Discussing 50 cent interview on Fox News

It’s amazing what money will make some people do. Some have sex for it; others sell poison (drugs) to children. The prisons are filled with thieves and petty robbers, and sometimes there are those willing to prostitute themselves just for a buck. In this case I’m referring to 50 cent (Curtis Jackson) appearing on Fox News with Neil Cavuto at 4:50pm Monday, to market a new line of Pontiac cars that he was involved in creating (in other words he put his name on it).

Considering the broad net cast upon Fox News, and the general mood in the gangsta rap industry for the channel I found it amusing that Jackson would appear. But then again, trying to sell the new Pontiac on BET wouldn’t really be possible.

1. There is no news program for him to be on
2. Gangsta rap targets young poorer African Americans
3. The rating suck as few really watch the channel compared to most other cable network programs (though I think they exceed CNN)

So I find it interesting that Jackson went on the channel to pitch the new car essentially to a more conservative, generally White, predominantly Republican, basically older audience. But since he is getting paid (no doubt a licensing deal and or record company perks I imagine) he goes where he is told. But don’t confuse gangsta rappers with sell-outs! That’s just not fair or Black, so I’ve been told.

For those that missed the interview, it was no hatchet job. It was fair and generally stayed on point about this promotion. I found it interesting that for a guy ranking #2 on the Forbes list of top rapper incomes, he only has 3 cars (he never mentioned if any were the car he was pitching). The modesty seems far from the persona he markets on stage, video games and that movie flop.

Which lead to a question about his film coming out next year, April 12th. Sadly I will find something more interesting to do than see him in the film, like take a nap, but I was shocked to hear that Mr. Robert DeNiro and Mr. Al Pacino are in the film. How did he pull that? It’s not like he has talent, nor is he having sex with the director (I presume) so I don’t know what got him the role. I am going to guess it’s a very minor role that will be marketed and hyped as if he were the lead in a $100 million film. No matter what you think of the guy, the fact is he is no Will Smith, or even an Ice Cube.

While this was ongoing, Neil Cavuto referred to a conversation he had with Mr. Sean Combs. They showed a brief clip and the difference in the style between Mr. Combs and Jackson was stark. Mr. Combs looked professional, sharp, casual and wealthy in his suit. Jackson looked like he was just at the gym and paid too much for the quality he had on.

But I digress. Neil Cavuto asked a question of interest about how gangsta rappers are all trying to go mainstream, getting into movies and pretending to be actors. The question was, and I paraphrase both the question and answer,

“I notice that there seems to be a move away from the violence and more to the mainstream. Are you moving away from the violence?

[50 cent] It’s not a move away from aggressive content. Success removes us from the environment, we aren’t writing about those things as much. That doesn’t mean they aren’t there or that someone isn’t writing about it. We’re just not around it.”

Again, I am paraphrasing. If anyone can show me an official transcript I will gladly correct the wording, but the essence has not been changed. And “aggressive content” was exactly the term Jackson used. He was coached very well by his PR people. I was almost impressed by the ex-convict. The subtle change in terminology changing violence, which is what, is advocated and accurately describing the actions described in gangsta rap, to aggressive content implies that his lyrics are no worse than a game of touch football. Talk about spinning a scenario in your favor.

And it’s interesting to note that for the most successful rappers, the ones most in favor of the n-word, being ghetto fabulous, and living the thug-life, (in general) are the ones that have left the ghetto, and lead lives mostly without any connection to the actions they continue to promote. From what I interpreted from Jackson’s words, he believes that essentially the top and longest running rappers are fakes since they have no connection to the events they proclaim rap is meant to ‘keep real’.

[Why do people keep saying that? What does it mean? Keep it real. Like you can fake life. Like there is a choice in being alive. This isn’t the Matrix, when stuff happens it happens. The statement is ignorant, a result of minds refusing to stretch to find the words that actually convey the thought in their head.]

Now add to all this the fact that Jackson likes Senator Hillary Clinton, because he liked her husband. What President Clinton has to do with her holding the Presidency makes no sense to me. She did not gain experience in running the government by osmosis, nor did she have a real power or position when she was First Lady. And her policies, if you can figure out what they are, seem to not match his.

Of course, like most I’ve noticed in support of Senator Clinton, Jackson is strongly against President Bush. When you call the sitting President “without compassion” you clearly state your reasoning. This is not a good reason to pick the next President though. President Bush is not going to run again. He is not going to be elected again. The logic runs false.

And how dare he call any sitting President “without compassion”. I may not agree with all the actions of President Bush, but that is not the same thing as to insult the leader of our nation. I can respect that Jackson may want to bring the troops home, but I also realize that this ex-convict is hardly the most astute political thinker.

While President Bush may be slightly more articulate than 50 cent, he is advised by far greater minds, and has always acted in a manner that seems to be guided by a belief that his actions are in the best interest of the nation. Disagree if you wish, but there has not been a successful terrorist attack in this nation to date, several attempts have been made but all were thwarted. And the economy, while not perfect is good.

All in all I found the interview interesting. Curtis Jackson left me unimpressed, his efforts to sell whatever increases his personal wealth left me unfazed. I was amazed that he found himself in a film with quality actors, and learning his political beliefs just makes me hope he keeps them to himself in the future. But it was a fair and mild interview.

Starbury sneakers from Stephon Marbury - 5.1.2007.1

I must say I am impressed. There are few basketball players I am aware of that are really worth talking about these days. I admit I am not a fan of basketball; I liken it to tennis with 12 players a side. That does not mean I don’t think they have more skill than average at the professional level. Given my lack of knowledge, I am aware of certain players. One that has recently caught my attention, Mr. Stephon Marbury, as I mentioned impressed me.

What I am impressed about has nothing to do with his ability to bounce a ball (or the more controversial aspects of his sports career), but what he is doing about his responsibility to present a positive image to children. I cannot speak about his everyday actions, but his new line of sneakers demands conversation.

I saw Mr. Marbury being interviewed by Mr. Neil Cavuto yesterday on Fox News. The reason was the conversation on his new line of sneakers, Starbury. They cost $15. I did not forget the 0 in the number. Imagine that, a line of sneakers promoted by a star athlete,
that costs what they are worth. I thought the day would never come.

Finally someone is waking up and realizing that children, often from inner cities where money can be tight, cannot and should not need to afford ridiculously overpriced goods. Every sneaker on the market costs maybe $5 to make at the most, I’d guess, and parents have long been gouged to provide their kids the latest brand at retail costs in the $100+ range. When you consider that most products that can make a 20% profit are considered goldmines by corporations across the world you start to see the rip-off.

Mr. Marbury is giving back to the Black Community, and moreso to kids in NYC high schools that play varsity basketball. That is an act of kindness and responsibility. It’s a reminder that “bling” [truly a term of absolute ignorance] is just a way to stay poor and make someone else rich for no reason. It’s a lesson in fiscal responsibility, which I hope could lead to personal responsibility. It’s an entertainer doing something for the fans and not for their bank account. And it’s about time.

I don’t fault anyone for making or endorsing a product and getting paid for it. Even better if they actually support and/or believe in the product. But ripping-off kids is wrong no matter what the reason. And it’s insulting when a multi-millionaire exploits fans, especially those in the least economically capable communities, to make another buck. Even the worst stockbrokers I worked with or knew of in the market would NEVER take money from kids and orphans. To make it blunt, profits in excess of 200% for a piece of sporting equipment that can’t survive the wear and tear of daily use beyond 6 months or so, and targeted to children and young adults, is exploitive.

I also laud Mr. Marbury for being one of the NBA leading donations for Hurricane Katrina victims and the several barbers he has at Coney Island to provide free haircuts to the youth. Are all these actions the biggest things that can be done to help the community? No. Do they make a statement? I feel they do. What might that statement be?

I feel that unlike most athletes Mr. Marbury is stating that money is not the be all of life. That his personal prosperity is not more important than those that provide him the prosperity. He seems to realize that the fans are the reason for his success, ultimately. And he presents an image that is severely lacking among entertainers and celebrities today, especially if those entertainers are African American. That image is class, pride, perhaps humility. That is what I have been able to gather.

I don’t know a lot about Mr. Marbury, and even less about his profession of choice. Yet what I have been able to divine seems worthwhile, even though there are missteps which is part of being human. That is worth talking about, more to the point it’s worth having our children emulate to an extent.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Booty augmentation, what's next - 1.20.2007.1

There was some news yesterday that caught my attention. It was reported on Mr. Neil Cavuto’s show on Fox News at 4:50pm that there is a new trend in plastic surgery. The trend, which is like wildfire now, is for augmentation of the buttocks. Bigger and firmer butts are the rage, and plastic or cosmetic surgery is the answer that many are using to fill out those designer jeans.

Now this is kind of sad. Spending $25,000 dollars to make your bottom emulate Beyonce or Mrs. Jennifer Lopez is just a waste of money. Sure there are millions of women that could use the improvement, but it just seems like a waste of money. It also makes me feel a little ill thinking of what that could feel like. There’s no silicon in this process, they use body fat from the stomach it seems. According to the experts discussion of the process and the number of procedures a week he is doing (3) I am led to believe that this is being done for ‘larger’ people. I say people because men are getting this done as well, though in far fewer numbers, I say larger because of the liposuction that is involved. Of course the age range on this is like breast augmentation going from young women to those in their 60’s.

Listening to this bit of news I could not help but think that this is yet another example of White America trying to be Black, but not admitting it. Seriously, it’s just one more example. Madonna never inspired anyone to get a butt like hers. Cher may have helped promote cosmetic surgery (debatable) but no one is out trying to emulate her. Yet ‘J-Lo’ and Beyonce definitely have as has the desire to be called ‘bootylicious.’ How many billions are spent each year to get a tan, whether it’s real or from a bottle? How far do people travel to get to a beach or other tropical locations just to get a touch of deeper color to the skin.

Think of the language used sometimes. How many women speak of wanting a “tall dark handsome” man? Or the compliment for having a “healthy glow” because they have a tan. These are just a few.

Then I must ponder how there are so many kids today that want to, safely, live the “thug” “ghettofabulous” life proffered by rappers. I think of the fact that rap, hip hop and hip hop clothing could never make as much money as they do without the cross-cultural buying makes a statement. Listening to the slang and quasi-uneducated eubonics of non-African Americans highlights the undercurrent of admiration.

Still with all these various statements, actions and emulation there is the fear of Black Americans. Perhaps fear is too strong, but I think its accurate. I know it’s a generalized statement. Many do not isolate or discriminate. Yet the American culture does find that having too much color is bad. You can have Beyonce’s butt, wear Apple Bottom Jeans, listen to Jay – Z and Snoop Dogg on your Ipod and speak like you have a third grade education if you do it when you’re not on duty at work as a doctor (for example) if you are White and there is no consequence. But I can be in a suit, speak perfect English, prefer to listen to Rock and Roll, don’t own an Ipod, and own my own businesses and people think I’m a drug dealer, or walk up to me and speak to me about how wearing a suit must “help me pick up hoes.”
It’s just an observation. Some of you may have seen the same things, wondered the same thoughts. What does it mean? I don’t know. But I do find it ironic that there is this dichotomy in the society. I wonder what cosmetic surgery will be next?

This is what I think, what do you think?