Rush Limbaugh and the NFL - the true shame

In listening to all the discussion about Rush Limbaugh potentially buying the St. Louis Rams, I come to a simple conclusion. It is yet another example of a saying that I believe the far-left lives by

"You can say anything you want... unless we disagree with it."

It really is just that simple.

Now I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh. He has been as right and as wrong as most any pundit. He's made huge amounts of money being incredibly controversial. In that respect he is not different than say Howard Stern, or Rev. Al Sharpton.

Actually, Limbaugh is better than one of his chief critics - Rev. Sharpton. While there are accusations about what Limbaugh has said - the worst of which are untrue - Rev. Al Sharpton is hardly in a place of judgement. The same is true of Rev. Jesse Jackson. These "Black leaders" have no end of comments that factually they have said. Yet there has never been outrage, or a call by the media, to prevent them from making a living or buying anything.

Think about it. Rush Limbaugh is probably one of the most reviewed people in the nation if not the world. For years, if not longer, the media and various Liberal groups have recorded every word spoken or written by Limbaugh. And at a time in this nation where comments by people like Don Imus and Dog the Bounty Hunter have rightly lead to job losses, there has never been a single report proving Limbaugh has said half of the things he is claimed to have said. Not one.

Had Limbaugh said what is alleged, I too would have cried to prevent his ownership. But he hasn't. So how is it that the NFL folded to such rumors? I mean we are talking about an organization that believes in hiring violent individuals, criminals of various degrees and ex-cons. All of whom are given every excuse and reason for a second, third and in cases more chances. The NFL too has no room to judge anyone as being too controversial or presenting a negative image. And again, this was based on rumor alone.

What does this say about the nation? At this point the word racist is more common than ever before. It's been applied to any person that disagrees politically with the far-left, and especially President Obama. Some have even tried to apply it to me for my political commentary, simply because they did not like the facts I have presented. Did that mean my purchase of my home should have been blocked because of accusations some have written about me on my blogs? That I should be denied business opportunites because I am Republican?

If Rev. Sharpton can make a living after the multiple comments he has made, and Rev. Jackson as well, and the NFL can re-hire ex-convicts and minor criminals, how is it possible to bar Limbaugh.

I truly am concerned. Because the mantra I stated above seems more in action day by day. It reaches from simple entertainment to our highest political offices. It's a scary thought that I find more akin to my time in communist led Moscow than an American value. And the damage it does to true issues of racism that still plague this nation is incalculable.

Reverend Al Sharpton may claim the action against Rush Limbaugh as a victory, but I just see it as a slap against America.

Should David Letterman be fired?

When I first wrote about the inexcusable comment that David Letterman made about the daughters of Gov. Sarah Palin, I was firmly entrenched in the thought that it was political. And an insult to all women. It was more than just a “bad joke”.

To say it was merely a bad joke is to say that inferring lewd sexual acts between a young woman and a man 2x her age is occasionally good natured. Which I do not agree with. To also have that joke be ambiguous such that it can be related to a 14 year old minor is even worse.

But that is part of my problem with this whole situation. Letterman continues to insist that the joke is about an 18 year old young woman. As if that excuses the whole thing. As if everyone had understood that he was directing the joke at this young woman, as he now claims, that it would have been ok. No, it does not become ok just because one daughter is of legal age and another is not.

But the people now calling for Letterman to be fired are solely focused on the 14 year old. Because it adds fire to the flame. Inferring that an 18 year old is fair game. Which I beg to differ on.

If the calls for Letterman to be fired were solely based on the repulsive nature of the comment, and the fact that it was driven by Letterman’s barely held back hate of Conservatives and Republicans, then I can see its merit. There is little difference in what Letterman said and Don Imus.

After Don Imus publicly insulted the Rutgers basketball team, I was among those calling for him to be fired. Because he attacked a group of young women, without cause, who were non-public entities. In addition the attack by Imus was the kind of racial commentary that led to lynchings in the (not very distant) past.

A public figure, lashing out at non-public figures in a manner that is solely meant to denigrate the attacked is always wrong. And I support the removal of that public figure for such actions. It doesn’t matter if that person is White, Black, Hispanic, Male, Female, or whatever. The public airwaves are a sacred ground with protections that only mean something if we enforce them.

The Palin daughters are not public figures. The Governor of Alaska is. So just in the same way that attacks against the Obama daughters are insanely wrong, or attacks on college teams, or against your family, to attack the Palin’s is the same thing. Something that I find extreme Liberals like Letterman, and much of the major news media, fail to comprehend.

So that reasoning is worthy of firing Letterman. It is the same reason that Embassy Suites pulled their advertising from his show. Insulting women, because of a political belief of the attacker, just to be cruel and vile is hardly worth defending, or supporting with advertising.

Thus the focus really should shift from the claim that this was about a minor. This was a political attack and an attack that covered ANY young woman in a manner we would like to believe does not exist in the 21st century.

So does Letterman deserve to be fired?

Well this was done on public airwaves. It took a week before enough pressure hit Letterman to force him to make a barely sincere apology. In fact in reading his apology it becomes clear that this is more of a tactic to preserve his job than remorse over what was said, or the motivation for what spurred it.

Given how well this lines up to the reasons that Don Imus was rightly fired, I would have to say yes. David Letterman deserves to be fired. It is a terrible way to end a 30 year career, but Letterman knew what he was doing, and he didn’t care as long as he got to grandstand his hate of Conservatives and Republicans – especially in the case of Gov. Sarah Palin.

Will Letterman be fired? I doubt it. He has a huge following. He is a huge political supporter. He has the general support of Hollywood and the media in this political climate. His contempt of Conservative views is lauded across the internet and major media. He will more than likely weather this storm.

But I say again, David Letterman is the same as Don Imus in this situation. Thus I support the same end result. CBS should fire him now.

Jamie Foxx - the apology

This didn't take long


(sorry for the quality, it's the best I could find)

So what did you think of the apology?

For me it was mostly heartfelt, though the sting of future Hollywood movie loses and advertising dollars floating away seemed to be right up front too.

I say that because the first thing that Foxx does is excuse his actions. He tries to justify what he did. He compares himself to Howard Stern. He blames the incident on comedy. He reminds us that this was a private radio station and that his radio programs content is 'blue'.

Then he gives the audience an apology. Only after that does he turn to the camera and apologize to the only person he needs to apologize to.

I did not accept it when Michael Richards excused his racist rant on being a comedian or a comedy act. I did not accept the excuses of shock radio excess and incredulity from Don Imus. I did not believe the sincerity of Dog the bounty hunter on national television. I see no reason to accept the reasoning of Jamie Foxx either.

The only reason that I don't believe that Foxx should be fired is because he is on Sirius Satellite Radio. These were not public airwaves, and to a minimal degree his target is a celebrity. The First Amendment and the ability of an entertainer to respond in kind or publicly are the only things that save Foxx. Barely.

He is wrong and he knows it. Had anyone said such things about his own daughter, he would have been incensed. I fully doubt that pleas of comedic license, and private radio exclusion would be enough to calm his anger. I doubt that his daughter would find solace in the First Amendment, or hearing that it was all just a joke.

So was this an act of contrition or preservation? I believe it was both. Was it enough? Only Miley Cyrus and time will tell. But I am left with a severely diminished view of Jamie Foxx. I thought he had more class than what he showed. I thought he was raised better, in fact I am sure of that at least. Extreme talent does not preclude a boorish demeanor.

Jamie Foxx may be at the top of the box office pay, but he now resides with the lowest class of entertainers and celebrities in my mind now.

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.

Jim comments on Don Imus and racial remarks

I just wanted to share a comment and my response to a post I made on one of the blogs I write to. Sometimes I get comments of interest in other blogs and I think that you my readers deserve to hear those thoughts too. This is in response to my post Don Imus - the offense is unending

jim Says:

Don Imus didn’t say anything racial no more than anyone else has said.Why don’t the people that are so concerned like Sharpton say anything about Obamas remarks when he brings up race or the rev. wright.Blacks use race as an excuse for everything instead of taking care of their own business and get beyond it.Most Black and whites get along fine if some so called leaders would shut up instead of making a living on what someone said.

My response is as follows:

Jim,

I’m sorry that I have not responded to this earlier.

Actually Don Imus may not have said anything more racial than he has for decades, but he consistently says racial comments on a regular basis. He has a habit of stating his thoughts in the most demeaning manner when addressing or discussing African Americans among others. Every comment he makes may not be outright racist, but as a total he is way over the line – far enough to cover a continent.

As for Senator Obama, I don’t speak for him. I speak for my own comments and if you wish to address what I have said then I will respond.

But as for Rev. Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jerimiah Wright, I have spoken about both. They each have good points and have done positive things. The media coverage of those actions is non-existent. Who is to blame for that?

The media exalts in detailing every comment of both of these Reverends when the issue is racial and/or controversial. There is a vacuum and silence when they speak on things the general populace agrees with and or wishes someone would do. How much have you heard about Rev. Wright’s stand, before it was popular, against Apartheid? Or either Reverends work for the poor and homeless?

But I see that you chose to fall back on a familiar comment

“Blacks use race as an excuse for everything instead of taking care of their own business and get beyond it.”

That’s both insulting and ignorant. Just because you have the inability, or desire, to be aware of the privileges afforded to any White American does not make the world all rosy.

African Americans of all educations and backgrounds cope with a nation that is biased against them everyday, virtually all without a comment. I doubt most other races in America could do as much with so little. And I do mean little. Media would like to pretend that minorities don’t exist, or when we do we are the worst of stereotypes. Police authorities are routinely excused for acts of violence that they would not use 1/5th of against a White. And on and on.

And with all that millions of African Americans live fruitful lives. Could you do that? Could you live with the thought that the national media thought so little of you that they ignore you every day of your life? That every image of someone like you is a display of unrest and failure. That you are shunned by general society and watched like a criminal just for trying to live. I don’t think so.

And you want me to get beyond it. How can I when you can’t get beyond stereotypes, and racial insults? How can I accept that America has moved on when you embody a mindset that’s from the middle of 2 centuries ago? How can I when you empower comments being repeatedly thrown at me by the likes of Don Imus.

You are delusional. Perhaps in your eyes all Blacks and Whites get along fine all the time. But that’s a nice lie to help you get to sleep. Yes there are many who do not see race, or rather let it be an impediment. But as long as the legal system, the media, even politicians regard some Americans as different then things are never fine.

There is a big difference between making the best of a situation and being in a good one. You will know the difference the day a cop stops in front of you and draws a gun, because you LOOK suspicious. You’ll know the difference when you are singled out amongst a group, because ‘you people are trouble’, and everyone of a separate race around you just watches.

You can’t see the forest or the trees, and I understand. I understand because I, my family, my friends, and all the people we know have lived with the understanding virtually from birth. You wouldn’t be able to sleep at night seeing reality, so you change the view. You close your eyes and accept the joy that the right color provides and the wrong denies.

It’s human nature to reject pain. You see it, and you know you can’t deal with it. So you avoid it. But for those of us that can’t avoid it, we learn to live with it, like a cancer that won’t kill you but just eats away.

So if I’m pissed off at Don Imus, or you, ignore it and blame me like you always have. You’ll sleep well at night I’m sure. And I’ll understand that you are too weak to deal with it. Trust in that it’s not the first time I’ve encountered someone like you, and undoubtedly it won’t be the last.

Don Imus - the offense is unending

Oh the humanity of it! Shock struck me yesterday as I learned of news that I could not believe. A radio personality made a comment that was racist, or so I was told by a friend of mine.

The radio celebrity was Don Imus and the above comment was sarcasm, if you missed it. Notice the race of my friend is irrelevant for my sarcasm to be used, and it does not change the impact of what I was trying to say.

My point is to the constantly recurring comments of Don Imus. Yesterday he was involved in this conversation.

WARNER WOLF: Defensive back Adams "Pacman" Jones, recently signed by the Cowboys, here's a guy suspended all of 2007, following a shooting in a Vegas nightclub.
DON IMUS: Well, stuff happens. You're in a nightclub, for God's sake. What do you think is gonna happen in a nightclub. People are drinking, and doing drugs. There are women there and people have guns. So there, go ahead.
WOLF: Also, he's been arrested six times since being drafted by Tennessee in 2005.
IMUS: What color is he?
WOLF: He's African American.
IMUS: Ha ha, well there you go, now we know.

Now if you just read the words, it’s hard to tell what is actually meant. The comment could go either way. So I found a copy of his actual words.



Do I feel that was a sarcastic comment? NO.

IF Imus had no asked about the race of Adam Jones, then I might have had some doubt in the intent. If it were another radio personality I might have had reason to believe their words were poorly chosen. But Don Imus is very well known, especially for his offensive and racial remarks throughout his career – most recently and publicly for his attack on the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team.

Why Imus believes he can attack Black athletes (among other attacks on African Americans) is beyond me. His defense that he has 2 co-workers and a producer of his current show that are Black is stupid. They are not in his mind, they don’t control what comes out of his mouth. His racial bias does not change because of those around him, obviously.

When Kelly Tilghman called for the lynching of Tiger Woods, she was on national TV and tried to play the incident as a joke. It wasn’t and the fact that millions of people were watching did not make it any more funny or less racial. The same is true of Imus and his co-workers.

I was pleased with him getting fired after the Rutgers event. Yet I was willing to allow Imus to get a new job. I would have preferred him to have had more time unemployed, and the fact he received a speculated $50 million settlement for his contract really defeated the impact his firing was meant to convey. Still I had hoped it would slap some sense in to him. And this is perhaps why hope was the last thing that Pandora found.

But I will leave it up to you my readers. You have the transcript and his actual words recorded. Tell me what you think of his comment and what should be done this time?

Beware the Clinton wrath

If you have something negative to say about Senator Clinton or her supporters, especially the female supporters, expect to fear for your job. Such is the reaction found on even the most conservative of news cable networks. Fox has been covering the comments of Randi Rhodes for 3 days now, and they continue to be surprised by the failure of Air America to fire Ms. Rhodes.

You may be wondering, what could a liberal radio personality say that would be so horrible? She called Senator Clinton a Wh***. Add to that the fact that she said the same of Geraldine Ferraro.

Now if you think this was bad keep in mind a few facts. This was not on the radio. It was not in a public forum. It was not open to the public. In fact the video of the event, of which excerpt have been running on Fox News for days, seems to be taken on a cell phone. This is still not enough for some considering what was said. But the last fact is perhaps the most important fact, Randi Rhodes was doing a stand-up comedy act.

That last fact is the most important of all the facts. That is comedic expression. Poor taste perhaps, but far from worthy of the indefinite suspension that she received. And dissimilar to other events with celebrities with horrendous humors.

Unlike the infamous words of Don Imus, this was not on public airwaves. This was not an attack on private citizens. The comments were made in reference to the public political actions of Senator Clinton and Ms. Ferraro. I don’t approve of what was said, but I note the difference.

Like the comments of Opie and Anthony, this was a private venue. It was not available to the general public, and if it was not taped would never have been an issue. The crowd, in general, seemed to agree and enjoy the comedy skit.

Like Michael Richards it was intended to be humorous. It was supposed to amuse and entertain the crowd. In this case it was exactly what was happening. The women in the crowd seem to enjoy the comments as much as the men. There was no expression disapproval or anger. So unlike the Michael Richards event, Rhodes did not cross the line. Actually Richards didn’t just cross the line, he lost his mind.

But the power of the Clinton machine is immense. The major news media has leapt to her defense, wording the event (and manipulating the video) to seem as if this were a public venue or part of her daily work responsibilities. It’s presumed by the media as if Air America had created this event and solicitate these comments.

The real problem of this is the effect it has on Free Speech. By trying to minimize these kinds of events, and by trying to get every instance of such actions punished to a manner beyond appropriate and environment of stifled speech occurs. That is unfair and dangerous. Even for speech that many might find objectionable.

As I defended Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman, in so far as he should not have lost his job for the private racist conversation he had with his son, I say the same of this event with Rhodes. Private conversations and events that are closed to the public should not be held to the same standards and punishment as public ones. Jobs and lives cannot be regulated by politically correct polispeak standards.

I wanted Don Imus fired because he attack private citizens, without provocation, in a manner demeaning to women and racially prejudiced. I wanted Michael Richards to never work again because he crossed the line of humor and made a racial attack based on his own anger and inner demons in a public venue (which he himself acknowledged). I opposed the call to have Opie & Anthony being fired as they were on a radio station that requires paid subscribers, and allows those subscribers to change the channel if they don’t like what they hear. I opposed Dog Chapman being fired because it was a private conversation, even though he acknowledged his constant and racist charged use of derogatory terms.

Based on that I must support Randi Rhodes. She should not be suspended, and definitely not fired. This in fact should have no affect on her day job at all. The media needs to stay out of this issue – which only exists because they created it.

And for the record I don’t listen to Air America, I’m far from a liberal, a Republican, and have no love for Senator Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro.

Golfweek sought attention on Tiger Woods lynching - 1.19.2008.1

Tiger Woods. It is a name that when uttered brings up images and thoughts of success, achievement, dedication, fame, recognition, respect and wealth. To some. For a few the only image is that of a Black man in a White sport. Like Fuzzy Zoeller who’s only comment about the success of Tiger winning his first green jacket (an honor few professional golfers ever get – and Tiger now has several) was a stereotyped reference to fried chicken. Or Kelly Tilghman who envisioned Tiger Woods hanging from a tree.

Before I go further I want to take a moment to reflect on something. In 2007 there were several events that stood out. A few were highly covered by the major news media; others were followed and discussed in blogs like this one. Those events included Don Imus verbally attacking the Black members of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team without provocation, Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman hurling the N-word as he rebuked his son for the interracial relationship he was in, the kidnapping torture and sexual abuse of Megan Williams in West Virginia, the reports of roughly 50 nooses throughout the nation, and the Jena 6.

Let’s focus on the Jena 6 and the nooses. It was a noose that caused the inflammation of that event. In fact it caused multiple events, all racially based, across the country. The sight of a noose from a tree, implying the potential lynching of African Americans, evoked violence and highlighted the imbalances that exist in the application of the law in America.

All of these things are facts.

Given these facts, it should be obvious to most that a noose is little different than the swastika or the confederate flag to most African Americans. They are all symbols of hate and violence unleashed for the pleasure of people too absorbed with the skin tone of those around them. These small minds needed big symbols to evoke the fear they felt and they made them huge.

How powerful are these connotations? Considering that the conservative counts of African Americans that were lynched numbers at least 3500 over 93 years (which ends in 1958). That after 7 years of debate and stalling, lynching became illegal in the United States in 1922. That given those numbers and the recent timeline, most African Americans need only look back 2 generations to find members of their family that were affected directly by either lynching or the Jim Crow laws and prejudice that fueled it. That’s 2 generations, even if you are just 20 now.

So yes nooses are not jokes or objects of laughter any more than say Nagasaki, or a concentration camp, or the Japanese internment is. It is a visceral reminder of violence against Blacks merely because we exist. And there is no equivalent that I am aware of that White Americans have ever known.

Perhaps it’s the fact that there is no equivalent that makes it so easy for some White Americans to minimize the impact of a noose, or to call for lynching a person. Perhaps the fact that far fewer White Americans can point to any time in America and their family trees when they were considered, by law, property or less than human or deserving of death because they exist. IF a nuclear bomb had destroyed Kansas City, I’m sure they would understand as I do. IF from say now until 2254 every White American was hit with a whip, 5 times every day for a half-hour each time, I guarantee they would understand.

But the fact is most don’t understand and never will. And that is why Tiger Woods is involved in a news story that deals with golf in the most meaningless way. That is the reason that Ms. Tilghman said the remarks she made (which I discussed previously – Tiger Woods comment impacts Dr. Martin Luther King birthday), why she only received a 2 week suspension, and Golfweek thought a noose on the cover of their magazine was appropriate.

Because if anyone stopped to think about it, or the events that filled the hours between intense discussion about Sanjiah still being on American Idol, how Anna Nicole Smith died and why (it was a drug overdose and she was an addict – seemed simple to me), and Ellen DeGeneres crying on television about breaking a contract and losing a puppy she had no right to give away, then you might have noticed that the prominent display of a noose pisses off most African Americans.

Obviously the editor at Golfweek missed all the abovementioned events, though I would bet that they know about American Idol. I would have thought the comments by the Golf Channel and the reaction of most (not Tiger Woods sadly – he missed a huge opportunity to make a valid and needed point) Blacks would have been a clue. Obviously they took that, and the entire Jena 6 situation among others, as the elephant in the room.

"...we consider Golfweek's imagery of a swinging noose on its cover to be outrageous and irresponsible. It smacks of tabloid journalism. It was a naked attempt to inflame and keep alive an incident..." - PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem

There is no justification for the noose on the cover. It was a blatant attempt to profit off of a serious and offensive event. It seems apparent that they must have felt that since golf in America is so predominantly White their actions would slip through the cracks and the major news media would ignore it. Mostly they are correct, but not enough thankfully.

Let me say this clearly, I hope many in the major news media hear this and remember it. A noose is required for lynching. Neither is a positive nor funny (as many in Americas past felt they were). Both evoke memories of a time in America when we were not the land of the free, not for all not for a long time. Both evoke thoughts of words whose only use is the degradation and minimalization of an entire race of people for no reason other than their genetic birthright. The use of either of these things is no more worthy of profiteering than using videotape of 9/11 to promote political gain or an air ionizer.

There is a manner and way of using both the term lynching and a noose such that a positive is reached. That would be education and sensitivity on what those things mean and what they involved. That would help fill in some of the missing parts in American history, where African Americans are concerned.

But that would involve an understanding that I mentioned previously is missing, and that Golfweek seems far too obtuse to understand.

Duane 'Dog' Chapman - 11.1.2007.1

Here it comes. Now that Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman has been shown for what many call a racist, the question comes out what he means and how offensive the N-word is. I will state what I think in one second. But there is a statement of apology out today as well.

The first thing I want you to be able to hear is the actual comments he made. This conversation comes from the Enquirer and can be heard in full at http://www.nationalenquirer.com/2007/popup/full-wmv.html. I warn you that it is filled with offensive language.

I think it’s clear that, by his own words, Dog uses the N-word often, as do those he works with. It’s used to describe African Americans in the meaning that is the historical vile meaning, and in no way the “new” meaning that kids today wish it to be. Not to mention his demeaning inference to Mexicans and women.

Now I realize that this conversation was intended to be a private one. I realize that this is between Dog and his son. Perhaps he spoke in anger, perhaps he has reasons to dislike and/or distrust this woman. But that is not the issue I want to address.

The mindset that allows the use of the N-word and other disparaging terms against people of color is the issue. It’s that mindset that is angering. He isn’t upset with the words he uses, he is angry if others find out he uses these words. He knows he’s wrong, and doesn’t care.

That is racist. To cowardly use terms to disparage and degrade people, but not be willing to let anyone of the race in question to hear it is racist. Add to this that in the presence of his minister of 7 years, who is Black, he would not use this term but has no problem saying other curses in front of him adds to his deception. He is more than just racist; he is the hidden racist that acts in secret, in a way similar to the KKK.

I don’t accept the apology of ‘Dog’ Chapman (an ex-convict convicted of murder). It’s insincere. He knew the words he chose. He knows them in this conversation and with those on his show. His often use of the word, and more importantly non-use in front of some people shows his fear and true feelings. I don’t know the man, but I am lead to these conclusions by his actions.

Now A&E has suspended his program. There has been constant conversation all day on this controversy. His minister, Rev. Tim Storey, has been on Hannity & Colmes has come to his defense. And the arguments are being spun to rap and hip hop.

Does he deserve to lose his show? No. I have to say that. Why? Because this was a private conversation, and not place on the airwaves. If he said it in his television show, I’d say pull him off the air just like Don Imus. [Though I think Imus deserved to stay off the air just a bit longer] Had he said it in public, like Michael Richards, I’d be happy to lead the charge to see him unemployed. But he did not, and private conversations, no matter how objectionable cannot be punished. If we do we violate the First Amendment and invite policing of our words everywhere.

Continued in part 2...

Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy - 10.13.2007.1

Keep an eye out on the horizon for a new movie that will be coming out probably next year. The movie is called Why We Laugh: Black Comedians on Black Comedy.

This is not a comedy show, like The Kings of Comedy or Mr. Eddie Murphy’s RAW. This is a documentary. Now before you say well that’s too boring and I won’t see it, listen to who is involved.

Beside the fact that it is being co-produced by Mr. Robert Townsend, who is no slouch in his own right, it contains interviews with some of the top Black comedians around today. That includes D.L. Hughley, the Wayans brothers, Paul Mooney, Tommy Davison, Reynaldo Ray, Marla Gibbs, Eddie Griffin and Katt Williams.

But this documentary, like Black comedy, will also include political commentary and thoughts from the world of hip-hop from noted individuals like Dr. Cornel West, Stanley Crouch and Russell Simmons.

At just 90 minutes some of the best go from their comedy routines to the roots of what is happening in the Black community and how they transform these topical and emotional events into humor. From Don Imus, to OJ Simpson, to Jena 6 and more.

If this doesn’t sound like something you want to keep an eye out for, what else is there for you to look forward to? How often are you able to not only see where the comedy comes from but how and why it affects us all. How comedy interacts with all the facets of life in America, especially for those of us who often have no other voice to carry in the media and public.

With the people associated so far, one thing is certain. There will be quality and depth and intelligence. Insight and debate will ensue. Critical questions will be posed. And isn’t that one of the things that we expect from movies?

Does rap / Hip Hop sellout the Black Community? - 9.14.2007.1

Yes men. Uncle Toms. Sellouts. What do all these have in common? In the case of Hip-hop and rap music, the argument can be made that they all refer to the artists and entertainers that perform in this genre. Perhaps not all of them, nor all that they perform/produce but enough to be somewhat generalized.

Why might this be said? Well there are a couple of reasons. First there is the weakest reason, sometimes said as ‘I think you protest too much’. Basically the more defensive an individual is, especially when faced with a simple question, the guiltier they seem. How this might apply to gangsta rap (the near exclusive format of modern rap and hip-hop) would be in the responses various performers have made to the question of the lyrics used in their songs. A recent case in point is Ja Rule,

"And if it is, then we need to go step to Paramount, and f--king MGM, and all of these other motherf--kers that's making all of these movies and we need to go step to MTV and Viacom, and lets talk about all these f--king shows that they have on MTV that is promoting homosexuality, that my kids can't watch this sh-t," he continued. "Dating shows that's showing two guys or two girls in mid-afternoon. Let's talk about s--t like that! If that's not f--king up America, I don't know what is."

The defense seems to be, ‘It’s not my fault, blame someone else. They are worse.’ The protest ignores the question of what Ja Rule has done, and thus his responsibility, and tries to blame others. Now I agree that the media does have culpability. I’ve long said that executives are laughing as they go to the bank to deposit the money accumulated from the work of Ja Rule and other rappers. They are making boatloads of money (literally) for words they would never use in public (as Don Imus learned) by having rappers say it for them. And all it costs them are pennies paid out to the performers. That by definition sounds like a sell-out to me.

But that is not the only reasoning given by rappers and hip hop artists these days. There are also those, such as the ever quotable and ‘high’-ly educated Snoop Dogg and Fatman Scoop, who seek to redefine the terms they are using. Creating a lexicon much like the one used by Don King, they claim that they have redefined the meaning of words that have existed for decades and centuries before they were ever born.

In essence the argument made by Scoop was that the meaning of the words used by rappers and the youth of the nation today [I believe he means specifically African American youth but that is a guess] is separate of the meaning that has endured for centuries of use and is still maintained today.

If we were to follow this logic, the world-wide meaning of words are all incorrect, and their barely educated ‘I think it means this, and you are stupid if you disagree’ mindset is the only answer. Take Snoop Dogg’s definition of ho –

"It's a completely different scenario," said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [which announced Wednesday it would drop its simulcast of Imus' radio show] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha----as say we in the same league as him."

If his comment makes little sense I interpeted it as

But in looking at the comment made by Mr. Broadus I come to understand that he states that any Black woman that is not in or graduated from college, that is living in a predominantly African American neighborhood, that is not earning a middle class income is a ho. If these same African American (actually he does not limit this to only African Americans) women seek a successful Black man [though he does indicate their search is based solely on the economic status of the Black man] and have not achieved equal status on their own, then these women are ho’s.

Defending the livelihood of his superiors, the executives that run the record companies and pay him a portion of the money that his sales gererates, and following the path their corporate ad designers have laid out in the face of community disagreement likens itself to a Yes man to me.

In the cases I have pointed out, and many others, we see a systematic response. The medium that once held massive diversity (there were songs by Run-DMC out at the same time as Public Enemy, N.W.A., and Da La Soul) is focused on a highly destructive and profitable genre. A new crop of entertainers are ‘found’ and promoted heavily (read solely) in this format. When the genre is accused of inciting harm to the community it is targeted to, those same entertainers are used to defend it. What does that sound like to you?

I will not say that gangsta rap cannot be made. The First Amendment guarantees that. But I will say that the exclusion of any other stylesis wrong. I will say that those defending this music genre, denying any responsibility for what they have put out on the airwaves and how it will affect the children and community, are at the least short-sighted. They are making money off the backs of the community and that is wrong. Much like a drug dealer I see it as inflicting harm just to make some money for themselves and 10x as much for the big bosses. I feel its just not worth it.

Before Ja started talking out the left side of his mouth, he might have taken some time to come up with a better argument. Perhaps focusing on the film studios for the limited roles available to Black women, as in, why do Black female actors always end up playing roles of prostitutes, drug addicts, welfare mothers, etc?

Gays aren't the reason that many Black families live below the poverty line. Lesbians aren't the reason that our prisons are overflowing with young Black men and women. Can't blame gays for the senseless gang violence in the our neighborhoods that is and continues to take the lives of many Black men. And it's unfair to blame gays for the number of Blacks that are unemployed in America. Oh, and gays weren't the reason that in 2003, he punched a man in Toronto for shouting at him in a crowd because of the 50 Cent feud. Nor were they the reason that in 2004, police investigated whether a feud involving The Inc. led to fatal shooting outside a nightclub party hosted by Ja Rule. Now were they?

And I can’t lay all the blame on the entertainers. The harm being inflicted is partially their responsibility, but also that of the parents that allow their kids to be immersed in this cultural addiction. This auditory crack reaches children in part because, as Jasmyne Cannick correctly states:

Now if you ask me, that's what's contributing to bringing down Black America. Our kids are being taught from a young age, by the lyrics of rappers like Ja Rule and by parents who care more about bumpin' their song, than the effects that hearing those lyrics day after day have on their children.

Sellouts, Yes men, and Uncle Toms. Perhaps they are not the well spoken, well dressed, hard working people that are often persecuted by some in the Black community. Perhaps their individual voices are not the ones we should be concerned about but the ones that are promoted, televised in music videos, and propped up like minstrels before us.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Black Enterprise vs Eddie Griffin - 9.6.2007.2

Some just can't see the forest for all the trees.

Many pundits and the major news media often like to comment that the black community does little to curb the use of some derogatory terms such as the N-word. If you were to only gather your knowledge from these sources then you would probably believe they are correct. Of course, this is as far from the truth as Pluto is near the sun.

For almost 2 decades there has been a steady and committed voice presented in the black community against the use of the N-word and other terms or forms of entertainment that diminish black culture. Miss C. Dolores Tucker was one of the first to take charge in this matter.

“Ms. C. Dolores Tucker started a movement that rings as true today as when she started it in the 1990’s. Gansta rap “is a crime that we are promoting these kind of messages. The whole gangster rap industry is drug-driven, race-driven, and greed-driven.”

She was hardly the only person making commentary. Others such as Mr. Chuck Creekmur have discussed this often on his website long before the events of Mr. Michael Richards and Don Imus. The major news media just didn't pay attention.

In another example of the willful ignorance of major news media, in particular cable news networks, is the fact of what happened to Mr. Eddie Griffin. On Friday, Mr. Griffin was performing at a Black Enterprise magazine event, where, in his routine he was using the N-word consistently. Due to that repeated use Mr. Griffin was pulled from the stage in the middle of his routine. This is not a new thing or something astounding but rather something that has been going on for some time. The black community has paid attention to the issue of disparaging terms used commonly and has acted on this issue on a regular basis.

But if anything is to be heard about this action, it will probably be in the form of the words used by Reverend Al Sharpton. That's really a shame. The reason is, Reverend Sharpton, never saw the performance. He wasn't there. Yet, he came out and made a statement about the performance, which has already been quoted and probably will be repeated if this story catches any attention. Reverend Sharpton is noted as commenting on the reaction the crowd had to the interruption of Mr. Griffin's performance, which is impossible for him to know since he didn't see the performance. Rev. Sharpton goes on to say

[He] "expressed gratitude that the nation's pre-eminent magazine for African-Americans stands behind the efforts of National Action Network in getting rid of the N-word."

How humble of him to presume his organization was responsible for the actions of Black Enterprise magazine on an issue that is sensitive and has been addressed long before his name has ever been attached to it.

That is the problem that seems to be enveloping coverage of this issue. The major news media seemed uninterested in providing coverage of organizations that routinely take a stance counter to the one promoted by music corporations and their associated music videos. It's this blind eye to the significant truth that exists that creates the opportunity for pundits to ignorantly state that nothing is being done, and to defend individuals such as Michael Richards and Don Imus. For that, I say shame on the major news media.

On a separate thought, I have to say that I like Mr. Eddie Griffin. I think he is an incredible performer. His standup comedy routine is quite good, though it does rely heavily on the use of the N-word and other negative terms. This is not a new development; his comedy routine has always contained this terminology. It's not a surprise.

I believe in the freedom of speech. I believe in the right and the opportunity for an individual to entertain the masses in a medium and the manner that they are qualified at. When Black Entertainment magazine hired Mr. Griffin for this event they knew what they were getting. Their reaction to his comedy routine is a bit surprising. If they had an issue with the words he was going to use they should've gotten someone else. It's really that simple.

It's a bit two-faced to hire someone based on what they are qualified and consistently do and then to fire them for doing exactly that. Either you're against what they do or you’re for them. Unless of course there was a prior agreement stipulating that Mr. Griffin would not use those words in his routine. Since I am not privy to the terms and conditions that Mr. Griffin was hired on I can only assume this is not the case.

I will note that I contacted Black Enterprise and I have been told that there is a press release forthcoming on this issue. I'll comment further once I have received a copy of this press release and have had a chance to receive further comment from Black Enterprise.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Will Don Imus pay his due? Part 2 - 8.15.2007.2

Continued from Will Don Imus pay his due? Part 1...

Some might say the team deserves the 20 million dollars that Imus just won. Some might say that Imus is a multi-millionaire and won’t miss the money. They would be right that he is rich, but they would be wrong in presuming that his contractually obligated pay is due these women. The pain and suffering they are currently undergoing will not follow them for the rest of their lives. The embarrassment while severe is not going to prevent them from becoming a successful lawyer or doctor or scientist or President of the United States. It will make life in college during the near term harder to get dates, or study or not be the butt of a joke by a drunken frat kid. So I do believe they deserve monetary reimbursement but not excessive amounts.

In America today money determines almost everything. It determines where you live, what job you get, the friends you can have or do keep and so much more. In this case money in the form of Imus’ job was the reason for an unprovoked attack. It should be money that sends the same message to Imus, CBS, and the media industry across the nation. Impacting the bottom line will stick in the memory of all those individuals far longer than comments from Reverend Al Sharpton, newspaper articles, and a huge number of angry bloggers. Take profits away from the shareholders and changes happen over night. Its one of the great things about the American economy and business environment.

I think that it would be a great slap in the face to Don Imus and his former employers that these women take their money and achieve certificates representing their attainment of prominence in various intellectual fields. CBS told Imus to insult people for a living, create controversy, and be mean. Imus decided to be mean and pushed the envelope many times in his career; finally creating enough of an uproar with this last act. Perhaps the best way to prove this corporation, this man, and those listeners and supporters wrong is the realization of success these women can do. But to just throw money at them and take away one of the motivations why they went to college serves them no good nor their communities nor America as a whole.

There is an Ancient saying:

“You can feed a man a fish and he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish he will feed himself for a life time.”

These women should have every opportunity to be taught how to fish and not be given a boat full of fish.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Will Don Imus pay his due? - 8.15.2007.1

The sky is blue, earth is the third planet in the solar system, fire burns, and Don Imus is getting sued. Do you notice that in each and every one of those statements the facts are as obvious as they are true?

Finally what everyone should have expected is starting to happen Don Imus is getting sued for his actions in Aprill which I wrote about several times [Imus, Rutgers basketball, and Rev. Al Sharpton, Don Imus is a symptom]. I’m not amazed nor should anyone else be. I don’t think it needs to be said that Imus was wrong for his comments against the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team. Anyone with a basic brain should understand that (should does not mean everyone does).


So far there is only one player that is suing Imus, Ms. Kim Vaughn, but I don’t expect that she will be the only one to sue him. Shortly I expect to see several of the members of the Women’s basketball team to file similar suits. They will likely be combined into one class action suit. While some may want to defend Imus I have no doubt that Imus will lose on the basis of defamation of character and slander. So the only real question is what they win and how much the major media will defend Imus.

Already we are hearing various pundits step up and say that Imus has been punished too much or was punished too excessively for his comments. Already there is a rally cry going out to lessen the impact that this lawsuit is making. Likely because this lawsuit comes at a time right after Imus has won 20 million dollars in a contract dispute with CBS and his on going negotiations with ABC for a new radio job.

I don’t care that Imus is getting a new job, by that I mean that I stand by my initial calls for him to be fired. He needed to be punished and made an example of for what he said. That was done in part with his being fired. That does not mean that he can never work again. I would not deny anyone the ability to make a living in their career after they have paid a price for that offense. That said Don Imus has not finished paying for his actions. Let’s not forget these were actions that he made with out cause for the mere desire to inflict pain on innocent citizens.

So what would I like to see as the final part of his punishment for his wrong doing? I think that Imus should come out publicly and offer ALL the women of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team their tuition paid until they have finished their bachelor degrees and half, at least, of their masters degree tuitions and a one thousand dollar per month stipend during that same period.

Now let me tell you why. There is no question that what he said inflicted pain. There is no question that what he said was an insult. There is no question that he has no defense against his own actions. So he’s wrong and therefore liable to these women. The women did not go to Rutgers to be defamed or denigrated. They went to Rutgers not to become basketball stars (I hope not, especially with the salaries of the WNBA), but to become educated successful women in what ever field of endeavor they chose. That should be acknowledged supported and publicly praised. In my view there is no better vindication of their ability, talent, and future than to stand up and provide them a head start in their life choices.

Continued in part 2...

Reply to comment about D L Hughley Part 3 - 6.21.2007.1

This is in response to a comment made by Eddie G. Griffin who commented on my post Why protest D L Hughley Part 3 - 6.19.2007.3.

I’m glad to see you share the passion that your associate g-e-m has. It’s commendable. But I must mention that I feel neither of you have read through the various posts found on this blog, and my other (www.mvass.com).

I say this because your first statement fails to recognize what I said previously, my post was about free speech. I was not commenting on the quality or morality of what Mr. Hughley stated. My clarification on that point can be seen in my comment and the post itself, I don’t believe I need to clarify that point further.

I am glad that you felt compelled to protest Mr. Hughley. You stood for your convictions and that is something most do not do. I will not take away from that.

As for what people in California, New York, Chicago or any other portion of America and the world think or do I cannot comment. I only speak for myself. It is my understanding that the norms of behavior and speech do not change in different areas of the nation to any great degree. I say that as I have lived in several states across the nation and visited perhaps a dozen more. This is my opinion; you may have had other experiences.

Given that, I point you to a couple of things I have said that it seems you have failed to read about. The secret anti-ganst rap movement - 4.30.2007.3, Another Blackplanet poll - 3.22.2007.1, Nick Cannon's Boost Mobile ads, NBA code, Harper Hill - success vs. dmx - airport arrest, Sean Bell - 11.29.2006.1, Mrs. Elizabeth Vargas, formerly of World News Tonight, Chuck Creekmur and Rap on Fox News - 3.7.2007.2. I think you get the point.

I provided these links because this may help you understand what you seemingly have not read. My views are all available for anyone to read. I have a couple hundred posts that speak clearly to my views on women, rap music, the current state of Black culture, education, justice, drugs, media, health, and dozens of other subjects. I would suggest you read some of them, you may find that my opinions are not based on who I am speaking about but what I want to speak about.

I don’t need to say I stand up for women, African Americans, Hispanics, politicians, this nation, children, education, health, or anything else. My posts do that for me. My backbone has been visible to the entire internet since 2005, and easily found in searches on most any search engine. Put Black Entertainment into a search engine and I’m confident you’ll find me on the first page out of millions of results.

Because of my convictions I try not to make personal attacks, implied or otherwise, against anyone. That doesn’t always happen, I’m human. But when I attack gansta rap I do, when I confront an individual rapper I do that. If I speak about free speech I mean that. And I provide information, when possible and I feel needed, to back up what I say. I don’t make it personal (beyond the fact that it is my opinion) as it weakens the argument I am making.

As for the community, I’m glad you are doing things you believe will help. I do as well, this being one of those items. If you disagree, fine. If you think I am incorrect, then provide me an example of what I said and correct me with proof that ANYONE can link to. I try to do my homework, if you want to say I’m wrong in front of the internet, I expect the same as a courtesy. I’m not above saying I’m wrong, but not just because someone says so.

I will say (since you mentioned it) that if you think that Mr. Hughley, a D-list entertainer as you called him on your blog, has enough influence on your kids to cause them to idolize and emulate him then either he is more successful than you think or you don’t understand the influences on your kids in my opinion. I will further state that if you think the influence of Mr. Hughley supersedes that of rappers such as Snoop Dogg and 50 cent, or the peers of your children then I again state you may be missing something.

Lastly, you made a personal attack on me. In defense of that I will respond, and only once. You don’t know me, or my character. You haven’t bothered to read what I have written. You seem incapable of understanding what you have read. I have come to understand from your writing that you are blinded by your passion and cannot see another view. Without the ability to see other views, or to learn from what is being said to you, you become stupid.

Let me define that, ignorance is the lack of knowledge on a thing – such as your comment on my character, but stupidity is the ability to learn a thing and the failure to do so – which would be reading my blog and understanding what I write about and why which it appears abundantly obvious you have not.

I do not care where in the world you live or are from. Your views are your own, I respect that. I respect honest, courteous disagreement. These things, among others, make me the man I am.

But based on your comments, your disregard for my initial reply, and your personal attack – that was unwarranted and small-minded in my opinion, I would surmise that the children you mention disrespecting their elders (male and female alike I imagine) are not emulating Mr. Hughley but perhaps yourself. I don’t believe that has anything to do with Texas, or being Black, or the sex you were born with. I think that applies just to you.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Why protest D L Hughley Part 3 - 6.19.2007.3

Concluded from Why protest D L Hughley Part 2...

Is the line hard to draw? At times yes. But intent is the basis of the determination, as is the response. A comedian making a comment that is off-color or based on a tragic event is not necessarily the same thing as say the writing of kenneth eng.

“To call eng insane is to belittle his hate and absurdity. I will not dismiss him as those that could agree with him would find that a rallying call to defend him. I will rather address the issue at hand. Racism. It’s blatant and in this case seemingly universal. When I hear, or read, such ravings I am sorry that such small minds cannot comprehend the obvious attributes and abilities of people in front of them. It is even worse when such an individual has had the opportunity to educate themselves and failed to take the fruit of the tree.”

I also agree with Mr. Hughley in the thought that there must be better things for most people to do. Chasing comedians in their professional duties is reminicent of the persecution Mr. Lenny Bruce encountered. If people want to get change made, why not address the music industry that promotes almost single mindedly gansta rap music that advocates drugs, child abandonment, degredation of women and criminal pursuits. Why attack 1 man, doing his job with the intent to entertain and arguably does so, when there is an institution making tens of millions while influencing our youth in the most base and morally questionable barrage of content daily.

Lastly, if ANY of the women of the Rutger’s Basketball team are offended then Mr. Hughley owes them an apology. I don’t need it nor do the protesters. Funny or not, if they ask for it they deserve it. That is a private matter between him and them. No different than the apology Mr. Imus made after his bile laced commentary. I didn’t need to hear Imus apologize to them, nor would I need to hear Mr. Hughley. As such no one else can ask him to make an apology, let alone make it a national event. To think that such a demand could be made and seriously considered is either an attempt at sensationalism or arrogance.

This is what I think, what do you think?

*<Why protest D L Hughley Part 1...

**Why protest D L Hughley Part 2...

Why protest D L Hughley Part 2 - 6.19.2007.2

Continued from Why protest D L Hughley Part 1...

That said, it doesn’t mean the man isn’t funny. There are a lot of comedians and they appeal to all different tastes. There is no one way to do comedy, all are good and right. Well at least right.

But the comments made were hardly kind. Some in Jay Leno’s audience thought them harsh or rude, and Mr. Leno is obviously insecure by their being made. But it was an honest attempt at humor. Not nice but an obvious attempt all the same. [he was commenting on the looks of the women.]

Does this deserve a protest? Is it as bad as Mr. Imus? I think not.

The difference is the obvious attempt at humor, the lack of intent to degrade, and the fact that they are figures in the publics mind. I find it like humor based on 9/11 or a flood or the Nazi’s. Sometimes it’s funny, and/or the time is right for people to accept the joke. Other times not. Even the greatest fall flat on some jokes, especially when it’s spontaneous. Mr. Hughley mostly fell flat on this. But that doesn’t deserve a protest.

This was not mean-spirited, Imus was. In fact that was the job of Mr. Imus. To be mean and disrespectful. That’s the context of the show, and he went too far one time too many. Mr. Hughley is a comedian, not a commentator. His role is to make people try to laugh at things they might not normally. It’s no different than the jokes Mr. Carlos Mencia makes about the disabled, mentally disadvantaged, religion and other items.

Mr. Hughley makes this same case in an interview on the 17th of this month. He was having a press conference about the pending protest of his comedy show, and the request by protester to have him make a national apology. He flatly refused. I agree with him.


In his commentary, which I can only provide a link for, http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=19110@ktvt.dayport.com, – sorry, he remarks that as a society we have regressed. I think that is apparent. The nation is so concerned about PC statements that virtually everything must be parsed in the most neutral, and often concept changing, terms. Every remark made by a public figure is combed over by the news media, bloggers, and the internet at large for any missteps or ill intent.

I admit that there are several figures I have been critical of. Mr. Michael Richards is one that comes to mind directly.

“I do not condone the actions of Mr. Michael Richards. I do not accept the excuse that Mr. Richards is inexperienced at stand-up comedy and had little practice dealing with hecklers…”

But to be critical of individuals that express direct hate is not the same as to denounce free speech. Whether or not I like what Don Imus, Michael Richards or others have said, they do have the right to say it. We cannot fall into the trap that is PC, that is to say that any comment made by a person that a few dislike should be responded to with the harshest response possible.

Continued in Part 3...

Have you heard about Wesley Snipes? Why not? Part 2 - 6.18.2007.3

Continued from Have you heard about Wesley Snipes? Why not? Part 1 ...

MSNBC had similar thoughts as Smoking Gun with a headline that reads Wesley Snipes blames racism for tax charges.

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’.


Does any of this ring as odd to anyone else besides me? From the first day Mr. Snipes has been made out to be a thuggish rogue [in the worst meaning of the words] hiding from the government that he has wronged. Yet even a casual reading of several of the news releases shows that this is not the case.

The government apparently indicted Mr. Snipes while he was away working, without bothering to ask his publicist or manager if he was working. He was picked out of 2000 clients to be the poster child of government acting tough on taxes. When Mr. Snipes arranged to meet the cops to be taken on the charges made when he had no voice in the country (nor knowledge that he needed one) the media jumped on the story as if he were a fugitive, like he was a crackhead running from the police with 2 strikes over their head.

Rather than applying justice for this crime equally on all those suspected of committing it, only Mr. Snipes has been charged. Others that acted in exactly the same manner seemingly have walked away clean. And it should be noted that if the charges are correct, the IRS received a tax return that requested a $7 million return, which they paid and not a single red flag popped up for 5 years. Yet they are on me if my quarterly taxes are late.

This appears to be a set-up of classic proportions. Media and hoopla on charges made when there can be no response, near sensationalism on negotiated actions that occur without resistance. An atmosphere of implied guilt, and a brush off when potentially credible reasons for racial bias are voiced.

Where is the preferential treatment that ALL entertainers are supposed to get? Where is the media covering his side of the story? Actually where is the media since the moment they got photos of Mr. Snipes in handcuffs? Where are the petitions asking that the charges be dropped? Where are the cable news networks spending a week discussing every angle and public view of the case. What about the pundits speculating how this affects the Dow Jones. Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton and several other entertainers and celebrities got this kind of treatment. Even during the Imus debacle, Snoop Dogg got more attention.

No matter what the outcome of this case, and I am still following it, this feels wrong. But I’m sure that the media isn’t doing anything different just because of the race of this one entertainer?

This is what I think, what do you think?

JP Morgan Chase sharholders vote on Slavery apology - 5.15.2007.1

It’s amazing what a couple of years will bring. The public and investors alike are quick to forget so many items in this world of instant news, viral videos, Youtube and 24/7 cable network news. So many items are glanced over, missed, or forgotten in the attempt to get to the next thing that the impact of what’s happening rarely touches us. But some of those items come back and the impact continues to reverberate.

One such case is on subjects that I have discussed often in various posts in my Vass and Black Entertainment USA blogs. Reparations and apologies for slavery in America. The various posts [What Georgia House Speaker Richardson should apologize for - 3.9.2007.1, The surprise about broadcast television - 3.14.2007.2, ect.] reflect my views, and I think the views of many – whether Black Americans, Latino/Hispanic, White or purple for that matter. Many believe that the wounds inflicted to create this nation cannot ever heal if we ignore and hide from the past. Those wounds affect this nation to this day, whether it pops to the surface as the Rodney King riots, the Civil Rights Movement, the murders of Sean Bell and others, or the comments by Mr. Don Imus and other radio DJ’s.

Today the conversation of Reparations and apology took another step forward at JP Morgan Chase. Actually what happened today started in 2005, as a result of actions from 1831 – 1865, so I will recap that information. On January 20, 2005 JP Morgan issued an apology, in compliance with Chicago ordinances requiring the disclosure of slave ownership, for their predecessor banks from the abovementioned time period where slaves were taken as collateral on loans. The predecessor banks, Citizens Bank and Canal Bank in Louisiana, did take ownership of 1250 slaves.

A memo on this was released by ten-Chairman William Harrison and then-President James Dimon,

“We apologize to the American public, and particularly to African-Americans, for the role that Citizens Bank and Canal Bank played during that period," said the company on its website. "Although we cannot change the past, we are committed to learning from and emerging stronger because of it.”

In addition to the apology, JP Morgan created a $5 million scholarship for African Americans in Louisiana.

This commendable act by JP Morgan Chase should be the end of that story. It also should have been the motivation for other companies and states. Sadly this was not the case as lawmakers like Frank Hargrove, and Georgia House Speaker Richardson believe that no such action is either needed or justified. In addition it would seem that a portion of the shareholders at JP Morgan felt the same.

Deneen Borelli led a charge to have the apology, and the scholarship, rescinded in the 2007 Annual Sharholder meeting today. According to Deneen Borelli,

“It's absurd for someone to apologize for the transgressions of others committed hundreds of years ago. Slavery was an abomination and blemish on our Nation's history. JPMorgan Chase's apology for slavery, along with a $5 million donation for a scholarship fund, are the fruits of a shakedown. It is the looting of shareholder assets and sets a terrible precedent.”

Continued in Part 2...

Why Opie & Anthony won't be fired - 5.11.2007.1

Many may have heard about the outrageous actions of Opie & Anthony, radio DJ’s on XM satellite radio. If you have not it can be summed up as the following: The DJ’s had a man (who I believe was homeless) on air and cajoled him as he commented on raping Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, First Lady Laura Bush, and the Queen of England. This was an explicative laden, graphic, tirade that the 2 DJ’s commented and laughed along with. Obviously they seem to find the rape of women funny.

Considering the recent uproar against Mr. Don Imus, Rev. Al Sharpton (for comments about the religion of Presidential hopeful Mr. Mitt Romney), and the rap hip-hop music genre for their insulting use of language, and disrespect of women, many are upset by this ‘comedy’ skit. While I find it vile and reprehensible, I cannot ask for their being fired. It’s not the same situation. Though it is sad that anyone would find humor on this subject, or would want to derive their income from promoting such commentary, I have to say that it is just my opinion.

I do not see any positive reason to encourage anyone to rape ANY woman, ever. I equally can’t imagine that the mothers of these 2 men are please with them. What a way to start the Mother’s Day weekend. I have to believe that both of these men are single, and likely to stay that way. But they should not be fired.

The fact is that they are not on public airwaves, they are dealing with public figures, and there is freedom of speech. The First Amendment allows for almost any comment, no matter how offensive. That is with the exception of directly causing or inciting harm against another individual. This is the reason that neo-nazi’s and klu klux klan members can have meeting. It’s also why you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater. As upsetting as it makes me, they have the right to say what they did; though it’s a close call.

The bigger reasons working for them are in part that all of the women are public figures. This is not an excuse for what was done. What it does mean is that they have venues and opportunities to respond in kind to these comments, if they chose to dignify them with a comment at all. There is no doubt that if any of these powerful and respected women chose to say something about this, it would be covered internationally in a second. There is no shortage of individuals and groups that will respond on their behalf and will have that covered as well. In a manner this is like Ms. Rosie O’Donnell picking a fight with Mr. Donald Trump, both took opportunities to respond publicly. Of course their spat never rose to the same level as this, but at points it was close.

But the most solid reason why they won’t be fired is because it was no a comment made to the public. Unlike Mr. Don Imus, this event happened on essentially closed airspace. Individuals subscribe to XM radio to receive this particular channel. There is full disclosure of how derogatory and perhaps insipid these 2 men can be. Only those who have paid for the satellite service, and chosen to listen to this channel out of the 100 available to them, are affected. That effectively makes it a conversation among willing participants. If a participant finds themselves in a conversation with a racist, or misogynist, or other individual I would call mentally deficient, you can just walk away. In this case perhaps that means changing the channel, turning the satellite radio off, or canceling your service (possibly with a letter addressed to the CEO of this publicly traded company). Some might even go so far as to sell their shares in the stock (the symbol being XMSR).

Though it’s given that Opie & Anthony can do what they did, and that they won’t be fired for it, there is something to consider. The women they have picked on are some of the most powerful in the world. I wouldn’t suggest either of these radio DJ’s go to England anytime in the near future. Britons are noted for their love of the Royal family. Picking on the wife of the President of the United States is hardly a smart career move. With a mere negative public comment the stock of XM radio could be cut in half in a second, and I guarantee they would be out the door immediately afterwards. [It can happen. I saw the President do this to several stocks when I was a stockbroker. It must be said that they were manipulated stocks, but the power to move the market instantly is unquestionable.] Secretary of State Rice is no less powerful and there isn’t a corporation in the world that would want to bring down her wrath or that of her office, just as many nations fear and respect her for the same reasons. I can’t say I’d be upset to see a backlash against these ‘men’.

This is what I think, what do you think?

The secret anti-ganst rap movement Part 2 - 4.30.2007.4

Continued from Part 1 The secret anti-ganst rap movement - 4.30.2007.3 ...

The fact that many do try to use that argument, which fails, brings up the question why hasn’t anything ever been done if such language is so bad. The media has been a huge proponent of highlighting the apparent blasé attitude among Black Americans on the language and imagery used in rap hip hop. I have watched literally dozens of news programs where pundits and talking heads pose the question, “So why hasn’t anything ever been done?” I’ve seen multiple African American interviewees get this question presented to them almost everyday since the firing. I have to ask in response, “Why did it take so long for you to open your eyes?”

I ask that question to the news media. They act today as if there has never been a single person speaking out against the gansta rap genre. They present statements by Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson against modern rap as if they are making a sudden noise to grandstand and serve their own interests. The Media poses questions to entertainers and celebrities as if the fault for inaction laid upon them. That is a horrible lie, and a misrepresentation of enormous, perhaps epic, proportions.

Reverends Jackson and Sharpton may be placed in the public spotlight by the media on various issues, but only those the media wants to cover. There is no question on the fact that both have rallied against the language in rap music for quite some time now. And they were far from the first. The battle against gansta rap has been ongoing for over a decade now. There have been dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles that have been written, seminars and lectures made, and blog posts against gansta rap since 1992. I’ll say that timeframe again, 15 years. Yet the news media and various pundits seem to be shocked that there has been no action made. They should say there has been no action they chose to hear.

For whatever the reason the media has chosen to ignore the growing number of voices demanding change. The corporations have ignored the consumers asking for diversity in a music genre that started off with multiple sub-genres; each one basically killed off to make room for only one style. Let me make a couple of examples.

The national media focused on the Mr. Don Imus story on April 9th. On March 22nd Blackplanet.com had a poll I commented on, which dealt with negative stereotypes in the media.

“The Internet and Film both hit the bottom of the list at 3%, followed in order by Newspapers at 8%, Movies at 9%, TV 25% and the big leader is Music at 53%. I have no doubt that Music leads this group due to music videos, especially those of rappers that feature the ladies barely clothed and gyrating. Of course those with the ridiculous (my opinion) stuff on their teeth, or those incapable of speaking their native language are no less unattractive.”

On March 8th New York City banned the use of one word in particular. It was an empty act and I criticised it,

“Obviously the City Council of NYC agrees with the view held by me, as does Mr. Michael Richards [doesn’t that prove the point right there?]. Their ban on this word was passed, and you may wonder why less time was spent reporting this than Ms. Rosie O’Donnell’s depression. Because it was a bunch of hot air. The usefulness of the ban rates on par with releasing known illegal immigrant child molesters on bail and expecting them to show up to court (as happened in Vermont not long ago).”

Concluded in Part 3...

The secret anti-ganst rap movement - 4.30.2007.3

I’ve noticed something lately. Since the well publicized departure of Mr. Don Imus the gansta rap genre has been the focus of a lot of attention. I can’t say that this intense review of the medium is unwarranted. Yet, part of the arguments being posed are completely unfair and disproportionate.

On the one hand we have the use of defamatory, derogatory words by multiple rap hip-hop artists for well over a decade now. There is no question, in my mind at least, that there is no excuse for this. I have yet to hear an argument that justifies the use of words like n-word, hoes, and their ilk. That is except one. The only thing that can justify the use of these words if the fact that the First Amendment allows any citizen to utter virtually any comment. Note that I said virtually any.

I do not believe in censorship. Artists should be able to express themselves. All music genres should have the opportunity to reach the portion of fans that exist for the genre. Even if part of it is objectionable. If a government can help fund an artist that hugs a dead pig as art, gansta rap can be made. But it’s exclusive existence, and the daily ramming of its objectionable material (to me) goes beyond mere protected speech. It’s widespread availability to minors is detrimental, and unnecessary. The argument can be made that it deserves to exist, but it can’t be said for proliferation like a virus without a thought to containment. In addition, just as a person does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded room for no reason, some words incite violence and should be limited if not worse.

Mr. Imus tried to state that his use of the now famous statement was inspired by rap music, and that it was no different than words found in music videos everyday. I’ve heard various pundits and regular people try to float that same thought. They are partially correct. Music videos today do convey words and images that portray ALL African Americans in the worst type of light. The emphasis on ignorance, drug addiction and criminal behavior is primary. The terminology used is no less insulting than that used by Mr. Imus. The difference is that Mr. Imus, without provocation and without comical context, attacked a group of unknown young women and compounded that act by making the attack racial while on national airwaves. I’ve spoken about this in depth in my posts Imus, Rutgers basketball, and Rev. Al Sharpton - 4.9.2007.1, Don Imus vs Rap music - 4.11.2007.1, Now that Imus is gone - 4.12.2007.1 among others.

But that does not excuse the language in rap today. Nor does it give Black Americans the opportunity to play both sides of the fence. The language and imagery is wrong. It does not become more or less appropriate depending on the color of the skin of the speaker.

Continued in Part 2...

Dark brown means... Part 2 - 4.19.2007.3

Continued from Dark Brown means... Part 1

I would bet that the controversy over Mr. Imus makes no sense in most countries, if the story was covered at all. In countries where commercials that contain Black Americans (or just Blacks) are called the N-word, I would guess the controversy never was covered. And don’t delude yourself to think that I’m speaking of 3rd world nations. In my opinion overseas, Germans, Italians, Belgians, Arabs, and so on all hold similarly negative views. In each case, in my experience, they all point to music videos as well as news footage to confirm their reasoning.

So I’m not surprised that a Chinese translation (given that it was old, but still used) would define dark brown as it did. I’m not surprised that foreigners fear and shun Black Americans on sight. I’m not surprised that the words N-word, felon, criminal, drug addict, and Black American can be often used interchangeably. We use it in this manner in music videos and conversation, why shouldn’t they.

Words are power. The meaning and the understood meaning affect action intimately. They affect potential business transactions, reinforce cultural beliefs, and personal attitudes. If you think that how the world views African Americans isn’t important then you don’t understand how the world works. What may be a misguided greeting to you is a reason for a CEO not to build a store or factory in Detroit or in D.C. or other parts of the country, thus preventing jobs or giving opportunities to improve the lives of some people. Bling may be an impressive word to you, but to an overseas corporation it’s a reason to sell sub-prime loans in an area, or to market over-priced clothing, or sub-standard goods. Presumed ignorant, drug-addled, poor with one of the strongest currencies in the world are always a good target for profit without consideration of morality. I mean why should a corporation care if it is gouging prices or selling inferior goods to people who refer to their mothers and children with terms worse than used to describe a dog?

And that’s how a couch gets labeled the N-word in Canada. By the way, when was the last time you checked the label on anything that has a dark brown or black color in your home or possession? If you just wondered about checking them, maybe the disparaging words, like N-word, don’t mean what you think or want them to.

This is what I think, what do you think?