Will Adam Lambert win American Idol? If so, for what reason.

So here is a question that I recently was pondering. Does it matter if a contestant on American Idol is gay?

I personally find the question to be dumb. Seriously there should not be a question on this subject. Because it really does not matter. Not even in the slightest.

But it seems that there are some out there that find this to be important. Why is quite beyond me. I suppose they are the universe balancing out all those incensed by the response of Miss California. Which itself was an issue that should not have grown to the extent it has.

No matter the private sexual preferences of Adam Lambert, he is a singer. Since I take it that he is in the running to win American Idol (I don't follow the show as I like my brain cells) I would assume he is quite good. Thus until technology exists where listening to music will instigate direct sexual intercourse with the music, only his voice is important to the competition.

Still there is a flip side to all of this. Adam Lambert should not win American Idol if his sole or main qualification is the perception of his sexuality. If his current position is being bolstered or altered due to the hype and mystery of his private life, which some want to use to advance a political agenda, then he must lose. It's just that simple.

Hollywood loves to show a face of ultra-liberal beliefs. It glorifies those that agree with it's ideals and/or supports them. And those that diverge in any way from its dictates find themselves shunned. Just read what the late Ron Silver stated. Look at how the major media backed Perez Hilton in his attack on Miss California.

This of course flies in the face of what Hollywood does. Like the disparity of people of color in front of and behind the cameras. Plus the promotion of various stereotypes, like the gangsta rap genre as an example, without shame. And the non-stop love affair with President Obama, as opposed to the critiques of virtually every President beforehand in my lifetime.

Hollywood would love to have an openly gay, or bisexual, American Idol winner. It matches the showboat of ideals that it flourishes daily. It flies in the face of those that have whatever issue on sexuality (which is itself wrong), and reinforces the views that caused Perez Hilton to attack Miss California over.

By the way, the actions of Perez Hilton were upsetting. To attack someone for having an opinion you don't like is no less wrong if the person is Archie Bunker or Perez Hilton. It's a small minded way to dismiss someone, for something they should be free to choose. The First Amendment works both ways.

But back to my point. Who cares what Adam Lambert does in his private life. Beyond selling extra teen magazines, there is nothing worth knowing. And anyone that would judge him, either way, on that basis is biased. Either he is a good enough singer or not.

So will Lambert win American Idol? I could care less. That is up until the point where winning is more of a political statement than proof of ability and performance.

Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman to return to cable television - 2.20.2008.1

Ok, time to re-focus. As is obvious I have been spending a huge amount of time on the Presidential election of late. From my I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign to the multiple posts on all the candidates and vote results [all found at VASS] I have expressed by belief that this election will critically impact all Americans. To that end I am promoting voter registration, and following everything about the candidates.

But, I have not forgotten the core purpose of this blog. So let me get back to those basics.

The first thing I want to touch on is Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman. He is getting back on cable television. Roughly 4 months after his tirade of the N-word and his, in my opinion, pathetic ‘save my job’ apology he will be going back to work.

The A&E cable network has stated

"Since the premise of "Dog The Bounty Hunter" is about second chances - we have decided to give him one."

That’s a load of crap. Lest I misunderstand the program, which I admit to having never seen more than 30 seconds of, it is the reality-styled coverage of a bounty hunter capturing fugitives from the law and forcing them to face the legal system. There is no second chance but forced responsibility. A responsibility that I feel ‘Dog’ Chapman has sought to avoid. And A&E is going to reward that evasion.

When the story first broke I stated

“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.”

Obviously I did not accept the apology made to gain public sympathy. I did not accept his faulty reasoning. I did not excuse his actions. I still don’t to this day.

But I also stated that he should not lose his job. My reason for this has nothing to do with Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman and everything to do with the First Amendment and the fact that it was a private conversation that was made public without his knowledge. It is those factors alone that prevent me from decrying the actions of A&E.

But that does not mean I will support his return.

I hope this program fails miserably. In fact I would suggest that if you did watch this program you discontinue to do so. A message needs to be made, and diminutive ratings would be a nice step in that direction.

I will say it again, I think Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman is a racist. He is the sort of racist of the worst type. One that would smile in the face of an African American – like his preacher of 7 years – and them stab them in the back when no one is looking (and Mexicans and women as well). He is a cowardly racist that deserves no sympathy for his actions.

Let him go back to work. He was duped into being recorded without knowledge. That is a low blow. But his own admissions on national television (speaking with Hannity of the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes) were that this word and other defamitory demeaning comments were used by his cast and co-workers regularly. Thus the failure of his program would be apt justice.

The N-word is not a common plesantry. It’s not a term that is positive for any group of people to use. It promotes the perception that far to many in America are ready to support, that African Americans are lazy, ignorant, repugnant less than human creatures. That is the impression that the N-word has meant for centuries, and it has not changed as ‘Dog’ Chapan so clearly proved.

A&E is counting on the fact that Americans, of all colors, have short memeories. ‘Dog’ Chapman is counting on the same thing. This blog, and I, do not forget easily the use of a word that is meant to equate my family, friends and myself as less than feces.

So the question is do you?

A thought about American Flag burning

This is a touch old, but I still think it's a great statement.

The question is not can you burn a flag, but what it means. For those that shun politics, it's a good magic trick so watch it anyway.

Nas insults every Black American with one word Part 2 - 10.16.2007.3

Continued from Nas insults every Black American with one word Part 1...

Recent Congressional hearings have gone virtually unreported, with entertainers, media corporations, and radio stations all denying any culpability for the content that is made or any negative effects it my encourage/create. With no one to blame, and pressure from the media seeking to blame someone, individuals like Nas are perfect targets. I can’t say I’m sorry when he chooses to adorn album covers with language depicting the worst insult known in the English language.

Nor can I feel pity for a genre of individuals that appear virtually incapable of avoiding legal difficulties. Take the most recent act of idiocy, the arrest of TI (Clifford Harris Jr) for illegal gun possession. Now that may not be a big deal, virtually every rapper has been arrested on a similar charge, Mr. Harris took it to the next level with an attempt to buy machine guns and ownership of multiple assault rifles and handguns. Can anyone explain why he would need this? And how many other rappers have been arrested this year alone? 2 dozen or so? And how many repeatedly, perhaps a dozen? Or am I low-balling the numbers?

The lack of discipline and personal responsibility displayed by the gangsta rap genre is bewildering. The use of the N-word, multiple arrests for crimes ranging from assault to drugs and more are just too much. Some may disagree on whether my argument of their being sell-outs is accurate, but I cannot see how any might dispute that in the current form and the exclusion of any other format, rap is hurting the Black community.

Mr. Creekmur is correct that 1 bad act does not invalidate 1 or 2 good acts. But when we look at the balance, I see dozens of bad acts and barely a handful of good.

We need change. Not by Congress, or from some corporation. We need to take action ourselves; because that is the only way we will see things improve in a meaningful way. If not, I fear that in 15 or 20 years we will wish for the respective charm of what we have today.

So when Nas releases his new album with a title that blatantly insults every living and dead African American, I would suggest not buying it or getting the bootleg or download. Or is that too much to ask?

Nas insults every Black American with one word - 10.16.2007.2

Oh the joy I feel in knowing that Nas will be shortly debuting a new album. I have no idea what his album will contain, but if the title is any indication of the content I have no doubt that this will be an insult to every African American. How can I say that unheard? Because the title is reported to be the N-word.

[If you play the following video, be aware it states the N-word multiple times, but I feel it makes my point.]



But going beyond this. I felt bad when Mr. Chuck Creekmur, was brought onto Fox News for the Big Story and was asked to defend Nas and this blatant use of the N-word. One point that I think needs to be paraphrased

“Many of our elected officials have done bad things, that does not invalidate the good that they have done.” – in reference to the positive songs by Nas as opposed to the more media targeted negative songs

[When you read this Mr. Creekmur, you can contact me for any correction if needed.]

But the problem I see is not just Nas and the low quality songs that he performs. As I’ve noted before

“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.”

I understand and respect the fact that the First Amendment allows the artists to say words like this. At the same time I realize that the courts noted that certain words are inciteful and incendiary. I realize that there are consequences of words and they are not always what one might expect.

Gangsta rap and rappers are not the cause of all the ills of the Black community. But they are part of those ills. They condone and actually promote the worst problems our children face everyday. Unprotected sex, drug use, illegal activities, and a general aversion to education. Not one of these things is good for the Black community, yet they continue.

Continued in part 2...

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?

Comment on article by Victoria Tang at The Daily Californian Part 2 - 7.26.2007.4

Continued from Comment on article by Victoria Tang at The Daily Californian Part 1...


Ms. Tang also implies that the fact that there was an uproar against the show, based on it’s title alone, was a matter of PC. That all the bloggers involved were seeking to restrict the things being said about African Americans. Perhaps that was true of some bloggers, but speaking for myself that is not true. This was about the dissemination of context to the world. Context of the program, and therefore the quality of the program was the issue not words.

Virtually any program can be put on television, or in a blog. I may not agree, but I respect the right neo-nazi’s have to speak what they wish. I support statements, that do not evoke harm or inflict undue pain, being made by anyone. BET had every right to make a show called Hot Ghetto Mess, and given the context and quality of the program I’d have not even noticed. But when looked at in a total view, which it appears Ms. Tang has not done, what the program suggested did in fact seem to inflict harm and evoke pain.

I submit to Ms. Tang that if a program was announced to appear on say ABC Disney that was titled ‘Hitler Rules’ it would catch attention. IF ABC had on it’s website a desrition of the program that stated it would feature KKK rallies, neo-nazi marches, church burnings and equated this to a plane crash you can’t stop watching. Lastly if the logo of the company was an image of a burning cross inscribed in a no symbol. It is well within the First Amendment to state these things. And without context I would imagine many would be outraged.

If Disney, which owns ABC, then refused to comment on the show other than to say it’s not what the outraged public was stating would you be satisfied? If television critics requested a preview of the program and were denied, would you be concerned that perhaps this was not a positive program?

If such a program description and image evokes emotion from you or other readers, is that PC? Is demanding an explaination and/or the removal of the program infringing on the First Amendmant? Or is it a statement of the thoughts of people using their First Amendment rights to ensure that no harm or pain is inflicted on the nation and world.

The fact that the program showed video clips of people being arrested for these actions, or derided, or the resulting pain inflicted on people by these actions does not change the lack of context made prior. The fact that questions asked of the public about Aschwitz, the Holocoust, slavery, ethnic cleansings, genocide, prejudice, and other events – then providing facts on each – would not change the implied meaning that was lent to the program prior.

PC is a useless and dangerous trend, I believe, and I think Ms. Tang does as well. But there are too many people that seek to claim serious questions are merely stifling of the First Amendment. There is a difference between moral outrage and civic duty vs mere discomfort of terminology used.

This is not

“targeting the hip hop industry seems to be a favorite pastime of political correctness junkies”

To say that

“But the content of the series isn’t going to change”

is too simplistic a comment, and highly likely incorrect, as I stated above.

I believe that Ms. Tang only caught the last bit of what the anger of most bloggers on this issue was about. I suggest that she go back to the beginning of this issue and see what it really was about. Regardless of what was finally presented to the public, the outrage and protest of bloggers was necessary and hardly PC. To claim otherwise is minimizing and disrespectful of the actual issue.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Comment on article by Victoria Tang at The Daily Californian - 7.26.2007.3

I want to reply to an opinion piece by Victoria Tang at The Daily Californian. Ms. Tang is commenting on the nature of the First Amendment and how the virus of political correctness (PC) has affected it. As many long-term readers of this site are aware, I am a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment. But the reason I wish to reply is that Ms. Tang is addressing the concerns I and many bloggers had on the We Got To Do Better (formerly Hot Ghetto Mess) program.

I, among others, strongly criticized Black Entertainment Television for the program prior to it’s airing on cable television. We were lead to believe, through the choice of logo, title, BET’s description, and lack of critical review or corporate reply to requests or previews that the program would not adhere to a standard worth of broadcasting. The program aired on cable television last night, and I subsequently replied about it, happily proven wrong in my criticism.

That is not to say that the attention placed on BET and Viacom was misplaced. Anyone who thinks that the program merely changed its title and logo does not understand the nature of film or television production. Many changes were occurring behind the scenes prior to the debut. The much heralded self-description of the program (since pulled of the BET website) was offensive, that was proven by the departure of 2 advertisers – State Farm and Home Depot. The focus of the program was stated to feature “booty-shakin” and “pimped-out high schoolers.” They were described as a “car wreck.” The actual program featured none of these in its video clips or show.

While few, even within BET, knew what the program was supposed to look like it is hardly difficult to understand that the make up of the program was changed. Why else would BET deny critics a chance to preview the program and dispel the bloggers that assailed the company? Why else were advertisers not shown the program to assuage their concerns?

And I will correct something that Ms. Tang stated.

“After a public relations squabble last Tuesday, Black Entertainment Television decided to scrap the original name “Hot Ghetto Mess” for a show depicting mostly young African Americans displaying what is deemed to be unpleasant behavior (mainly related to hip hop culture) less than 48 hours before its debut. What’s the new name? It’s called “We Got to Do Better.” Even gumdrops are less sugarcoated than that.”

The “public relations squabble” was started on July 4th for me and a day or so earlier at What About Our Daughters. This was not a sudden fly-by-night issue that caught on among bloggers, but a serious debate over concerns on how African Americans were being portrayed.

The title of the show is not so much “sugarcoated” as an accurate social commentary that is often stated in the Black community. Young or old, this has been said for a long time and it’s implication is far deeper than the words themselves. Ms. Tang is not African American so I can understand that she may not see the impact that this title means, but to call it sugarcoated is to belittle it’s meaning too much.

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 - 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...

Imus is gone part 2 - 4.12.2007.2

Continued from Part 1...

It’s time that such deragatory comments stop being uttered by anyone. The meaning doesn’t change when a person of color says it, nor when it is put to song. These oppresive words are a poison in the Black culture without regard to who the person stating them is. The fact that they have become somewhat commonplace is similar, to me, to an ebola-like virus eating away at it’s host without any attempt to end the destruction.

We cannot demand that Mr. Imus be held to a standard we do not hold ourselves to. The reason that Mr. Imus had to go is that as a figure of influence he espoused hatred and racism to millions across the country. Gansta rap music entertainers are figures of influence that attempt to entertain millions with the promotion of hatred, racism, drug addiction, and criminality. If we have anger with Mr. Imus, and obviously we have, then we can have no less anger at the current state of rap music.

This does not just end with rappers. They must accept the responsibility for their comments, as has Mr. Imus, and there should be a change. I will not demand that gansta rap should be removed, though I think that would be best, as I do not agree with censorship. Entertainers, as well as all people, deserve the right to the First Amendment, given that their use of this right does not inflict harm to other individuals. You cannot scream fire in a movie theater, you cannot call non-public individuals prostitues and racial slurs just because. Comedians and singers and entertainers deserve the right to ridicule and caricature the society in general and in its parts. But the blatant use of offensive, inflammatory words who’s only purpose is to lessen the humanity of an individual is hurtful in my mind.

But as I stated, rappers are not the final part of this equation. The record companies and radio station owners are equally at fault, if not more so. Before 1992, there were several sub-genres of rap music. Some were more political, some more playful, others with mixed meanings. All during this time rap was considered a fad, and was barely promoted or given significant radio airplay as well as being virtually non-existent in music video airplay. With the emergence of N.W.A. and other gansta rappers there was a decision made by executives that has affected millions since that day. Rap became an official music category, and promotion of this singluar sub-genre became all encompassing. Music videos glorifying violence, the de-humanizing of women, massive drug use, and criminal activity hit the masses in a volume never before seen.

I’ve mentioned before that there are words (particularly the N-word) that these executives could not say without losing everything, but they have made tens of millions promoting music that let others say this for them. The responsibility for morality that every media outlet maintains was thrown to the wind for the sake of money. That is insulting. That so many would do these things for mere money is also troubling and insulting. And this insult was compounded with the almost complete exclusion of any other form of rap. Because of that the record companies are responsible as much as those entertainers that utter these words.

Concluding in Part 3...