Tookie Williams and Hollywood

This may veer off the main theme of the Black entertainment a bit, but I feel it fits and should be said. In a press release by AP NEWS on Yahoo, supporters of Stanley Tookie Williams are working to have Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger give clemency before his execution Dec 13th. For those not familiar with Mr. Williams, he is a co-founder of the Crips gang. The Crips have grown from being a city-wide gang into a truly nation-wide gang. In movies and in life the gang is known for drug dealing, murders and various other crimes and illegal activity. Mr. Williams was convicted for killing 4 people in 1979, which he denies having committed.

Since his incarceration, Mr. Williams has seen the errors of his ways and has actively sought out ways to prevent the youth of the nation from joining gangs. He has also authored nine books and created a program linking youths in the US with those abroad. He has been submitted for Nobel peace and literature prizes several times.

Mr. Williams was the subject of a movie, on FX in 2004, which starred Jaime Foxx and Lynn Whitfield. Both are now supporters, along with Mike Farrell, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Bianca Jagger, Snoop Dogg, Harry Belafonte, Bonnie Raitt, Russell Crowe, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and many others.

To be blunt, Mr. Williams needs to be executed. I do not question whether Mr. Williams has reformed. I believe (to the best of my knowledge having never met) the opinions of Mr. Foxx, Ms. Whitfield and everyone else mentioned. I applaud the actions that Mr. Williams has made to correct his earlier actions. I can understand how those opposed to the death penalty (Mr. Farrell, Rev. Jackson and Tutu, et al.) would find this man as an example of someone trying to redeem themselves. I understand the strong support that is in the Black Community for this man. And I repeat, he must be executed.

The fact that some public figures (I do not imply any of the above individuals in this statement as I do not know all of their reasons or past actions in such a matter) are on the bandwagon with those who want to truly stand by their convictions as stated in the article by Lora Owens is not my reason. Nor that Hollywood figures may or may not have any influence with Gov. Schwarzenegger. Equally without regard are the actions Mr. Williams has made after his incarceration.

The facts are that Mr. Williams, by his own admission, created an organization that exists to promote drug use, numerous illegal activites, and place innocent citizens across the country in fear of their lives. During his time in that organization, Mr. Williams committed illegal acts that included the planning and commission of violent crimes. That could be conspiracy to commit murder, as he facilitated and promoted an organization whose members in fact enacted the murders (I'm not a lawyer so if that is leagally incorrect I will note it upon being presented such a fact). Those who committed murder for, or died as a consequence of using, drugs should also be a factor. How many lives are still being affected by the actions he has set in motion. He must be held accountable for this. Perhaps it is not fair to place accountability for current actions on Mr. Williams but the question of that still exists.

I do appreciate that fact that many have strong convictions and stand by them, famous or not. Mr. Williams is an example of a person who wants to correct what he has done wrong (as best as I can understand without knowing or speaking with him). The fact that famous personalities are doing so is neither a benefit nor hinderance, if and where those feelings are sincere. They are Americans (mostly) and expressing themselves just as I am. But accountability for actions taken is just that.

Fame is no excuse for bad actions, nor is it a reason for clemency. The law makes no provision (to my knowledge) for redemption. And what is the redemption for lives that have been destroyed or taken? Entertainers, like myself, are not lawyers, judges nor part of the jury that convicted Mr. Williams. No one has questioned his guilt or his continued incarceration. That being said if he is guilty and deserves to be punished, and the law has stated that the maximum punishment is death for that guilt, and such maximum punishment has be given to him, it must be enacted.

What do you think?

Who is talk radio speaking to?

Here is somthing that struck me on a couple of levels. Reported by the Washington Post and seen on Yahoo is this article: Radio One Plans Black Talk Radio Network.

Now initially I thought, 'Why just target black african american radio listeners?' and 'Please not another all about hiphop all the time station'. While the second is not a fair statement to make, the first seemed to be. But as I read on I learned something that previously I had assumed incorrectly. According to ARBITRON, 90+% of talk radio listeners are anything but black or african american, which was a shock to me. With over 2,000 talk stations nationwide only 7.6% of talk radio listeners are black and that's it. Even giving a healthy 10% differential to the numbers, it is incredibly disporportionate.

The question is what is not being said by talk radio to involve black african american listeners. Radio One believes that politics from a black perspective may be part of the answer. On that I agree. There are few political analysts that are black and/or speaking on issues that directly affect the lives of the average Black/African American. More discussion and involvement in politics is needed desperately. Government, especially one based on representative democratic rule, cannot address problems of its constituents without being told what those problems are. To address this they have chosen Reverend Al Sharpton??

Why him? Well, Rev. Sharpton did start the National Youth Movement in 1971. In his bid to run for president in 2004 he campaigned on issues such as: Increase political consciousness and awareness, affirmative action and anti-death penalty policy, economic justice at home, and others. These are great reasons to listen to the man, who spent 2 years at Brooklyn College and worked with Reverend Jesse Jackson in 1969 on Operation Breadbasket. The Rev. Sharton is not known for these things though. The Tawana Brawley case of November 28, 1987 is what made him a national figure. He is also known for his slurs to Jews, Koreans and Whites in general. Is this the best that Radio One could find? Aren't there more qualified and dignified commentators? While he may be good for ratings, doesn't an under-served (or not served seems more accurate) market deserve quality as opposed to a flashy and questionable voice in an arena as important as politics? I'll save my remarks on the further political ramifications for my other blog.

Additional planned programming includes a Hip-Hop/sports talk program (you can get an idea of my feelings about rap/hiphop in my post Rating Rapper Movies and More old thoughs). While sports talk fills the AM and talk airwaves, the inclusion of Hip-Hop does give it a spin that will make it more marketable to the target black audience. Overall I would prefer more dialogue on serious issues by respected and reputable individuals, and less on pampered millionares that play games and acting badly (see my post on NBA dress code), but that's just me. The best case would be that this is a successful endeavour, so that the media giants will rush to capitalize on this untapped market. The worse case is the same scenario, but rather than getting diversification there will be a flood of trendy and 'pop culture' influenced noise that some marketing team will have determined is what the Black community wants. Historically they won't have a clue as to what they (the marketing team) are talking about and then the giants will cut their losses and a vaccum will be reformed.

Perhaps discussion of this here and in other places will filter not only to Radio One, but the other broadcasters and we can get more of the quality we deserve rather than the 'hype' some would like to sell us. What do you think?

Award shows

So I am just getting ready to go to bed when I recalled something that I though was worthy of note. Yes I get ideas at odd times, I'm a nite owl. I can't take credit for this, David Spade on his show The Showbiz Show had spoken about the plethora of Black/African American themed Award shows.

He did hit a cord on that one as he is right. With the Oscars, finally, acceptance of the fact that there are a number of Black actors worthy of recognition, such as Denzel Washington (though not for that role in my opinion) and Jamie Foxx (definiately for that role), is this the time to splinter off and have exclusive Awards?

Yes, 30 or more years ago, even 10ish years ago I could see the need. But now after making strides and getting the confirmation of peers long overdue, what's the point. Do movies like the remakes of the Honeymooners, Who's Coming Home to Dinner or original movies such as whatever Friday is the latest or Soul Plane really deserve to be given awards? Yes, the oversights (or slap in the face if you preffer) to movies like Spike Lee's Malcolm X are hard to forget, but where have the serious films worth consideration gone.

I doubt if any of the rappers-can-act-too-I-think movies are anywhere above a bad rating, and far from an Oscar caliber performance. The actors who deserve the opportunity to shine, like Morgan Freeman, Queen Latifah (a rare exception to the rapper rule) and others shouldn't be bogged down by the drive of major studios to cash in on the "If it stars Black actors we have to see it and support" attitude prevalent today.

Increasing the number of Award shows (which now includes Black Movie Awards, BET Awards, Source Hip Hop Awards and Vibe Awards - yes not all movies but the point still stands) does not help increase the quality of movies made, nor the ability of good actors getting the roles they deserve. I think it hinders them by reinforcing the notion in the public eye that Black actors can't pull off leading roles in non-Black oriented movies. If the public fails to see these movies the actors, directors and everyone else involved just had their chances drop precipitously[sp? not sure if its a word].

I mean to say that there aren't alot of movies for these Award show to present, of truely high caliber just as there aren't many for the Oscars. I mean a show where the Honeymooners lead is compared to Don Cheadle in Crash or Terence Howard in Hustle and Flow is sad.

And what does it say to the masses? That the best that can be offered is the occasional stand out actor - (I'm not forgetting the women, the list would be too long) like Mr. Howard, Foxx, Washington, Cheadle, Jasckson (Samuel) and Freeman - in the occassionaly stand out movie... but the meat and potatoes of black acting is Get Rich or Die Trying, Beauty Shop, or Guess Who?

I think we should expect more. I think that putting out Award shows, or movies for that matter, with the only goal of making quick cash from a cheap production because it's known that the culture wants to support and nurture and grow its talented people is sad.

What do you think?

Burger King ad

Has anyone noticed the new Burger King ad? It's part of the promotion of their new breakfast line, which may only be regional I'm not sure. The ad is similar to their television commercial with the lumberjack, but in this case its on a construction site, a man is riveting bolts into a steel beam high in the sky. On the opposite side he hears someone else working at 5x his pace. He peeks to the side as the King character does the same. The construction worker, who was perplexed smiles and the comercial goes to a discussion and scenes of the new breakfast menu.

Ok here is a difference already. With the lumberjack, the woodsman cuts down a tree and on the other side to his surprise is the King character with something behind his back. He reveals his hand to award the Lumberjack a breakfast sandwich. Then as above is a cut to the new breakfast menu.

Did you notice the difference in the commercials already? With the lumberjack, he is doing his job and is rewarded. In the construction worker the 'King' does his work for him at a better pace and confronts him. While some may say this is too subtle to draw an inference, I disagree.

Teams of advertising personnel work on every aspect of each commercial and pitch them to the client. They may or may not explain every detail but they are aware of the demographic response they will get. Like the stupid jean commercials for Jordache in the 80's (I think it was them with Brooke Sheilds in them) which were made inane on purpose. But if someone can give me a good reason, why one person doing their job is rewarded and another doing a seemingly half assed job is not and it not implying something about those individuals, please let me know.

The television commercial continues with the white lumberjack and the 'King' on a log rolling it in the middle of a river/stream/lake that is calm and unobstructed. That seems like a hearty approval to me. But in the Construction worker (and this really is the part that irks me) the "King" is standing on the girder beside the worker and hits/shoves the black/african american man hard enough to shift his balance forward and make him wiggle as if he might fall before he regains his balance. The worker looks concerned as he rights himself, the 'King' gives a shrug (as if to say - Just playing!) and the worker smiles and stands straight up.

That is not a fun time in my mind. Perhaps there are steel girder construction workers out there who can tell me different, but I imagine that if someone shoved me and nearly made me fall X stories to the ground - a shrug and "Just Joking" isn't going to get me to smile. More likely I would deck the guy.

Are these television commercials equivalent? NO. Do they show the the same sense of comeraderie? No. Do they imply that a hard working white lumberjack or hard working 'King' deserve a special breakfast? YES. Does it imply that a slacker worker should be ridiculed and/or persecuted? Seems so.

How can I be sure of this. My ultimate test when viewing commercials I think are badly portraying ANY minority is to view them as being white and everything happening exactly the same. Would that commercial ever be run? Would that commercial have the same meaning? If not, what is that commercial actually saying?

Not every television commercial has the problems the Burger King construction worker has. But when they are that bad, and in my view blatant, then they should be addressed as such and people should pay attention and say something about them. Why, because the meaning is being told to children, visitors from other countries and cultures, and sometimes broadcast in those other countries around the world. And because of that and other visuals of similar nature the assumption is made that "X group should be treated in X manner, because that's how they are treated in America. If they weren't then this television commercial wouldn't exist."

What do you think?

NBA code

I am amazed at times by the silly and often tunneled-visioned responses that come out of the publics mouths. To hear that some people would ever claim that a dress code is an infringement of personal expression is ludicrous. To further state that it is racist is beyond words.

The fact that we are speaking about a small group of multi-millionares is not as relavant as the fact that we are speaking about a business. The NBA, like the NFL or NHL ect., are all businesses and that is the bottom line. Like any other business there are expectations of its employees, to be polite and presentable when dealing with the public. When was the last time you went into a major business establishment and found a punk rock-attired employee (outside of companies where such attire is part of the daily operation and image)? How many Goths are in full regailia as they serve you dinner in a resturant or selling you a new car?

In addition to that is the fact that, as Sarah Fredericks [as an example but not to single her out] states in her comment to the Albany times Union "Being a player in the NBA is a relaxed profession, not your typical 9-to-5 office job." This is something I do agree with, but she goes on to say "The NBA is sending a message to young fans, all right: Unless you adhere to the certain mold created and maintained by the dominant group, there is little chance you will prevail."

While the NBA is not a 9-5 office job, it is a job. And it is a job that directly interacts with the public on a global scale. Is it a smart descision for the owners and advertisers to alienate any portion of that worldwide market? And why would any owners of any business want to have an association (inferred or otherwise) with anything that promotes drugs, irresponsibility, violence, crime and derrogation of women (which the majority of hip-hop songs currently do) as an example.

As for the second statement, is it so horrible to expect the youth of today to dress in a classier style than 3XXX size garments and overabundant amounts of jewlery? Is it somehow mindless to wear and look good in suits (designer hand made in the case of these multi-millionares). Is Puffy any less of a creative figure due to the suits and ofits he wears (most being decidedly non-hiphop)? What about a statement made by Michael Jordan which I will paraphrase as I recall it, that as an international figure that recieves media attention worldwide he feels it is his responsibility to always be seen in public looking as good as possible, since he cannot say what impression will be made on the youth that happen to see him outside of his work, but that he want it to be a positive one.

I won't go into the thought that seems to be expressed often that the black/minority youth of today should be encouraged to seek out a life in sports at the exclusion of learning and the pursuit of knowledge. But to state that a dress code to maintain a unified and coherent business image during their extremely short work season that is positive, is restrictive to this group of multi-millionares is just laffable.

But what do you think?

Rating Rapper in Movies

There seems to be an outbreak of rappers invading Hollywood these days. Beyond my own deep dislike of almost any rap since ~1987, this phenomenon is startling to me.


I’d rate rappers in movies as follows:

Wil Smith - Has natural talent and has honed their acting abilities through years of training and experience. Commands respect of peers and capable of the lead in $100 million blockbusters.

LL Cool J - Has a lesser degree of talent. Has trained and gained experience over years of work. Can maintain quality supporting roles in significant production films. Tends to work in a single niche genre.

The rest of the bunch - May or may not have little/no talent. Has no experience at acting, and has bypassed trying to learn for quick money. Generally will be minor support in lower quality films, or occasionally lead/co-lead with C tier or less actors. Movies tend to exploit the rap image projected in music videos.

Of these types it seems that the last category is gaining more ground. Not that skill or talent has improved, just the economics. By that I mean that a low budget film (10-20 million is what Wil Smith is paid to be IN a movie) starring the latest video, not yet in jail for stupid actions, flavor can return 3x or more on investment. If more than one of these bottom tier, bail kids is involved the numbers increase dramatically. Why? Because they attract the rap/hip-hop crowd, whites who want to buy into the black experience that’s for sale, and the black community that says "We must support black films, even if they are garbage."


Of course this only motivates Hollywood to continue to pump out poorly written (slang instead of words - to be cool), poorly plotted (Why/How is this stuff in the movie happening?), Horribly acted (Would it be the same if Denzel or Samuel did it?) low budget trash (would anyone see this movie if it was exactly the same but had white actors? Would it even be made if that was the case?).


Well perhaps I will be surprised and find talent under the rock that is rap music, but I’m sure it will only happen after rap is replaced by the new music craze, just as rap did to rock.


Oh, by the way, Queen Latifah is on the LL scale (Oscar or not she gets to make movies like TAXI with jimi fallon) and she spent years getting good doing TV (like LL and Smith). Tupac had promise but got killed for stupidity (his lifestyle and the east/west thing). Janet and Whitney are singers.


As a side note I have a rating system:

A movie will proportionately decrease in quality with the addition of a rapper(s), and will exponentially drop in intellect based on the number of rapper(s) in it.