Wesley Snipes keeps fighting the good fight, and the media doesn't care

I know the world is busy falling because Oprah Winfrey has finally decided to stop doing her show. I personally could care less as I don't watch the show, I've not been on it, and it's been 25 years. That is not to say I don't respect what Oprah has done, it's just not earth-shattering news that she's finally stopping. Not like she will be in the poorhouse with $1 billion.

But as all eyes turn on Winfrey, I noticed something slip through the cracks of the news. It's something that the major media has avoided once it turned into something less than what they had hyped.

As long-term readers of my blogs are aware, Wesley Snipes was railroaded by the IRS and the major media not too long ago. The Government went after Snipes, implying the worst of tax evasion offenses, while he was out of the country filming. The media swooped on the story as if it were a scene from a film with some dastardly villian hidding from the righteous Government. Too bad it was mostly a sham.

Snipes did in fact not pay taxes. Well actually he paid them, and then his accountants asked the IRS for the money back. And they gave it to them, millions without instantly raising a red flag. Years later, someone noticed that there was a box not checked somewhere in the Government and they came after Snipes. They tried to brand him a criminal mastermind, forcing his accountants to do the taxes of dozens of people such that they made more money than they were supposed to. Pure evil, it was a movie plot I think.

So after Snipes returned from Africa, found out the Government suddenly wanted him, he complied. And a trial soon ensued. The media was all afluster. Snipes faced charges that would put him in jail for 16 years. Charges that other actors and celebrities have never faced. Because the Government wanted to make an example out of Snipes. Never mind that Willie Nelson owed 2x as much money ($34 million) and after LOSING his case against the IRS, never saw a day of jail. Nevermind that right now Nicholas Cage owes millions to the IRS and he has yet to be charged, and there is no media circus around him.

But the Government was sure they would win. There were about 10 charges or more as I recall (I do have several posts on the subject but I don't want to stop to check right now), with all but 3 being federal charges. The IRS lost every single federal charge against Wesley Snipes, proving his innocence of the worst of the allegations. It was a massive slap in the face of the Government - and almost all of the media suddenly forgot that there was a trial.

But the revenge of the Government was swift. Almost immediately after losing the 3 misdemeanors, Snipes was giving the absolute max for the crimes. These types of judgements normally are probation for a month or 2 at most. Given that he had 3 he should have recieved a year on probation in TOTAL. Instead he got 3 years of jail.

Snipes has not taken this lying down. Like with the hyped up and erroneous charges first made by the IRS, the punishment is also being fought in court. Snipes wants the overly extreme jail time thrown out. And I agree with him.

Perhaps this isn't as important as Oprah. Perhaps Snipes doesn't have the fanbase he once had. Maybe this isn't as questionably racial as it seems. But other than my readers I doubt anyone will ever know. Because the major media is burying this on the back page.

Had Snipes lost, it would have been big news. A major Black entertainer with bad news is always front page. But he won, and the media and Government were embarrassed. I just hope that they get over themselves and stop punishing Snipes for proving they were wrong. Maybe Oprah will talk about this before she goes off-air. Probably not though.

Where are the women of color?

As much as I deplore the secondary status that is generally imparted on actors and actresses of color, I do have to admit that there has been huge progress over the years. It's not that I accept the roughly 7% immersion of people of color in Hollywood, just that it far exceeds the perhaps 1% or less that was Hollywood just 3 decades or so ago.

But often I have to admit that I do not focus on actresses of color as much as the men. The fact is that male actors of color have found more success as Hollywood painfully slowly realizes that audiences aren't concerned as much with color as quality of acting. In just the last 2 decades we have seen Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes, Samuel Jackson, and a handful of others gain leading roles in big budget movies. At the same time women of color have barely gotten recognition.

It took some 50 years to go from Dorothy Dandridge to Halle Berry. And even with that, Berry is hardly in the position to pick and choose her films as other Oscar winners routinely do. There just aren't roles being provided to her. Kind of like how the proposed spin-off of James Bond, her Jinx character was supposed to receive just died on the vine. Name another Oscar winning actress' highly popular character that was proposed to get a leading film and was just forgotten about. I can't.

Of course there is Oprah Winfrey. But while she has more than enough power to appear in various roles, that generally has come to fruition due to her ability to fund her own projects. Her vast popularity may be the kiss of life to consumer products and recreation, but Hollywood is indifferent to her massive appeal.

There is also Queen Latifah. After decades of work honing her skill on television and small roles she has become a serious star. Yet serious roles are denied her, likely both due to the color of her skin and the fact she wears a dress size larger than 5 models put together. That's not fair, it would probably take more models as they can be stacked together like toothpicks but you get my point.

When I think about it, there just aren't any roles being given to women of color. That is unless they can pass as White. Which is not something they have control over, it's something that Hollywood seeks out. Take Carmen Diaz. How often is her Hispanic heritage ever spoken about? How many roles is she ever placed in that gives attention to any ethnicity to her?

I suppose my point is simply that there is more to the failure of Hollywood to see the talent before them. It is willful and it denies audiences of an experience that might be far superior to what they are getting. That alone just irritates me from time to time.

The Forbes Top 20 Richest African Americans List: Reflecting on the list

$8,255,000,000. That’s a huge number. It’s a sum of money that normally only gets mentioned in relation to the actions of the Government, or the largest of corporation. But that also happens to be the total of the net worth of the "http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/06/richest-black-americans-busienss-billionaires-richest-black-americans.html" target="_blank">Top 20 richest African Americans as stated by Forbes.

There is no question that everyone on this list is impressive. There is no question that each person on this list created the wealth they have today (which is reduced just like the wealth of every American these days). They are all examples to follow.

But I was looking through the list, and a few things came to my mind. Observations that probably few notice.

The youngest person on the list is 30, the oldest 79

65% of all the people on the list attained the bulk of their wealth via entertainment

Every person on this list attended, if not graduated, from college (I may be wrong about Jay-Z and Don King)

Only 1 person on the list ran a Fortune 500 company

Only 2 were involved in investments as the means of their wealth

Only 3 are women

6 attained the bulk of their wealth directly from sports

I take several things from this list. Some good some bad.

It’s wonderful to know that Oprah is still a multi-billionaire and tops the list. I am also glad to see that women have done well, having struggled as much as any man on this list. And I note that all the women achieved their success without the aid of sports.

The entire list includes some of the very best in the world at what they do, or have done. That includes: Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Bill Cosby PhD, Berry Gordy Jr, and you might even include Jay-Z.

Several people on the list are visibly and actively giving back to the community. I say visibly because everyone on the list has made considerable and frequent donations to multiple charities and causes. But some are very outspoken. That includes: Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby PhD, Magic Johnson, Janice Bryant Howroyd, Alphonse Fletcher Jr.

The thing that annoys me though is that there are so few that have had major success in business, or non-entertainment fields. Worse yet, the general public would be hard pressed to recognize the non-entertainers names. They are: Sheila Johnson, Quintin Primo III, Janice Bryant Howroyd, Herman J. Russell, Ulysses Bridgeman Jr., Tracy Maitland, Alphonse Fletcher Jr., and Kenneth I. Chestnut.

The implication is that African Americans main avenue to success is limited to entertainment. That in some way other ventures are unworthy of attempts to grow. That the focus of the youth needs to be isolated to entertainment alone.

This is reinforced with the media. The media lavishes over singers, rappers, actors/actresses, and athletes. The media pushes images of these entertainers almost exclusively, with shows on television and cable just because of their fame (ie. Snoop Dogg, 50 cent, Flava Flav, Russell Simmons, Xzibit, and several others have shows – not one non-entertainer of color has a show of any type, ever).

In fact, while everyone on this list has at least gone to college, the media and the entertainment industries highlight the lack of education among those with fame. Rappers are constantly identified for their lack of education, and criminal behavior. The media never discusses the educational background of professional athletes, or most any successful person of color. I mean can you name what degree, in what field of learning and from what college, Tiger Woods has? How about Bill Cosby? Oprah? Quentin Primo?

My point is that there is too much focus on the narrow field of entertainment. Like it’s a golden path. Everyone in lower income areas thinks it’s their ticket out. Whether it’s basketball, or football, or rapping, or whatever. But the fact that an intelligent mind is the only true ticket to lasting success should be the focus.

Jay-Z would just be another guy that made records, if he were not intelligent enough to see and groom other business ventures. Michael Jordan would just be another record holder if he were not able to have created business deals that continue to reap more money than he ever made as a player. Magic Johnson grew his wealth and helped communities across the nation because of his mind, not his records or lifestyle.

I can go on and on. But the fact is that success is more than just playing with a ball, or keeping a beat. It’s more than clothes or street credit. It’s not drugs, or criminal status, or bling. In fact, the people on this list are all almost exact opposites of what is shown off as success for people of color by the media. And that includes Jay-Z.

Success and wealth in America can be attained by anyone. This list proves that in droves. If there is anything to be taken from this list, it’s the fact that anyone can join them as well. It just takes an education, thought, and determined work.

Movie Preview: The Princess and the Frog

Ok, so call me late to the party. I don’t follow kid’s films much, nor do I follow Disney. So I missed a bunch of the controversy that is The Princess and the Frog. Perhaps you missed it as well.

The film will be released in December of this year. Here is a trailer.



If you think I might have problems with this film, you should hear what friends of mine mentioned when they heard about this film. The more we thought about the film the more issues came up.

The story originally went like this:
A prince from a fictional African nation comes to New Orleans to listen to jazz. While here he meets a spoiled brat rich White girl, and her Black maid. Both girls find him attractive. Somehow he comes afoul of a bad Voodoo priest that turns him into a frog. He gets the Black girl to kiss him, turning her into a frog. They both go to a good Voodoo Priestess and get changed back to humans, fall in love somewhere along the way, and live happily ever after.

Thus Disney gets to cash in on the influx of positive Black films, the popularity of President Obama, and make a claim at being racially sensitive.

Except there are problems. First the name of the Black girl has changed from Maddy to Princess Tiana. This is odd since America has no royalty. And why would royalty work as a maid?


Second, this is billed as the first Black Disney princess. Hello, did anyone watch Aladdin? The entire movie is filled with Black people. Princess Jasmine was the first Black princess, it’s just that everyone seemed to skip over the permanent suntan she and every character had. But as a friend mentioned, this will be the first American Black princess, which goes back to what I said above.

Third the film is situated after the Civil War and the 13th Amendment. But it is a period piece around the late 1800’s to early 1900’s. This means that Jim Crow and segregation were in full effect. Meaning that the prince would never have seen or spoken to Tiana, and if he did she likely would have been hung for her boldness. That was how the South was those days.

And of course this says nothing of the fact that a prince would never speak with a commoner in those days. Even now it is highly unlikely, and generally occurs due to other circumstances like Prince Edward fighting in Iraq.

Lastly, a White Southern woman of that time period would never be seen after a Black man, at least in public. Even if he was a prince. Her family would have disowned her, and likely killed or given extreme suggestions to leave to the prince.

What is effectively happening is that the South is being romanticized yet again. Facts are being thrown out the window so Disney can make money. And our youth are losing a piece of the truth and history of the nation yet again.

Add to this the fact that the animators at Disney seem to be very lazy of late. Princess Tiana looks remarkably like several other Disney princesses, just with a tan. She is hardly distinct, or drawn with any relative connection to any racial group.

But the film has a huge list of top names. Oprah Winfrey, Terrance Howard, John Goodman, and Keith David head the leading voices in the movie. Tiana will be voiced by Anika Noni Rose, who seems to be a singer (never heard her sing) and actress (she has been in several plays as well as the movie Dreamgirls). I really can’t recall her in anything, but I’ll blame that on being older.

Expect to see lots of hype about this movie. It goes with the trend right now to show a lot of Black people in things. Like the background of ads, or as additional characters in television shows. It’s the Obama effect. A limited effect where you get to see more people of color without them gaining any real importance or positions of leadership in anything.

Because if Disney really cared about being racially sensitive, or even aware, they could have added Black characters into movies for decades. They even could have promoted Aladdin as such. But instead they played down the thought of leading, or secondary characters, as anything but White. Up until now. [Though I should note that Lilo and Stitch did have a full cast of people of color – and were intended to be seen as people of color.]

Honestly, I don’t find the fact that this is a film focused on a Black character from Disney as a positive. It’s not like they never knew the color black was in their coloring inks. It just emphasizes that with the Civil Rights Movement, and decades of laws and action, it has taken nearly half a century for Disney to acknowledge African Americans. It just reminds me that taking all the people of color in front of and behind the cameras all add up to less than 10% of the people in Hollywood.

Perhaps I’m too sensitive, but that is my nature. At least I’m honest about what bugs me. At least I try to look at America’s past with open eyes to the good and the bad. At least I’m not trying to profit on the back of President Obama, like this is one big marketing experiment.

Disney is doing a film about a Black woman. It’s about time. Now let’s hope it’s good.

Forbes recognizes the obvious about Will Smith and people of color

Oh how shocking. Will Smith is the most bankable entertainer in Hollywood. With the record for the most movies grossing over $100 million in a row, who could have guessed?

Honestly I am not amazed. But I really hope that the executives in Hollywood are paying attention to the numbers. Because it flies in the face of the notion that

“American audiences want to only watch people similar to themselves.”

That is the industry code words for the functional equivalent of “White only” - to me - which is present in the overwhelming number of television shows, movies, and even work behind the camera.

In fact, according to Forbes, the top of the Star Currency list includes Denzel Washington at number 8. On the Celebrity 100 list the start is with Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods. That list goes on to include Beyonce Knowles and Jay-z in the top 10.

Yet for all of that, and the many other people of color that made each of the lists, Hollywood avoids us. Which is odd for an industry that is best known for copying anything that is successful to death.

Just look at the 30 remakes that are going to hit screens or announced so far in 2009. Look at all the copycat stories that fill the television screens and theaters; they even copycat success from other countries (Life on Mars, Leverage, Bangkok Dangerous, ect.). And there is hardly any escape from some form of reality programming on every network including cable television. There are few original ideas in the industry, especially over the last decade or so. Except if it involves people of color. Then there are really none.

Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Laurence Fishburne, Samuel Jackson, Jamie Foxx and Eddie Murphy are the key male African Americans that fill screens and bring in revenue. Halle Berry and Queen Latifah are the Black female counterparts. Several of them have been doing so for decades. Yet Hollywood ignores the majority of Black actors, preferring to fill the ranks of new actors with virtually only White faces. And it’s not because there is a lack of a potential pool of actors to select from.

Television shows like the Cosby Show, A Different World, My Wife and Kids, The Fresh Prince of Bel Aire dominated the small screen. And once they were off the air nothing even close replaced them. The various networks didn’t even try to copy the shows.

It’s not that I expect every show to have people of color in them. I don’t want to see a television schedule of crap that is made to have people of color fill the screens and then be rejected with a casual ‘well we tried.’ But to honestly expect that in the 21st century, as people are declaring the era of “post-racial America”, we see almost the same number of African Americans, Latino/Hispanics, Asians and so on in any medium you wish to chose as were around in the 70’s. It’s deplorable.

Perhaps I wouldn’t get as upset if other aspects of the media were better. But news media still loves to depict people of color as violent and guilty of any wrong-doing or lack of success whenever a video is needed. And it is conspicuously remiss in reporting any news event that identifies people of color as victims of crimes via police brutality or other circumstance.

Just look around for the coverage of Oscar Grant, Adolph Grimes, or Robbie Tolan. All you will see is continuing coverage of Casey Anthony and the Petersen case in Ohio. Or how about the last time you saw national attention of a Black child that was missing?

But at least Forbes is taking notice that America loves it’s celebrities and entertainers of color as much as anyone else. Hopefully one day Forbes might just get involved in entertainment and things will improve. Or the racially blind execs in Hollywood will be replaced by open minded people. If only.

An Obama effect in Hollywood is insulting

There is something that’s been nagging at me for months. The Obama effect on media and television. The very statement is an insult. Let me explain why.

An effect is a reaction to a stimulus. As long as the stimulus is around the effect continues. Once it is gone the effect fades. An Obama effect is a temporary shift in a long held belief system. And I don’t want to accept that as good enough.

Since before, and massively since, the election President Obama has been used as a reason for media to remember that African Americans have been a vital part of this nation since inception, are a rather large part of the population, and an enormous factor to the prosperity of the economy.

Television and movies have long ignored all of that. With the exception of the Cosby Show and a few programs that were on broadcast television at that same time, the small screen in everyone’s living room is devoid of people of color. In fact, once the Cosby Show went off-air (ending the Cosby effect), the executives in Hollywood seemingly scrambled to eliminate what they had created. Proof that Americans will watch a good program no matter the color of the stars.

At this point, the 9th year in a row, the line-up of television features 2 programs with Black actors as lead. They are on the smallest and least seen public television broadcast network, and hold the worst time-slot possible. Beyond this, there are 2 prominent Black actors in drama ensembles. And then there are 2 programs on cable television that feature Black casts. That’s it, out of over 120 programs just looking at broadcast television alone.

But President Obama will cause all that to change. Kiss my ass.

I do not need, nor should it take, the leader of our nation to be Black to make me aware of the abilities of tens of millions of Americans. There have long prior been examples of success in front of and behind cameras. There has long prior been proof of our viability. And to claim that only now people can see or accept this is insulting to generations of African Americans and the American public at large. To say nothing of the even less acknowledge or seen Latino/Hispanic and Asian communities.

Back in November of 2008

“It may say something about the state of American television that there is one more black president-elect of the United States than there are black actors with individual lead roles in a network television drama.”

Recently Bill Cosby had this to say about the supposed Obama effect and television

“No, because these people are stupid," he says, referring to network bosses. "Look at how NBC is struggling. You would think they would make some changes and be talking about trying to get another 'Cosby' kind of show. But they would probably die before putting another show on about a black family and black pride."

And Bishop T.D. Jakes stated

“I think sometimes the only images we see of people of color are the images that Hollywood projects: the hip-hop, the gangs, the street life. Now, it would be wonderful for them to recognize what has always existed in the African-American community and what Obama's presidency suggests: middle-class African-Americans who are articulate, intelligent and thoughtful."

And that is the issue. Hollywood wants African Americans to be limited to gangsta rappers or such ilk. President or not, African Americans are supposed to be bad guys, poor, uneducated and in need of a hand-out. Adding more African Americans because of President Obama is just that. And once he is out of office, just like with the Cosby effect, they can go back on message.

That is insulting. I don’t want laws to tell me that I am equal. I don’t want executives in Hollywood to portray African Americans in a movie or program because they want to enlighten me to success. These things should be obvious to anyone that looks around or reads more than a high school book on history.

America does not need an effect. We need respect. For those that work everyday, that contribute to the prosperity of the economy, of those that aren’t living the commoditization of Black culture. We need to acknowledge that without African Americans, America would have failed before it could have started. And that right this second, there are tens of thousands that are qualified and capable but overlooked because they have a permanent tan.

Jaime Foxx, Denzel Washington, Laurence Fishburne, Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Sidney Poitier, Angela Bassett, Terrance Howard, Gabrielle Union, Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee, Bill Duke, and so many others are not an Obama effect. They are not an effect at all. They are representatives of a far larger, more diverse community that has been right here for as long as America has been around – they have just been mostly ignored.

Trying to placate this vital segment of America with insincere transitional leftovers is not the answer. Though it does answer a sincere question that often is asked and I think best stated in the movie The Tuskegee Airmen.

“Lt. Col. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. – Andre Braugher -
…I ask myself the most difficult question everyday. How do I feel about my country… and how does my country feel about me.”

Oprah does it again

In all the rush and bustle of news about this celebrity doing something stupid, or the media failing in it's mission to the public there are stories that we all miss or fail to recognize. For me that means that there is an item that I intended to write about that I completely about.

In this case it is Oprah Winfrey and what she did at the end of the year. It was a Christmas gift, the likes of which provides more than just money or an material item it provides the chance at a better life. And it's something I think deserves more attention.

In Atlanta, the one of the poorest neighborhoods is a private school run by Ron Clark. This is the teacher who wrote the New York Times best selling book The Essential 55, and opened the Ron Clark Academy. That Academy provides students with in-class computers, a dark rook, a 2-story library, a recording studio, a dance studio and digital recorders. In effect it stimulates the students minds and imaginations with the technology of today and the opportunity to use it. But that isn't cheap.

The school, which was created in part from the proceeds of Ron Clark's book sales, requires a tuition from the parents of those children accepted. The portion of tuition parents pay is miniscule compared to the actual cost, and from the 350 applications for the 50 seats available in the school low and middle income families find it worth the money. That means there is a huge deficit.

Clark makes up that difference in raising donations for the school. It's a daily job that goes on every night after the school day has finished. And the commitment he has shown has helped to bring in funds. And Oprah stepped up as well. She provided the school with a donation that will allow 26 children to attend the school for 1 year. That's $365,000. More importantly that is a child learning.

There is no question that Oprah is dedicated to many causes, chief among them is education. Besides the money for the Ron Clark Academy, she has donated $4 million on education alone last year. That alone equals or exceeds tons of entertainers, celebrities, politicians, and businesses. And as such I think it deserves to be mentioned. Even if I am getting to it after the fact, by my own fault.

I wish more celebrities could be like this. I certainly wish there were more teachers like Ron Clark. Because if we don't invest in our children then we fail to invest in our future.

Marilyn Manson performs for Obama: what if it happened?

Here is something you don’t hear everyday. In fact I just heard about it today. Supposedly Marilyn Manson was going to have a performance that would have been in behalf of President Obama (then Senator Obama). Can you imagine it?

Now the source of that would be performance is Manson’s ex-girlfriend Evan Rachel Wood. So there is some question on the fact of this. And even more questionable when you factor in that the Obama campaign immediately denied the suggestion.

But I have to wonder what if Manson had performed?

Yes I realize that some find Manson to be weird. His music is not the most mainstream, though he is very popular. His appearance is really the most disturbing part of him to many older Americans I think. Which is a shame as it has nothing to do with talent or ability or his opinions.



The appearance of Manson is also irrelevant to his actions. It was Manson that has gone out and discussed the Columbine massacre in an honest manner. And he is a voice of change and self-responsibility. I may not agree with everything he says, or how, but I respect and understand his position. And much of that is the same kind of change that Obama has campaigned on.

“I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake right in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.

… Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal responsibility. Rather than teaching a child what is moral and immoral, right and wrong, we first and foremost can establish what the laws that govern us are.”

It scares me that anyone could be restricted in voicing their comments about America, politics, and life in this nation. Marilyn Manson has as much right to support Obama (or any other politician) as has Jennifer Hudson, Will.I.Am, Oprah, or even Chuck Norris for McCain. They are all Americans and they all had opinions, as did over 120 million other Americans.

I wish Manson did perform on behalf of a politician. And in that performance I would have loved for him to state that appearance, whether it is clothing styles, skin color, or a name are all excuses to close our minds to anyone in those clothes, of that color, with that funny name.

I doubt the Obama campaign would have crumbled. I doubt that it would have gotten Obama more votes. But it might have motivated more of the youth that feel left out of the mainstream. And that itself would have been enough reason for me.

Why do I care about this after the election, and considering the fact it might not be true? Because if Manson did not perform or state his support because of appearances and potential outcry it was a voice in America being silenced. If any American is silenced like that, then we all are less free. And if appearance can silence us, appearance can again become the cause of enslavement of us.

And I won’t allow that to happen without comment or a fight.

Celebrity donations - some numbers and organizations you may not know

Recently I had the opportunity to share my thoughts about how Reuters deliberately diminished the generosity of Oprah Winfrey, and the lack of major media attention to the kind and helpful donation of Tyler Perry. That got me wondering, who is giving back to the public and not getting any attention – or worse being diminished – for it.

Well my first stop was at The Giving Back Fund. I looked at the donations made by celebrities for 2006 and 2007 (the last full years of donations reported). In addition I wanted to see how many African American celebrities and entertainers were on the list, as I feel they are the least reported or acknowledged of all high-profile donors.

For the prior 2 years Oprah Winfrey set the bar high. She donated the single most of all celebrities each year, and combined. Her donations totaled $118 million. That 66% of the total of the top 12 White celebrities combined.

The total donations made the top 16 celebrities and entertainers combines to $316.5 million dollars. That’s a huge amount of money. This money went to help prevent and cure HIV/AIDS, provide scholarships, cancer research, Katrina relief, hospitals, day cares, organizations that help various groups and nations in Africa, and more.

Another interesting thing of note is that the top 4 Black celebrities and entertainers’ donations are equal to 77% of the top White celebrity and entertainer donations.

I mention that last part because one of the points of notables making these donations is not only what they can do but also the attention they can being to an issue, and the fans they can inspire to do the same. The more that is mentioned about these donations, the more these issues get attention over Miley Cyrus career decisions or the outing of Clay Aiken – which really don’t matter.

In addition I feel it’s important that African American celebrities and entertainers are symbols of success and inspirational in the Black community. They have broken the stereotypes, and excelled in an industry that affords them few opportunities. And when they do something as important and beneficial as the donations I’m mentioning, they often are either ignored (like Tyler Perry and Don Cheadle), or are diminished (like Oprah) by the major media.

Out of all the donations made in 2006 and 2007, only 9 made donations each year (for a total of $183.6 million) out of over 48 from both years. Those consistent and vital personalities are listed below.

• Oprah Winfrey - $118 million, Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy,
  Oprah's Angel Network
  
• Barbara Streisand – $22 million, Barbra Streisand Foundation
  
• Tiger Woods – $10.8 million, Tiger Woods Learning Center, Earl D.
  Woods Sr. Scholarship Fund
  
• Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt - $10.8 million, School and Community Center in
  Swakopmund in Namibia, Daniel Pearl Foundation, Namibian hospitals, Doctors without Borders, The Jolie-Pitt Foundation
  
• Rosie O’Donnell – $9.2 million, Katrina Relief, day care centers, Habitat for Humanity, Broadway Kids Initiative
  
• Lance Armstrong - $5.5 million, Lance Armstrong Foundation
  
• Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson - $3 million, University of Miami
  
• Andre Agassi - $2.3 million, Andre Agassi Charitable Foundation
  
• Denzel Washington - $2 million, Save Africa's Children, Wiley College
  

I hope you take a moment to look into the causes that they each have made donations to and if you agree make a donation yourself.

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?

Janet Jackson: Intelligence, success, and fame are not enough

Over the weekend I noticed something and I doubt many have spoken on it. Janet Jackson was in the news again about her Super Bowl costume issue. It seems that after years of comments and threats by the FCC, the whole thing is now passed over as if it never happened.

Isn’t that interesting. CBS will receive no fine

“This is an important win for the entire broadcasting industry because it recognizes that there are rare instances, particularly during live programming, when it may not be possible to block unfortunate fleeting material, despite best efforts," the CBS Network, which had the misfortune of unwittingly broadcasting the Super Bowl debacle, issued in a statement.”

Justin Timberlake, who committed the act of infamy, has walked away from this scandal without ever being touched by it. The fact that he may have caused the problem in the manner he removed the cloth was never his fault. His career, whatever you may think of it, has continued unabated.

But Janet Jackson has been mired with this scandal. She has effectively become blackballed by the media and entertainment industries. Did anyone notice that she had an album out recently? Now Janet Jackson has had so-so albums, and mega-hits, but in her entire career I have never known her to release an album and not hear any of the songs, nor see/read commentary about it. Her worst album (before the latest) sold more records than most entertainers on a good day.

The media just can’t let go of less than 15 seconds of footage. The mostly bare single breast of this Black woman is just that powerful I suppose. I have to imagine that were both breasts to have been bared, half the population of America would have died. I mean that’s the way the media and a few fringe fanatical groups seem to act.

But is that fair?

Hmmm, CBS promotes the UFC – which is a violent sport. Unlike boxing it has no elegance, it’s just about raw power. That has to be good for the kids. I'm sure the soap operas that were the staple of CBS and broadcast television, with more breasts and ass appearing than some soft-core porn, really has to be good for kids in the afternoon.

And the entertainment media loves women. I mean look at the attention poured all over Britney Spears as she has desperately tried to implode. She went to rehab for as long as it take me to piss, then cuts off her hair. Mega-news story. I’m sure it inspired many drug addicts, and more than a few young girls, to try a new fashion design. That’s positive.


There is the insanely untalented Paris Hilton. Bad porno tape, can’t act, can’t sing, can’t even open her glove box to see the letter telling her she can’t drive. But she is insanely rich. So rich that she almost pulled off a get out of jail card. If she has a positive to impart on the American public I am still unaware of it.


Anna Nicole Smith, drug addict (possibly while pregnant), promiscuous, arguably lecherous, with a sole talent being she had a great body. Months were devoted to her death at the near exclusion of all other news and facts at the time. Literally I do not recall another story that has been on the news that much – hours of news hours dedicated to a woman that was about as important as wet paper. Seriously, even Britney Spears has more talent. Message to kids – if you have the right curves you can get money and no one will care how many drugs you take. If you are a guy, either make a lot of money for this kind of girl to take, or be sleazy enough to leech money from her drug-addled ass.


Lindsey Lohan, the drunken party girl that was desperately trying to end her movie career. After years of building up a host of fans that were not old enough to appreciate talent, Lohan was more than happy to drink herself into oblivion. Her quick trips to rehab were only slightly longer than Spears, but thankfully she had her mom to lean on while she drank and did drugs.

Amy Winehouse, the reported crack addict with a voice. So deep into drugs and alcoholism that she couldn’t perform and has been arrested multiple times. And she doesn’t care what anyone thinks because she told us that. At least her man is just as deranged and besodden as her, so it’s a match set in love and not money.

I could go on, but what are the similarities of these women?

They are all White, they all are being promoted and covered by the media (thus making them all money), and they all have been filmed, photographed and discussed ad nausea since Janet Jackson was at the Super Bowl.

So was the outrage that Janet Jackson’s accidental exposure occurred, or was it something else. None of the women I mentioned have half her talent or longevity in entertainment. Janet is not on drugs, does not cover magazines drunk or in scandals (other than the one event). She has never been linked to anything negative that I can recall. And no one questions her ability to think and do business – she broke all records for an artist contract that even her brother did not match at one time.

In fact she should be a role model for young women, proving that women (especially Black women) beside Oprah and Maya Angelou can succeed on their own doing what they are best at. Yet she his blacklisted and blackout by the media in favor of women who are such messes I can’t imagine most of them surviving to be 35.

So what’s wrong with the major media? What’s going on in the entertainment industry? What the hell are Hollywood and music execs thinking?

I tell you what, if I had a daughter – or were it one of my nieces – and the worst moment in a career she made that garnered her tens of millions of dollars, fame, and comfort over decades was the momentary equivalent of her dress slipping I’d be happy for her. No drugs, no scandals, no court taking away her children because she is unfit as a mother, no drunken binges and car accidents that could kill innocents, no crimes, no whispers of anorexia, never selling her body for money.

Seriously ask yourself this question, which woman would you want your daughter, sister, niece, or mother to emulate? Then ask why being Black, successful, talented, and intelligent is worthy of a media excommunication?

Oprah mistaken to show pregnant "man"

I understand that Oprah Winfrey is an entertainer. Her purpose is to provide something to give women something to watch and talk about at bridge meetings, the office, and the spa. While she occasionally hits on real subjects of note, most often she revels in man-hating topics, movie promotion interviews and nonsensical topics that would never have made the airwaves before the Robert Downey Show (a mid-80’s program that was the inspiration for Jerry Springer).

But I just find the subject of a recent show to be objectionable and wrong. This is my personal opinion, and has little to do with Oprah beyond her allowing the subject to hit the airwaves. What was the show? A pregnant man.

Well that is what it was billed as, but in fact that is a lie. Every newscaster that has touched on this story has made the reference of this being a man that is pregnant. That is physically impossible, and untrue. In fact it is a woman that is pregnant. Not that this obvious fact of nature matters to the state of Oregon – the home of the city of Eugene that can’t figure out how to speak to African Americans.

Let me explain that this falls into a category of items I call “We can, but we shouldn’t”. Like injecting poison into your body – otherwise known as botox injections. Or breast implants for teenagers. Or as in this case changing your sex.

The “man” in this case is actually a woman, who partially changed her body to resemble a man’s. She is “married” to a woman. She maintains the reproductive organs of a woman. Thus she is a woman, and the fact she is pregnant proves it. Worse is the fact that if she raises the child in this family setting. That kid, mark my words, will be the most screwed up kid in quite some time.

I do not agree with people trying to be smarter than nature and “fixing” their sex. I do not agree with these people raising a child. And I mean transgendered not gay when I say these people. Nature said they were male or female, and unless they are a hermaphrodite [which this woman in question has functionally become] that is all there should be.

Science may be capable of cloning creatures (which I disagree with), manipulating DNA (another bad idea), and moving around body parts – but human beings are not smart enough to know neither why these things exist as they do nor how they affect their surroundings. We just aren’t. And in promoting the belief that we are this smart, Oprah does society a disservice.

My greatest objection to this is because of my personal belief. It is because of the impact on the unborn child and society. It is one thing for a grown adult to manipulate their body in an unnatural way (all cosmetic surgery is unnatural and generally unnecessary), but promoting that as normal or positive – as being on Oprah makes it – is bad, in my opinion. And to raise a child in a family that is sexually confused and societal pariahs is unfair and conductive to problems in that child’s emotional if not intellectual growth.

Appearing on Oprah just gives fuel to others to follow in this manner, just as the antics of Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris Hilton (among others of both sexes) promote and fuel drugs, drunken binges, anorexia, ill-behavior and such. Or in another manner it’s like the way that Columbine has caused the copycats since that event.

I do not see a single positive to society, or the unborn child, by the actions of Oprah in promoting this act. It was wrong, but sadly the genie is out of the bottle. As such I give my condolences to the future children of the transgendered parents.

Some things in this world we can do, but we just shouldn’t.

Russell Simmons to Presidential candidates: I have a question - 1.29.2008.1

So here is something you don’t hear about every day. In fact it’s something you probably have not heard about at all.

Many celebrities, entertainers and notable figures in America are involved with the Presidential candidates. Most are endorsing this candidate or that one. Famously so far in this nomination cycle there has been Ted Kennedy, Jon Voight, Viggo Mortensen, Chuck Norris, Barbara Streisand, and of course Oprah Winfrey. That is just to name a few of those involved at the moment.

The various Presidential candidates love the attention that famous figures bring to their campaigns. Most of the time. There are exceptions, one of those being when they are getting questioned by the famous. Then it’s not something they want to get into so publicly. Just as often, it’s something they won’t respond to either.

Case in point is the fact that Russell Simmons, the equally famous brother of Rev. Run, currently known for his Run’s House cable television show and previously for Run-DMC the rap group. Mr. Simmons is a respected businessman, a mogul that launched his career with rap hip hop and has expanded from there. None question his acumen, nor his dedication to improve the lives of African Americans. He has long been a symbol of success, without the need to degrade women and exploit stereotypes as say Bob Johnson – creator of Black Entertainment Television – did.

Recently Mr. Simmons joined with Dr. Benjamin Chavis, and health and spirituality author Deepak Chopra in sending an open letter to the Presidential candidates.

“The questions included asking the candidates to discuss their thoughts on being inclusive of people who might not be part of the political mainstream, the importance of diversity, issues related to the environment, poverty, the war in Iraq, and how to move towards, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, a “beloved community” where all humans are treated with respect , justice and love.”

Considering the enormity of what the next President of the United States will be deciding, choosing paths that will determine the direction and presence of the nation for at least the next decade or longer, I commend their action.

I just hope they get a response.

Given the fame and success of these individuals, and the ability to influence and connect with the vast numbers of hip hop and rap fans of voting age, I would expect they will get a response. Except that this response has been pledged to be released, uneditied, to the public. Based on my own experience, that may not get a response.

Since 2006 I have been awaiting responses from several of the Presidential candidates. I have sent out letters and contacted the various campaign staffs, all to no avail. To date, not one candidate has responded to the letters I have sent out. I suspect that it is the fact that I will be releasing the answers, verbatim, for the public to view. While I reach Americans and international readers in over 60 nations besides virtually every state of the nation (including Alaska) and number my readers in the tens of thousands each month, the fear is that everyone will see their written responses, I suspect.

A written response is undeniable. It’s not like a speech or debate, where they are limited in the scope of their answer or can be misunderstood in the context of their answer. It does not provide the candidates wiggle room to say one thing and then flip that answer later. Plus in reaching the world, they will not be able to tailor the answer to a specific groups or local concern. Listen to how every candidate speaks about farming issues in Iowa; cars, unions, and industry in Michigan; religion and race relations in South Carolina; and you see that they often change the focus of how they sell themselves. And if you listen closely you will find that they at times contradict what they have said at different times in front of different groups. But a written answer does not allow for a forgetful mind or a short, overly simplified, ambiguous (non-)answer.

Thus I expect that while the fame and recognition of Russell Simmons far exceeds my own, he will receive the same response I have. None at all.

And that is an insult and shame.

The candidates hope to be the President of America. To be the leader of the nation. I understand that every question sent to them cannot be responded to. I understand that their staffers qualify who gets to be acknowledged based on their own biases. I can accept that my tens of thousands of readers may not be enough for the candidates’ radars (though it is more than enough to change the elections of 2004 and 2000 combined), or that the emphasis I have to Black and Hispanic/Latino issues is “too controversial”. But that is not true of entertainers.

Presidential candidates use entertainers and celebrities to buy votes. Their fame is the currency they use to convince voters of the worth of the candidate. But it is those same notable figures that have the ability to get answers individuals like myself are denied. And they should be able to have that reply and put it in the public view.

Barack may want my sister to vote for him, and will use Oprah to gain her attention and trust for that vote. But shouldn’t Oprah share, in writing if possible, the answers to questions of importance that Obama gave her to gain her trust and endorsement? Wouldn’t it be equally as compelling to know that the concerns of Oprah, or George Clooney, or Rick Schroder or whatever celebrity/entertainer are the same as ours and the answer that made them sure this was the right choice?

I think so. But to do so is to be honest and direct. 2 things that politicians are not known for, no matter who they are. But I hope to be proven wrong.

We will see if Russell Simmons gets his answer. I hope he does get one, and that it is shared with us all. It’s what should be done. But I won’t get my hopes up, no matter the fame, recognition and deserved success of the person asking the questions.

M V Consulting, Inc. reports growth in 2007 - 1.9.2008.1

New York (PRWEB) January 9, 2008 -- M V Consulting, Inc. announced today that the final numbers for the entire year of 2007 have been tabulated with phenomenal results. The Company's websites have grown at a remarkable pace, exceeding expectations and indicative of positive acceptance by internet users. In addition the Company's sites were involved with several promotions and events that could not be anticipated, and display the impact that has been made to date.

"2007 was a great year. The blogs of the company grew by over 100% in virtually every metric that can be identified. The give away contests sponsored by the company were well received, if predominantly regional. We were surprised and pleased to receive the opportunity to work with TV One on live coverage of the Heartland Presidential Forum on December 1st 2007. That's something you just can't predict and we are thrilled about it, while looking forward to working with TV One again in the future," stated M V Consulting, Inc. President Michael Vass.

Actual performance numbers are considered proprietary by the Company, but percentile growth and other metrics are available for the public. Some of the most important metrics are:

• Visitors to the site tend to be 41% men, and 59% women
  
  
• 46% of visitors tend to be between the ages of 25 - 54
  
  
• 51% of visitors are college educated, with 37% having no college education at all
  
  
• Visitors to Black Entertainment USA for the 12 months ending December 31st 2007 increased by 156%.
  
  
• Individual pages viewed by visitors on Black Entertainment USA increased by 367%
  
  
• The number of visitors from countries across the globe increased by 35%
  
  
• At the Vass site the breakdown was (this blog only existed for the last 4 months of 2006):
  
  
• Visitors for the full year increased by 5900%
  
  
• Individual pages viewed by visitors on Vass increased by 9700%
  
  
• While the number of countries remained relatively flat. The lack of growth in countries outside the USA may be attributable to the increased focus on the Presidential race and candidate's campaigns throughout 2007 as well as the limited time of existence in 2006.
  
  The M V Consulting, Inc. corporate homepage was launched in May 2007 and therefore has no comparative numbers. Growth was solid and comparable to the first 7 months of either blog, reaching on average 48 countries across the world.
  
  The Company also owns an online store which features 12 separate and distinct clothing lines, as well as providing custom designed mugs, mouse pads, Teddy bears, gift cards, journals, postage stamps and more. Individual sales figures for this division are not reported.
  
  Results of the Company's SEO division are not reported and considered proprietary.
  

Other events

Several other events occurred in 2007 that were of significant importance. The Company created and sponsored 3 separate contests in 2007.

Robin Roberts book - From the Heart - in association with Authorsontheweb.com

Dinner at the Instinct Restaurant - in association with Instinct in Endicott, New York

$1000 for the holidays - run by M V Consulting Inc. with a $100 bonus added to the winning prize given to Cheryl W of New York State.

In addition to these contests, the company was contacted by TV One, which reaches 40 million people via its cable network channel. On December 1st 2007 TV One had a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum, for which it selected 5 political bloggers to comment on live. Of the thousands of potential bloggers available, President Michael Vass was selected for his writing at the Vass blog, and was invited to join the event as one of the 5 bloggers. The company accepted, creating over 9 posts related to the event (prior and after the event) including 6 live during the event.

TV One and M V Consulting, Inc. cross-promoted the event via the individual websites of each company.

Additional items

To date, the various blogs of the Company have created nearly 1000 posts in total. In 2007 alone there was an increase of 201% in the number of posts. The blogs had a total number of posts that exceeded the number of days in the year, thus exceeding publication rates of virtually every other media format and/or syndicated author.

The blogs of the Company have dealt with some of the most topical issues of the year, if not several of the most controversial in perhaps 100 years. Those topics included the death of Anna Nicole Smith and James Brown. The scandals surrounding Don Imus, Duane 'Dog' Johnson, Michael Vick, and Megan Williams. The Presidential candidates of both political parties. Also news involving entertainers and celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Wesley Snipes, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, and more. Not to mention reviews of restaurants, movies, books, and video games and information about Darfur and the Child Solider Prevention Act.

President Michael Vass is also a contributing author for the 1800blogger.com family of blogs. Mr. Vass writes for a total of 8 additional blogs on a regular basis besides those of the Company.

Mr. Vass stated, "This is only the beginning. Growth has exceeded all expectations and for 2008 we have raised the bar. While visitors to the various sites of the Company equaled or exceeded several metropolitan areas of the United States, our goal now is to reach the equivalent population of the major urban centers of the nation, if not New York City itself. Expect to see our clothing lines in colleges across the nation. And we are looking to lock down 2 exclusive sponsors for the various sites, further minimizing advertising clutter and providing an immersive and non-distracting atmosphere near term. Expect more news on other events soon."

For additional information please contact M V Consulting, Inc. President Michael Vass at info@vassconsult.com or 718-344-6921.

About M V Consulting, Inc. and Michael Vass:

Mr. Michael Vass is a former securities industry account executive of good standing, and currently works in the field of investor relations. He has served in the US Marine Corps Reserves, as well as worked and studied in such diverse fields as entertainment, communications, philosophy and chemistry. He has lived abroad, in Moscow and Tbilisi, as well as in various cities throughout the United States.

Mr. Vass is President of M V Consulting, Inc. a diversified private company that maintains divisions in search engine optimization, an online store, political and entertainment celebrity blogs.

It is the combinations of these unique experiences that have led Mr. Vass to the creation of M V Consulting, Inc. The Company owns Black Entertainment USA (www.blackentertainmentblog.com), VASS (www.mvass.com), a corporate website (vassconsult.com), and an online store (cafepress.com/nova68).

The New Year's battle: Thin or Healthy

As the holidays progress, there are a few things you can count on. Most people will gain a bit of weight, Christmas office parties will embarrass someone after the holidays, you’re bound to get a gift that you won’t like/use, and It’s a Wonderful Life will be on television. Now of the above factors the one that will be most troubling to the general populace will inevitably be the weight gain. (Well depending on if there were pictures taken at the office party or not).

As with the never ending obsession of weight that is America today, one of the biggest New Year’s resolutions will be to lose the weight gained over the holiday season. Millions of men and women will start 2008 with the intent of dropping the pounds and looking healthier if not being so. Some will try the various fad diets that never work for more than a few days.

Some will take on various pills that promise to burn fat or restrict its absorption, avoiding the effort of eating properly and working out. The detriments of such pills are numerous, including the multiple side-effects they invariably create, the extreme cost, and often the limited results they provide.

Many will actually seek out professionals that will evaluate the BMI, nutritional diets, work-out needs of the individual. A balanced diet, with exercise has always been the most effective program, and the only one with real long-term lasting results. There are no ill effects and the only side products are the reduction in chances of cardiac disease, diabetes, looking better, and feeling wonderful.

But in that last plan, which is the most beneficial, I want to put in a point of caution and question. Don’t over do it. Far too many people want to, as an example, drop their BMI to extremely low levels. I personally don’t think that is a good thing. In addition, I don’t agree with the BMI, or the general image of health presented by the major media.

What I mean is that there is some level of common sense that needs to be applied in all this. There is no question that being thinner has been shown to be better, but looking like a model seems wholly unhealthy to me. For those that want to look like some 100 pound, 6 foot model I suggest a re-evaluation of images. Especially for Black and Hispanic/Latino women.

Too often the media says that Black, Hispanic/Latino women are fat, when that is far from true. We have often heard how stars of color are insured because of their measurements, and how they stand out in Hollywood. Take for example Mrs. Jennifer Lopez, or Beyonce. Neither is the typical waif lauded by Hollywood, and thank goodness.

If you were to go by BMI, or by media perceptions, you might think either of those women are fat. You might think that Oprah Winfrey eats nothing but bon-bons without ever working out. This of course is ludicrous. Each of these women work-out regularly, eat carefully balanced and prepared meals, and are examples of fitness. Yet none are a model.

The fact is that while too much weight is easily a bad thing, too little is equally unattractive, at least to this writer. Oprah looks ghastly at a size 8-10. Jennifer Lopez would look anorexic minus another 20 pounds (talking about pre-pregnancy weight). And so on.

My point is, as a man so take that as you will, that being thin is not nearly as important as being healthy. Trying to match up to the variable standards stated by the government (you do recall that the BMI index was reset recently and instantly made millions overweight overnight because of it) and the major media is anything but beneficial in some cases. Beyonce, J-Lo, Angela Bassett, Gabriel Union, Regina King, Gloria Estafan, Salma Hayek, Renee Zellweger, and Drew Barrymore are all sexy and beautiful women. They aren’t model thin either.

So as the New Year’s resolutions are made, and the plan to lose the holiday weight is started, remember that health trumps an airbrushed near-anorexic magazine cover non-figure any day. Expert government or Hollywood status quo be damned.

3 parts of real success - 11.26.2007.1

Talent - a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity.

Work ethic - is a set of values based on the moral virtues of hard work and diligence. It is also a belief in moral benefit of work and its ability to enhance character.

Intelligence - the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience.

Which of those 3 terms is the most important? Does it matter what they are being applied to that makes the difference?

Why might I ask that? Because as I finally took some time to rest over the holiday, I watched a bit of television and spoke to people around the country. I heard several people complain about their work/pay. I heard several tell me how they intend to be stars. I noticed how much attention is focused on individuals in the media. And I realized that almost everyone had no idea about the above 3 items.

Of the 3, I have noticed that most people work on talent. Especially African Americans and minorities. It’s the E-ticket that gets you on all the rides. It’s the get-out-of-the-ghetto card. It’s the single most important factor ever. And it’s a lie.

Talent is like hope in Pandora’s Box. Perhaps the worst thing to afflict people en masse. It’s a tool that far too many without it use to become rich.

When I mention talent, most think of Michael Jordan or Snoop Dogg. They imagine Beyonce or 50 cent. But you don’t hear people say that Oprah Winfrey has talent (not speaking about her acting, but her ability as CEO of Harpo) or John Thompson, Myrtle Potter, Stanley O'Neal, Kenneth Chenault. Why not?

What about intelligence? You never hear that mentioned. You never hear anyone ask Ja Rule, Dr. Dre, Kobe Bryant, or Tiger Woods if/where they went to college. Because they have talent right?

And work ethics are likely the least discussed item of all. It’s like a plague when it is mentioned.

But when you consider the real successes, the people that really are meaningful and at the top of their game you find, more often than not, that they got their with this combination:

• 1. Work ethic
  
• 2. Intelligence
  
• 3. Talent (if any)
  

Best in the NBA? Michael Jordan. Practiced constantly, played with a 103 fever, and gave 110% every game. Mr. Jordan is a college graduate, and a better businessman than sports entertainer. While he may have made roughly 15 million dollars a year as an athlete, Mr. Jordan makes roughly 2x that a year now, with a net worth well in excess of $200 million, without ever touching a basketball.

Much the same can be said of Spike Lee, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and most every CEO that the average public couldn’t name if you paid them $50 a name. Each of them worked hard, every day with a plan in their heads. Each of them had an advanced education. Allowing them to understand business, contracts, money management and more.

If you want to know the difference between real success and a fad, look at the work ethic and education. 50 cent will be lucky to be around in 5 years, odds are. Tiger, Oprah, Michael Jordan, Stanley O'Neal, Kenneth Chenault, and others will be making money years after they are dead by contrast. And more of it.

So if you want to know how to become successful, there you are. Make a plan, work at it every day and get an education. If you have a talent you will just help boost your odds. But if you think that you bounce a ball, hum a tune, or sashay better than anyone and that’s all you need, be prepared to be let down.

Only 1 in 10,000 make it to professional level sports, even worse odds to make it in music or acting (how many people get rejected in the first 3 qualifiers of American Idol every year?). A professional entertainer has a career of maybe 7 years, regardless of the realm. Why limit your chances? Why give someone else the upper hand?

The honesty only the Boondocks provides - 10.16.2007.1

I just love the Boondocks cartoon on Adult Swim. The honesty that is contained in that is more than what is seen in a dozen programs throughout all television right now. Live action could never get away with the obvious facts one half hour of this program provides.

From the R. Kelly trial (which in real life has waited 5 years and still has yet to occur), to pimps, Oprah and Dr. Martin Luther King there is a direct honesty that would cause an uproar in another format. In the caricatures of the lead and recurring characters we get to see multiple aspects of Black Americans. That’s a diversity that is only approached by combining characters from the Shield, CSI, Eureka, Blade: the series and Mind of Mencia all into one program. It’s also interesting to note that that’s almost all the leading and major supporting African American characters on television (combining cable and broadcast) at this time.

I don’t know what is more alarming. That the Boondocks is not the most watched program by African Americans, that BET (Black Entertainment Television) was incapable of securing this program themselves, or that my allusion that the diversity in this program exceeds virtually all other programs with African Americans combined is almost accurate. And yet so few see the program while that most don’t get it.

Often social commentary is best stated in formats that are seen as the least confrontational. That’s why, when done by the best performers like Mr. Richard Pryor or Mr. Lenny Bruce, the greatest impact occurs without the direct confrontation a discussion often brings.

As Huey states in one episode, [I paraphrase]

“America has done a multitude of injustice to Blacks, but that does not mean everything is an injustice, or that this makes every African American a hero.”

R Kelly is not a hero, OJ is culpable, and Dr. Martin Luther King would be appalled with the state of the Black community today. It may seem funny when a cartoon character says it, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s the truth. And it’s a shame the greatest honesty and diversity can only occur in an animated program in the year 2007.

Ramblings of Michael Vass Part 2 - 8.7.2007.4

Continued from Ramblings of Michael Vass Part 1...

Some say it’s because of racism. While it exists, I know that first hand and recently as well, there is no comparison to what existed in the 50’s and earlier. There were no television channels featuring Blacks, nor African American characters of note. There were no African American political candidates, or mayors. Being in the wrong place or looking at the wrong person easily led to attacks and in many cases lynchings. Even with the far too common police or mob actions of today, there is no comparison.

Some of the more dim say it’s because that is ‘being real’. First reality is real, to have to say that is both redundant and an indication of the limits of the mind that spoke such a statement. Secondly the reality is not what various marketing systems portray on a daily basis. Music videos, songs, television programs and that ilk are merely means by which to separate a consumer from their income. They are exaggerations and excerpts of reality and no more accurate than the world of JRR Tolkein or Issac Asimov.

The media, in all its forms including entertainment, may state that EVERY African American uses drugs, has 5 kids that they don’t see, never graduated high school, and is involved in some form of criminal activity but even casual observation in the worst of neighborhoods prove this wrong. The overwhelming average of African Americans are people that work, raise families, have sought and gained basic and the highest levels of education, without a single criminal incident (many without even so much as a parking ticket). But that reality just seems to escape the major media, and often the blogosphere.

Where are the posts celebrating the contributions being made every day? Celebrity donations are always decent news, but how often do you hear about something being done by a Black or Hispanic entertainer/celebrity? There are many of them, and more than just Ms. Oprah Winfrey is out there doing things. How about the efforts of Mr. Don Cheadle, or the work of Mr. Montel Williams in providing 4 million people with free or nearly free medication. Doesn’t that deserve a bit more than just the mere soundbites they get now?

So yes, I get tired. It’s hard to write to all the blogs everyday. But I do, and I look out for the positives. I’m not perfect; I miss stuff I should write about. I get caught up in an issue and don’t have the time to get to other issues. It happens.

But there are positives out there. There are alternatives. Leadership is the act of leading, and I like other bloggers are trying to lead to a better path than what is out there now. I just felt like mentioning that. Thank you for reading and your patronage.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Has a celebrity or entertainer endorsement changed your mind? - 7.18.2007.2

I was just writing about Ms. Oprah Winfrey, and her up-coming fund-raiser for Senator Obama on my political blog, and I asked a question. Does the endorsement of a celebrity or entertainer make a difference in voting preference?

Seems a simple question. I mean if Snoop Dogg, or Akon, or Mr. Denzel Washington endorsed Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, or Mr. John Edwards or Mr. Rudy Giuliani, would that change your opinion of the candidate? Why?

Also let me ask this. Have there been any endorsements by a celebrity or entertainer that changed and/or confirmed your choice of candidate?

Let me hear your voice.

Ocean's 13 is worth the bet - 6.11.2007.1

Well what can be said about Ocean’s 13? It was far better than the second movie in the series. But in saying that I take away from the fun and action that takes place. The pace may not be as fast, nor the plot as slick, but it’s a movie that redeems the series. The interaction among the actors is quite good as well.


The various actors that were not as well known in the first Ocean’s movie get a lot more time in this going. They are good in their roles but the roles are not as in-depth as you might wish. Mr. Casey Affleck’s Spanish is excellent, the characters understanding of Mandarin Chinese is equally good. Mr. Don Cheadle’s American accent (as opposed to his character’s Eastender norm) is quite entertaining. But that brings up a point,

Most of the characters expand their abilities. Virtually all the team expands to take on aspects of the con that others previously did. The twins handle explosives, the computer geek takes on an inside man position as does the gymnast and Basher. Not too extreme, but different.

Another new aspect is the very direct introduction of political themes. From Oprah giving a family a house, to Mexicans working for $3.50 a week, to a children’s camp. The political themes are right in your face, but thankfully not detracting or interrupting the story, much. The last minute of the film let’s you walk away with a smile. But there is more thought and discussion left in your mind than most movies compel. At least for me.

Did I enjoy it? Yes. Do I get that companies doing business in Mexico take extreme advantage of the weak labor laws and cheap costs? Abundantly. Is Mr. Eric Idle wasted in his role? Without question. Though Mr. David Paymer’s brief appearances just hit the right mark.

I saw the movie with a friend that has never seen the first 2 movies, don’t ask why not. Talking about it afterwards, she enjoyed the movie but didn’t get a bunch of the nuances. I didn’t realize it right away but, there are a bunch of little easter eggs for everyone who has seen the prior movies and pays attention. Like Bruiser.

Well suffice to say, it’s a good movie. Seeing it in a theater is fun, especially if you saw it with friends who saw the first 2 movies. Even if you haven’t seen them, you will enjoy it. But I think it will be just as good on DVD. You can make your choice on that though.

This is what I think, what do you think?

2007 starts with Oprah, Indiana Jones and Edward James Olmos - 1.4.2007.1

Well the new year has started with a bunch of new announcements. Things are off with a bang now with the news that there will be at least one more Indiana Jones movie. Still untitled at this point, the script is being finalized at this time. Not to worry, filming will start this year as well, with the film coming out sometime in 2008. While this is yet another sequel, the good news is that this series has been quite good. The second movie notwithstanding, I expect this will be a solid film. Both Mr. George Lucas and Mr. Steven Spielberg have been working on the final script. Mr. Harrison Ford has been quite consistent in his choice of films, and his ability to give a quality performance. So here is something to look forward to, I’m sure there will be more news as information about the film as script and location shooting begins or is leaked.

In more political news Mr. Edward James Olmos continues his fight with the government over the Vieques Island contamination and bombings. For those not familiar, this is an island 6 miles from Puerto Rico. For a long time the U.S. Navy used the island to test bombs, preventing habitation, ruining the environment and potentially endangering lives. I too disagree with the past bombings, or the renewed bombings there again. Like Mr. Olmos I feel that this is far too close to people to be allowed.

If the Navy were doing this bomb testing 6 miles of the coast of Long Island, or San Francisco, or Seattle there would be an outcry that would be deafening. The fact that Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth does not give the right to ignore the reasonable protests or the lives that this directly affects. I’m glad a public figure like Mr. Olmos and others are continuing to remind the government that this is not right and that we will not stop fighting for it to stop.

On another somewhat political note is Ms. Oprah Winfrey. Her school for South African girls has opened, with a price tag of $40 million dollars. This is a great positive for those young women and I’m glad that it has been created. I understand that it was a meeting with Mr. Nelson Mandela that inspired the drive to create this school and place it in South Africa – a region of the world where elitism and classism continue to exist in an extreme disparity rarely seen. Still I do wish that such a school, co-ed, had been created in America (of course it probably would have been 3x as expensive). But there will be another school created, co-ed and in South Africa again, in the near future. I understand and respect Ms. Winfrey’s desire to give back to the land of her ancestors. It’s commendable. Still I think there are many young African Americans that need this kind of help as well.

One thing I haven’t seen commented on that I would like to know more about involves the guests at the opening ceremonies. Mr. Mandela was among a group including, Mr. Spike Lee, Ms. Tina Turner, Ms. Mary J. Blige, Ms. Mariah Carey, Mr. Chris Tucker, and Mr. Sidney Poitier. Each of the celebrity guests were asked to bring a book that they had autographed personally. My interest is not what these entertainers wrote, but the choice of book they decided top contribute. I feel it is a defining statement of a person and their character. If anyone can let me know which book was giving by which person I’d love to know.

There of course is more to this new year, but for now…

This is what I think, what do you think?