUNE

    YOU ran a marathon and were the first to cross the line after a grueling race. Be it a slim margin of victory or a large one, how would you feel if the rules were arbitrarily changed to get your approval of the second-place finisher receiving an equal gold medal. Now imagine that marathon lasting your whole life. Competition is inherently discriminatory but the rules should be fair and consistent. Every metric showed that the man from Jersey (Randal) was superior to the lady from Minnesota (Rebecca) albeit some myopic viewers refuse to acknowledge this fact. Let me innumerate.
    1) Randal was, by far, better educated
    2) Randal was, by far, better experienced
    3) Randal had a flawless record and more than equally contributed to Rebecca’s only win
    4) Randal actually produced charity for a CHARITY EVENT. This should not be overlooked – if this challenge had taken place 3 weeks earlier would there have been any question to Rebecca’s firing. Donald might have fired her whole team all over again for good measure.
    4) Randal had a hostile charity delegate that eventually was, herself, won over by his heart, professionalism and equanimity.
    5) Randal also stood up for a weak candidate (Markus)- he voted for his exemption the first week and verbally supported him in another boardroom debriefing (Lamborghini challenge) -the only one to do so.
    6) Randal’s altruism was showcased when he was determined to assist Rebecca to her sole and only win. He said this in unequivocal terms.
    7) He earned the love and support of virtually all of the candidates early on in the series. He maintained this support and admiration throughout a competitive environment. This alone speaks volumes of his value and charisma.
    8) Randal was prescient. “I cannot see why you would not pick me to be your sole and only apprentice” he said early-on during the finale. This was meant to relay his strong belief in his win. (This was most likely why Donald deferred to him at the end of the show).

    These points are incontestable and provide ample proof of his triumph. Accolades (a lesser win) must be extended to Rebecca but not at the expense of a triumph (greater victory).

    As to Randal’s response to Donald’s inappropriately timed query -which effectively diminished the win while the victor had yet to set his arms down from a well won victory salute. The question should have never been asked in the first place.

    Do I believe they were both qualified. Yes. Do you believe they were equally qualified…. see above.

  • KAY

    Well, I guess the only thing to do is pay attention down the road and see what other newly appointed apprentice gets put on the spot to share the victory with his competitor. My guess is, it’s not gonna happen! Trump is a chump! Randall is completely in the right.

    Satan is the god of this world!

  • Spiny Norman

    Randal was a deserving winner. His 13 week job interview showed that he was an excellent candidate to be Trump’s apprentice.

    So Trump hires him, but he NEVER fires Rebecca. DT then provides Randal with his first opportunity to make a decision as a Trump employee. Would you hire Rebecca? Nope, Randal says. I would fire her. In effect, that is what he said.

    Now, if Randal was thinking of what is best for his employer, Donald Trump, he might have considered that Trump has a mega-empire that residential real estate, golf courses, consumer products, cas.inos and other businesses like beauty pageants. DT needs lots of good people to run these businesses. Might there be a place in the organization for someone who is as capable as Rebecca? Surely, he had seen enough of her to evaluate her.

    Now in defense of Randal, Trump gave him a nano-second to make this important decision. And he asked him to make it at the point at which the spotlight was all on him.

    But in the end Randal was more concerned with sharing that spotlight than on what might have been good business.

  • http://ivillage.com jan

    For heaven’s sake! By what factual basis is Rebecca equal or nearly equal to Randal in management ability or competence? Those of you who think that Rebecca is on the same level as Randal either have very low standards or didn’t watch all 13 episodes.

    Rebecca lost every task in which she was PM, except the one where she was in a 2-person team with Randal and he was instrumental in helping her to win that task. Not to mention that the last task was about raising money for the charity and not only did Rebecca not raise ANY money, but at the event her charity got one measly sign and an envelope in the gift bag! That’s it. Randal’s sponsor told him not to ask the bigwigs for money too but he ignored them. Also, her team once traded her because she was a weak player. ——- If you can ignore all those facts and still look at someone with such a terrible performance record and say they are equal to someone like Randal who was UNDEFEATED as PM, then it’s clear you are full of crap.

    Then you say that “Randal would have lost nothing by hiring Rebecca.” Give me a break – he would have lost his self-respect. Since no other apprentice winner was asked that question, it was inappropriate to ask Randal, especially for such an inferior opponent. Also, Randal wasn’t hired as VP of Trump’s Personnel Department. If Trump still thought Rebecca was pretty enough to hire despite her losing record, then he was free to hire her after the show. It was inappropriate for him to raise the matter when he did.

    The only reason Rebecca was in the finale was because Trump went on a firing rampage this season and fired all of Randal’s real competition. She made it to the final 2 by sheer luck, not ability.

  • RogerMDillon

    Natalie, while Joe has no way of knowing what Randal would do if Marshawn was in the final twosome, the footage of Randall in his company’s conference room contained only African Americans employees? He has every right to do so, but it does allow people like Joe to raise questions.

    The game is a job application to work for Trump. As an employer if you found two qualified candidates for a job, you’d be foolish not to hire them both. Randal showed poor judgement in the way he handled the situation. I hope it was worth it.

  • Linda

    If trump wanted to hire Rebecca he could have hired har after the show like he’s done in the past. What was his motivation for putting Randall in the spot.
    Randal was right on the show there could only be one Apprentice. If the shoe was on the other foot and Rebecca was the better candidate I doubt that asking her to share her title would have gone down too well. Trump would not even have considered asking her that. The best candidate won.

  • RogerMDillon

    “What was his motivation for putting Randall in the spot.”

    It’s a TV show.

    If there can only be one apprentice, then Randal should wait until the contracts of the three previous apprentices run out.

  • Ja-Ja Binks

    He aksed Randall that question to see if he would cave to pressure….If Randall had of said yes I wonder what Trump would have done.. To me it would have showed weakness. Man its cramped in this mail closet, one day maybe Ill grow up to be just like wrodknee…..LOL

  • ClubSstyle_DJ

    Racecard:
    “Why should the rules and policy of the show be changed at the last minute. It has always been the “Apprentice”, with one person winning the spoils. What is interesting to me is that this is the first African-American to win and coincidentally the first time that Trump was trying to change the rules and hire two apprentices.

    I agree with everyone who says “the question should never have been presented”. I agree with the marathon theory. I agree totally with the “got to the final 2 by luck” theory. Anybody remember the final 2 with Bill and Quame? (apprentice 1). Trump should have set this kind of precedence then and there. And BTW I can’t remember any of the final 2 being actually fired.
    “I’ll see you in the boardroom, ”
    “Where Someone will be Hired”
    Also, had Alla not been fired, she would have had Rebecca for breakfast.

    CSDJ

  • RogerMDillon

    The producers, of which Trump is one, are trying to create the best show. Agree or disagree with their decision, but to act like they can’t change the rules as they see fit as if there are some commandents about reality tv, shows a complete naivety about the way television works.

    Did you complain when the team members got switched? That changed rules. Did you complain when trump fired more than one person in the boardroom? That changed the rules.

    Was Randal more qualified? Yes. Could the Trump organization hire another person? Yes.

    If think Trump did this because of Randal’s race, then your own prejudice is exposed.

    Alla is a former stripper who had a customer murder people so he could get more money to continue seeing her. There’s no way Trump was going to hire her.

  • ClubSstyle_DJ

    Still seems to me that her being picked would have diluted the victory. Also seems her being picked would have implied a tie. Oh i’m well aware that “Good” television is desinged to attract advertisers and their monsterous ad budgets, subseqently attracting viewrs and their wallets and purses. “For the love of money” is the freakin theme song.
    PS. The race card makes for good blog-o-vision! ;^)

  • ClubSstyle_DJ

    Agreed on the Alla thing…apprentice 2…remember Ivana willing to strip for a sale..
    Trump: I’m not hiring a stripper!
    Forgot I read that about Alla on TSMG…wholly cow fallout from that would have been somthing to see!

  • Thomas

    All RAndal fans are welcome to visit the new site.

    Go there to submit your support to randal.

    Randal all the way.

  • Sasha from Notre Dame

    We women have to practice what we preach, she lost … and is whining like a baby and showing her legs to feel better about herself. Take it from me, she was bullshitting and would have never hired him if she had the chance. The next woman will win fair and square, not by any cheap play for the hearts of soccermoms and horny men. I mean … the crowd that night was all white too… I mean Im white, but imagine if it were in reverse and the crowd was all black and this debate happened. Randal, you’re the champ! HOLD YOUR HEAD HIGH!!! You’re and honorary FIGHTING IRISHMAN NOW!!

  • http://URL Truth sayer

    First I’d like to preface this with saying that I don’t believe Trump to be a racist, I believe he’s a fair man. However, at times people can be INSENSITIVE to race issues without knowing what they are doing. It’s unfortunate that the question of sharing a “SINGLE REWARD” of the Apprenticeship had to be done when it was the “FIRST TIME” an African American WON the contest. As pointed out by “#26 Canadian Man Of Honour and Letters” he is totally correct. You don’t have a marathon race and then at the end change the rule to have two racers win the race; especially when the 2nd place racer was totally crushed – broken leg or not.

    What people need to understand is that a lot of times race has something to do with it when you’re African American. However, Caucasians who have not experienced RACISM always want to diminish the acts of the present and past as nothing. RACISM does exist, sometimes in full force, other times in small ways. Just look at every REALITY show. Why is it that each season there is ONLY ONE African American who makes the cut? Do you actually believe this to be by chance? NO. RACE is a big deal to casting, and the producers will usually put ONE African American in per season (at best one male and one female if we’re lucky). Look at Survivor, Amazing Race, Apprentice, [btw- Martha’s Apprentice did not have ANY African American contestants :( What caucasians need to understand, is that African Americans have to live with racist attitudes their entire life and we can’t escape it. But when we have the opportunity to excel and be the winner, we will take it and fight for it.

    Have you noticed that the African American’s on the show are the ones who have the MOST degrees on the show? Why is it that they have to have more degrees to be seen as equal to caucasians? (For example: Kevin from season 2 also had several degrees, like 4. However, when he met with the big execs for the final interviews, they felt like he had toooo many degrees. [I think it’s good Trump skipped the interviewers this year, or the same thing would have happened to Randal] Therefore, the interviewers took a positive of having education and made it into a negative. — just ponder on why they did that. instead of saying WOW, he would really be qualified, they turned it into a negative and said they felt like he did not know how to commit. COME ON!! It’s just another way of keeping the brother down. African American’s barely ever get a fair shake, so when one finally gets a break, we should not try and share the glory with someone who is less qualified in every way.) African American’s have to fight 300% harder just to get the same JOBS and STATUS that caucasians get. So when we do finally get the recognition we should not have to share it with someone else. For 3 past seasons, no other Apprentice had to share the prize. Therefore, why should the ONLY African American Apprentice have to share it? That’s not right. If Rebecca had a winning record of 3 and 0, or even 2 and 0, I think we could have this argument of whether or not Rebecca should share in the glory. But she had a LOSING record of 1 and 2. Meaning she loss more than she won. While Randal had 3 wins and NO losses. Truth be told, there is not one argument as to why Rebecca should have even been considered as a joint winner. If the question of sharing the Apprentice was ever to be made, it should have been made during previous years when the competition was much closer. But this year was the most DEFINITIVE win ever. And that question should not have been made. The ONLY possible argument that could be validated is her breaking her ankle [but to win because of that would be out of PITY and not TALENT or SKILL], however, lets remember that Randal loss his Grandmother (seems like everyone wants to remember that she broke her leg, but no one remembers that he suffered a loss, hmmmmm???? So with each of them having a hardship to work through, the two hardships cancel themselves out and we’re back to the education and wins associated with each contestant. And Randal WINS every time without a doubt.)

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    WoW!

    I never thought this article would span so many topics! Cudo’s to all of you for taking the time to make your point. I myself, have decided to take one of the issues mentioned, ethics, and make another post. Please visit that and comment, I would love to see where that goes.

    As for the issue of race. I have to agree with most of what truth sayer is spitting out. I have noticed that most of the African American contestants on reality shows do poorly. Most of the time, the producers pick unstable personalities and put them in with an all white cast. This, invariably, leads to the type of discord that viewers salavate over.

    Is it fair? No, but no competition is. It’s something we have to be aware of daily, especially in our own lives.

    I would also like to say “hello” to my fellow Canadian brother in comment #26. Well thought out and well said. You make me proud.

    Thanks again all.

    T.

  • http://freewayjam.blogspot.com uao

    I don’t think he was insensitive to a racial issue.

    There was no racial issue.

    Trump’s suggestion was dumb, but it wasn’t because it was insensitive to race. Season 3 had been a blowout, season 4 the final two were fairly evenly matched.

    If Randal had been white, I suspect Trump might have made the same offer. Or if Rebecca had won.

    What bothers me is how everything is seen as racial, even when it isn’t. Randal won, fair and square. Trump made a poorly-thought-out offer, Randal rejected it, Trump told him he respected his decision. Randal remains sole champion.

    Why on earth does this have to be racial? That kind of thinking keeps us in the quagmire.

    And it’s just a dopey reality show!

  • Patricia

    I’m still vehemently angry about last week’s Apprentice finale. Randal will do well in business because he has now demonstrated (for all to see) the purest form of selfishness, a sickening form of melodramatic insincerity, and a desperate sense of entitlement and undeserved arrogance (I’ve got a PhD too!). What does it say about our society that a man can still unabashedly deny a deserving and more dignified woman her rightful place in a position of power because he’s threatened by her? It’s just all further evidence that the Apprentice is a ‘reality show’ – it’s still a MAN’s world, and if a woman complains, her views are simply dismissed. I wish Randal nothing but failure, and hope that he’ll find a way to lose in the end all by himself.

  • Ja-Ja Binks

    It ridiculous, people are discriminated against in many areas.
    I had really long hair at one time and being a man many people thought I had issues as soon as they saw me. I cut my hair and wow what a difference, I wasn’t getting followed around the store by security or getting the “look” I had become accustomed to.
    I cant stand the “black” issue as being the only form of discrimination, fat people are discriminated against, short people, smelly people, ugly people, poor people, give it up on the race issue…
    Its not the only form of discrimination going on and I would venture to say that there are other forms of discrimination that are way more prevalent than someone being black!!!!
    There are many famous, rich, intelligent, successful people who are black. Are they some how special?
    Yes, they didn’t use the crutch that so many use to justify where they are…
    No matter what colour you are if you’re not where you think you should be then you need to try harder and quit blaming everyone else. Go back in history and you’ll find many, many people who were either persecuted or discriminated against but fought against it and made history… Well that’s my 2 cents….. Live long and prosper !..!

  • Tannwitz

    So King Solomon offers Randal a chance to cut the baby in half, Randal sez no, “it’s my baby”. At least that’s the way Randal sees it. Frankly, I don’t know why either one (Randal or Rebecca) would want to work for anyone anyway. Especially Randal. He can do better without Trump. As for Rebecca, she’s only 23 years old? I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anyone that young handle the camera under pressure as she did. She glows bright and I wouldn’t be surprised to see her anchoring a great network at dinner time. I’ll be using a spoon. Tannwitz

  • http://URL Truth sayer

    Trying to say that this could not be racial just makes matters worse. Racism does exist and will not go away until fully confronted. Like I said, I don’t believe Trump to be RACIST, however, it was a very racially insensitive decision.

    Even if the decision was not racist, there is still the question of having to pose such a question of sharing the ONE prize when an African American wins for the first time. UNDERSTAND, that the CONTEST was not close at all, and sharing the prize should never have come up. Randal WON “3” challenges, while Rebecca ONLY WON “1”. Randal lost “0” challenges while Rebecca lost “2”. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Randal has “5” degrees and runs a multi-million dollar company. Rebecca has “1” degree and reports on companies that Randal runs. And each time a LOSING Team had the opportunity of choosing a new Team-mate, they always chose Randal, making us know that everyone there felt Randal was the best person.

    So when it comes time to choose the Apprentice, the thought of sharing it should never have crossed anyones mind based on the Education and Track record of the contestants. But since it did come up, questions arise as to the motivation. The other seasons which had candidates that were much closer in achievements were never asked to share the prize. So when such a crushing defeat is handed out, it should not have been suggested in this season either. Like I said, there was no CLOSE call in who won. Randal outshined in every aspect. Even for the final task, Randal raised $11,000 while Rebecca raised $0.00. There should never have been a fleeting moment of someone thinking they should share the Apprentice.

    There have been several studies which show that discrimination does exist. Yes people can fight and eventually do something with their life, but WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO. This is the U.S., in the year 2005. Racism should not exist but it does.

    There is no way to explain away how for the 4th season this question comes up when Randal won 3 and Rebecca won 1. And having Randal lose 0 and Rebecca lose 2. There is no comparison in records and therefore, sharing such victories CANNOT be a request in a totally fair world. The past seasons have had much closer records, but the idea of sharing the REWARD never crossed anyones mind.

    Now like I said, I don’t believe Trump to be RACIST, however, he did not show intelligence to such RACIAL ISSUES. Even if it had nothing to do with race, you can’t change the rules when it’s the FIRST time an African American wins. It just does not sit well.

    And yes, there are many types of discrimination towards people who are fat, ugly, etc… I never said such did not exist. However, we must acknowledge when an issue is there and not try to change the subject, just because it’s not comfortable hearing it.

    Lets be serious and recognize that there is racism. Until the percentage of death row inmates reflects the percentage of African Americans in the U.S., and we see ONE African American President who is elected by the masses and not a Secretary of State that is selected by one man for brownie points, or don’t see hurricane katrina victims discriminated against, then we can say racism does not exist. However, as long as these events continue to happen no one can legitimately say that racism does not exist.

    Just go to this site and see how ONLY a few months ago AFRICAN AMERICANS were discriminated against during the aftermath of KATRINA () This is not some 50 years ago, but just yesterday.

    And along with people fighting to get what they can; it is true there have been several people who fought to get what they wanted. However, they should not have to fight any harder than their counterpart caucasian brother. All people should be treated fairly based upon their merits. But that is not the case. African Americans have to fight 300% harder to get what comes to caucasians. Just look at Colin Powell, he had to be a General to be considered for the post of Secretary of State. Where past Sec. or States did not have to have such credentials.

    Just do a search of Wal Mart and Denny’s to see how many hits come up with them showing discrimination.

  • http://evilofficepolitics.blogspot.com T

    Tannwitz: You make a point I also have wondered. Why would anyone want to put themselves through the drama fest that is reality tv? But then I realize its the fifteen minutes of fame idea. Randal stands to make a great deal of money, like any reality show winner, except big brother winners because no one cares about them, plus the endorsements and public speaking engagements he’ll nail down will definitely give him even more money down the road.

    Rebecca stands to make a killing to. There are a hundred a list companies who will vie to snatch her up. Many for the chic value in having a minor celeb around.

    The problem I see for anyone who wants to be in a reality situation is that no one really takes you seriously. You reign in the “celebrity” spot light is so short now a days that it is somewhat meaningless.

    Randal is in the spotlight for now, but give it a week.

    Plus, I have to wonder about his business partners at his own company. Are they now left holding the bag while Randal does his own thing? And will they be interested in taking him back after the Donald has his fill?

    I know the money is good and the fame is intoxicating while its hot, but the reality in reality shows is that you are a forgettable face drowning in a sea of other reality winners.

    Thanks for commenting Tannwitz.

  • viewer

    Randal is an insecure, egocentric, weakling.

    He said “It’s The Apprentice not The Apprenti.” If he is going to use that logic then he shouldn’t have been hired either.

    I’ve got news for Randal. He isn’t the one and only Apprentice Donald has ever hired. He is ONE of the APPRENTI.

    He is, however, the only Apprentice applicant who made an utter spectacle of his selfish, childish, insecure nature on national TV.

    What will Randal demand next? Will it be a request that Donald fire the rest of his employees so Randal can be the only “special” one? Will that fill his weakling ego need to for attention?

    Here’s what I think, “Randal, you’re hired… as the weakling, egocentric, whiner of the decade.”

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    “Apprentice” has a plural form, “apprentices.”

    Randal said, “Appren-TIE,” as in, there is one winnner and there are no ties.

    …and in this ever-changing world in which we’re livin’…”

  • David

    If you think that a decision to hire Rebecca would be based on ‘compassion’ or ‘charity’, you’re dead wrong: This is ALL about business, and in business, you should try to do what makes the most sense *for the business* – end of story (sacrificing the good of the business for your ‘personal gain’ is a poor quality). It is amply clear that Rebecca would be an asset to the business, hence, she should’ve been hired, simple as that. To kick her out in a display of power *is* a stupid business decision based purely on emotion – i.e. a power trip. And the WORST kind of manager in business is the power-trippy one that makes ego decisions. He wasn’t displaying that he was “tough” or that he is good at “leaving emotions out of decision-making” — on the contrary, he was displaying that he makes bad *business* decisions based on emotion. Perhaps he even felt threatened by Rebecca, and the kind of manager that deliberately never hires really good people in case they might threaten him is, again, the worst kind of manager.

    A good manager hires the best. There is nothing else to it. Even Trump said it. And you don’t easily find ‘Rebecca’ in the business world. Even Trump had said he had “two stars”. What kind of manager fires a “star” given a choice? And once hired, it’s not about the entertainment show anymore, it’s about Trump’s business.

    Admittedly he was put on the spot, to make a snap decision in very little time, if I were to be charitable I’d suggest/hope that maybe he wondered afterwards if he’d made the right choice.

  • erika

    im sorry but if yo earned a win u should not hve to share it, t feels lke all that compettion and hard work ws for nothing if he was just going to hire both anyway. he ddnt say tht he shouldnt hire rebecca, just tht there should only be one apprentice. he was thoughtful and nice all through, wasnt evil or brash or even the slightest bt horrible. has respect for every ll the way through, he wom it was hes time in the spotlight and i dont think he should be put down for that,