Conan O'Brien doing the right thing for staff

For all the back and forth over who gets the Tonight Show, I have had nothing to say. It's broadcast television and I generally don't watch it. Plus Jay Leno is not my cup of tea. Then again, Conan O'Brien isn't quite it either.

I do think that O'Brien got screwed by NBC. But his contract will ensure that he will be well paid for this public slap in the face. Leno on the other hand is a sinking ship. I believe that even his fan-base will reject him back in his old time slot because of the way this all worked out.

But the thing that got me writing is none of this. It's the most recent news of what is happening in the negotiations between NBC and O'Brien.

NBC is stuck and they know it. They must pay O'Brien since they broke the terms of his contract. That's worth $30 million. But the contract is not inclusive of the staff. They are a seperate situation.

O'Brien, it is reported by the AP, is sticking by his guns and fighting for a deal that will take care of his 200 or so staff members. NBC for it's part says it's made a nice deal for them and that this is just PR. So it's a he-said-she-said situation.

I believe O'Brien. NBC screwed him. NBC caused the situation. NBC is the ne trying to preserve as much money as possible while being forced to live up to the contract they broke. If anyone is likely to be pinching pennies, it would be NBC. Especially when it comes to people the public is unaware of and thus far more expendable in NBC's eyes.

I have a lot more respect for Conan O'Brien having heard about his support of his staff. He may be funny, but it's his staff that allows him to be so, night after night. The fact he is standing up for them is the right thing to do. Something that many stars in Hollywood and television forget.

So I really don't care who gets the Tonight Show. I won't be watching it any more than I have for the last 2 decades. But just because of what O'Brien has done, I will watch a bit of whatever he does next. Do you agree he has earned that much?

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.

The real charity and freedom of motorcycle riding

In the past the image of a motorcycle rider was an image of a Hell’s Angel – long beards, and wild hair on an imposing frame as wild as their chopper bikes. It’s an image immortalized in movies and television. But that is a past image and it doesn’t tell the full story.

That 1970’s image of a biker changed as did the bikes, with the growth of Harley Davidson and hordes of baby boomers hitting the roads in the late 80’s and 90’s. By the mid-90’s teens and young adults took up the 2-wheel freedom of biking, and as social networking sites became popular so did the dumb (but difficult) tricks these kids would perform. And that is really not the full story.

Now with the cost of crude oil pushing gasoline prices to levels never imagined during the Oil Embargo Crisis, sales of motorcycles are racing higher and women (who look great on a bike) are gaining licenses faster than ever before. The concept of motorcycles is at a level never before seen in this nation. And almost all of these new or young riders fail to really understand what it’s all about.

One of the things I’ve always been upset with are reports on bike clubs (or gangs if you prefer) and stupid people tricks in the major media. Its a fact that the news rarely discusses the positives of the culture in motorcycle riding that is as important as the road itself. When was the last time you heard a national news organization discuss a positive about motorcycles besides the fact they save gas?

As an example there is this item from Southington about the eighth annual Multiple Sclerosis Motorcycle Ride provided by Myrecordjournal.com. Roughly 900 motorcycle enthusiasts got together and rode 50 miles in an effort to raise money for MS research and aid. Think about that and consider this, many of those riders don’t even know anyone with MS.

And that isn’t a fluke. This is the 8th time that the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has done this run, hopefully raising some $50,000 this year. And the bikers did it just because it might help someone. Which is hardly uncommon.

Of course many have heard of the Love Ride. This is the 25th year of the Love Ride and it will include performances by the Foo Fighters and ZZ-Top and Jay Leno as it’s Grand Marshall. The Love Ride has over 25,000 riders that come to help raise money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association.

Yet that is not the only charitable event bikers are involved with. There is Bikers Against Drunk Driving, Bikers 4 Kids (missing children), Bikers Against Diabetes, Bikers Against Child Abuse, and the list goes on. And that’s just a few of the well known events.

All of that says nothing of the local or statewide events held for children, the disabled, the sick, and other causes. And that is really the big story.

I was told a long time ago, when I was first riding, that being on a motorcycle was not about how fast you can go, or trying to look cool. I’ve never had the need to speed and show off since. I’ve been reminded many times about how bikers will gather to donate blood in a heartbeat if another biker, that they’ve never met, is in an accident. I’ve lived through bikers I’ve never seen since or before coming to my aid because my bike broke down and I was on the side of the road.

That’s what being on a motorcycle is about. Anything else, everything else is crap and ruins what the culture is about. It’s about freedom and enjoying life, and having the charity to help others enjoy their lives as well.

So if you are getting on a bike to save a few dollars, or to try to do some trick, remember this. When you are on the side of the road, with a broken down bike or body, the people who will stop to help you out really understand what it is to be a motorcycle rider. If you can’t have respect for that, or to be that as well, ride a bicycle or just get a smaller car.

That’s my 2 cents on it.

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...