Drugs and punishment

It's just truly amazing how much sympathy and adoration is felt in the nation for drug dealers and addicts. I'm being serious.

We have Secretary of State Clinton rushing out to foreign nations, declaring that their problems are caused by our actions. While this is in part true for the nations that supply the vast drug culture of the United States, it is not the only reason many of those nations are impoverished. The degree of culpability of the U.S. aside, the fact that Secretary Clinton is airing our national dirty laundry to the world is a bit stinging. Especially as the Government fails to act.

That of course says nothing of the way Secretary Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, rode on the humor and prestige of his declared failure to inhale. Sort of a just say no after you've already done it campaign. Very effective in getting the youth of America to stop taking drugs.

Add to this the prestige given to ex-convicts, most for drug-related crimes, as they perform their minstrel acts. America buy tens of millions of dollars worth of adulation on rappers and hip hop - as they directly promote various aspects of getting high. Just watch most rapper music videos, and absolutely any movie that has a rapper in it.

Suffice to say the Government likes drugs, legal or not. Both by its actions and inaction.

But the actions get to be even bigger in some states. The NAACP recently sent out an email, requesting support in getting NY Gov. Patterson to change the Rockerfeller drug laws. Because they are not nice, in essence.

Now I agree that an addict on the corner does not need to be locked up for life. There is a better way to deter new drug users than locking up a kid instead of focusing on the dealer and the supplier. But in America, the end-user has been the focus of attention. Except if you lived in an inner city during the 1980's crack epidemic. That was basically left alone to run amuck.

So yes I think the Rockerfeller laws can be changed for the better. But not in the way Gov. Patterson or the NAACP believe. No, I think there is a lesson that we can learn form a nation trying to school America on math right now. China.

Not very long ago, China has a debilitating problem with opium. Addiction and dealers were rampant in the nation. Something had to be done. Something dramatic.

They took addicts , and drug dealers, put them in a square on live television on every channel and shot them dead. It was a very clear message. They did this for a few years. Rounding up a few hundred addicts and dealers, and then publicly executing them. In less than a decade or so, and with the majority of dealers and addicts still alive, they curbed the problem. Not that it does not exist today, but it is negligible.

Personally, I like this plan for drug dealers. They are effectively mass murderers. They are the ones that kill innocents in their turf wars. They are the ones who seek out children for new clientelle. They offer our communities poison for nothing more than monetary profit. I consider them scum.

And for those that are the most visible, the most visible punishment makes sense. A rapper in a movie or music video extolling the fun and/or wealth generated by drugs - and is a known drug offender, possibly even still being arrested for drug related offenses - deserves to have all their wealth removed and donated to recovery programs. They deserve to be put in a box on Hollywood Blvd, and left alone. Because how many millions of kids will eventually see that movie, and the music videos, and the MTV programs, and the various Award shows, and equate the grandeur of that entertainer with drug use? Especially when that entertainer glorifies their past actions in the drug trade at every opportunity (ie. 50 cent or Snoop Dogg).

Now I know that the NAACP thinks that the effect of laws in the nation like the Rockerfeller law is biased against African Americans, Hispanics, and the poor. Which is true. But that does not divert from the fact that inner cities are focal points of drug activity. Given that there are far more Whites that go unpunished in any manner; the real point of attack is the dealer and supplier. And the punishment to both should be extreme.

Just saying no is not effective. Just attacking the addicts is not effective. Logically we need to move up the chain. And we need to act in a manner that actively causes every criminal involved to question the worth of pursuing such a lifestyle.

It's really just that easy. When I was growing up in the Bronx I could have shown the police half a dozen crack houses. Not that they needed to be shown, they knew of them. But instead they focused on the addicts, effectively just opening a new spot for the next addict to take.

Yet when I had to actively threaten to murder a crack house near where my family lived, because one of the addicts pulled a gun on me and thus proved a threat to my entire family, I got results. Where the police ignored the situation for almost 5 years, I had results in 5 minutes. Because the absolute guarantee of death cuts into profits and risk/reward evaluations for everyone.

If America, New York State, or anywhere wants to be effective in ending the drug problem, we need action. Take a drug dealer, which are easy to find in any city or town, and publicly flog them to within an inch of their life. I guarantee they will give up the suppliers. Get the suppliers and publicly hang them. After a few dozen are killed, I guarantee that there will be fewer drugs, and thus fewer addicts.

But this has to be done across the board. It doesn't matter if the dealer is White, Black, Hispanic, male or female, owns a big company or whatever. Delorean, back in the day, was caught with kilos of cocaine and got treated with kid gloves. What do you think that said to the next CEO that wanted a quick cash infusion to their company? Don't get caught.

Yet if Delorean was placed on national television, and shot in a firing squad, I guarantee cocaine sales would have dropped. And today there would be far fewer celebrities touting their involvement in drugs (like Amy Winehouse).

This is an epidemic problem. It requires an even-handed iron fist resolution. Anything less, in my opinion, is just wasting time and money.

Angelina Jolie banned in England - sort of

In news that is not so sad, there is the announcement from Britain that Angelina Jolie has been banned. Well not her directly (only British-friendly entertainers like Snoop Dogg get that treatment) but rather the ads for the film WANTED.

The situation goes like this. Gun violence is bad. Movies with gun violence are even worse as they make it sexy and glorified. So the ads that show Jolie blasting baddies with shotguns, and pistols, and so on is on the top of the hit list. Which I would respect except for one thing.

The movie came to Britain some time ago and the DVD has been actively on sale for about 6 months.

So this is a waste of time and mere polispeak for some politician or political group that wants to look good to constituents. It's hypocritical and there are few things that are worse. It makes me bitter and twisted.

I understand that England looks at guns very differently than America. We are the land of cowboys and action movies of course. So I can see how this might upset some of the English sensibilities. But to bellyache after the fact is just stupid and insulting.

If this ad is so bad, so instrumental in magnifying gun violence in England, why the hell did they let the movie and DVD get released? Which says nothing of the fact that all of 59 murders were committed in all of 2007 in England. What gun violence do they have? Binghamton NY has probably half that number in 2007, and there are only 150,000 people here.

Look, the second multi-stage bullets are recovered from a crime scene I'll understand the hysteria. But until then I think the British government needs to get a grip. Besides, I would think the impression that Amy Winehouse is giving the young women of Britain is far more detrimental and immediately more urgent than Angelina Jolie in an action movie.

2008 - a year in overview

With the hours ticking away I wanted to go back one last time and look at the year 2008.

It has been quite the year. Barack Obama rose from a nuisance Senator for the Clinton machine to become the first Black President, 411 years after the first African slave was recorded in this land.

The financial system started the year with rising oil, depressed profits, and fears of inflation. Which quickly became a domino of failed institutions, buy-in, buy-outs, and bailouts - most funded by the Government. And the vortex of money sinking into the blackhole of political finger-pointing, and employment worries has yet to end. But inflation and oil are no longer concerns.

And focusing on entertainment we started the year with a mediocre talent that died from his own illogical action and was catapulted to superstardom for it. As the year progressed, serious acclaimed greats in literature, comedy, film, music, and other forms of entertainment passed - barely with attention. And it looks like even into 2009, the stupid actions of 1 man will dwarf the lifetime of achievement of dozens of others.

War continues to rage in the world and in the movies. While the atrocities in Darfur continue to be waged, the screens of America are filled with blame America-for-everything political wastes of time. These films are not bad because they are badly acted (though some are), or that the scripts are irrelevant (some are just too inane to imagine being greenlighted), or even because they don't like their home nation (one of the few in the world that allows criticism of every elected official without reprisal). They just failed to entertain.

Hollywood enjoyed a year that was filled with no surprises and even fewer attempts at innovation than the year before. More sequels, spin-offs, remakes, revisioned past favorites and direct copies on the big and small screen occurred than Bill Ayers on a LSD flashback remembering his past actions. And most were as entertaining - the new 90210 comes to mind.

Filling the void of intellect was fodder so unfit as to be like sugar mainlined into a 5 year old with ADHD. There was the usual "reality" programming that did nothing but allow the public to lose brain cells without the joy of a buzz. And there was the not so subtle loss of several programs that bucked the trend - The Shield, The Riches, among others.

Another loss to the small screen flies in the face of the change in politics in the nation. While America gains the first African American to ascend to our highest office, television descended to a vision of America not seen since 2000 (or more like 1970). Several Black actors in co-leading roles were removed, or shows canceled. Hispanics and Latinos remain virtually unseen and when seen reflecting a diversity that is easily confused with another ethnicity. Native Americans and Asians remain invisible, even in background scenery. And if that sounds bad, the environment behind the camera is 1/3 as diverse.

So in 2009 the schizophrenia will be that one of the few times a Black face will be on the national airwaves will be in the news and the rest of television will be whitewashed. The hypocrisy of Hollywood and its ultra-liberal views, as opposed to its staunch 1950's actions, is amazing to behold.

And the ethical void continues to grow. The nation was deluged with images and stories of entertainers doing the wrong thing and getting away with it. From the British Winehouse (aptly named I think) to our own disfunctional and potentially child-endangering Spears. We watched as entertainers were allowed to throw children into crowds from stages, admit drug use, carry illegal weapons, abuse animals and people alike, all without a hint of true reprimand.

And as the substitution of justice we had racial revenge. OJ provided the means for many White Americans to cry out "Justice at last" though his trial was a mockery of justice from start to finish. He may be a fool, and perhaps even guilty of past crimes, but his trial was as much a kangaroo court as in any movie.

And when it comes to the law the media was very consistent. African Americans that they labeled guilty were made to look horrible, and their claims (and even jury confirmation) of innocence went unheard - like Wesley Snipes. But for the people making the media money, in music videos and records and what some call movies, there was plenty of coverage hyping their minor convictions - like Akon and DMX.

2008 was quite the year indeed. So much happened all at once it was often hard to be sure what was the most important thing to track. And just as often what the media wanted us to watch was the least important of the issues at hand. But then again this was the year where the line between journalism and cheerleading was obscured from sight. The after-the-fact admissions of several media giants that they crossed the line, "a little", says nothing of the 'feeling in my leg' they poured into televisions and thus homes across the nation.

The news media was so bad that satirical comedy shows often were more objective and less political than the supposed "neutral" media. And networks like CNN and MSNBC wonder why their ratings are so bad.

2008 was a bad year in most every manner of accounting. From wasteful spending by the Government, to political polispeak that was fair and unfair. Even in moments of honesty - like polling from various agencies during the Primaries - America showed the world that the ugly underbelly of racism still held a grip in the nation.

I won't miss 2008 overall. While I am amazed and pleased with being able to say President Obama and that I am a homeowner, there is little else that occurred in this year that makes me wish to relive it even in memories.

But 2009 is just hours away. And with it will come a new President, with a very different set of objectives for America. The new year will usher in a new direction in American thinking, where some like it or not. And the media will be forced to adjust, because even in comic books the world is changing.

2008 was they year to say "I want change", 2009 will be the year it happens in. And we can all only hope that the change is better than the reality of the year that has ended.

Janet Jackson: Intelligence, success, and fame are not enough

Over the weekend I noticed something and I doubt many have spoken on it. Janet Jackson was in the news again about her Super Bowl costume issue. It seems that after years of comments and threats by the FCC, the whole thing is now passed over as if it never happened.

Isn’t that interesting. CBS will receive no fine

“This is an important win for the entire broadcasting industry because it recognizes that there are rare instances, particularly during live programming, when it may not be possible to block unfortunate fleeting material, despite best efforts," the CBS Network, which had the misfortune of unwittingly broadcasting the Super Bowl debacle, issued in a statement.”

Justin Timberlake, who committed the act of infamy, has walked away from this scandal without ever being touched by it. The fact that he may have caused the problem in the manner he removed the cloth was never his fault. His career, whatever you may think of it, has continued unabated.

But Janet Jackson has been mired with this scandal. She has effectively become blackballed by the media and entertainment industries. Did anyone notice that she had an album out recently? Now Janet Jackson has had so-so albums, and mega-hits, but in her entire career I have never known her to release an album and not hear any of the songs, nor see/read commentary about it. Her worst album (before the latest) sold more records than most entertainers on a good day.

The media just can’t let go of less than 15 seconds of footage. The mostly bare single breast of this Black woman is just that powerful I suppose. I have to imagine that were both breasts to have been bared, half the population of America would have died. I mean that’s the way the media and a few fringe fanatical groups seem to act.

But is that fair?

Hmmm, CBS promotes the UFC – which is a violent sport. Unlike boxing it has no elegance, it’s just about raw power. That has to be good for the kids. I'm sure the soap operas that were the staple of CBS and broadcast television, with more breasts and ass appearing than some soft-core porn, really has to be good for kids in the afternoon.

And the entertainment media loves women. I mean look at the attention poured all over Britney Spears as she has desperately tried to implode. She went to rehab for as long as it take me to piss, then cuts off her hair. Mega-news story. I’m sure it inspired many drug addicts, and more than a few young girls, to try a new fashion design. That’s positive.


There is the insanely untalented Paris Hilton. Bad porno tape, can’t act, can’t sing, can’t even open her glove box to see the letter telling her she can’t drive. But she is insanely rich. So rich that she almost pulled off a get out of jail card. If she has a positive to impart on the American public I am still unaware of it.


Anna Nicole Smith, drug addict (possibly while pregnant), promiscuous, arguably lecherous, with a sole talent being she had a great body. Months were devoted to her death at the near exclusion of all other news and facts at the time. Literally I do not recall another story that has been on the news that much – hours of news hours dedicated to a woman that was about as important as wet paper. Seriously, even Britney Spears has more talent. Message to kids – if you have the right curves you can get money and no one will care how many drugs you take. If you are a guy, either make a lot of money for this kind of girl to take, or be sleazy enough to leech money from her drug-addled ass.


Lindsey Lohan, the drunken party girl that was desperately trying to end her movie career. After years of building up a host of fans that were not old enough to appreciate talent, Lohan was more than happy to drink herself into oblivion. Her quick trips to rehab were only slightly longer than Spears, but thankfully she had her mom to lean on while she drank and did drugs.

Amy Winehouse, the reported crack addict with a voice. So deep into drugs and alcoholism that she couldn’t perform and has been arrested multiple times. And she doesn’t care what anyone thinks because she told us that. At least her man is just as deranged and besodden as her, so it’s a match set in love and not money.

I could go on, but what are the similarities of these women?

They are all White, they all are being promoted and covered by the media (thus making them all money), and they all have been filmed, photographed and discussed ad nausea since Janet Jackson was at the Super Bowl.

So was the outrage that Janet Jackson’s accidental exposure occurred, or was it something else. None of the women I mentioned have half her talent or longevity in entertainment. Janet is not on drugs, does not cover magazines drunk or in scandals (other than the one event). She has never been linked to anything negative that I can recall. And no one questions her ability to think and do business – she broke all records for an artist contract that even her brother did not match at one time.

In fact she should be a role model for young women, proving that women (especially Black women) beside Oprah and Maya Angelou can succeed on their own doing what they are best at. Yet she his blacklisted and blackout by the media in favor of women who are such messes I can’t imagine most of them surviving to be 35.

So what’s wrong with the major media? What’s going on in the entertainment industry? What the hell are Hollywood and music execs thinking?

I tell you what, if I had a daughter – or were it one of my nieces – and the worst moment in a career she made that garnered her tens of millions of dollars, fame, and comfort over decades was the momentary equivalent of her dress slipping I’d be happy for her. No drugs, no scandals, no court taking away her children because she is unfit as a mother, no drunken binges and car accidents that could kill innocents, no crimes, no whispers of anorexia, never selling her body for money.

Seriously ask yourself this question, which woman would you want your daughter, sister, niece, or mother to emulate? Then ask why being Black, successful, talented, and intelligent is worthy of a media excommunication?

R Kelly trial to start, or will it?

“5 years and counting. What might that refer to? Could it be the Iraq war? It could also be the amount of time since R Kelly was supposed to go to trial for the alleged rape of a minor…”

“Will R Kelly finally go to court and stand trial for his actions – and will the family of the girl that was raped still be working for him?”

I made those comments back in September 2007. Now in May 2008 with 2 days to go before the start of the trial, another delay looms, and the media still isn’t paying attention. I cannot describe how angy this makes me. A rumored and widely acknowledged pedophile is running around free and evading the law and the news media can’t be bothered.

The media makes me sick in cases like this. Wesley Snipes is an entertainer, and Black, so no time was wasted in painting him as a felony criminal – even after he was found innocent of all but the least significant charges. OJ Simpson can’t walk across the street without a news crew documenting it (as they virtually have for over a decade) – and he was found innocent. Rev. Wright had 35 years of religious service and work for the equality and imporvement of quality of life wiped out by five 10 second polispeak soundbites – and he wasn’t running for an elected position.

But when it comes to real crimes the major news media has it’s head stuck up it’s collective a**. The Jena 6 case was ignored for months. The Megan Williams case was granted all of 30 seconds and will never be uttered again. Sean Bell was discussed form the cops perspective, without ever mentioning the conflicts in their stories, and pushed to a corner as quickly as possible. Now the actions of 15 cops in Philadelphia is set to be accepted as merely a slight over reaction among a small group of officers – completely obfuscating the connection to and growing trend of excessive police brutality to people of color nearly exclusively.

And we can add R Kelly, a pedophile whos targets are near-pubescent girls. The daughters, neices, and sisters in the Black community that are supposed to be protected by the law and the community. Yet the news media can’t be bothered to know anything about this case, because Britney Spears cut her hair, Amy Winehouse is a crackhead that got arrested again, and Paris Hilton is a spoiled rich brat who was arrested for violating the law and is placed into entertainment events because she has too much money to offend.

Of course how can we blame the major news media. African Americans regularly support this vile and disgusting man every time he has a concert or makes a record. Grown women still swoon to his words and gyrations on music videos, actively ignoring the fact that were they standing in front of him naked he would prefer a clothed 13 year old next to them. What makes him any less dispicable than the Mormons in Texas?

And not a single complaint has come from the major news media about the judge’s running of the case.

“Vincent M. Gaughan, a Cook County circuit court judge… essential goal, according to one of his orders: "To preserve the dignity of the court and the integrity of the proceedings." That's an especially powerful, ironic argument, given widespread concern that Kelly is receiving preferential treatment because of his celebrity status.”

The media has been consistent in complaining that Black entertainers get treated preferentially by the legal system. They point to OJ, Wesley Snipes (who was sentanced beyond any parity according to all experts in such matters), and numerous rappers like Snoop Dogg. Yet they can’t seem to be able to see R Kelly or the fact they are giving him a pass that is underserved or justified. And many African Americans laud this as a positive.

Of course R Kelly hasn’t been taking this vacation from the law lightly. He’s used the time to lay low, keeping out of the direct spotlight – letting potential jurors only know about his records and not his deeds. He’s employed the father of his victim, paying cash to keep his a** out of jail and possibly buying testimonies in the process (isn’t that called inciting perjury – and a crime in itself?).

I once quoted

“As Huey states in one episode, [I paraphrase]
“America has done a multitude of injustice to Blacks, but that does not mean everything is an injustice, or that this makes every African American a hero.”

The fact that R Kelly can sing a song, is Black, and entertainer and has some money does not make him a hero. The fact that video tape proves he is a pedophile does make him a criminal and in need of imprisonment in my view. And the news media ignoring this case makes the injustice to African Americans no less palpable than when the media ignored Jena, Megan Williams, Sean Bell, or ignored the innocence of Wesley Snipes.

The major news media has a position and it seems to be clear. It could be said as:

• If a Black is popular and well off – find something to take them down. Crush their lives if possible. (Stories on Michael Jordan gambling on golf games, stories claiming Tiger Woods' wife was in a porno, searching for infidelities in Bill Cosby’s life or others, and so on).
  
  
• If they are guilty, or even suspected of a crime against a White, convict them at every turn (Wesley Snipes, OJ Simpson, and on).
  
  
• If they are committing, or suspected of, a crime against themselves or African Americans. Spin it as positive as possible. Publicize it as often as possible. And if it has no positive edge, ignore it. (R Kelly, Snoop Dogg and more)
  
  
• If they are the victim of a crime – only if commited by a White – ignore it. If it can’t be ignored then blame the African American and support the White (Duke rape case, Megan Williams) but never allow guilt to be a fact.
  
  
• And for any other case not covered, just look for the most negative portrayal of any person of color as possible, or avoid the issue. (How many Amber Alerts have you seen on the news for Black children? How about in the past year?)
  

So I have to wonder if R Kelly will ever get into a courtroom. Or if the media will cover it if he does. Or is the victim in the case (who is now 23 and thus won’t look as obviously a victim as she would have 5+ years ago) going to have her short past used as a weapon against her.

What would you bet?

From foolish to fools, in the news

So for a collection of events that range from the useless to abominably stupid I give you the following things I’ve noticed in the news. And I do mean that these stories are in that range. Why such attention is paid to these items I can’t imagine.

That said, here we go.

Possibly the one thing that will get the most attention deals with a revelation from J.K. Rowling revealing that one of the critical characters of her Harry Potter series, Dumbledore, is gay. Surprising to most I suppose, I just don’t understand why this came out. It’s obviously not relevant to the character or it would have been in the book. It doesn’t change the storyline, or the manner of how all the characters act. And it’s not like there is another book to go. What’s the use of giving a background that the writer didn’t feel was important enough to write about? It seems like gratuitous marketing to me.

On a note that just brings me cheer, there is Paris Hilton and the Spike Awards show. Paris was a presenter for an award along with actors from her current show Repo! The Genetic Opera. [I have to say the website makes this look as bad as it sounds. A supposed Rocky Horror-esque show, I’m just not sure what to think. Only something that seems this bad would want to have Paris Hilton as part of the cast.] As Hilton took the stage she got the kind of attention her apparently mindless, irresponsible lifestyle deserves, boos. Non-stop until she left the stage. I get giddy knowing that there are more than a few people out there with taste.

And last in the list of the bizarre comes news that Amy Winehouse refuses to stop taking drugs and drinking. An overdose from earlier in the year seems not to have fazed this woman. Her excuse for this perhaps thinly veiled display of extended suicide in slow motion? Life is too short, and

"I’m quite an insecure person. I’m very insecure about the way I look. I mean, I’m a musician I’m not a model. The more insecure I feel the more I drink.”

I have heard crackheads with better reasons for what they do. Obviously I think Winehouse has a problem. It could be said that sadly this may not be a long-term issue. But I find it hard to feel sad to someone that knows what they are doing, and chooses to go headlong into actions that will inevitably kill themselves. Perhaps this is just another act of genetics improving the gene pool in action?