Jamie Foxx vs. Miley Cyrus - Foxx is a loser

"It takes a lifetime of work to create a reputation, and mere moments to destroy one."

I think we all have heard some variation of the above quote. Everyone except Jamie Foxx it would seem. Honestly, I know his grandmother taught him better than that.

Yes I am speaking about the attack that Jamie Foxx made against Miley Cyrus. Carried on Sirius Satellite Radio, it contains massive profanity and horrendous comments.

**Warning, the following has language not suitable for young visitors.**


Now I am no fan of Hanna Montana or Miley Cyrus. In fact I have never heard or seen a thing she has done. But she is a young child. She does not deserve this. No child does.

When this starts off, I was not instantly offended. Celebrities and entertainers all learn to have thick skins quickly as they are all critiqued and subjects of comments both fair and foul. While it's in poor taste to take on a child about their looks, as a celebrity it's not much different than when an entertainer walks the red carpet and hoards of bloggers and the media harshly comment about the clothes worn.

But the fact that someone would call the child a B**** just because of something they overheard about her is harsh. Even worse is that anyone would say that about a child because they don't like the child's choice. Such action is low, and speaks poorly of the person who does so. Even if they are in the Hollywood industry.

It's when Jamie Foxx starts into his tirade, calling for Cyrus to

"..make a sex tape and grow up. Get like Britney Spears and do some heroin... Do like Lindsey Lohan and [garbled] lesbian and get some crack in your pipe... Catch Chlamydia on a bicycle seat; That's what I want."

I just lost all respect for the man.

He is goading the child to do drugs. To ruin her life - professionally and personally. To become physically ill. What real man says these things to a child?

I somehow doubt that comments like this were the reason for Foxx's success. But such arrogance and insensitivity could likely be a cause for his failure. No matter how good he has proven himself to be, such behavior is unconscionable.

The difference between these comments and those of Don Imus are minor. While Cyrus is a celebrity and thus open to public comment, she is still a child and deserves respect and a modicum of decency. And the only real saving grace for Foxx is that he is on private radio. People made the choice to pay for this service and to hear such language and commentary, drivel really. Thankfully this is not something available on public airwaves. Had it been so, I would demand his being fired and a boycott, just as I did with Imus.

But while Foxx may save his work for now, his image is tarnished forever I believe. And he can only blame himself for this. His ego has written a check that his ass is going to cover to his detriment.

The thing that I don't get is that listening to Foxx speak about the lessons he was taught by his grandmother would seem to be diametrically opposed to the behavior he has displayed on the radio. I don't think its Cyrus that has something to fear but Jamie Foxx. He sounds like a man falling into the trap of quick fame that has claimed the lives and careers of countless Hollywood stars and entertainers.

That Oscar will not make fans, nor drive people to see his movies. That chip on his shoulder will not encourage people to see his portrayals in theaters. The audacious and blatant disrespect for a minor will definitely light a fire in families and kill ticket and DVD sales for a long time to come. And he deserves every bit of such retribution and displeasure.

If a man said such things about Jamie Foxx's sister, or grandmother, I bet he would be in a rage and want to kick their ass. How are his words any different? If a White man said such things about a Black woman, there would be an outrage among liberals across the nation. This there should be. But that same righteous indignation deserves to be directed at Jamie Foxx now.

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Living proof of that can be found in the words of Jamie Foxx and his cohorts on the radio. This isn't a Black/White thing. It's a dumbass thing.

Jamie Foxx needs to get on national television and apologize sincerely to Miley Cyrus. Because he should at least be man enough to do that. I'm sure his grandmother raised him well enough to know that.

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.

Top entertainment news story of 2008

Sometimes you can only be saddened by the actions of the media. These days the media fails the public so often that the youth of the nation tend to think this is the way the news is supposed to be. You know, chasing down stories about nothing ad nauseum. Yet there were days when in a year of tragedy and triumph the best and worst of it all would be recorded properly, at least in a year end list.

So for this year, who might you think have taken the top spot of the most important entertainment news story of the year? And for everyone spurring into action to write the election of Obama, that's politics not entertainment.

Could it be the death of Charlton Heston? He was 84, had been in movies since 1941. He made an astounding 22 films in the last decade of his career. For some in Hollywood's top tier that is their entire career. In total he made 82 films, just missing a film for each year of his life by 2. He starred or was in 15 great films that have stood the test of time. And I won't even mention his television career of some 51 years. And of course there is his political activism since the 1960's.

Nope not him.

Might it be George Carlin? Younger than Heston he died at 71. He was an actor of modest means, an author of some acclaim, but a comedian among the best on any list anyone will ever make. He was the first person to host Saturday Night Live, and the first to have the mike shut off and censors racing to the stage. Though infrequently in films his career as an actor spanned 14 films in just under 40 years - proving more his influence on the American culture he discussed and joked about so well. In times like these the loose of someone who can make us all laugh must be #1.

Not even close.

Well perhaps we need to look more political and philanthropic, like Paul Newman? Another logical justifiable choice considering that he was in films since 1952, was a director/producer of 12 films, and 11 of his 64 movies are unquestionably great - still drawing audiences from youth that have never heard of his name. And he was a race car driver of some skill. And he was an active philanthropist giving away millions, in fact tens of millions, long before Oprah made it fashionable. Then we have to add his political activism, for the left which Hollywood loves, and his support of gay marriage - a hot button issue in Hollywood these days.

Such a choice would be cold as ice.

Now you might start making wilder guesses. Maybe someone Black since Obama won and is not eligible in this category. Bernie Mac was a young 50. His death was sudden and shocking. He had just finished a film. He was part of the hugely successful Ocean's trilogy of films. He had huge success in television, in spite of the way in which it continues to maintain an overall view of America as if in the 1950's. He was a successful stand-up comedian, and had been in the business for 30 years. He was a family man, and had no issues. He was only in movies for a decade, but he made 27 films of which at least half were decent if not better.

You were better off picking Obama.

No the number 1 entertainment news story in America for 2008 was in fact.... Heath Ledger's death.

Because Heath ledger killed himself with an overdose of drugs. He was 28, had made 19 films of which most people could only name 8 at best. He was best known for his role as a gay cowboy, and as the worst Joker ever (in my opinion). His death was used to slather on hype to a sequel far inferior to its predecessor.

If the media were truly honest they might say that Heath Ledger won because he made them a lot of money. The movie studios used his death like a flag to rake in money, and no one would dare say anything against their film because Ledger was dead (except me). And they have kept the story going since January, fueling the chance (almost definite) of Ledger winning an Oscar - because he is dead and made a great movie about being gay. Hollywood can't resist that combination.

Maybe I shouldn't care, but I won't drink sand because the major media tells me it's water. Ledger may have been a great person, but I didn't know him. All I do know is that he was a rising star, that had performances that meant nothing to me. His last role was all hype, and he killed himself with drugs. That does not place him above a massive philanthropist and exceptional talent. it doesn't even place him above moderate talents with better resumes and longer careers.

But lest you think me too harsh, the top 10 entertainment list of 2008 as picked by the media goes on as follows:

• The writer's strike ends - money and media jobs
  
• Dark Knight becomes a blockbuster - money and inferior to Iron Man or the orginal
  
• Saturday Night Live becomes popular again - money and politics
  
• Britney Spears - making parenthood a joke and drugs interesting
  
• Paul Newman - he is BELOW Britney - HOW!
  
• TV is on the Web - money
  
• George Carlin - Way down on the list
  
• Tim Russert died - which was big news and one of the media's own
  
• Jennifer Hudson's family dies - horrible and sad.
  [Charlton Heston did not make the list likely because he was a known staunch Republican. Hollywood hates that.]
  

Out of the dozens and dozens of entertainers and celebrities that died or made real news in this past year Ledger is number 1? People who contributed more to the art and society than Ledger ever tried to do died this year, but the media can't stop talking about him. It's an insult to so many that died, and to the public the media is supposed to serve.

Any death is sad, but ranking hype and money over substance may be worse.

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?

Oprah mistaken to show pregnant "man"

I understand that Oprah Winfrey is an entertainer. Her purpose is to provide something to give women something to watch and talk about at bridge meetings, the office, and the spa. While she occasionally hits on real subjects of note, most often she revels in man-hating topics, movie promotion interviews and nonsensical topics that would never have made the airwaves before the Robert Downey Show (a mid-80’s program that was the inspiration for Jerry Springer).

But I just find the subject of a recent show to be objectionable and wrong. This is my personal opinion, and has little to do with Oprah beyond her allowing the subject to hit the airwaves. What was the show? A pregnant man.

Well that is what it was billed as, but in fact that is a lie. Every newscaster that has touched on this story has made the reference of this being a man that is pregnant. That is physically impossible, and untrue. In fact it is a woman that is pregnant. Not that this obvious fact of nature matters to the state of Oregon – the home of the city of Eugene that can’t figure out how to speak to African Americans.

Let me explain that this falls into a category of items I call “We can, but we shouldn’t”. Like injecting poison into your body – otherwise known as botox injections. Or breast implants for teenagers. Or as in this case changing your sex.

The “man” in this case is actually a woman, who partially changed her body to resemble a man’s. She is “married” to a woman. She maintains the reproductive organs of a woman. Thus she is a woman, and the fact she is pregnant proves it. Worse is the fact that if she raises the child in this family setting. That kid, mark my words, will be the most screwed up kid in quite some time.

I do not agree with people trying to be smarter than nature and “fixing” their sex. I do not agree with these people raising a child. And I mean transgendered not gay when I say these people. Nature said they were male or female, and unless they are a hermaphrodite [which this woman in question has functionally become] that is all there should be.

Science may be capable of cloning creatures (which I disagree with), manipulating DNA (another bad idea), and moving around body parts – but human beings are not smart enough to know neither why these things exist as they do nor how they affect their surroundings. We just aren’t. And in promoting the belief that we are this smart, Oprah does society a disservice.

My greatest objection to this is because of my personal belief. It is because of the impact on the unborn child and society. It is one thing for a grown adult to manipulate their body in an unnatural way (all cosmetic surgery is unnatural and generally unnecessary), but promoting that as normal or positive – as being on Oprah makes it – is bad, in my opinion. And to raise a child in a family that is sexually confused and societal pariahs is unfair and conductive to problems in that child’s emotional if not intellectual growth.

Appearing on Oprah just gives fuel to others to follow in this manner, just as the antics of Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris Hilton (among others of both sexes) promote and fuel drugs, drunken binges, anorexia, ill-behavior and such. Or in another manner it’s like the way that Columbine has caused the copycats since that event.

I do not see a single positive to society, or the unborn child, by the actions of Oprah in promoting this act. It was wrong, but sadly the genie is out of the bottle. As such I give my condolences to the future children of the transgendered parents.

Some things in this world we can do, but we just shouldn’t.

Prepare for Doomsday - 3.2.2008.1

So what do you do if you are in Hollywood, you don’t have a remake available, no ‘revisioned’ classic television shows on the table, and nary a comic book (even an unpopular one) in site? You make up a movie with bits of other films, no name actors, and a low budget.

That is how I would describe the previews of Doomsday. A bit of several good money-making clips with a pro-feminist twist for good measure. I mean the while thing reminds me of 5 sci-fi films (not counting low budget films). Those movies are Escape from New York, 28 Days Later, Mad Max, Transporter (ok, not a sci-fi but action), and Alien.

From what I can tell we start with 28 Days Later, because some virus is released killing a good part of the world, or threatens to. A last bastion of humanity is secluded in a walled off city (Day of the Dead/Aeon Flux/Waterworld/Resident Evil). Out in the badlands surrounding the city is a crazy chaotic new society of (probably) post-apocalyptic mutants/survivors. So an adventurer/loner that travels the wasteland (Mad Max) is given a mission because a cure was identified and lost or otherwise unattainable. The Loner/adventurer needs to get whatever it is and bring it back. The loner has a souped up vehicle (Transporter/Knight Rider/Ghost Rider) to help do this. Of course the Item is held in the stronghold of the mutant/survivors (Escape from New York) that have their own barbaric society based on brutality. I’m sure they throw a timeframe ticking away too.

Oh. Where does Alien come in? Like in that movie we have a heroine, because that sells really well these days.

Seriously, this all does not bode well for the film. Besides being formulaic, when was the last time you saw a film that blatantly stole ideas from better films well? Excluding, in fact, including spoofs. The low budget aspect virtually ensures that the below-the-line costs of the film were spent on the special effects. Probably a good bit of the above-the-line too.

So the net of it all is what? A less than entertaining mash-up of ideas done better previously. My suggestion is to skip spending the $20 or so per person to see this in the theater. Wait 6 months and get the DVD for $10 - 15 and watch it on a rainy/snowy night when the car is busted.

Could I be wrong? Sure, but the odds of this being good are about the same as television suddenly realizing the world is made up of more than just White people. I’d sooner bet on Britney Spears making a comeback and/or being named mother of the year than this movie being a hit. The only real positive for it is that the female lead is good looking, and there isn’t another action or sci-fi film out to compete with it. [Jumper is so bad as to not count.]

If you are masochistic enough to see this film in theaters, do let me know how close I’ve come.

Update on Sean Taylor of the Redskins Football team - 1.24.2008.1

I decided to do a search on Sean Taylor, the Redskin’s football player that was killed in his home at the end of November 2007. The reason for the search is because of the media attention to Heath Ledger's death. I am sorry that he is dead, but I am noticing the amount of time that is being dedicated to his death.

Similar to the months of coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death (or Stacy Peterson), there is no end to the rumors, minor insignificant facts, and minutiae that is being uncovered about the man. This is fine for TMZ and other institutions that waste your time. I can even see how Greta Van Susteren, of Fox News, would cover it [I find her program to be the equivalent of ambulance chasing news coverage]. But without outside factors (like a hint that this was a murder and not a suicide or accidental overdose – which often is the same thing), the time spent on this sad event is troubling to me.

Thus I wanted to go back and compare the on-going coverage to a recent death. Sean Taylor’s death was covered by all the major news media. It did get a few hours of news coverage over roughly 3 days. By news coverage standards that is huge. Of course the follow-up of the case has been sporadic and less well done. Like the fact, reported on Canadian Press that,

“Sean Taylor, the first player voted posthumously to the Pro Bowl, will have his jersey number worn at the game by two of his former Washington Redskins teammates.

The NFL announced Wednesday tight end Chris Cooley and tackle Chris Samuels will both wear No. 21 at the game Feb. 10 in Honolulu.”

Another fact that has been less covered is the Fund that has been created to take care of Taylor’s daughter.

“Cooley and Samuels will each wear his own name on the back of the jersey, above the No. 21. The jerseys will be auctioned after the game, with the proceeds benefiting the Sean Taylor Memorial Trust Fund that was established for Taylor's daughter, Jackie.”

The difference is this:

• Taylor was murdered, Ledger has been reported as not.
  
• Taylor’s murder seems to have been done by 4 individuals that have been arrested. Coverage has not fully confirmed this fact, thus his killers may be at large (though this is unlikely).
  
• Ledger has received sympathetic commentary by pundits. Many have explained his past drug use on various reasons, and drawn correlations to this being involved with his sudden death. None of the coverage has been accusatory or negative.
  
• Taylor was maligned constantly. Pundits gave as much time to rumors and past facts that indicated a negative view of Taylor, as actual facts in the case.
  
• Ledgers is portrayed as had having a positive growing future prior to his death.
  
• Taylor was portrayed as having a negative past, a complicated future, and minimalization of his achievements.
  

Why am I mentioning this, and why now?

I realize that Heath Ledger has just died. I can imagine how his family and friends are taking this sudden and shocking news. I do not intend to be insensitive.

But the fact remains that the media is unjust and biased in its coverage. And that pisses me off. I’m tired of reading about the death of an African American celebrity/entertainer a week after the event. Or that their life is minimized, and coverage short and sporadic. Then a White celebrity/entertainer dies and up to a week, or even months of coverage ensue.

I’m tired of hearing all the wonderful things about drunken drug addicted ignorant White entertainers (a la Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, ect) that need our sympathy. Then I get to hear all the negative mean items about African American entertainers that survived and overcame gangs, poverty, inadequate education systems, social bias, racism, and sometimes more.

But to say this in retrospect does not have the same impact as watching the news today and seeing the impact. Pay attention to the news, and note what is being said. See how much is said about the tribute to Sean Taylor. See how they describe Sean Taylor’s life. Then wait a few months and watch how Heath Ledger will be discussed in what I expect will be a grand scale when the next Batman movie comes out. Watch how much time will be given to remember the positive aspects of Heath, several months from now.

Is this the perfect time? No. But there never is in such matters. But if we cannot celebrate the past of our heroes and entertainers equally, then how can we expect anything else to be equal? If we are not the same in death, how can we be the same in life?

If the major news media can’t be colorblind in death, then I don’t need to know about that death. James Brown was not buried for a month and the major media never noticed. But Anna Nicole Smith, who’s body was a matter of legal debate – exactly the same as James Brown’s was and at the same tme, received multiple days of live coverage.

I don’t want to insult the dead. But I do want to criticize the living. Because the little things matter, a lot. And I’m tired of the lopsided commentary that only exists to subtly and directly stereotype and minimize the existence of any person of color.

Wesley Snipes news coverage minimizes Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday Part 2 - 1.15.2008.3

Concluding from Wesley Snipes news coverage minimizes Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday Part 1...

The next part of the story takes place in June of 2007. The major media virtually ignores and then spins the allegation that this entire event is racially based. They take the claims of set up and racial motivation on the part of the government to be a playing of the race card and a distraction by Mr. Snipes. Again no mention is made of a few odd facts like

“In piecing together the facts as they appear to be I gather that Mr. Rosile and Mr. Khan have not been charged, though they have 2000 clients that have allegedly made false claims with the IRS, exactly the same as Mr. Snipes though for less money. Yet only Mr. Snipes has been singled out as a ‘co-conspirator’.”

Finally in December of 2007 there was a near total major media news blackout on the comments of Mr. Snipes in this case. I noted that minor news, of no importance or worth has been covered ad nauseum by the media, but the defense of Mr. Snipes wasn’t worth 30 seconds.

“When Ellen DeGeneres cried about a puppy, it was news for 2+ days. When Rosie O’Donnell got into a battle of name calling with Donald Trump, it was news for over a month. When Anna Nicole Smith died, 3 months. And Paris Hilton has been a week each incident. And that’s just off the top of my head.”

But let Mr. Snipes defend himself, and call a list of character witnesses and the meida goes into a frenzy. They claim he is ‘most obviously guilty’, and ‘insulting potential jurors with his actions and defense claims’. Not one mentioned that Mr. Snipes tried to work out this entire matter with the IRS and the government failed to be amicable. They alluded that Mr. Snipes was passing out bad checks, which I have never heard confired or stated anywhere.

And I have yet to hear an answer to 1 key question, how do you ammend a tax filing claiming 0 and get a refund of $7 million without a single red flag appearing and no comments from the government for 6 years?

In fact the government is doing everything to hinder the case. To place as much fault, blame , and inference of guilt on Wesley snipes as possible.

“They [Snipes lawyers] have tried, unsuccessfully, to separate the three defendants at trial….

Snipes had tried unsuccessfully to get his trial moved from this central Florida town, arguing it was racist and he couldn't get a fair hearing….

Most had heard of the case, but not extensively.”

I simply have this to say. Today is Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday. A day that was ignored and denied for most of my life. A day that is barely celebrated by the nation. It’s a day in memory of a man who fought to remove bias based on the color of skin in America. And for the last 15 months the American government has been working hard to apparently keep that bias alive.

Does that deserve a bit more attention? Don’t you think so? Sadly, it seems that as we go forward the only attention will be to further demonize Mr. Snipes, regardless of his actual guilt or innocence. That just seems to defeat the whole purpose of celebrating Dr. King in the first place.

Wesley Snipes news coverage minimizes Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday - 1.15.2008.2

You know that if you only listened to the major news media you would have a very limited and derogatory image of African Americans. Perhaps one of the better examples of this is how Wesley Snipes has been portrayed by the major media. If you were listening to various pundits and talking heads on Fox News as an example you would get the impression that Mr. Snipes flagrantly defrauded the IRS and expects to get away without paying taxes simply because he is arrogant.

This isn’t exactly the case though from what I have been able to follow.

In October of 2006 the initial event starting this entire case unfolded. The IRS issued an indictment against Wesley Snipes, who was no where to be found. My thoughts at the time were,

“As a celebrity it would not be unusual for him to be on vacation, or on a trip, outside the country or in seclusion. It would not be strange for Mr. Snipes to be working on a film somewhere in the world, and not immediately aware of what is going on here in the United States. To hear the talking heads speak, it sounds as if Mr. Snipes is actively avoiding contact, which may well be inaccurate.”

There was not one major news media outlet that stated the same thing I did. Every single one took the position that Mr. Snipes was evading the law. The virtually stated that his lack of response and absence was a sign of guilt.

They also glossed over the odd facts of the case. In quick summarry they were,

“First is the fact that the government accepted an amended claim of 0 income and made a refund of $7,000,000 without a red flag popping up is not Mr. Snipes fault….

…the fact that the business preparing the taxes is considered a “tax protest organization” should have drawn some interest….

It was claimed, as reports say so far, that the funds are not available for taxation as the funds were from overseas. I do not think that funds paid out in a foreign nation, for services in a foreign land, should be taxed by the government….”

These facts of the case have been roundly ignored in all the major news media.

Then came the news that Mr. Snipes was in Nambia.

“I’ve seen anchors defend and minimize actions of dozens of entertainers. I’ve heard them brush off gun charges and violence by rappers, barely mention potential criminal actions of actors, and breeze past arrests of musicians and singers on drug charges. Yet, there has been a direct implication of Mr. Snipes being guilty and hiding. Why the difference?”

I would ammend that statement made 2 days after the first. I would include the sympathy and outpouring of emotion to the utter devestation that is Britney Spears. This woman has endangered the lives of her children, indulged in drunken and intoxicated binges, blatantly violated the law, and acted in a manner that few would call rational. Yet with all that, there are constant cries for her to get another chance, that compassion should be shown, and the need of the children to be with their mother declared. Yet a crackhead mother, or a working single parent for that matter, can have their kids removed in a heartbeat. And Mr. Snipes is demonized.

A month later, on news of comments by Mr. Snipes I was able to find I stated,

“Well I’m not sure if Mr. Snipes is exactly innocent, but I do agree that he is being railroaded. The media has worked hard to portray him negatively…”

In December of 2006 Mr. Snipes returned from Africa and peacefully surrendered to authorities as he had previously arranged via his lawyers. The media and law enforcement swoped down on this event as if it were David Koresh exiting his compound in Texas. The media played it out as if this was the government standing up against a vile wrong-doer who was evading them and presenting danger to the public.

“Mr. Snipes has not evaded arrest, has not resisted, nor hindered the authorities. Mr. Snipes was doing his job when authorities indicted him, and his work happened to place him overseas at the time. I have no doubt that the Government knew this fact, or could have known it if they chose to. To create a media event by claiming to be unaware of Mr. Snipe whereabouts, to structure this matter as if there was negative intent, is almost conspiratory.”

Concluded in part 2...

The uplifting theme of 2007

I wanted to try and find something that could sum up 2007 in a visual and vocal manner. Something that could express the world and its current status. So YouTube was one of my eventual stops. And there were many choices.

I threw out all the fights and stupid human tricks. Out went anything that had to do with Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, and the other dregs of humanity. Out went the political gaffes and posturing.

In the end I found a simple man, who works like everyone else, with ordinary looks. A guy that you wouldn’t notice on the street, and a manner that is best described as shy. He, Paul Potts, is my reminder that with all the turmoil and strife and idiocy in the world the human spirit can attain far more than what we see on the major news media everyday.

I share this with you and wish you a happy holiday.

The things you can get paid for

In the land of weird and dumb news I have found something that really blew past the mainstream. How odd is this? Well let’s just say that the secret to Warren Buffett’s may not be just his business ethic. It’s his name. The same reasoning may be why Britney Spears is the apparent mess that she is. Their names. Or more specifically their initials.

Oh yes. Someone convinced someone else to pay them to study the names and grades of 15,000 students over 15 years, and 93 years of professional baseball players. What they were looking for is what affect a person’s initials have on their grades and life choices. Seriously, someone did this. Just check the link if you don’t believe me.

I truly have picked the wrong career. Imagine that people get paid to figure out things like that. It’s insane. Can you imagine the amount of money they made off this study? As if anyone ever wondered this was important.

But what they found is that if your name starts with say a C or D you will be more likely to have lower grades than average, or someone with initials that have an A or B. If you are in baseball your chances of hitting that classic 9th inning winning homerun drop severely if you have a K initial. Basically it’s all because the initials represent good or bad things.

Now how this applies to real people is anyone’s guess. As I mentioned at the start there is the example of Mr. Warren Buffett. There is no question of his success. He is simply the best investor in the history of the stock market.

Other examples of success might be Bill Gates, Humphrey Bogart, Bill Blase, Brad Pitt, Bill Cosby, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Hope, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, and Archibald Anderson. Even the rise to success of Britney Spears could be claimed by this study.

Now on the converse side there are those who have done badly with bad initials. First on the list is Britney Spears. (The S could stand for stupid, sloppy, sluggish, slovenly, or slow) Then there is former President Gerald Ford (it’s debatable on how successful he his). Also Julius Caesar, John F Kennedy, the Confederacy, Diogenes of Sinope, OJ Simpson and Caracalla.

Seems like their findings make sense, until you just casually consider President Franklin D. Roosevelt (with 2 bad initials), Donnie Osmond, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, Denzel Washington, Walt Disney, President William Clinton, Curtis Jackson (depending on your point of view), and George Clooney.

Like most loopy ideas this one has holes all over the place. Again I have to wonder, how much did they get paid to do this and who funded it? I just hope it’s not a federal grant. Can you imagine your tax dollars going to fund this “research”?

**This can also be found at All American Blog, where I am A contributing author.**

Feeling bad for Lindsey Lohan

**This can also be seen at All American Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

How much is 7 million dollars worth? For some it’s a lifetime of relaxing under a sun, a sign of corporate success, the advertising cost of a product line, 2 commercials during the Super Bowl, or a host of other things. And for at least one woman it was a waste of time.

There is a report out that states Lindsey Lohan has spent at least $7,000,000 solely on drugs, rehab and hotels. Oh, I nearly forgot the lawyers. They got a bit of that roll of bills too. The sum net gain for Lindsey Lohan after spending this relatively huge sum of money? A reputation in shreds, few job prospects, and the honor of being slightly more responsible than Britney Spears, but not quite as good as Paris Hilton. There is a dubious honor indeed.

Honestly, the money is not what gets me. Lot’s of people with wealth waste it on frivolous items. Whether its yet another world record yacht, a birthday party that spans 2 continents and includes dozens of wanna-be’s and associates, or platinum and diamonds adorned in the most illogical and unattractive places one could imagine that are legal to be shown. Far too many celebrities, entertainers and successful people run through cash almost as fast as a New York City broker drinks the morning coffee. The real shame is everything else.

This young woman has failed herself in the worst way possible. She has failed 2x this year in rehab. She has failed in obeying the law. She has failed to support her career. And at this pace she will inevitably fail to continue to live.

Will it make a difference in my life if Lohan dies? No. She wouldn’t even make it to a footnote in my mind of entertainers and celebrities that died far before they should have. But it will make a difference to millions of women. Because of the example she has set before them.

How many young actresses will not be able to get a job for fear of their melting down like Lohan, Spears and Hilton? How many young girls will believe that success demands the excesses these women have displayed? How many will believe that lack of discipline and drug use are acceptable?

Too long the media has enjoyed the tragic vortex that is these women’s lives. Too many have seen the adoration (as some might call it) that they have received. Too little has been done to say there won’t be more examples exactly like these in the near future.

What should have happened is that the Hollywood executives should have refused to employ Lohan without daily drug tests. That Spears should have been prevented from going on stage. That Hilton was thrown in jail a long time ago. But that didn’t happen. Nothing did, except that all those groups and many many other organizations made a lot of money displaying the downfall of these women.

You know, at one time pictures of a star without undergarments would have never been published. There is no benefit to the public for such photos. At one time older stars would have reprimanded the celebrities and set them straight. At one time companies would have fired the irresponsible for acts that are morally questionable. But that seems like a far off time indeed.

So what will happen to the next young star? What happens when one of these ladies, or some other famous figure in trouble is found dead of an overdose or some other act of idiocy? Will anything change?

I think one thing will. It will cost more money to get the same kind of exposure. And someone will come along and pay for it. $7 million (or any amount like it) just isn’t worth what it used to be, I think.

Isaiah Washington makes me think - 6.29.2007.1

Newsweek has just published an interview with Mr. Isaiah Washington, that seems to be getting interesting comments. Many are probably familiar with recent troubles for Mr. Washington. He called a former cast-mate a f*****, twice. The second time backstage of an Awards show. This lead to a reported homophobia counseling and then to his dismissal from Grey’s Anatomy.


According to the interview [which has an interesting title], what has been reported is not everything that was going on. As is often the case, the media played up aspects of the issue and ignored others, according to Mr. Washington. There is no question that Mr. Washington made the comment, though he claims the context was quite different.

"Patrick and I had a philosophical disagreement that got out of hand and that I regret a great deal," Washington says. "I said a lot of negative things that were never reported, but there was one word that caught everyone’s attention, particularly someone who wasn’t even in the room with us. It was a fight between two men that shouldn’t have happened. But someone heard the booming voice of a black man and got really scared and that was the beginning of the end for me. I see that now, but I didn’t then."

Regardless of how anyone might feel about his comments, Mr. Washington does go on to make a strong point, and I wonder how often this will be mentioned in the mainstream media,

"If a black man can’t get forgiveness in this country, when so many other people like Robert Downey Jr. and the governor of California get second and third chances … I think that says a lot about race and this country where we stand."

That one statement got me wondering. How many websites and media sources were covering that comment and what it means? When I found this interview on Newsweek’s site I noticed 2 other items. One skips this part of the interview entirely. The other, which appears to be a British site, does mention it in part.

So is Mr. Isaiah Washington correct? Who might have been forgiven for similar actions? Well of course there are the numerous problems of Mr. Downey. The ‘Govenator’ is accurate too. But is there anyone else? Well there is Mr. Mel Gibson’s widely covered comments about Jews, which was excused by his drunkenness – but he still said it. And there are the comments of Mr. Michael Richards at the Laugh Factory. But his friend Mr. Jerry Seinfeld came out to publicly state that he wasn’t like that. I’m sure comparisons to Ms. Lindsey Lohan and Ms. Britney Spears could be made as well. But I think Mr. Gibson and Mr. Richards are the most recent and most applicable.

In Mr. Gibson’s case, he apologized and went back to his alcohol abuse counseling. He then released his movie Apocalypto, which did very well. Today there is barely anyone speaking about it. During the incident there were many that came to his side, and the media made a big deal about his being drunk at the time.

Continued in Part 2...

Fox News turns a blind eye - 3.21.2007.1

I am pissed at Fox News. I watch this channel daily, while I am at work. I find their views close to my own on various issues, especially politics. I have often referred to them when I am commenting on a current event or breaking news. Generally it’s a decent 24 hour cable news network. Then there are the exceptions.

Let me first commend the channel on their attention to missing children. I feel the channel takes a lot of time to announce and follow Amber Alerts, broadcasts of missing children. I feel the news organization has a real desire to protect and make the public aware of issues with children. That is a positive that shouldn’t be taken away from the cable news channel.

Beyond this compliment I have noticed an issue with them. I’ve mentioned it before and I believe I will need to again in the future. Fox News seems to have difficulty providing equal coverage to African American and minority children. There are many examples of this, but today it just hit the top.

I’m referring to news about the Boy Scout that was lost, and 2 girls that were abducted in Texas, I may have gotten the location wrong, on Saturday. The Boy Scout has been a featured item for the last 3 days. It’s known now that the boy was attempting to hitchhike home and got lost in the woods. There was roughly 10 minutes of coverage per hour for at least 2 days, with about 2-3 minutes of coverage per hour today after the boy has been found and has been with his family for 24 hours. That is a good thing to know. I’m glad the boy was found alive and relatively well. I’m sure his family is rejoicing.

But on Saturday there were to teen girls that were abducted. We know that this happened because there was a call from a cell at 4 (I am unsure if that is am or pm) were they were screaming which was the last time they were heard from. This information never hit the air, that I am aware of. The first I heard about this was today, for 45 seconds. Thankfully this was because the 2 girls were found 200 miles from where they lived, injured but alive. The police stated that they felt this was a serious abduction and not a prank.

So what makes the boy lost in the woods so much more newsworthy? Why was the fact that an apparent kidnapping of teens in an urban environment, with a cryptic message less important than all other news? Why is the news of their being found alive and a police investigation into their situation only worth 1 scant announcement lasting barely a minute? Why is the news of the Boy Scout already with his family, lost due to his own bad decisions, worthy of at least 5 announcements of roughly 2 minutes a piece in the last 4 hours?

I don’t expect Fox News, or any cable news network, to follow every single abduction of children and Amber Alert in the nation. Perhaps there should be a cable channel just for that; but that is a separate issue. Since the New Year started I recall 2 missing children features that had children of color. I recall about 7 or more for non-minority children. I have seen coverage of white teens committing crimes that are brushed aside, and others getting an hour or more coverage for things like demonstrations at schools. Yet African American children seem to only be referred to when a violent or drug laden action has happened.

There was plenty of time to cover the Long Island girls that had the Youtube broadcast fight, maybe 2 hours of coverage. The white girls that had a similar taped fight got maybe 15 minutes of coverage. The toddlers given marijuana by teens got roughly 3 hours of attention, yet I’ve seen nothing that was mentioned about this being something that happens across the nation to families of all colors. I know it’s not just a minority thing as I’ve heard locally of such acts, by white parents – who were then disciplined by the police.

There is plenty of time to talk about the various issues of Anna Nicole Smith, who contributed nothing to the sum total of the planet (I’m not being cruel, it’s just honest), or women’s basketball, or Britney Spears coming out of rehab. There is no lack of air-time to discuss why the Boy Scout wanted to hitchhike home, or that the family does not want to release any information about which hospital he may now be in, if any. Yet there is no space to get into any depth on 2 Black American girls that were taken against their will, injured, found 200 miles from home, and are now thankfully being reunited with their families.

So the thought is why has Fox News taken what seems to be this active prioritization on news events? What is fair and balanced on this current reporting? Which event seems more news worthy to you, finding out what the Boy Scout looks like now that he is home after trying to hitchhike home or finding out who essentially kidnapped and possibly assaulted two girls for several days and is still loose to attack your daughter, sister or mother? Does the race of these 2 girls matter to you if your family member is the next victim, loose because color of skin seemed to matter to an executive at Fox News.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Fear Master Shake, and who is most desirable - 1.31.2007.1

Well there were a few things that caught my eye today. One item, was the sad reminder that large amounts of wealth and a strong dash of fame rarely mixes well with friends and family. In this case it’s the signal of perhaps the end of a long friendship for Mr. Bruce Willis. While the lawsuit was settled, the fact that it had been made may be the breaking point between Mr. Willis and his friend. I’m always sorry to hear of stories like this. There are never any winners in this kind of situation.

Speaking of a no-win situation, imagine that you are just coming home after a particularly stressful day. Your only thought is to get home and relax watching television in that massage chair you got over Christmas. You sit down, turn it on, and after a few minutes you pop up wondering what you left on the stove that was burning. Sadly you realize that it’s actually your chair on fire. Not a good day at all. Luckily for most of my readers it’s not an issue, the massage chairs made by Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd, are sold in Japan and Asia (and are being recalled). So perhaps your day here is not as bad as you might have first thought.

In terms of relaxing, it seems that there are quite a few men that daydream about a few stars. A list was made by AskMen.com on the 99 most desirable women of 2007 [why 99? And isn’t it a bit early to be doing this kind of list in January?] had Ms. Beyonce Knowles at number 1. A good choice I think.

Who didn’t make the list? Well I think Ms. Alicia Keys should have made it. Talented and good looking, but the low profile she had in 2006 kept her out. That’s a shame. On the other end of the spectrum Mrs. Britney Spears (is she still married?) didn’t make it either. Thank goodness. I’m so tired of seeing her face. Limited talent, not really that pretty, no class – why do people still talk about her? And where was Mrs. Jada Pinkett-Smith? She is classy and sexy and deserves to be on the list, married or not. I have to add a long time favorite of Ms. Claudia Black. [Ayrn Sun rules! I don’t give a frell if you don’t agree. My fellow ‘Scapers know what I mean.]

Now as for the other women on the most desirable list, Ms. Gabrielle Union is far too low at 94. Ms. Rosario Dawson made it to 77, Ms. Jennifer Esposito got 69 (higher than Ms. Dawson?), Fergie is 60, Mrs. Gwen Stefani hit 56, Ms. Mandy Moore ranked 53, Ms. Tyra Banks was what to high at 26. Ms. Charlize Theron could have been higher at 24, Ms. Angalina Jolie caught 9, and Ms. Jessica Alba was far too high at 3. There are a huge number of women I have never seen before (but I’m not big on basic television or low quality programming so that could be a factor). And why are most of the women so thin that they have little or no curves? Face it, they may say that Ms. Knowles is number 1 because of abilities, but her sex appeal didn’t hurt either. That sex appeal is in no small part the fact that she has curves. Why most forms of entertainment are afraid of women with curves I have no idea. If models were shaped more like Ms. Knowles or Ms. Mayra Veronica I’m sure Top Model or runway shows would be far more interesting, for men and women. But that’s my take on the list you can check it out and make your on decision. [Ms. Hilary Duff, Ms. Jennifer Aniston, Ms. Lindsay Lohan, Ms. Penelope Cruz, Ms. Jessica Simpson, Ms. Eva Longoria all made the list and I have no idea why.]

Lastly, I hope that the actions or guerilla marketers in Boston will not adversely affect the programming at Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim. You may have heard how the various images of Err, and Master Shake shoke-up the city with fears of a terrorist scare or bombing hoax. It actually was just advertising that went wrong. It seems similar marketing ploys are in 9 other cities, and have been for weeks. I have to wonder though, that since these items were around for a couple of weeks (as was reported), did someone from the parent network decide to get some extra attention and called in the first couple of bomb reportings? Maybe an exec with a desire to get more traction since some poll showed the marketing wasn’t getting enough attention? I have to admit that I thought something was up when Err was pictured on screen and reporters fumbled to figure out who he was and the name of the show. They couldn’t even get the Moonites name right at first. Watching them describe the Aqua Teen Hunger Force show broke up the tension a lot! The apology at 7:59pm on Fox News, for screwing up the details, was classic!

This is what I think, what do you think?