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.

Wesley Snipes unfairly sentanced to 3 years, Willie Nelson free

So I was wrong. Not by a lot, but wrong all the same. Wesley Snipes was sentenced today to 3 years of prison by a judge in Florida today. I had expected him to receive no jail time and probation.

“Mr. Snipes was found guilty of 3 counts of not filing a tax return. Those were misdemeanor counts. He was up for 16 years in prison, that pundits were sure he would be convicted for, and based on the misdemeanors he will almost assuredly spend no time in prison.”

Given that the various pundits were nearly demanding his incarceration I found it interesting that he was found innocent by a jury, and that it was not publicized. There was massive media in convicting Snipes before the trial ever started as I have written. Now that he has been unfairly penalized, the media is all over this in a manner they have avoided on the positive news of this case.

Mind you that before the sentancing many entertainers offered letters defending his character. Some of those included Denzel Washington, Woody Harrelson, and Judge Greg Mathis. At least in the case of Judge Mathis, the hope was not in obtaining leniency but in ensuring a fair sentancing. That obviously did not happen.

Unlike Willie Nelson who lost a case with the IRS, owing $32 million, and received no jail time or probation Snipes was placed in jail. This reminds me of the various cases where crack dealers receive severely harsher penalties while those convicted for cocaine receive lesser punishment. In these examples of what is known to occur commonly, we see that being Black virtually ensures the longest jail sentances.

Remember that in this case we have Snipes with no prior criminal record, this is a non-violent crime, it’s a misdemeanor, and he’s a celebrity (which usually helps). Add to that that the IRS paid Wesleyt Snipes a full $7 million dollar refund, and waited 5 years for the red flags to go up.

At what point is this not the Government picking on a Black man? They used tax loss even for years in which Snipes was acquitted of failing to file a return. And the fact is criminal tax prosecutions are relatively rare. The judge in this case wanted to make a point and hurt Mr. Snipes, not unlike the courts and juries that went after OJ Simpson after he too was found innocent. They just couldn’t let the African American man walk away when they knew (in their minds), and wanted him to be found guilty and suffer in jail. Again, if you think I am wrong just refer to Willie Nelson and his freedom though he was found guilty for $32 million.

And I have to ask, why must the media play up the negatives of this case. From day one they framed this, in 30 second soundbites, to enhance the presumed and pre-convicted guilt of Mr. Snipes. Similar in the way that 35 years of sermons of Rev. Wright were summarized into five 10 second polispeak soundbites to be used against him and Senator Obama.

The media seems to take great joy in promoting any image or story that presumes guilt of African Americans. Yet they are remiss in dealing with obvious events of Whites commiting atrocities and repugnant racial attacks. Just look at all the news coverage given to Megan Williams as compared to Bobbie Cutts or the manner in which the death of Sean Taylor was covered, or the brief coverage of Michael Richards, or the unabashed and unrelenting proclamation of innocence of the Duke Lacrosse team, or the 3 month long coverage of Anna Nicole Smith as opposed to the virtual fleeting coverage of James Brown’s death. And I can go on.

With this kind of media coverage, is there any question why Senator Obama gets such strong polling, and yet reflectively few White votes? Or that Wesley Snipes is now going to serve 3 years in jail for something a comparable White entertainer didn’t spend 5 minutes in jail for?

Hell, Paris Hilton had petitions and multiple pundits proclaiming she was unfairly sentenced – though she flaunted the law and was a menance to the lives of the public on roads. Yet I’ve heard only Judge Mathis on the news media saying the same thing (the sentancing) for Wesley Snipes.

What a world we live in. And what major media we have telling us about it. Keep your eyes open because the America they are selling us isn’t the Friends they want us to believe in, but a more colorful and diverse reality. Until they get a chance to spin the polispeak against us.

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.

Duane 'Dog' Chapman part 2 - 11.1.2007.2

Continued from Duane 'Dog' Chapman part 1...

Perhaps Rev. Storey is correct. Maybe ‘Dog’ is not racist. But he sure knows how to use racist language in a denigrating manner that racists use. And he has no problem having his associates do the same. So based on that alone, I respectfully disagree with the reverend.

The worst part of this is that news commentators, and no doubt pundits in general, are using this to attack hip hop and organizations that seek to improve the condition of African Americans. I am no fan of Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson, but I respect that they and their organizations do try to improve my life from time to time. I am no fan of 50 cent or gangsta rappers. But pundits comparing Chapman to 50 cent is wrong.

I disagree with any use of the N-word. Yes I realize I have promoted the Boondocks, but I believe they emphasize the idiocy of the common use of this word. And I hate the message promoted by corporate executives of misogyny, drugs, and imprisonment that is gangsta rap. I am upset that the rappers that are the figureheads of this genre have sold-out for a few pennies and are aiding in the pain, suffering, and difficulties many African Americans live through to varying degrees daily.

But Chapman is not an entertainer. He is a bounty hunter that happens to be televised. He is not being artistic in his words or actions. He is not commenting on society. He is just doing a job, like all those who don’t get television shows in his industry. So even that flimsy excuse of art is unavailable to him. Those pundits that try to draw a line between Chapman and gangsta rap are merely trying to change the subject and turn away from the fact that another White male has been caught being a racist and it embarrasses them.

How long will this be a public issue? Not long. Very quickly this story will be dropped, perhaps after Dog goes to a program to help him with his ‘insensitivities’. But the issue will not end. Like with Imus it will be deflected to rap and hip hop. The argument will become, “if Blacks say these words why can’t I?” Because ALL African Americans don’t use that word or such language. Most African Americans whether entertainers, celebrities, or regular people don’t speak in this manner in private or at work. But the media loves to promote the idea we all do. But because some don’t understand the meaning of a word, and executives of corporations want to continue to make money off this ‘inside’ joke, the accusation is made and sticks.

The biggest reason why the issue will be deflected and then dropped? Because the thought that some Whites are as racist today as in the 1950’s is unpopular. The realization that PC does not end racism is undesirable. Because too many Whites will be embarrassed, and like reparations or Slavery the issue is unpleasant for some Americans. Besides, the media can forgive Whites that act in a racist manner. They forgave Michael Richards, and sales of the Seinfeld DVD’s have gone on unabated. They forgave Don Imus, and he has had a 9 month vacation, a multi-million dollar windfall, and a new job for millions more.

Just don’t be African American and be controversial. OJ Simpson is going to go to jail not because of what happened in Las Vegas, but what happened over a decade ago. Mr. Genarlow Wilson spent 2 years in jail for a trivial action. Ms. Megan Williams won’t even be discussed by the media.

So is Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman racist? I say yes. Will he lose his television show? No. [And remember that will not affect his ability to work since he is a bounty hunter and not an entertainer anyway.] Do I feel bad or accept his apology? No, and I’m insulted by his attempt to preserve his income with this slap in the face. But he shouldn’t worry, and we should. White men that degrade and disparage African Americans are forgiven and their actions forgotten quickly anyway. At least according to the media.

Don’t you feel happy now? I would suggest that I would stop watching his show, but I don’t watch it already. If you are upset, stop. I’m not sure the demographic of my readers actually watch this but it might make a difference. The other thing is to contact A&E with letters for ‘Dog’ which can be sent to feedback@aetv.com.

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...

6 abuse and torture Black woman in West Virginia - 9.12.2007.2

Where the hell is the outrage! I mean it. I am constantly upset with the major news media for what they do and do not refer to in reference to African-Americans. I have mentioned how the major news media glosses over events such as the Sean Bell shooting, or the Michael Richards explosion of bile. On the other side is how the media seeks out any and every bit of information to condemn an African American long before the question of guilt or innocence can be determined, such as in reference to the Bobby Cutts case. And of course, there is always the immediate assumption of innocence that tends to go along to any White American accused of crime, especially when it involves African Americans or in comparison to coverage given to African-Americans with a similar accusation. Just look back at the coverage from day one on the Duke Rape case. It's infuriating.

But right now I'm just pissed off! It was just announced that something happened on Saturday and is just hitting the airwaves. This crime is heinous, deplorable, and maddening to say the least. It seems that Saturday in West Virginia six people have been arrested for sexually abusing, beating, and terrorizing a Black woman for no reason (as if there could be some justification) other than the color of her skin. Read that sentence again, I don't want to have to say it again.

This horrible and vile act has taken five days to be reported by the media. So far I've seen roughly 5 minutes of coverage in total, over the last hour. Let me be clear, I watch the news for roughly 10 hours every day. Its part of my search for news and items to speak about on this blog and the others I write for. When I say five minutes, that means since 9:30 a.m., and the first announcement on this news story occurred at roughly 3:30 p.m. today. This is not the lead story on Fox News, or CNN. The coverage is still being developed, five days after the arrest occurred.

So where has the major news media been. I understand that the earthquake in Indonesia is important, but I think that having a little bit less news on that and a bit more attention on this matter is justified. I really want to hear from the major news media, in particular, the cable news networks, why this was not discussed sooner or why there is no more information. In this same five-day period in the past these news networks were able to determine the entire work history and family for Bobby Cutts. In this same amount of time they were able to criticize the work and life of the woman who alleged rape at Duke. In the same amount of time, five days, I was told more about the life of Anna Nicole Smith than I could've cared about, if I actually cared. Major news media spent more than five days in discussing the crime and punishment of a seemingly drunken, disorderly, talent less, and possibly brainless rich brat - Paris Hilton.

At 4:00 p.m. CNN is leading off with the Democratic response to the report about Iraq. On Fox News we’re being told about tropical storm Abbas and then onto the lawsuit against Countrywide by its employees. CNN went on to discuss the departure of Tony Snow, and how the President will present the news that the surge in Iraq is reportedly working.

Displeased is not the word. Anger touches on it just a bit.

If this were, six Black men and women who had committed the same crimes against a White woman, I guarantee it would be the leading news story shortly after the arrest in West Virginia on Saturday. I don't think anyone in this nation would argue that fact. Where the hell are the facts about Frankie Brewster, her son and all the rest of the people involved in this case? Where is the history about where they work, whether they were arrested, whether they take drugs, and everything else about these people? Where are the cries from the announcers denouncing this act, and the moral outrage that it could occur! Where's the news coverage!

Why can't the news media present this story in the same manner and with the same attention to detail that they provide to other cases, where African-Americans are assumed to be the aggressor, and/or criminal.

I would love to hear the argument from the media or any other organization or individual that can justify why this case does not have more national attention than it has received to date. But I honestly do not expect to hear a response from the media or anyone else with that justification, because it does not exist. It was an injustice that was done to this woman. It's an injustice that the federal government will not pursue this as a hate crime when any sane person hearing the facts of this case, as has been presented understands that it is a hate crime, by definition. It is an injustice that the news media has, can, and will persecute African-Americans, Latinos, Hispanics, Asians, and every other minority solely because they have been accused of a crime. And when an atrocity occurs, committed by a White American they are excused, apologize for, and glossed over.

Some may not think racism still exists in America; among other things the six people in West Virginia, arrested on Saturday, including Frankie Brewster and her son, prove it does exist. The coverage by the major news media, prove that such racism is not only pervasive but a blind eye is turned toward it. I don't want to speak more about this right now, it angers me. But I will be back to this.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Major news media irritation - 9.11.2007.1

There are so many things that the major news media just forgets to follow up on, or deems unworthy of more than a fleeting mention. Yet in either case they have no difficulty in rushing news out at the initial stages of the story. It just pisses me off. I mean what happened to the days of getting the full story and reporting ALL the facts without personal or corporate prejudices.

I’ve mentioned the slipshod reporting on Wesley Snipes, and in the past the one-sided actions of the major media in reference to the Sean Bell murder, or even the rush to quiet the Michael Richards tirade of degradation. But there are so many more items, and you might want to check them out.

How about the fact that Barnes & Noble has now decided to sell the supposed-to-be renamed OJ Simpson book If I Did It. If the major media was really interested in telling a complete story, and going by the facts there might be a couple of questions that this now raises that should be asked. One question might be, if the outrage in the nation was so bad in November 2006 that HarperCollins would not release the book and fired an editor over it, why is anyone releasing it now? If the Goldman and Brown families were so angered and inflamed that a ‘fictional’ book describing the deaths of their loved ones was to be published, why are they publishing it themselves now?

If this is not about money, of which a lot of time and effort has been made to ensure that the respective family will get paid, and it was ‘criminal and insulting to the memories of the victims’ less than a year ago, what is the reason that changed the book besides the fact that OJ will not be receiving any money? Where is the outrage at this book being published that was openly expressed by all the major media networks in November and now has completely dissipated? REMEMBER, not a single word in the book has changed, just who gets paid. So is it about money, continued persecution of a man the used the legal system the way it’s been used for decades or more, or just a blatant statement about race in America?

What about the limited amount of coverage on the DVD’s and videos targeting babies to improve their minds. You might have missed the news that in fact these developmental items may actually slow brain development in babies. Perhaps as important is that these devices provide no help to children over 16 months old.

Think about that. A multi-million dollar industry that has parents spending their hard earned money in an effort to help their children get a head start, and I doubt more than 25% of the population is aware of the news. How many parents are hurting their children instead of helping them? Does this not require more media coverage? What is the difference between lead poisoning, which affects the brains of children and DVD that can have the same effect? Yet there is so little said about this news. Do you even know what else was worth more attention on the 9th or 10th on the major news media networks? The Notorious BIG got a movie deal though he is dead, and a ban on tattoos got 30 minutes of coverage. They may not sound like a lot of time, but how much time did the potential health of babies get in comparison?

Perhaps I’m overly concerned. Maybe I’m just in a bad mood. But I dislike the tendency of major news media to spend their time wasting mine with the latest Britney Spears update, and ignoring the full story on serious news. Or at least just the full story.

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?

Isaiah Washington makes me think Part 2 - 6.29.2007.2

Continued from Isaiah Washington makes me think Part 1...

As for Mr. Richards,
he and Mr. Seinfeld tried to explain how this was meant to be humor. It was just ‘a response to being heckled.’ The news media, which only picked up the story due to the proliferation of a YouTube video of the event, 3 days after the fact, dropped the story in a couple of days. No mention on this has happened since about a week after the event. Mr. Richards also went for counseling, and apologized to several of the patrons at the Laugh Factory that night. There may have also been a cash settlement, but that was never confirmed or followed by the media to my knowledge. [If you know tell me]

In both these cases we see that the media made a big deal and then quickly dropped the story. Both men had huge entertainers stand up for them when the news broke. Neither man had ties to a television or movie studio at the time [Mr. Gibson’s movie was independent and self-owned]. Mr. Gibson seems to have fully recovered. Mr. Richards abilities are unknown.

So is Mr. Washington correct? Well I do have to mention that Mr. Michael Jackson has continued his career since allegations of child molestation. Then again, that is quite different in nature of what happened, and some claim Mr. Jackson may be near bankruptcy. Still there is no question that he has mostly survived the negative media attention. Not that his career is not filled with negative media.

There is also R. Kelly.
5 years after being accused of raping a minor on video tape, his case has yet to see the light of a courtroom. The widely distributed tape is barely ever mentioned anymore, and the father of the victim reportedly now works for R Kelly. He has made record albums and comparatively toned down music videos since, and the media today barely whispers about the case.

Yet I have never heard of the kind of forgiveness that Mr. Gibson or others have received. When comparing apples to apples, as best as can be done, the similarities end. The volume of acts committed by the entertainers and celebrities that the media takes a soft hand to is numerous. The number that this treatment reaches, that are minorities of any type are few.

Mr. Washington seems to not have gotten a fair shake, compared to other entertainers of similar stature and nature. I mean there was a lot said about Ms. Angelina Jolie, before she started traveling and working to improve the lives of children. But even Newsweek had to mention that Mr. Washington is building a school in Sierra Leone. Mr. Washington claims to have been donating to homeless shelters, and working to improve the lives of the downtrodden for many years. Like many African American, and Hispanic/Latino American entertainers and celebrities, like Mr. Chris Gardner of whom the movie Pursuit of Happyness is based, little of these actions has ever been mentioned.

Forgiving Mr. Isaiah Washington for his comments is a personal decision. Whether anyone thinks his comments were vile, crude or ignorant is not my point. But I do wonder why it seems quite apparent that the media seems ready to crucify entertainers and celebrities of color when something that is questionable is done, yet when blatant criminal acts are done by other entertainers [like taking drugs, driving without a liscence, drunk driving, ect] they turn the other cheek repeatedly.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Isaiah Washington makes me think - 6.29.2007.1

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

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...

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...

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?

Do you see a media bias? - 3.20.2007.1

Did anyone hear the news about the Sean Bell case? I doubt if most did. 51 shots fired at 3 men in a car leading to a death, all those men unarmed and fired upon by 5 police officers, and I only noticed 7 minutes of coverage all day yesterday between CNN and Fox News. 3 of the officers were indicted; charges included reckless endangerment of the public as shots hit buildings and other structures where other innocent people were. Anyone surprised?

I have friends all over the country, none of them heard a word about the latest events in the Sean Bell Case. I’m in New York State, barely any comment in the last 24 hours. I do watch a lot of cable news, but I’m not glued to it so there may have been somewhat more coverage. But I can say that in 4 hours I saw 2 mentions of the case for 45 seconds each. In the same time I saw 5 minutes of Anna Nicole Smith, and 6 mentions and 12 minutes on the woman shot by unknown individuals in her bed. There was no less than a half hour of information about the Boy Scout that was in the woods. Seem fair?

I recall that back when the Duke rape case started, there was hours of information. Most of that information was instantly in defense of the lacrosse team, there were questions on the defendant immediately. The fact that some of those questions came to be found as true is immaterial to the way the media reacted. Anna Nicole Smith and news relating to her death and paternity of her child has had more coverage than the death of President Ford, the death (and 2 month non-burial) of James Brown, The Sean Bell Shooting, and the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident; even if you doubled all of them and combined the times you would still have more coverage on Anna Nicole Smith. Honestly the case is worth almost no time.

And now I see that Mr. Bill O’Reilly is going to do a segment on despicable villains and their body language. One of the featured individuals appears to be Mr. O.J. Simpson along with Kim il Jong and Saddam Hussein. The O.J. trial remains the most commented and reported item in the last decade. At every turn the media takes a moment to reflect on how similar, or impacting, or some other vague connection a current event has to that case. Mr. Simpson has not helped himself, but the nation and the media cannot get over the fact that the Justice system found him innocent of the charges placed against him just as dozens (perhaps hundreds) of other rich, famous, non-minorities have done for decades before and after him.

So in each case there seems to be a disparity. Lead by the media there is an emphasis. Black American men shot to death, in a style of overkill usually only found in action movies, minor news. Black man with contribution to the arts for decades, unburied for 2+ months, not important. African American wins a trial by using high priced lawyers and reasonable doubt, bad charges, and evidence planted by the police is unforgettable. Cute blonde gets daily coverage. An argument between celebrities, daily coverage. Offensive, demeaning comments by a celebrity against a religious or ethnic group, minor coverage. Defensive coverage of accused rapists, prior to a trial or Grand Jury, prior to any actual facts being found – daily coverage. As facts are found, huge recaps of the case, furthering the defense especially if anything leads to defending the accused. Coverage of a bank robbery by ‘cute teens’ huge coverage, the fact that the charges were lessened from federal offenses? 2 minutes.

Do you see a trend? I do. If I or my friends were to commit any of the above acts I’d be in jail and barely get noticed. I’d get no defense by the media. I’d never be referred to as ‘cute’ or innocent. My attackers would have the presumption of innocence or cause. Were I to win, I’d be hounded for life.

Is it racist? Well you tell me. When was the last time you saw a non-minority shot more than 10 times? Did you know that James Brown wasn’t buried for 2 months, and when did you learn about it? A week later, a month, just now? If I were to rant racial or ethnic slurs in a public forum or on tape, would it be forgotten in a week? If there was video of the event would it be discarded in a few hours of the event, or even make it to the news? Would there be newscasters and news consultants defending me on accusations of rape, robbery, assault, defamation or other events? If you think I would get a treatment different than some of the above cases, what makes the difference? Is that racist?

I leave you with this thought. Right now there is as much news on a hockey player that high-sticked another player as all the news on the Sean Bell shooting combined.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Verizon commercial and Trump vs. Rosie, why? - 1.10.2007.2

Before I mention how annoyed I am with the “Trump vs. O’Donnell” garbage, let me ask a question. Have you seen the Verizon Wireless commercial with the Black American family? I like it. It’s funny. In this commercial the father asks his kids (a son and daughter) how they like the Chocolate and EV (I think) phones that he got them. The kids think they are great and are happy. The father asks what they got him, and the daughter mentions “We got you cologne.” The father replies, “No. Dad got hosed.” Now that is funny. One of my best friends mentions similar thoughts every Father’s day, his birthday and Christmas. The way the Black man mentions it, I have to guess he is a dad in real life. Finally a commercial that is not insipid or berating that stars African Americans. There aren’t many, but it’s nice to see it and the reality based humor works too.

But, going from a funny thought to something so stupid it should be funny yet it isn’t. Yes I mean the whole back and forth with Ms. Rosie O’Donnell and Mr. Donald Trump. While I agree that Mr. Trump was wronged first, it’s long past time for it to end. The whole thing is a waste of time, and more importantly a waste of news airtime.

Here is what is annoying me about it. So far this has been going on for about 20 days now. [see my post The odd and dumb before the holiday - 12.21.2006.2] Virtually every day there is commentary and reports on who responded and what they said. There have been debates on who started it (which is obvious) and whether whatever statement is true or not. It’s taken up what I estimate to be about 2 or more hours of news time for almost as many days as it’s been going on. Doesn’t sound like a whole lot, except you may not realize that in a regular day most items only get about 30 minutes of coverage in 30-45 second soundbites.

Think about it, as I estimate, there has been almost 40 hours of time spent on this one story over almost a month. [based on 24-hour news networks] The death of President Ford barely got more coverage, but it was in about ¼ the number of days. And he was a former President. News coverage for the murder of Mr. Sean Bell lasted 2 days and had maybe 6 hours of coverage. The actions of Michael Richards captured all of 4 days and 12 hours of attention. Am I the only one wondering what is being tossed out to cover a battle of words among 2 celebrities that affects nothing.

Seriously, this changes nothing. It’s minor gossip on television. There is nothing that will be improved or affected in the average American’s life, yet this is being covered more than almost any other story. I’ve seen coverage of too many stories in 45 seconds as opposed to the average 3-5 minutes this gets. It’s bad enough that news has been relegated to mere soundbites and partisanship, but now it’s becoming even less interested in actual news.

I’d love to know more than 30 minutes in a single day about why Mr. Al Sharpton is considering a run for President. I’d enjoy more than 2 ½ hours on Senator Obama, and not spending that time on how good he looks for being a smoker and African American. I’d occasionally like to know a bit more on, perhaps. what African American children have been abducted or are missing in the nation. [I’ve seen maybe 3 stories since the beginning of the year about White children that have been abducted. It’s a good use of news time; I’m sure more can be done to cover such stories and perhaps covering some of the other racial groups that are having this done to them as well.]

Television was meant to entertain and educate. It’s evolved to just provide entertainment. News has always been held to be the exception to that rule. Until now. I don’t think I’m the only American with intelligence. I think we all deserve more respect, and should be able to get a full news report on things that matter. I don’t think gossip and ‘drama’ need to be added, life has enough of that. Entertain me when I watch a comedy, or drama, or sci-fi. Inform me when I watch the news. Is that a lot to ask for?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Michael Richards - 11.21.2006.2

I wanted to wait a while before speaking about the Mr. Michael Richards incident at the Laugh Factory last Friday. There were a few things I wanted to hear about and understand before forming a comment. Obviously when I heard via the media that Mr. Richards had made a tirade, using the n-word and other equally derogatory words, I was incensed. But I wanted to hear more, to get a full understanding, because we all know the media is hardly above sensationalizing a story, and slow to admit a mistake or retract a commentary. [See my comments about a Fox News comment at Letter to Fox News on Duke rape case news - 10.30.2006.1]

So as I worked today, I had the news on (like usual) and heard as things developed. I did not see the apology on the David Letterman Show last night. I have not heard Mr. Jerry Seinfeld’s comments. But I have heard the comments of Mr. Richards, and portions of his apology.

The news of this came out Monday, the show it happened on was Friday, and Mr. Richards performed another show on Saturday. I have not heard of him apologizing on stage Saturday for the previous meltdown. Mr. Richards was being heckled harshly while doing a stand-up routine. He is not a professional stand-up comedian, nor is he seasoned at it. In trying to go after the hecklers Mr. Richards lost it and hurled racial epitaphs including the N-word and a reference to being a klansman lynching a Black American. As he continued this barrage, the crowd which included many Latinos/Hispanics and African Americans became insulted and walked out. The owner of the Laugh Factory gave everyone a refund of their money, which was the first time he has done so in 20 years (according to his comments on Fox News with Mr. Neil Cavuto A 5:00 pm). According to the owner, speaking with Mr. Richards afterwards Mr. Richards wanted to go on-stage and apologize, he had tears and felt badly on what happened, and was told not to go out as right then it an apology would not be received well.

Those are the facts that I have been able to discern in various media so far.

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. While Mr. Seinfeld’s belief of Mr. Richards not being a racist may be true, it is no excuse. I agree with Mr. Paul Rodriguez and many others in denouncing the manner in which Mr. Richards acted.

To be continued in part 2....