Guy's Choice Awards on Spike TV

I was watching the Guy’s Choice Awards on Spike TV on Sunday, when they had a presenter come on the show that just caught me off guard. It wasn’t the ladies, nor Mel Gibson on a horse. It wasn’t even watching Bruno take a vicious verbal jab at Jamie Foxx.

What threw me was the 13 year old boy. He was young to be at such an event. An event where sexual inferences were rampant. Where crude jokes, sometimes horribly in bad taste were in abundance.

Then I listened to the prepared speech he read off. In essence it covered nothing but boobs. Yes, just a conversation about breasts. In a crude and non-boyish manner. It was obvious that grown men thought it would be funny for this young boy to ramble on about the virtues of a woman’s breasts. And for a bonus, sure to drive home the laughs, they had him cursing every 4th word or so.

I for one saw no humor in this. I took no pleasure from the conversation, nor the vulgarity, that this child was spewing. And from the background silence, I believe the audience didn’t appreciate it either. In fact, not once while he was speaking did the camera pan to an audience member so much as chuckling. Likely because the room was aghast.

But I can’t blame Spike TV too much. They paid for this performance. They had a complete program that they knew would often test the boundaries of good taste. There was no question in their mind that they would fail the litmus test of decency at parts. Which this portion did with alarming assurance.

Still I have no belief that a television executive cares or can notice a boundary. Their only concern is drawing viewers, and thus gathering advertisement income. Controversy works just as well as quality programming; and in an industry searching for the lowest common denominator quality costs too much.

But what about the parents of this child (whose name escapes me)? Who in their right mind would allow such a young child to go on national television and parade with such vulgar words, matched only by the curses sprinkled generously around. It was a disgrace to watch.

I wonder who knew that this was going to happen. Considering how renown Gibson is about religion and his kids, I hope he did not. As I mentioned before the audience seemed to have no clue beforehand. So it may be just the writer’s and the executives.

Well I say to both of them, standards may have dropped over the years and the liberal sensibilities may reign in politics but I for one do not abide such an insult. There is no humor in disgracing a child. There is no joy in the display they presented.

And if they do it again, I will never watch their programs again. What about you?

Reuters slaps Oprah Winfrey over donations

When it comes to entertainers and African Americans the major news media really can’t say a positive thing. In fact when they do, you virtually always find any positive surrounded by or minimized by negatives. It’s disgusting.

Let me give you an example.

The worst example that was readily available is the news on celebrity donations. Generosity by some of the wealthiest of entertainers is a great positive. It’s uplifting to see them giving back to their communities and to people in need, here in the U.S. and overseas.

The top of the list goes to Oprah Winfrey. She gave a total of $50 million to children, advocacy for women, healthcare and education in 2007 alone. This amount is more than the rest of the top 5 celebrity donations combined. As donations go she has made a substantial gift to many that need it, and in comparison to other celebrities she stands towering above them all.

Yet Reuters wants to keep this downplayed as much as possible. To achieve this they found the need to state

“Winfrey is a former Bob Hope Humanitarian Award winner, but her girls' academy in South Africa made headlines last year after a former dormitory matron was charged with abusing students.”

Now I ask you this, why is it necessary to mention anything about the negative incident at Oprah’s South African school for girls?

The article is about celebrity donations. The goal was to document how much they gave and who they gave to. For each of the other entertainers (Herb Alpert, Barbara Streisand, Paul Newman, and Mel Gibson) there is not another mention of a negative in relation to their donations. There isn’t a whiff of controversy, except for Oprah.

Why did Reuters find it important to acknowledge Oprah for her voluntary donations, laud her past, and then slap her with an unfortunate event that she had no control over and resolved without delay. I mean if this is what they wanted to do they could have brought up Newman’s illness, or Gibson’s racial comments and lack of sobriety. But those are White entertainers.

Maybe it’s not a racial thing. But I don’t see any other reason.

Oprah doesn’t need media attention, scandal does not help her ratings. Her donations are not tied to publicity, nor is she craving a reward for what she does. She has nothing requiring her to give as much as she does. And Reuters thinks so highly of this that they felt they had to cut her off at the ankles. Wasn’t that kind of them.

I realize that negative news on entertainers and celebrities gets ratings and sells newspapers. I realize that we live in a world where media feed off of mishaps, miscues, and mayhem like vultures feeding on carrion. But sometimes good news doesn’t need to be anything else.

When you read what Reuters states in its article think of this. If you remove all mention of the South African school incident does the nature of the article change? No it doesn’t. So this information is superfluous and solely in there to denigrate Oprah Winfrey. I am insulted by Reuters.

Belinda Goldsmith wrote the article, Miral Fahmy was the editor. Both should be ashamed of themselves and embarrassed to have this published as it was. I would love to hear from either of them, or both, so that they can explain why they felt the absolute need to minimize the outstanding generosity of Oprah exclusively. I would love to hear them explain how this benefits the article or provides any new insight about celebrity donations.

Do you agree?

Death Race - mixing old and new with a kick

I may have missed what will become the underground hit film of the summer season in all my reviews of 2008 movies. Now by no means will this be an Oscar Award winning film (which means someone in America will see it). This is a simple action driven, fast paced, plot as an excuse for explosions kind of film.

The film is called Death Race and it will star Jason Statham. Now obviously the man can drive (or at least look cool acting like he can) as seen in his Transporter films (the 3rd coming out shortly). He’s definitely one of the better action stars able to do his own stunts.

Death Race is a simple movie, the brainchild of someone who grew up in the late-70’s to early-80's. I say this because there are a few things that seem to be the inspiration of this film. And each of them are things that I personally enjoy.

It may be a bit esoteric but Car Wars, by Steve Jackson Games, seems to be one influence. The game is a simple map, with each player selecting a car, motorcycle or truck cardboard piece. On a piece of paper various armaments for the car are written down. The players then proceed to destroy each other until only one is left. Simple and fun.

Another influence is Mad Max. The film that made Mel Gibson a star, its best seen in the original Australian accents (then you will understand why Fifi has his name). Cars are the weapons and speed is a function of exposition. There are no good guys in white, and everything crosses some line at some point.

Lastly is perhaps the biggest influence. Death Race 2000.



The film clip explains it all, almost. It’s a cross-country race, with no rules beyond winning and points for killing people along the way. Devised as a means of population control, you can see why the elderly are the highest points. David Carradine is the star, Dr. Frankenstein, and Sylvester Stallone is in there too. It’s a fun movie.

This film coming out shortly has much of the elements above. But unlike most retreaded ideas (that I hate) where the whole point of the movie is thrown out the window, this one keeps focus, from what I can see. Our hero is a famous NASCAR driver (of course) that gets framed. He’s thrown into a jail where the inmates compete in a race to the death, similar to Running Man now that I think about it. People watch and the winner goes free – supposedly. The cars are souped up, decked out, and raw – much like the various drivers.

Now I don’t know but I guess Jason Statham’s character will win the race and live at the end. No doubt this will be the cause of a Death Race 2, just as there will be a Cranked 2.

But enough of my analysis, here is the video. (If the film gets a wide release I will get a review as soon as possible).

Isaiah Washington makes me think - 6.29.2007.1

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

Paris Hilton home free - 6.7.2007.1

I cannot believe the penal system in California. I know that the legal system is flawed, at the least. It’s no question that the poor, African Americans, Latinos and Hispanics, and celebrities or entertainers all receive treatment that is completely different from each other. This has never been more apparent, and insulting, than in the treatment of Ms. Paris Hilton.

African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are very familiar with the skewed judicial system in America. It starts from interactions with police officers [not all officers but more than a handful are more than willing to use excessive force and assume guilt without provocation] and it just gets worse from there. The Rodney King beating, the Sean Bell murder, the Amidu Diallo incident are all just a few examples of what happens far too frequently on a daily basis throughout the nation.

Then the court system takes its turn. Routinely Black Americans, and many other minorities and the poor to a somewhat similar degree, receive guilty verdicts far in excess of the average for any other group. The comparison of similar charges have shown for decades in multiple studies that Black Americans are convicted far more readily than other racial groups. Statistically this is beyond just chance, the bias is acknowledged on a governmental level. The sentencing of African Americans exceeds those convicted of similar crimes by a decade on average, to my knowledge. [If there is a lawyer or researcher that can provide a more definitive answer, please contact me with that information.]


This is bad enough, but then we often see celebrities and entertainers that get to have the same charges as the average American, but they receive a slap on the wrist. R. Kelly has delayed his trial for sex with a minor for 5 years, Snoop Dogg was not allowed to travel to England because of the fight he had in an airport, multiple rappers, musicians, and actors get to avoid jail, repeatedly, for drug convictions by going to rehab facilities. Various celebrities and entertainers of all types in the entertainment industry have been given the least harsh treatment by the law that we could not. Just think of what happened to R. Kelly, Mr. Sean Penn, Mr. Christian Slater, Mr. Tom Sizemore, Snoop Dogg, DMX, Mr. Bobby Brown and his estranged wife Whitney Houston, Mr. Mel Gibson, Mr. Charlie Sheen, Sir Paul McCartney, Ms. Michelle Rodriguez, and so many others it would be a post of its own.

But then there is Paris Hilton. Given that this silver-spoon trust-fund inept woman only qualifies for this list as she is famous for being clueless and exceedingly rich. Even so, she was convicted and sentenced to 45 days in jail. Maybe the jail sentence wasn’t fair, but I know if I were sentenced to go to jail for 45 days, my family couldn’t get an opportunity to meet the governor to get me pardoned. Political pressure could not be applied in my benefit. Hell would sooner freeze over than I would be released to home confinement. Especially if I only served roughly 3 days of the full sentence.

Continued in part 2 ...

Helluva continued - 4.10.2007.2

Continued from Part 1...

But back to the point at hand. Mr. Imus and McGuirk insulted more than just a basketball team. They defamed women all world wide. They called your family and women of importance nothing better than prostitutes. That is a ho. That’s what he said without a moment of hesitation. That was his deep thought brought out in a moment of casual flippancy. At least it seems as such to me. And the mega-corporation that allows him to be on air believed that was harsh enough to give him a vacation. Wow.

I do not doubt that this could be the thoughts of many people around the world. I’m not foolish enough to believe that if Mr. Imus is fired this will end comments like this being uttered. I equally understand that not every person feels this way. These comments do not reflect everyone, but they do reflect some. But there are consequences for the actions we take. Mr. Imus has mentioned he recognizes this, even as he refuses to take responsibility.

While I feel Mr. Imus should take responsibility for his comments, I must also consider another part of this that is just as critical. Mr. Imus did not make calling women, particularly African American women, hos a common occurrence. The degradation of Black women has been promoted for decades by rappers in a manner that never existed before. This continuous insult, promoted by corporations, has helped to usher in moments like this I feel.

But where does this all end? How many times must people feel like they can say anything and be unpunished, no matter how offensive they are? In recent months we have heard of the actions by Mr. Mel Gibson, Mr. Michael Richards and Kenneth Eng. We have seen a Presidential hopeful make comments that are specifically targeted to lessen the accomplishments and importance of success in African Americans. Blatant attacks against Black men have occurred, with barely a comment from the news media, while felonies are made by white teen girls and the charges are reduced without cause. Yet while this all happens the fight over an apology to African Americans is heatedly rejected.

Don Imus and his comments are only a symptom of a bigger issue. I don’t agree with the thought that we need incidents like this to address the underlying issues. The issues are apparent, prolonged and ingrained in this nation. The number of incidents that any Black person (or any minority for that fact) in America can name in their life to date proves that. Perhaps it’s time that we address this at its root. Perhaps we need to take responsibility for the music lyrics, music videos, ebonics, lack of education, unjust legal system, economic disparity, addictions, and failure to apologize for the actions that helped to build the nation we all share.

Part of that acceptance of responsibility can start with Mr. Imus being fired. But whether he is or not, it should not be our only action.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Best Films of 2006 - 12.27.2006.3

So perhaps you are a bit too old for video games (whatever that means, I’m almost 39 and Mr. Samuel Jackson is older than me) or you just don’t find them interesting (truly a shame). Well perhaps you enjoy movies. Cinema is perhaps one of the largest forms of entertainment on the planet (I know that someone wants to debate that, but I’m going with it for the moment).

Sadly that also means that there is probably the most money in this form of entertainment. Where there is money there are bean counter trying to reign in costs and corporations looking for profit-centers (reigning in ideas). Occasionally this war of numbers works out and we get some decent films, maybe a surprise and rarely something everyone must see. Most of the time we get different flavors of feces, sometimes hot, some cold and more than a handful that make you wish you could throw up just so it would be more entertaining than the movie. The movies of 2006 is no different.

So let’s look at what was good. This is a short list, mostly because it seems that Hollywood is afraid of new idea (or they just won’t spend money on a new one). Casino Royale and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest are at the top. My preference is for Mr. Johnny Depp. Who wouldn’t want to take a trip to Tortuga with Capitain Jack Sparrow via a broken compass?

United 93 is a trip in time that makes the realities of yesterday come to life again. It’s hard to watch without the emotional connection to that day. Even more difficult for those of us in New York City and in the area that day.

Feast shows that Operation Greenlight can work. Director John Gullagher makes a movie that shows he has a vision. Worth the wait, though I think they should have given it its national big screen debut it deserved and many of us waited for.

Superman Returns and Apocalypto are 2 movies I didn’t see. I won’t see Superman because the entire theme of the character is uninteresting and annoying to me. Superman doesn’t represent me nor does his values of truth justice and the American way (all based on the themes of early 20th century America that did not see me as part of those themes). Unfair as that is I can’t separate the movie from the origin.

Apocalypto is a movie I have yet to have a chance to see. I plan on it though. Mr. Mel Gibson may have many issues but his ability to convey sweeping themes in his movies are unquestioned. From what I’ve been able to see the visuals are stunning, and I’ve long held that if the movie is well acted the language is unimportant. It would seem that many agree with my assessment.

Mission Impossible III was more bang for the buck. Finally we get to see an IMF TEAM in action. Closer to the concept of the original series, well worth the admission price.

Also worth noting though probably less familiar to the general population are The King of Scotland, This Film is Not Yet Rated, and Thank You For Smoking. Also DreamGirls which just came out and should be counted for 2007.

Continued in Worst films of 2006