Ah sometimes I take strange trips when I follow a thought. Case in point, I was on Youtube and happened to find a mash-up of Beethoven and Kanye West. I have no great like of Kanye but it was the infusion of classical that made me watch it.
That lead me to wonder what other classical mixes might be out there. Were their others that found classical as great as I do, and see the ease and multiple formats that classical could be mixed with more modern music. Was there a bridge of the too forms of music?
So I found this video.
and I went from there to
Which lead me to
and then I ran into something really different and amusing. Mixing my love of classical music, anime, The Matrix and Naruto.
It's an odd journey, but I must say I was pleased by it. How about you?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
World of Warcraft or Dad: The cause of boy's collapse
I can hear it now. The horrors of video games, the internet, and Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMO). And the fuel of this latest round of the fire comes from Sweden. Thanks to a 15 year old and his obsession with World of Warcraft (WoW).
It seems that the kid, and several of his friends, spent 20 hours straight playing the game. They barely ate or slept, and the kid in question collapsed after the 20 hour mark. When brought to the hospital he was diagnosed with lack of sleep, lack of food and over-concentration - but he will be fine.
The father in question said
Well isn't that jumping into the fire and saying it's hot. Where was he during this 20 hour period when his son was playing? Watching television? Asleep?
The game is not the problem here. Like a weapon, tool, or anything it exists but its what people do with it that makes it potentially dangerous. If this father was paying attention to his kid we would have seen what was going on long before there was a need for the hospital. If he was an involved parent he would have checked in on his kid, maybe watched the game and been involved in the playing. Maybe he would have come in at 10pm and said it was time for bed and made sure his son went to bed. And in the morning looked in on what the kid was doing.
As I said in my post Danger for kids on the internet
The detriment in this case was a child that pushed himself beyond limits his body could stand. That's not the fault of the internet or WoW. It is directly and solely the fault of the father in this case. And blaming anything and anyone else is just trying to deflect the responsibility of the parent on someone else. It's seeking sympathy when none is deserved.
In this case the MMO is no different than a gun in the house. A parent that takes no precaution, that has no involvement in their child, is asking that child to shot themselves. That may sound harsh, but it cannot be more harsh than having to take your unconscious child to the hospital.
Let's not look for scapegoats in this holiday season. There are many things that are inappropriate for children on the internet and in some video games. But the real danger comes from a parent that is uninvolved and uncaring enough to let that child get access to, and abuse, the tool in question.
I remember being told as a child
Today it seems that everyone wants to blame the scissors, not the child running. And god forbid someone blame the parent for not telling the kid to not do it.
It seems that the kid, and several of his friends, spent 20 hours straight playing the game. They barely ate or slept, and the kid in question collapsed after the 20 hour mark. When brought to the hospital he was diagnosed with lack of sleep, lack of food and over-concentration - but he will be fine.
The father in question said
"...he now plans to limit his son's computer time and urged other parents to do the same."
Well isn't that jumping into the fire and saying it's hot. Where was he during this 20 hour period when his son was playing? Watching television? Asleep?
The game is not the problem here. Like a weapon, tool, or anything it exists but its what people do with it that makes it potentially dangerous. If this father was paying attention to his kid we would have seen what was going on long before there was a need for the hospital. If he was an involved parent he would have checked in on his kid, maybe watched the game and been involved in the playing. Maybe he would have come in at 10pm and said it was time for bed and made sure his son went to bed. And in the morning looked in on what the kid was doing.
As I said in my post Danger for kids on the internet
"It's not enough to just watch what children are doing on the internet. We all, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents, need to be involved. We all need to explain why some things are wrong, and what the history of these things are. Because if we don't kids will use them, act on them, to their detriment."
The detriment in this case was a child that pushed himself beyond limits his body could stand. That's not the fault of the internet or WoW. It is directly and solely the fault of the father in this case. And blaming anything and anyone else is just trying to deflect the responsibility of the parent on someone else. It's seeking sympathy when none is deserved.
In this case the MMO is no different than a gun in the house. A parent that takes no precaution, that has no involvement in their child, is asking that child to shot themselves. That may sound harsh, but it cannot be more harsh than having to take your unconscious child to the hospital.
Let's not look for scapegoats in this holiday season. There are many things that are inappropriate for children on the internet and in some video games. But the real danger comes from a parent that is uninvolved and uncaring enough to let that child get access to, and abuse, the tool in question.
I remember being told as a child
"Don't run with scissors"
Today it seems that everyone wants to blame the scissors, not the child running. And god forbid someone blame the parent for not telling the kid to not do it.
Real curves kick butt
While I think the woman in the video is a bit too big, the point is clear. Real women rule. Stick figures don't work even in animation.
By the way APRES not only means after, as in the after image, but it also can mean bitter and harsh. Keeping that in mind the full meaning of the video really takes form.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Danger for kids on the internet
I have a nephew that is pre-teen, and is on a social network. Recently I found that he had made changes to his page on that site. And I was amazed and upset by what I saw. And I wonder if other children have done the same thing. [By the way, all the things have been since changed and discussed with him by his father - so he understands why they were inappropriate.]
One of the first things that was on the site was the fact that he had pictures up that showed him and his friends holding up the moronic 'westside' and other similar gang signs. Beyond looking as bad as anyone who does this, it alarmed me to think that some fool was trying to recruit him and his friends into the dead-end life that is a gang member.
As it turned out he and his friends had no understanding of what the symbols meant. They had just seen them many times on television and thought it looked cool. Which is the idea I suppose. But he also did not realize that fools that believe in this kind of lifestyle also might hurt or kill him and his friends, because it was an insult to their gang or he represented an invasion to their 'territory', or simply because he had no connection to their abusive, illogical, warped group.
Another problem was the fact that his age was incorrect. This was done because he and his friends did not want to be seen as kids. For some reason they felt that being their actual age was a bad thing. That they were left out of some major positive the website provided only to adults.
They had no idea that this minor act helped to put them in danger of the pedophiles and other warped individuals that surf the net. They roam around enough as is, they need no help in finding children. And when my nephew mentioned that he would never be tricked into meeting with or otherwise contacting a stranger because he is too smart - I had to remind him that many adults are far smarter and have more experience than even the highly intelligent boy he is.
But the really big things that bothered me was the ease he had in finding and using graphics from a site that had an altered image of Microsoft's Word package.
The Word graphic is a box that has the picture of 5 famous rappers on it. Each in a state of rapper ghettofabulousness. Underneath were the words "Yo it's Word (n-word)". This was thought to be funny. Yet when asked there was no reason why it was funny, it just was.
So I then asked a simple question.
His answer was simple as well. "It doesn't make sense at all."
I then asked the really big question.
He did not. He had no clue, though he has heard it in music and movies. He just thought it was another word.
That might sound great to some but that troubled me. Because the meaning of the word has not changed. If the CEO of Procter&Gamble used it in a interview he would be fired and sued if possible. The same would happen to the record executive that rappers work for (many of whom will not allow that word to be used in their own home). Because the meaning never changed, no matter the color of who says it.
So I told him about the fact that the n-word was used to describe slaves. That it was used to describe people just like him and I that were treated worse than dogs. And I told him about all the people that died so that he would never have to be called that word. Like uncounted numbers of slaves, Blacks that fought in the Civil War, WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam. Men like Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All those that died in the civil rights movement and so many others.
I told him the truth of the meaning of the word, and how it is defined in part as the single worst word in the english language. That to be called that has no comparison or equivalent come-back.
And then I told him how lucky he was to be alive today. Because he has never been called that. But I have been, as has my mother and father and so on. That he never has to fear being called that (I hope) because he was playing in school with a White kid, or because a White girl liked him. The world is mostly better than that, but not entirely.
And I told him the truth that the legal system once said that if a White person called a Black person that word, and the Black person hit them they would not go to jail. Because it was an incendiary term, a provoking term. And that's why the White owners of record companies can't say the word, but pay rappers to do it for them. And I asked him this
He thought it very important. And he understood it in a very different and unfunny way.
I say all that to bring up this point. It's not enough to just watch what children are doing on the internet. We all, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents, need to be involved. We all need to explain why some things are wrong, and what the history of these things are. Because if we don't kids will use them, act on them, to their detriment.
One of the first things that was on the site was the fact that he had pictures up that showed him and his friends holding up the moronic 'westside' and other similar gang signs. Beyond looking as bad as anyone who does this, it alarmed me to think that some fool was trying to recruit him and his friends into the dead-end life that is a gang member.
As it turned out he and his friends had no understanding of what the symbols meant. They had just seen them many times on television and thought it looked cool. Which is the idea I suppose. But he also did not realize that fools that believe in this kind of lifestyle also might hurt or kill him and his friends, because it was an insult to their gang or he represented an invasion to their 'territory', or simply because he had no connection to their abusive, illogical, warped group.
Another problem was the fact that his age was incorrect. This was done because he and his friends did not want to be seen as kids. For some reason they felt that being their actual age was a bad thing. That they were left out of some major positive the website provided only to adults.
They had no idea that this minor act helped to put them in danger of the pedophiles and other warped individuals that surf the net. They roam around enough as is, they need no help in finding children. And when my nephew mentioned that he would never be tricked into meeting with or otherwise contacting a stranger because he is too smart - I had to remind him that many adults are far smarter and have more experience than even the highly intelligent boy he is.
But the really big things that bothered me was the ease he had in finding and using graphics from a site that had an altered image of Microsoft's Word package.
The Word graphic is a box that has the picture of 5 famous rappers on it. Each in a state of rapper ghettofabulousness. Underneath were the words "Yo it's Word (n-word)". This was thought to be funny. Yet when asked there was no reason why it was funny, it just was.
So I then asked a simple question.
"Does it make sense that all these rappers and people want to be 'ghettofabulous' but everyone in the ghetto, especially the rappers, all want to get out? How good can the ghetto be, and living a life based on the 'ghetto', when no one wants to be there - even with money - except drug dealers."
His answer was simple as well. "It doesn't make sense at all."
I then asked the really big question.
"Do you know what the n-word means?"
He did not. He had no clue, though he has heard it in music and movies. He just thought it was another word.
That might sound great to some but that troubled me. Because the meaning of the word has not changed. If the CEO of Procter&Gamble used it in a interview he would be fired and sued if possible. The same would happen to the record executive that rappers work for (many of whom will not allow that word to be used in their own home). Because the meaning never changed, no matter the color of who says it.
So I told him about the fact that the n-word was used to describe slaves. That it was used to describe people just like him and I that were treated worse than dogs. And I told him about all the people that died so that he would never have to be called that word. Like uncounted numbers of slaves, Blacks that fought in the Civil War, WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam. Men like Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All those that died in the civil rights movement and so many others.
I told him the truth of the meaning of the word, and how it is defined in part as the single worst word in the english language. That to be called that has no comparison or equivalent come-back.
And then I told him how lucky he was to be alive today. Because he has never been called that. But I have been, as has my mother and father and so on. That he never has to fear being called that (I hope) because he was playing in school with a White kid, or because a White girl liked him. The world is mostly better than that, but not entirely.
And I told him the truth that the legal system once said that if a White person called a Black person that word, and the Black person hit them they would not go to jail. Because it was an incendiary term, a provoking term. And that's why the White owners of record companies can't say the word, but pay rappers to do it for them. And I asked him this
"How important do you think it is that the law was made about this word? How big a word do you think it is?"
He thought it very important. And he understood it in a very different and unfunny way.
I say all that to bring up this point. It's not enough to just watch what children are doing on the internet. We all, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents, need to be involved. We all need to explain why some things are wrong, and what the history of these things are. Because if we don't kids will use them, act on them, to their detriment.
Friday, November 28, 2008
A cure to the Black Friday stress
It's been a long day for many of my readers out there. Black Friday, a day full of shopping, crowds and sales. Yet I'm sure some of you just didn't find what you were looking for. There was something not available for that someone on your list. Or maybe you were looking for one thing to reward yourself for all the work you've done today.
I know how it can be. And thus I present some of the items that can be found at M V Consulting, Inc online store. No need to worry about crowds, nor fighting over the last item in the store. No need to deal with overworked employees, bad weather or carrying loads of items from store to store. And no need to spend extra money on gas too.
Just relax, and take a look through the 18 separate sections and several hundred items available at our store. We truly believe that there is something for everyone here. No matter the age, gender, religion, or whatever there is something that can be found for everyone to enjoy.
So take a peek at the online store and see what you can't get anywhere else at any price.
A Good Day to be Black and Sexy
Music has always been an integral part of being Black in America. It has been an escape, a statement of defiance, a shout of joy, and a deep reverence of faith. Black culture is so deeply woven in music as to have influenced all forms of music in this nation.
From Blues to Jazz, R&B to rap, Rock n Roll to Gospel. Not a single form of music in America has not been touch, expanded, or created by African Americans. So it is no surprise then that when it comes to movies that feature African Americans music is vital to the experience. But I have never seen a movie trailer where the music is the driving theme of the plot. Until now.
Don't let the trailer fool you though. There is much more to the film. It is a trip through 6 relationships that are all connected in Los Angeles. It's a 1-day journey into Black sexuality. And that is a subject that really has not be dealt with in movies. Nor has a Black film so closely modeled music.
There have been films with Black sex, or relationships, or marriage as the driving theme. But not sexuality, sensuality. What is sexy, what is beautiful. It's a slow European-style dance of humanity. As director Dennis Dortch says
This film did well at Sundance. It looks to take Black cinema in a new direction as has been stated. I find both of those things intriguing. And I have to laugh because only in Hollywood and the media could the thought of African Americans be so limited as to be defined by what has appeared on televisions and movie screens.
This film probably won't get overly wide distribution, which is a shame. It looks good enough to deserve as much of a chance as any other film, and honestly considering what has been out for most of this year, more. And if it does well I'm sure it will open avenues and get Dortch more opportunities like Spike Lee and Tyler Perry have deservedly gotten.
I say this is a good film to see. Because it is different. Because it goes in a direction no one is looking. Because it is expressing more than the normal media restrictions. And that is almost always a good thing.
If you do get the chance to see the film let me know your thoughts. I'll be looking for it myself, and will give more details then. Look for it on December 5, 2008.
From Blues to Jazz, R&B to rap, Rock n Roll to Gospel. Not a single form of music in America has not been touch, expanded, or created by African Americans. So it is no surprise then that when it comes to movies that feature African Americans music is vital to the experience. But I have never seen a movie trailer where the music is the driving theme of the plot. Until now.
Don't let the trailer fool you though. There is much more to the film. It is a trip through 6 relationships that are all connected in Los Angeles. It's a 1-day journey into Black sexuality. And that is a subject that really has not be dealt with in movies. Nor has a Black film so closely modeled music.
There have been films with Black sex, or relationships, or marriage as the driving theme. But not sexuality, sensuality. What is sexy, what is beautiful. It's a slow European-style dance of humanity. As director Dennis Dortch says
"It's a Black art house film."
This film did well at Sundance. It looks to take Black cinema in a new direction as has been stated. I find both of those things intriguing. And I have to laugh because only in Hollywood and the media could the thought of African Americans be so limited as to be defined by what has appeared on televisions and movie screens.
This film probably won't get overly wide distribution, which is a shame. It looks good enough to deserve as much of a chance as any other film, and honestly considering what has been out for most of this year, more. And if it does well I'm sure it will open avenues and get Dortch more opportunities like Spike Lee and Tyler Perry have deservedly gotten.
I say this is a good film to see. Because it is different. Because it goes in a direction no one is looking. Because it is expressing more than the normal media restrictions. And that is almost always a good thing.
If you do get the chance to see the film let me know your thoughts. I'll be looking for it myself, and will give more details then. Look for it on December 5, 2008.
A rapper with charity: T.I. and Thanksgiving in Atlanta
I have a problem. As is well known to long-time readers of my blogs, I don't like gangsta rap. I find the music to be repetitive, pro-violence, pro-drug, pro-illiteracy, pro-death. I find the entertainers to be some of the worst examples of what (primarily but not exclusively) Black men are and can be. In general I believe that gangsta rappers deserve to be locked-up in a jail cell like the felons they are and/or wish to be seen as.
That being said, long-time readers also know that I love it when celebrities and entertainers go out of their way to make a donation or hold an event that benefits those of us in need. I am especially pleased when that entertainer or celebrity is Black. And I hate it when the major news media ignores or demeans the act of generosity with negative news that is not relevant to the charity.
I think you can see where this is going.
T.I., Clifford Joseph Harris Jr., spent Thanksgiving in Atlanta. He was there with 22.000 friends that day. And not one gunshot went off, nor did any woman lose her clothes while shaking her ass for a camera. I have to say this because of the extensive history of T.I. breaking the law, involvement in fights, illegal gun possession and other such acts.
This was not a rap event. This was charity. And it was an apparently record-breaking act of giving, though not the first time this rapper has done so.
This Thanksgiving Clifford Harris raised $100,000 for Hosea Feed the Hungry and Homeless, and did so in 2 hours. He followed this up with volunteering to help serve the 22,000 people that were fed at the Atlanta Brave's Turner field.
This had nothing to do with the various community service requirements that T.I. has had to serve for his multiple violations of law. He did it because for all his faults he believes in charity. Such can be seen from his history of giving.
He has helped with Hurricane Katrina relief, worked with troubled youths at Paulding Detention Center, provided scholarships for single parent families at Boys and Girls Clubs, and giving away 200 bicycles to neighborhood children in the Boys and Girls Club in Atlanta. For all the things I don't like about the rapper, I must commend his acts of charity (the ones he has done without court order).
So here I am commending the charity of a rapper that deserves to be lauded for his selfless acts. Yet I am severely at odds with his history of violence and breaking the law, and the music he performs.
Perhaps this is an example that even the most insulting, crude and ignorant of people have redeeming qualities. Perhaps I am too harsh a judge of things that I find offensive and detrimental. Perhaps Clifford Harris Jr. is growing up and becoming a man; not in terms of his age or ability to father children but in terms of his actions in society.
Whatever the case, I am glad to hear of and mention the good work that was done for so many this Thanksgiving.
That being said, long-time readers also know that I love it when celebrities and entertainers go out of their way to make a donation or hold an event that benefits those of us in need. I am especially pleased when that entertainer or celebrity is Black. And I hate it when the major news media ignores or demeans the act of generosity with negative news that is not relevant to the charity.
I think you can see where this is going.
T.I., Clifford Joseph Harris Jr., spent Thanksgiving in Atlanta. He was there with 22.000 friends that day. And not one gunshot went off, nor did any woman lose her clothes while shaking her ass for a camera. I have to say this because of the extensive history of T.I. breaking the law, involvement in fights, illegal gun possession and other such acts.
This was not a rap event. This was charity. And it was an apparently record-breaking act of giving, though not the first time this rapper has done so.
This Thanksgiving Clifford Harris raised $100,000 for Hosea Feed the Hungry and Homeless, and did so in 2 hours. He followed this up with volunteering to help serve the 22,000 people that were fed at the Atlanta Brave's Turner field.
This had nothing to do with the various community service requirements that T.I. has had to serve for his multiple violations of law. He did it because for all his faults he believes in charity. Such can be seen from his history of giving.
He has helped with Hurricane Katrina relief, worked with troubled youths at Paulding Detention Center, provided scholarships for single parent families at Boys and Girls Clubs, and giving away 200 bicycles to neighborhood children in the Boys and Girls Club in Atlanta. For all the things I don't like about the rapper, I must commend his acts of charity (the ones he has done without court order).
So here I am commending the charity of a rapper that deserves to be lauded for his selfless acts. Yet I am severely at odds with his history of violence and breaking the law, and the music he performs.
Perhaps this is an example that even the most insulting, crude and ignorant of people have redeeming qualities. Perhaps I am too harsh a judge of things that I find offensive and detrimental. Perhaps Clifford Harris Jr. is growing up and becoming a man; not in terms of his age or ability to father children but in terms of his actions in society.
Whatever the case, I am glad to hear of and mention the good work that was done for so many this Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
2012
Way back in 1999, as many began to panic about the legacy codes and what would happen as computers struck 2000, I recall watching a program that detailed the possible ways the world might end. This show, which I don't remember the name of, covered most of the myths surrounding the start of the new millennium and several prophecies.
One of the things that the programs covered was the fact that 2000 was nothing to fear, because 2012 was the real danger. It is on that day that the Mayan Long Count calendar ends. To be exact it will end on either December 21st or 23rd, 2012. Most tend to believe that the 21st is the date, possibly due to they symbolism of the date, 12/21/12.
If you look at the internet you will either find that this date is the day that aliens will take over or save humanity, humanity will ascend to a higher level, or the earth will be destroyed/end.
Of course given the gravity of the situation you know that Hollywood had to make a movie about it. In fact I expect a dozen by that time. But here is the first.
If nothing else it makes it's point pretty clear. Starring Oliver Platt (who I like), Danny Glover (I like), John Cusack (also very good), Thandie Newton, Amanda Peet, and Woody Harelson. With that kind of cast I would expect something memorable.
The director is Roland Emmerich, who made Stargate, Independence Day, and Godzilla. Sadly he also made Godzilla, Universal Soldier, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. So the odds are only slightly worse than 50/50 on how well it will be made.
Luckily, either way, we will have 3 years to mull the quality of the film before the clock stops running.
One of the things that the programs covered was the fact that 2000 was nothing to fear, because 2012 was the real danger. It is on that day that the Mayan Long Count calendar ends. To be exact it will end on either December 21st or 23rd, 2012. Most tend to believe that the 21st is the date, possibly due to they symbolism of the date, 12/21/12.
If you look at the internet you will either find that this date is the day that aliens will take over or save humanity, humanity will ascend to a higher level, or the earth will be destroyed/end.
Of course given the gravity of the situation you know that Hollywood had to make a movie about it. In fact I expect a dozen by that time. But here is the first.
If nothing else it makes it's point pretty clear. Starring Oliver Platt (who I like), Danny Glover (I like), John Cusack (also very good), Thandie Newton, Amanda Peet, and Woody Harelson. With that kind of cast I would expect something memorable.
The director is Roland Emmerich, who made Stargate, Independence Day, and Godzilla. Sadly he also made Godzilla, Universal Soldier, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. So the odds are only slightly worse than 50/50 on how well it will be made.
Luckily, either way, we will have 3 years to mull the quality of the film before the clock stops running.
A-Rod and Madonna - a lecherous pair of adulterers
So is it me or is anyone else fed up with hearing news about Alex Rodriguez and Madonna? Seriously. I find it upsetting that the media is promoting this relationship like it's some sort of Christmas gift to the world.
A-Rod was married for almost all of 6 years. His ex-wife just gave birth to his child months ago. And during that marriage he also had no problem dating (call it what it is, sex with) Madonna. Madonna for her part was married for virtually 8 years. So both of them are adulterers. Isn't that a positive image to be showboating to kids.
Now I realize I could have spoken about this earlier. But I hoped that some in the media would have the good taste to denounce this and make a point of refusing to cover it. But ratings trump the concept of marital fidelity it seems. Gossip is more important than respect and a touch of decency.
The very least Alex Rodriguez and Madonna could have done is be quiet about this whole thing. Both of them owed that to their ex-spouses and their children. But in a world where marriages are more a form of extended dating than a commitment lasting a lifetime, I should not be surprised.
Yes both of these 2 are now divorced. Good for them. But the damage is done. To their kids and to all those youths that followed the gossip columns, ESPN, Entertainment whatever and so on. Just one more example of people with too much money and too little respect doing whatever they please, screw everyone else.
I'm just waiting for whenever one of these 2 gets caught with yet another person. Given their promiscuous pasts it's just a matter of time before it happens. The only real sad part is that their kids have to grow up with the world reminding them of just how loose their parent is.
Until then, I wouldn't mind if the major media kept they current tryst off the screens.
A-Rod was married for almost all of 6 years. His ex-wife just gave birth to his child months ago. And during that marriage he also had no problem dating (call it what it is, sex with) Madonna. Madonna for her part was married for virtually 8 years. So both of them are adulterers. Isn't that a positive image to be showboating to kids.
Now I realize I could have spoken about this earlier. But I hoped that some in the media would have the good taste to denounce this and make a point of refusing to cover it. But ratings trump the concept of marital fidelity it seems. Gossip is more important than respect and a touch of decency.
The very least Alex Rodriguez and Madonna could have done is be quiet about this whole thing. Both of them owed that to their ex-spouses and their children. But in a world where marriages are more a form of extended dating than a commitment lasting a lifetime, I should not be surprised.
Yes both of these 2 are now divorced. Good for them. But the damage is done. To their kids and to all those youths that followed the gossip columns, ESPN, Entertainment whatever and so on. Just one more example of people with too much money and too little respect doing whatever they please, screw everyone else.
I'm just waiting for whenever one of these 2 gets caught with yet another person. Given their promiscuous pasts it's just a matter of time before it happens. The only real sad part is that their kids have to grow up with the world reminding them of just how loose their parent is.
Until then, I wouldn't mind if the major media kept they current tryst off the screens.
Axl Rose and Dr. Pepper: About the fans or the money?
Axl Rose must be a bit worried. At least that's what I gather. Because so far there has been no official report on the sales of the latest Guns 'n Roses album, Chinese Democracy. But Axl Rose is looking to garner more media attention, and possibly a few bucks as well.
By now everyone knows that Dr. Pepper famously made a promise to the public that if Chinese Democracy was released this year they would give the nation a free drink. At the time the odds of the much rumored and 15 years delayed album actually arriving in stores for sale were slim at best. But Guns 'n Roses finally got it out, and Dr. Pepper decided to make good on their promise - as I mentioned in a prior post.
The problem for Dr. Pepper is that everyone paid attention to their offer. There was such a rush on their site that it crashed. They then extended their offer by 24 hours. But it seems that the company's website was still unable to handle the demand, or was otherwise disabled for most of the extension time. This is where Axl Rose comes in.
Rose has now gotten his lawyer to jump into the fray and demand that Dr. Pepper do more to live up to their word. He is insiting that Dr. Pepper make good for all the people that were unable to receive the coupon that would provide a free 20 oz drink of their products. And Rose wants the company to take out full page ads apologizing for the problems encountered, and the use of Guns 'n Roses' as a publicity stunt.
If all of these things are not done, then Axl Rose plans on some form of lawsuit to get paid.
Now who is using who to get paid, make sales, and drum up publicity? It makes me wonder what the sales numbers are really going to look like. According to Newsday
Mark Savage at the BBC had a bit more positive take on the album
And of course there is Rolling Stone
In every review, positive or not, there is the consistent thought that this album would have been a stellar release a decade ago. Everyone seems to agree that there are several songs that relive the glory of the past that Guns n' Roses enjoyed. But overall the final thoughts seem to say mixed things. And that's never wonderful for sales.
So I expect that this bruhha over Dr. Pepper is just a way to either gain more record sales, or more likely an attempt to get Dr. Pepper to dole out some cash in a settlement so as to recoup some of the $11 million spent on creating Chinese Democracy. In effect it gives me pause on just how good the album is, which I admit I have not heard yet.
So in the end what do you think? Is Axl Rose protecting his property as he did when he had blogger Kevin Cogill arrested, or is it to just make some money in the face of low sales?
By now everyone knows that Dr. Pepper famously made a promise to the public that if Chinese Democracy was released this year they would give the nation a free drink. At the time the odds of the much rumored and 15 years delayed album actually arriving in stores for sale were slim at best. But Guns 'n Roses finally got it out, and Dr. Pepper decided to make good on their promise - as I mentioned in a prior post.
The problem for Dr. Pepper is that everyone paid attention to their offer. There was such a rush on their site that it crashed. They then extended their offer by 24 hours. But it seems that the company's website was still unable to handle the demand, or was otherwise disabled for most of the extension time. This is where Axl Rose comes in.
Rose has now gotten his lawyer to jump into the fray and demand that Dr. Pepper do more to live up to their word. He is insiting that Dr. Pepper make good for all the people that were unable to receive the coupon that would provide a free 20 oz drink of their products. And Rose wants the company to take out full page ads apologizing for the problems encountered, and the use of Guns 'n Roses' as a publicity stunt.
If all of these things are not done, then Axl Rose plans on some form of lawsuit to get paid.
Now who is using who to get paid, make sales, and drum up publicity? It makes me wonder what the sales numbers are really going to look like. According to Newsday
"..."Chinese Democracy" is a good effort and it would have seemed even better if it came out in a decent amount of time, say, you know, a decade ago....
That "Chinese Democracy" came out at all is a monument to Rose's artistic vision and his belief in himself. But all its excesses and its occasional lack of focus also serve as a testament to the kind of ridiculous spending and star-coddling that led to the music industry's current sales-dropping predicament. All along the line, this project would have benefited from someone telling Rose "no," but any check on him came too late."
Mark Savage at the BBC had a bit more positive take on the album
"This record is an uncompromising, fully-focused, hard rock monster.
At times, it will rattle the rafters with its ferocious riffs. At others, you will laugh out loud at the ridiculously overblown melodrama.
In other words, it's business as usual for Guns N' Roses."
And of course there is Rolling Stone
"Let's get right to it: The first Guns n' Roses album of new, original songs since the first Bush administration is a great, audacious, unhinged and uncompromising hard-rock record...
You may debate whether any rock record is worth that extreme self-indulgence. Actually, the most rock & roll thing about Chinese Democracy is he doesn't care if you do."
In every review, positive or not, there is the consistent thought that this album would have been a stellar release a decade ago. Everyone seems to agree that there are several songs that relive the glory of the past that Guns n' Roses enjoyed. But overall the final thoughts seem to say mixed things. And that's never wonderful for sales.
So I expect that this bruhha over Dr. Pepper is just a way to either gain more record sales, or more likely an attempt to get Dr. Pepper to dole out some cash in a settlement so as to recoup some of the $11 million spent on creating Chinese Democracy. In effect it gives me pause on just how good the album is, which I admit I have not heard yet.
So in the end what do you think? Is Axl Rose protecting his property as he did when he had blogger Kevin Cogill arrested, or is it to just make some money in the face of low sales?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Lane Brown bad mouths RED(WIRE)
If I mentioned HIV/AIDS to you, I would expect that you might say a horrible disease that needs to be stopped. If I said that your help, a donation of say $2.50, would provide medicine and research for a cure to HIV/AIDS most would say no problem. It’s a small amount of money and at worst you are losing a cup of coffee from Dunkin Doughnuts or an extra shot of espresso at a coffeehouse. If I suggested you make that same donation once a month I imagine that most would still say ok, again it’s not enough money to worry about the rent over.
Now here is the question. Does it matter if you actually made a donation of $5 and only $2.50 went to the research and medicine?
For VULTURE and Lane Brown it does. There is an article that takes on the RED(WIRE) charity which provides music from various bands to digital subscribers for a monthly fee of $5. It seems the problem Vulture has is that only half of the money gets to provide medicine for those afflicted with AIDS in Africa. A bit less than the other half the money goes to the artists, the rest to administration fees.
Musicians are getting paid for their effort on behalf of a charitable organization. The world is about to stop spinning. Seriously so what. At least the charity is getting 50% of the proceeds. Many organizations can’t boast that much. And it’s an extra $2.50 per subscriber per month that was not available before.
I understand that some might want to sit back and use the logic that 50% of a donation going to a great cause is not enough, justifying their refusal to make a donation. But I am not in favor of anything that uses such an argument to promote their own success and profit (note the 5 ads on the page). It’s a bit of a slap in the face.
How much I wonder of the advertising dollars is New York Media LLC (owner of the site) giving to AIDS research and medical aid in Africa or anywhere? If they are giving money to help end AIDS and help those in Africa, or anywhere, afflicted with this disease, how much is that organization actually providing after the fees of operation and whatever else. Are they just throwing stones from in their glass house?
Entertainers get paid to perform at charity events. Charities have administration costs. The bigger the venue, and/or entertainer, the higher the costs to operate. That’s the way of the world. Even charities can only run but so long without paying the bills.
If VULTURE or Lane Brown really are upset about the division of money being sent to fight AIDS I ask where their charity providing more than 50% of the donations exists? I want to see the entertainers and celebrities they have endorsing their events and services that help AIDS only. I want to see the media attention they give to AIDS and HIV prevention and cure.
In fact, searching the blog for AIDS provides 46 results going back to June of 2007. In that time, on this keyword, exactly 1 post comes up that deals with AIDS. And that is this post blasting U2’s Bono and RED(WIRE). I really think that with a record like this VULTURE and Lane Brown should shut the hell up when it comes to people actually doing something more than complaining about AIDS/HIV.
Now here is the question. Does it matter if you actually made a donation of $5 and only $2.50 went to the research and medicine?
For VULTURE and Lane Brown it does. There is an article that takes on the RED(WIRE) charity which provides music from various bands to digital subscribers for a monthly fee of $5. It seems the problem Vulture has is that only half of the money gets to provide medicine for those afflicted with AIDS in Africa. A bit less than the other half the money goes to the artists, the rest to administration fees.
Musicians are getting paid for their effort on behalf of a charitable organization. The world is about to stop spinning. Seriously so what. At least the charity is getting 50% of the proceeds. Many organizations can’t boast that much. And it’s an extra $2.50 per subscriber per month that was not available before.
I understand that some might want to sit back and use the logic that 50% of a donation going to a great cause is not enough, justifying their refusal to make a donation. But I am not in favor of anything that uses such an argument to promote their own success and profit (note the 5 ads on the page). It’s a bit of a slap in the face.
How much I wonder of the advertising dollars is New York Media LLC (owner of the site) giving to AIDS research and medical aid in Africa or anywhere? If they are giving money to help end AIDS and help those in Africa, or anywhere, afflicted with this disease, how much is that organization actually providing after the fees of operation and whatever else. Are they just throwing stones from in their glass house?
Entertainers get paid to perform at charity events. Charities have administration costs. The bigger the venue, and/or entertainer, the higher the costs to operate. That’s the way of the world. Even charities can only run but so long without paying the bills.
If VULTURE or Lane Brown really are upset about the division of money being sent to fight AIDS I ask where their charity providing more than 50% of the donations exists? I want to see the entertainers and celebrities they have endorsing their events and services that help AIDS only. I want to see the media attention they give to AIDS and HIV prevention and cure.
In fact, searching the blog for AIDS provides 46 results going back to June of 2007. In that time, on this keyword, exactly 1 post comes up that deals with AIDS. And that is this post blasting U2’s Bono and RED(WIRE). I really think that with a record like this VULTURE and Lane Brown should shut the hell up when it comes to people actually doing something more than complaining about AIDS/HIV.
Bob Johnson is at it again
Bob Johnson. The only Black male billionaire in the United States. The man that created Black Entertainment Television (no relation to this blog).
Bob Johnson is getting back to his roots. That is he is proposing a new Black-oriented television network to compete with his former BET and TV One. And I would equate that to a crack dealer finding religion and then going back out to sell more crack. If that doesn’t sound complementary, it isn’t meant to be.
Bob Johnson’s BET has more than a few comparisons for drug dealing. Its main adiction it sold were music videos so repulsive in the style and message that no other cable channel would dare play them. Not even the once rebellious MTV. These images of belittling women, and glorification of violence were not the initial programming but the end result. The big pay off. And he sold this to Black audiences because their only choice was to drink sand.
Bob Johnson had the opportunity to present an image of African Americans to the world that is not seen in other media. He could have emphasized the businesses we run, the educations we gain, the success we derive out of difficult and unbalanced situations. He could have promoted the achievements we make in the arts, and the advances we tread in politics. Instead he made a lot of money on the backs of the people he proposed to serve.
And now he plans to do it again.
Urban Television is Bob Johnson’s new brand of crack so to speak. The goals sound lofty, but so did those at BET. The plea to the Government to back his venture are the same he stated before. And you can see the result right now, you might even be in time to see the movie Soul Plane.
Whether or not Bob Johnson launches Urban Television, he’s rich. He might be feeling remorse for the accusations he leveled at Barack Obama during the Democratic Primaries. He might be trying to make amends for the damage that BET has done over the years. He could even make a quality station that really does promote an image of African Americans as anything besides minstrels and pitbulls.
But I for one do not trust his intentions. I do not forget the high ideals he issued before diving to the gutter. I recall all to well his sell-out and escape to the fast lane. I don’t begrudge his money, just the way he got it. And I won’t help him get more.
Bob Johnson is getting back to his roots. That is he is proposing a new Black-oriented television network to compete with his former BET and TV One. And I would equate that to a crack dealer finding religion and then going back out to sell more crack. If that doesn’t sound complementary, it isn’t meant to be.
Bob Johnson’s BET has more than a few comparisons for drug dealing. Its main adiction it sold were music videos so repulsive in the style and message that no other cable channel would dare play them. Not even the once rebellious MTV. These images of belittling women, and glorification of violence were not the initial programming but the end result. The big pay off. And he sold this to Black audiences because their only choice was to drink sand.
Bob Johnson had the opportunity to present an image of African Americans to the world that is not seen in other media. He could have emphasized the businesses we run, the educations we gain, the success we derive out of difficult and unbalanced situations. He could have promoted the achievements we make in the arts, and the advances we tread in politics. Instead he made a lot of money on the backs of the people he proposed to serve.
And now he plans to do it again.
According to an Ion and RLJ joint statement, the proposed share-time arrangement would allow Urban Television to operate “a continuous television program service aimed at serving the needs and interests of urban viewers and traditionally underserved minority communities. Urban Television will be a new addition to the current broadcast channel lineup, and Ion Media Networks will continue to operate its own broadcast networks.”
Urban Television is Bob Johnson’s new brand of crack so to speak. The goals sound lofty, but so did those at BET. The plea to the Government to back his venture are the same he stated before. And you can see the result right now, you might even be in time to see the movie Soul Plane.
Whether or not Bob Johnson launches Urban Television, he’s rich. He might be feeling remorse for the accusations he leveled at Barack Obama during the Democratic Primaries. He might be trying to make amends for the damage that BET has done over the years. He could even make a quality station that really does promote an image of African Americans as anything besides minstrels and pitbulls.
But I for one do not trust his intentions. I do not forget the high ideals he issued before diving to the gutter. I recall all to well his sell-out and escape to the fast lane. I don’t begrudge his money, just the way he got it. And I won’t help him get more.
And The Shield ends
Tonight was the end of The Shield. There are a lot of things that can be said about the episode, far too many, but it’s too soon to say many of them I think. It would be unfair to comment as I think those that missed the episode will be looking forward to Tivo or a rerun that is sure to happen this weekend.
What I will say is the ending is unlike what you might expect, and far more conclusive than say the end of the Sopranos.
Beyond that I want to reflect on the series in general. It has been a tour de force in drama and an example of what can be done on cable television. It has expanded the formerly rote cop drama into something far more powerful and watchable. And that has to do with the reality the program brought to us.
For once we got a cop show that had a precinct that reflected the neighborhood in which it was situated. Unlike even Law & Order, which is diverse, but isolated as well with its focus on a handful of stars. Because this show had several major characters that were of color, police officers and not just primarily the criminals, and at levels of authority.
Perhaps for the first time, if ever on television, we were introduced to police officers that were White and corrupt. We saw a side of the police force that was real, if only a small portion in the real world. And I would bet that there are some in the nation that never bothered to watch the show just because they could not believe in a dishonest police, especially when they are White.
But honestly it wasn’t the race of any person on the show that mattered. It’s important because before this program there was the constant quota system of Hollywood, 1 person of color – normally a secondary character – and 1 woman. But after this show started there seemed to be a plethora of shows on cable that recognized that the world is populated by more than an overabundance of White men. So that is one thing that kept me coming back.
And the show hit on issues that no one touched before in a meaningful way. A gay Black cop, an Hispanic cop that has ambitions for political gain, a Black woman detective seeking the recognition of her years of work, a female cop that wanted to be taken seriously just for her abilities. And that was just in the first season. And only scratching the complexities of the characters at that.
That’s why we all tuned in week after week. Because the raw and honest interaction made sense. There was no quick answers, no ultimate resolutions at the end of a weekly hour-long episode. There were no absolute lines of right and wrong. And only in a place so real could a guy like Mackey thrive.
Well maybe not thrive. Because he is never off his guard. Never safe and happy. Never without a need to look over his back, or to make sure that he has everyone fearing for their private secrets he might expose. And all of that ate away at the man who had the plan.
Vic Mackey is real. He exists in police departments across the nation. And he is a hero, at times. Mostly because it serves his need. Mostly because it give him the freedom to move in the shadows and cracks that always exist in a job that deals with the worst of any society.
I liked this show because it was never safe. Cops got killed. People were betrayed. Tragedies happened at horrible times. And Near perfect plans blew up in people’s faces. It was more of a reality program than American Idol or Survivor, or any of those silly shows ever could be in their best moments.
Am I sad to see the program end? Yes. Do I think Vic Mackey needs to be in jail? It depends on the day and what he has just done. Because he is as much a cure as a poison to the community. Though his need to survive his own machinations makes him ever so much more lethal.
I will miss the honesty, and complexity of this program. I will miss seeing Michael Chiklis weave his emotions and intensity. I will miss the gray that seems to fail to be reflected in all the shows about the legal system supposedly based in reality. But if you missed the season end of the show I suggest you get a copy. Because it’s worth every minute. And the ending is just what I would expect, though I never expected it beforehand.
What I will say is the ending is unlike what you might expect, and far more conclusive than say the end of the Sopranos.
Beyond that I want to reflect on the series in general. It has been a tour de force in drama and an example of what can be done on cable television. It has expanded the formerly rote cop drama into something far more powerful and watchable. And that has to do with the reality the program brought to us.
For once we got a cop show that had a precinct that reflected the neighborhood in which it was situated. Unlike even Law & Order, which is diverse, but isolated as well with its focus on a handful of stars. Because this show had several major characters that were of color, police officers and not just primarily the criminals, and at levels of authority.
Perhaps for the first time, if ever on television, we were introduced to police officers that were White and corrupt. We saw a side of the police force that was real, if only a small portion in the real world. And I would bet that there are some in the nation that never bothered to watch the show just because they could not believe in a dishonest police, especially when they are White.
But honestly it wasn’t the race of any person on the show that mattered. It’s important because before this program there was the constant quota system of Hollywood, 1 person of color – normally a secondary character – and 1 woman. But after this show started there seemed to be a plethora of shows on cable that recognized that the world is populated by more than an overabundance of White men. So that is one thing that kept me coming back.
And the show hit on issues that no one touched before in a meaningful way. A gay Black cop, an Hispanic cop that has ambitions for political gain, a Black woman detective seeking the recognition of her years of work, a female cop that wanted to be taken seriously just for her abilities. And that was just in the first season. And only scratching the complexities of the characters at that.
That’s why we all tuned in week after week. Because the raw and honest interaction made sense. There was no quick answers, no ultimate resolutions at the end of a weekly hour-long episode. There were no absolute lines of right and wrong. And only in a place so real could a guy like Mackey thrive.
Well maybe not thrive. Because he is never off his guard. Never safe and happy. Never without a need to look over his back, or to make sure that he has everyone fearing for their private secrets he might expose. And all of that ate away at the man who had the plan.
Vic Mackey is real. He exists in police departments across the nation. And he is a hero, at times. Mostly because it serves his need. Mostly because it give him the freedom to move in the shadows and cracks that always exist in a job that deals with the worst of any society.
I liked this show because it was never safe. Cops got killed. People were betrayed. Tragedies happened at horrible times. And Near perfect plans blew up in people’s faces. It was more of a reality program than American Idol or Survivor, or any of those silly shows ever could be in their best moments.
Am I sad to see the program end? Yes. Do I think Vic Mackey needs to be in jail? It depends on the day and what he has just done. Because he is as much a cure as a poison to the community. Though his need to survive his own machinations makes him ever so much more lethal.
I will miss the honesty, and complexity of this program. I will miss seeing Michael Chiklis weave his emotions and intensity. I will miss the gray that seems to fail to be reflected in all the shows about the legal system supposedly based in reality. But if you missed the season end of the show I suggest you get a copy. Because it’s worth every minute. And the ending is just what I would expect, though I never expected it beforehand.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Holiday Gift Ideas - part 2
We are working hard and fast at M V Consulting, Inc. to provide our readers with gift options for the upcoming holiday season.
There are several new options available at our online store (http://www.cafepress.com/nova68). The latest is the new male version of the Wanna Ride slogan.
Just as we are fair to the various racial backgrounds of our readers, we are focus on providing something for the male and female visitors as well. But that is not the end of the revamped clothing lines we will be providing. In fact over the next few weeks and months we will be coming out with a new version of all of clothing lines, and then adding several new lines as well
Add to that the fact that we will be creating a special bikini calendar, photos of models in and with our various goods and a few other surprises as well.M V Consulting believes in giving visitors to our online store options they won't find in anywhere else, on the internet or in a store. You can't find these original and unique designs anyplace but from M V Consulting, Inc. And we are always open to hear your suggestions, critiques, and any other comment.
So before you get on the long lines, in the cold, with the crowd this Black Friday We suggest you take a moment and look over the hundreds of items we have available. We're sure you can find something for virtually everyone.
Alan Colmes - the smartest commentor on television?
I was at my weekly pool league game yesterday when the topic of the departure of Alan Colmes from Hannity & Colmes came up. Several people were surprised at the move, and a couple claimed that it’s just what they would expect from Fox News.
Putting aside the far-left promoted misconceptions of Fox News for a moment, I thought about why this might be happening right now. And I also remembered a recent Word of the day from Stephen Colbert – which was on love lost and love found (highly pro-Obama). And I came to a conclusion that was interesting.
I expect that Stephen Colbert will lose his show, and so will several liberal commentators in both television and radio. Also Sean Hannity will lose his #1 rating, and possibly his time slot. The reason is because Democrats now lead the Congress and Presidency. It’s just that simple. After years of promoting liberal issues (Colmes), and (liberals) demonizing in the most personal way President Bush, they are getting out of the way.
Comedians and political satirists on the airwaves have flourished since the 2000 election of President Bush. Besides the fact that he is as eloquent as a stroke victim (no offense meant to those that have suffered this) it was the fact that President Bush won (liberals still say stole) the election by the slimmest of margins. It was taken as a personal slam by many liberals, and they never forgot it. Most of liberal media was motivated by this to attack President Bush on every issue and front they could cover.
For those that chose comedy and were less venom filled than the extremes, there was success. That led to huge moves forward by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as examples. They had an easy target, and they had the support of many liberals. But the most extreme individuals were shunned.
But now there is the media promoted, near flawless (according to many liberal pundits) President Obama. The popularity of this elected official is enormous. As such he cannot do anything but fail these ridiculously high standards placed in front of him. And liberal commentators are realizing that when he fails to keep up to the lofty expectations they will have to critique him harshly. None of them wish to do that.
Add to this the fact that as an African American critique of President Obama will be seen with an eye towards race and race relations. That is an issue America has yet to come to terms with. It’s the dirty secret that everyone knows and few acknowledge. As such comments about President Obama in the negative, from those that lauded him prior to the election will be seen as especially harsh. And that can’t be good for ratings or future career prospects.
So the smartest move is to get out of the way. To let the focus fall on conservatives that oppose the liberal plans of the Democrats. That any opposition will look as if it is entirely partisan (and some of it will be). Thus they can return at a later point and look like shiny defenders of the realm. It’s an interesting political plan, if I am correct.
The problem is that some cannot get out of the way. Like Colbert. And thus he will suffer. Since his television program is meant to mock conservative views, in an Administration of liberal programs he will be hard pressed to mock the Administration and keep the support of his followers. Comedians with similar objectives will face a similar problem. Many will fail as they are too far to the extreme to balance in the new environment.
Alan Colmes may be one of the smartest political pundits the Democrats have. By leaving the #1 rated program on the #1 rated news channel BEFORE President Obama enacts any of his programs (though not before he has broken several campaign promises) he leaves on top. He will continue to support President Obama and the Democrat policies, as an occasional and maybe regular pundit, but that’s not the same.
This will make the views of Sean Hannity seem even more extreme (not to say that several of his views are not already). And it might make some room for critique of President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress to be taken only as partisan. It will definitely make his return, on a more liberal focused program, seem more fair and bi-partisan. Thus Colmes will win big.
All of this makes me see one thing. The news media is far too political and commercialized. There is no room for objective analysis anymore. We have already heard several organizations declare how they slanted their coverage to promote President Obama in the election. Going forward there will be the continuation of this, to the detriment of the public they are supposed to be serving. All in the name of ratings.
And those that critique the politicians, have equally been partisan. Whether it’s David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, or whomever. But their reward will be the loss of much of these ratings. At least at first.
Television and news media coverage of politics are about to change. Many liberals won’t like what it turns out to be. Neither will conservative be thrilled by the media response. In effect, over the next 2 years the public will lose as will the media. If I am correct, Alan Colmes saw this outcome and stepped out of the way. That makes him the smartest commentator on television at the moment.
Putting aside the far-left promoted misconceptions of Fox News for a moment, I thought about why this might be happening right now. And I also remembered a recent Word of the day from Stephen Colbert – which was on love lost and love found (highly pro-Obama). And I came to a conclusion that was interesting.
I expect that Stephen Colbert will lose his show, and so will several liberal commentators in both television and radio. Also Sean Hannity will lose his #1 rating, and possibly his time slot. The reason is because Democrats now lead the Congress and Presidency. It’s just that simple. After years of promoting liberal issues (Colmes), and (liberals) demonizing in the most personal way President Bush, they are getting out of the way.
Comedians and political satirists on the airwaves have flourished since the 2000 election of President Bush. Besides the fact that he is as eloquent as a stroke victim (no offense meant to those that have suffered this) it was the fact that President Bush won (liberals still say stole) the election by the slimmest of margins. It was taken as a personal slam by many liberals, and they never forgot it. Most of liberal media was motivated by this to attack President Bush on every issue and front they could cover.
For those that chose comedy and were less venom filled than the extremes, there was success. That led to huge moves forward by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as examples. They had an easy target, and they had the support of many liberals. But the most extreme individuals were shunned.
But now there is the media promoted, near flawless (according to many liberal pundits) President Obama. The popularity of this elected official is enormous. As such he cannot do anything but fail these ridiculously high standards placed in front of him. And liberal commentators are realizing that when he fails to keep up to the lofty expectations they will have to critique him harshly. None of them wish to do that.
Add to this the fact that as an African American critique of President Obama will be seen with an eye towards race and race relations. That is an issue America has yet to come to terms with. It’s the dirty secret that everyone knows and few acknowledge. As such comments about President Obama in the negative, from those that lauded him prior to the election will be seen as especially harsh. And that can’t be good for ratings or future career prospects.
So the smartest move is to get out of the way. To let the focus fall on conservatives that oppose the liberal plans of the Democrats. That any opposition will look as if it is entirely partisan (and some of it will be). Thus they can return at a later point and look like shiny defenders of the realm. It’s an interesting political plan, if I am correct.
The problem is that some cannot get out of the way. Like Colbert. And thus he will suffer. Since his television program is meant to mock conservative views, in an Administration of liberal programs he will be hard pressed to mock the Administration and keep the support of his followers. Comedians with similar objectives will face a similar problem. Many will fail as they are too far to the extreme to balance in the new environment.
Alan Colmes may be one of the smartest political pundits the Democrats have. By leaving the #1 rated program on the #1 rated news channel BEFORE President Obama enacts any of his programs (though not before he has broken several campaign promises) he leaves on top. He will continue to support President Obama and the Democrat policies, as an occasional and maybe regular pundit, but that’s not the same.
This will make the views of Sean Hannity seem even more extreme (not to say that several of his views are not already). And it might make some room for critique of President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress to be taken only as partisan. It will definitely make his return, on a more liberal focused program, seem more fair and bi-partisan. Thus Colmes will win big.
All of this makes me see one thing. The news media is far too political and commercialized. There is no room for objective analysis anymore. We have already heard several organizations declare how they slanted their coverage to promote President Obama in the election. Going forward there will be the continuation of this, to the detriment of the public they are supposed to be serving. All in the name of ratings.
And those that critique the politicians, have equally been partisan. Whether it’s David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, or whomever. But their reward will be the loss of much of these ratings. At least at first.
Television and news media coverage of politics are about to change. Many liberals won’t like what it turns out to be. Neither will conservative be thrilled by the media response. In effect, over the next 2 years the public will lose as will the media. If I am correct, Alan Colmes saw this outcome and stepped out of the way. That makes him the smartest commentator on television at the moment.
Monday, November 24, 2008
So there a Black guy in an elevator...
Ok, hold the presses. I just saw this video - thanks to On A Whole New Level (which links to my site I found out) - that had me laughing out loud. This is the perfect video about the whole Black man in an elevator situation.
Warning, this contains a small bit of vulgar language that some might find offensive. Of course the subject matter it is dealing with is a whole lot more offensive if you ask me.
Now tell me that wasn't perfect. I had to watch it twice. Thank you ThinkerGoneMad.
Warning, this contains a small bit of vulgar language that some might find offensive. Of course the subject matter it is dealing with is a whole lot more offensive if you ask me.
Now tell me that wasn't perfect. I had to watch it twice. Thank you ThinkerGoneMad.
Tiger Woods and GM, Citigroup and the Mets
Today all eyes are pointing towards Citigroup and what they have been doing, or failing to do. Thousands have lost their jobs, tens of billions of dollars are being poured into the company. And unlike AIG, Citigroup is not sending their employees to luxury spas for a breather. Nor are they giving up on celebrity endorsements like GM with Tiger Woods. No, they are putting their name on the Mets baseball stadium for $400 million of your tax dollars.
Wow.
I mean what else can be said here. Citigroup is going forward with putting their name on a stadium (a policy I dislike in all stadiums) with your money as 401k’s and taxes are used to fund it. No wonder they ran through the intial $25 billion the Government gave them. And Congress is asking AIG and the auto industry for reforms and guarantees. For over a year now, no one thought this expenditure was worth noting? Hey Barney Frank, you didn’t get a memo on this – Mr. Head of the Banking Committee.
I mean GM has bailed out of their deal with Tiger Woods. They bought themselves out of their deal a year early. I’m sure it cost them more than a bit to do so, but at least they did something to save a few bucks. And I’m sure Tiger was more than happy to let them do it.
Tiger Woods is too big a brand to be tied to the failure of the auto industry. The last thing he needs is the media tying him to a huge payout funded by an auto bailout. That would be bad for his image, bad for PGA golf, and America. Nobody wins in that scenario. And I doubt he is hurting for the money.
Of course GM is losing the worst. Tiger looks like a hero for saving the company money. He can easily say that he does not want to be paid at the price of workers jobs, or taxpayer debt increases. And that would be true. But GM looks like an idiot for not moving forward sooner. And losing Tiger, the Super Bowl ads, and who knows what other advertising means fewer cars sold.
But at least this looks a little bit better for them after their luxury corporate jet trip to ask Congress for billions of dollars.
Citigroup on the other hand could care less. At least that’s what it looks like. They are spending more useless money than Tiger’s endorsement (the full 5 year deal), buying a new corporate jet, all the Super Bowl ads, and the AIG spa trips put together and multiplied by 10. At the very least will shareholders get a discount to go to Mets’ games in 2009. Even 1 game in the baseball season? I doubt it.
The big question is will this reflect badly on the Mets. They are getting paid a stupid amount of money, as is New York City, to have the field given this dumb name. There are thousands of employees of Citigroup that work in the corporate headquarters in NYC. How will they feel watching the Mets play, knowing that the field’s name cost them their job. Or anyone who invested in Citigroup. They might have lost the ability to go to games, or even to live in their home, because of the stock devaluation due to the mismanagement and they have to watch this team play in a place that sucked their money away.
Mets fans always have had it rough, being in the same city as the Yankees. But this is a new thing that really doesn’t have anything to do with baseball, yet it may well have a massive impact on the game.
And if you are wondering why Citigroup didn’t do something back in January (at the latest) when they knew things were getting bad? Its because they were sure of one thing. They are too big to fail. They can waste money like a drunk pissing on the side of a building. It is wrong, but they don’t care. And the Government knows it.
But let me ask you which you think is worse. Is it worse to lose Tiger Woods’ endorsement, and ads during the Super Bowl and ask for money, or to spend money on the name of a baseball field and demand the public pay for it? Then let me know why you think Congress (especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) seems to think GM is the bigger bad guy.
Wow.
I mean what else can be said here. Citigroup is going forward with putting their name on a stadium (a policy I dislike in all stadiums) with your money as 401k’s and taxes are used to fund it. No wonder they ran through the intial $25 billion the Government gave them. And Congress is asking AIG and the auto industry for reforms and guarantees. For over a year now, no one thought this expenditure was worth noting? Hey Barney Frank, you didn’t get a memo on this – Mr. Head of the Banking Committee.
I mean GM has bailed out of their deal with Tiger Woods. They bought themselves out of their deal a year early. I’m sure it cost them more than a bit to do so, but at least they did something to save a few bucks. And I’m sure Tiger was more than happy to let them do it.
Tiger Woods is too big a brand to be tied to the failure of the auto industry. The last thing he needs is the media tying him to a huge payout funded by an auto bailout. That would be bad for his image, bad for PGA golf, and America. Nobody wins in that scenario. And I doubt he is hurting for the money.
Of course GM is losing the worst. Tiger looks like a hero for saving the company money. He can easily say that he does not want to be paid at the price of workers jobs, or taxpayer debt increases. And that would be true. But GM looks like an idiot for not moving forward sooner. And losing Tiger, the Super Bowl ads, and who knows what other advertising means fewer cars sold.
But at least this looks a little bit better for them after their luxury corporate jet trip to ask Congress for billions of dollars.
Citigroup on the other hand could care less. At least that’s what it looks like. They are spending more useless money than Tiger’s endorsement (the full 5 year deal), buying a new corporate jet, all the Super Bowl ads, and the AIG spa trips put together and multiplied by 10. At the very least will shareholders get a discount to go to Mets’ games in 2009. Even 1 game in the baseball season? I doubt it.
The big question is will this reflect badly on the Mets. They are getting paid a stupid amount of money, as is New York City, to have the field given this dumb name. There are thousands of employees of Citigroup that work in the corporate headquarters in NYC. How will they feel watching the Mets play, knowing that the field’s name cost them their job. Or anyone who invested in Citigroup. They might have lost the ability to go to games, or even to live in their home, because of the stock devaluation due to the mismanagement and they have to watch this team play in a place that sucked their money away.
Mets fans always have had it rough, being in the same city as the Yankees. But this is a new thing that really doesn’t have anything to do with baseball, yet it may well have a massive impact on the game.
And if you are wondering why Citigroup didn’t do something back in January (at the latest) when they knew things were getting bad? Its because they were sure of one thing. They are too big to fail. They can waste money like a drunk pissing on the side of a building. It is wrong, but they don’t care. And the Government knows it.
But let me ask you which you think is worse. Is it worse to lose Tiger Woods’ endorsement, and ads during the Super Bowl and ask for money, or to spend money on the name of a baseball field and demand the public pay for it? Then let me know why you think Congress (especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) seems to think GM is the bigger bad guy.
Nerf - too real or just right?
I was speaking with friends about the state of Black buying power, the economy, and what I noticed about the Audi television commercial when the subject of Nerf toys came up. It may sound odd but it made sense in the course of the conversation. With the holiday season about to go full blast with Black Friday mere days away, there is no end to commercials targeting the latest gadget that a kid today might want. But the question is what are they really getting?
I remember Nerf from almost the beginning. The first Nerf toy I recall was the Nerf football. They were spongy and small, but cheap and useful indoors as well as in the street. You only need to throw one bad pass that hits a car or a window to appreciate the Nerf foam. In the middle of the Bronx playing in the street you are bound to hit one or the other. So suffice to say I have fond memories of Nerf.
And then as I grew up, Nerf grew up faster. And not only for my generation, for all of the ones afterwards as well. Their were Nerf guns of every sort, but at first there was no comparison to an actual gun in any manner. On Saturday I noticed the latest toy commercial from Hasbro, the NERF N-STRIKE LONGSHOT CS-6
What the hell has happened. Nerf is selling guns, military guns to kids. The abovementioned toy is a kids version of a sniper rifle. And there is the NERF N-STRIKE VULCAN EBF-25 YELLOW
which I defy anyone from describing as not looking like a SAW or M60 machinegun. And people wonder if kids are getting violent because of video games.
Now I’m not against guns, nor do I think kids shouldn’t be allowed to rough-house. It’s part of growing up and it has it’s own lessons to teach kids. Within reason.
There is a big difference between kids playing cops and robbers, to planning out and executing small squad tatical assaults. There is a dramatic difference of teaching a kid to hunt and respect a weapon and sitting in the backyard with a foam sniper rifle waiting for the neighbor to get home. It’s just wrong. And there is no comparison to when I grew up.
Yes kids live in a world with terrorists, 24 hour news, drive-by shootings, and drug gang wars. Given. Still how helpful can it be when we are arming these children and sending them out to play wargames with weapons fashioned after the military? How can we be surprised when some of these same kids go out and use a real gun?
I’m not blaming Columbine, or the recent double murder committed by an 8 year old, on Nerf. Nor is it guns that I am upset by. A gun is no more dangerous than a rock, until it is picked up with intent. I’m upset with the media and parents.
The media selectively chooses to pick on aspects of the lives of children to blame when something goes wrong. Oblivious to the force-feeding they do in the name of marketing and advertising dollars. They blame video games for more violent kids, while advertising those games and more importantly these real world military assault weapon substitutes. And then say they have no connection to the problem at hand.
And parents that buy these toys for their kids. What are they thinking? That if they give little Tommy a gun similar to the one in their video game, and send them outside to shoot the neighborhood kids, it’s ok because they got him up from the television set? IF that’s the choice, leave them on the video game At least some of those games involve creatures that can never be confused with a human being.
I admit that I like the Nerf Longshot. Then again I am a 40 year old man, that served in the military, and find the resemblence of the toy to a sniper rifle appealing on a level. I can’t begin to imagine what a 6 year old (which this toy is recommended for) is going to think. I can’t imagine how a parent can convince that child that their toy is not like the gun in the attic that looks the same. How they might explain why it’s ok to shoot someone with this rather realistic toy but wrong to do the same with its real counterpart.
I’m not against guns. But I am for the responsibility that goes along with gun ownwership – which in my mind includes replicas and toys made in that same image and style. And I can’t see a responsible way to own these toys and not create a conflict.
I’m single, my friends I spoke with on this subject are all adults some with grown children. None of us either have kids in the range of 6 – 15 or at all. So this is a question we could not resolve. But some of my readers surely do have kids in that age range right now. So I want to know what do you think.
Are these Nerf guns too realistic? Is there a difference in a kid’s mind? Is there a way to play with this toy that is not indicative of harm to fellow human beings? Can young children understand the difference?
I remember Nerf from almost the beginning. The first Nerf toy I recall was the Nerf football. They were spongy and small, but cheap and useful indoors as well as in the street. You only need to throw one bad pass that hits a car or a window to appreciate the Nerf foam. In the middle of the Bronx playing in the street you are bound to hit one or the other. So suffice to say I have fond memories of Nerf.
And then as I grew up, Nerf grew up faster. And not only for my generation, for all of the ones afterwards as well. Their were Nerf guns of every sort, but at first there was no comparison to an actual gun in any manner. On Saturday I noticed the latest toy commercial from Hasbro, the NERF N-STRIKE LONGSHOT CS-6
What the hell has happened. Nerf is selling guns, military guns to kids. The abovementioned toy is a kids version of a sniper rifle. And there is the NERF N-STRIKE VULCAN EBF-25 YELLOW
which I defy anyone from describing as not looking like a SAW or M60 machinegun. And people wonder if kids are getting violent because of video games.Now I’m not against guns, nor do I think kids shouldn’t be allowed to rough-house. It’s part of growing up and it has it’s own lessons to teach kids. Within reason.
There is a big difference between kids playing cops and robbers, to planning out and executing small squad tatical assaults. There is a dramatic difference of teaching a kid to hunt and respect a weapon and sitting in the backyard with a foam sniper rifle waiting for the neighbor to get home. It’s just wrong. And there is no comparison to when I grew up.
Yes kids live in a world with terrorists, 24 hour news, drive-by shootings, and drug gang wars. Given. Still how helpful can it be when we are arming these children and sending them out to play wargames with weapons fashioned after the military? How can we be surprised when some of these same kids go out and use a real gun?
I’m not blaming Columbine, or the recent double murder committed by an 8 year old, on Nerf. Nor is it guns that I am upset by. A gun is no more dangerous than a rock, until it is picked up with intent. I’m upset with the media and parents.
The media selectively chooses to pick on aspects of the lives of children to blame when something goes wrong. Oblivious to the force-feeding they do in the name of marketing and advertising dollars. They blame video games for more violent kids, while advertising those games and more importantly these real world military assault weapon substitutes. And then say they have no connection to the problem at hand.
And parents that buy these toys for their kids. What are they thinking? That if they give little Tommy a gun similar to the one in their video game, and send them outside to shoot the neighborhood kids, it’s ok because they got him up from the television set? IF that’s the choice, leave them on the video game At least some of those games involve creatures that can never be confused with a human being.
I admit that I like the Nerf Longshot. Then again I am a 40 year old man, that served in the military, and find the resemblence of the toy to a sniper rifle appealing on a level. I can’t begin to imagine what a 6 year old (which this toy is recommended for) is going to think. I can’t imagine how a parent can convince that child that their toy is not like the gun in the attic that looks the same. How they might explain why it’s ok to shoot someone with this rather realistic toy but wrong to do the same with its real counterpart.
I’m not against guns. But I am for the responsibility that goes along with gun ownwership – which in my mind includes replicas and toys made in that same image and style. And I can’t see a responsible way to own these toys and not create a conflict.
I’m single, my friends I spoke with on this subject are all adults some with grown children. None of us either have kids in the range of 6 – 15 or at all. So this is a question we could not resolve. But some of my readers surely do have kids in that age range right now. So I want to know what do you think.
Are these Nerf guns too realistic? Is there a difference in a kid’s mind? Is there a way to play with this toy that is not indicative of harm to fellow human beings? Can young children understand the difference?
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Audi television commercial says we are all not the same
Ah the holiday season. It’s a time of credit card debt, long lines at shopping malls and department stores, and occasionally a truly inspired television commercial. I recall somewhere in the back of my mind a time around now that would be called the Thanksgiving and then Christmas Holidays and family gatherings, but that’s a bit fuzzy and a long time ago. And it’s not my point.
The television commercials promoting the purchases you need to make to ensure the happiness of your loved ones are interesting. Often television can provide dramatic insight to the real mood and thoughts of the nation. This is never more true than during a holiday, or the Super Bowl. And Audi really made a statement early into the season.
Now I have to admit that I did not notice the problem in this commercial the first time I saw it. It was a friend of mine who saw it on Friday and asked if I had noticed something glaring in the commercial. I finally found a copy of it and I wonder if you will see the problem.
You only need to pay attention to the details of the commercial to get the message. It’s subtle and visual, and only on for 2 seconds.
Need help? I did at first too. Look at the road that each guy gets. It’s not the design of the road, it’s the size of it. And that says a lot, especially when each home is considered too.
The Black couple have a piece of the road, a very small piece. They have a decent if not plainly decorated home. There is no extravagance, and their clothes are neither new nor impressive.
The next couple is White. They have a far bigger piece of road. The style the room is decorated in seems to imply an apartment while the art, furniture, lamps, and books imply white-collar professionals. That means the apartment is a condo. And this implies a higher income than the Black couple.
The last couple are also White (or at least the man is, and the woman could be argued to have some Latina traits though I don’t see it). They have a huge home, and an equally large section of road.
I realize that Audi included middle-class African Americans in their commercial. I know they are projecting an image of success for them as well. And obviously they want African American customers. But that’s just a secondary thought. They really are saying that they want White customers. And that they value White customers over Black ones.
Some might say I am overly critical of the television commercial. I think not, because when you have only 30 seconds to make a statement everything that is seen is part of your message. There are teams of people making more than I do each, pouring over every detail in this commercial and then another group of even better paid people that approve the idea and pitch it to Audi. And then Audi’s really well paid people go over it all before it gets a greenlight.
Audi doesn’t care if Billy Joe working at the gas station likes the commercial. They don’t care if Santiago working at the printing company watched the commercial. They want people with money and tons of it. And that is reflected in the commercial.
What the commercial really says is if you are Black and can put some money together you might be able to own an Audi. If you are a yuppie in the city you can own their car, and if you relax at the country club you are a member of on the weekend and live in the suburbs you need to own this car. Because it’s the White guy with the big house that gets the car in the end.
Now I will say again that I didn’t pay attention to this commercial the first time I saw it. But I have watched it since a few times. And I’m happy that Audi has joined the growing number of companies targeting African Americans for their products. It’s nice to see that at least commercials are willing to acknowledge the existence of, and buying power controlled by, African Americans. They are ahead of television programming that continues to emphasize a view of the world more akin to 1960 than 2000.
But that does not mean I enjoy the message they are sending out. It’s not as bad as the insulting commercials that McDonald’s puts out that are obvious in their targeting of African Americans via stereotypes in the media. But the message is not as positive as it could have been either. Simply having all the pieces of the road the same size (hell they could have used the same piece for all it mattered) would have been enough. A simple statement that all the customers that could afford an Audi are equal in their eyes, and welcome. But that isn’t what they believe according to their commercial.
Again, commercials are the window to the thoughts in the back of the collective minds of the nation. It’s the backhanded compliment (like when Colin Powell and President Obama are called clean and articulate), or the obliviousness of using terms based on racial segregation and Jim Crow that thankfully stopped being used 25 years ago (Lindsey Lohan ring a bell?).
I’m not saying that every commercial has to include African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Indians (who you really never see at all) and every other group in America. But I am saying that when the majority of commercials exclude all these groups, and when the small portion that do show us imply imperfections and secondary status, I speak on it. It means to me that America still has a long way to go. That it’s not just people in Pennsylvania or West Virginia that have problems. That the world continues to feed upon the negative images our media provides, diminishing the nation by diminishing parts of our nation.
Do I like the Audi? Yes I do. Would I buy one after seeing this commercial? I might. But what I would rather see are commercials for whatever product that includes people just like me, in exactly the same manner as they target anyone else. Because I have the same Rights, money, and dammit I have earned it.
The television commercials promoting the purchases you need to make to ensure the happiness of your loved ones are interesting. Often television can provide dramatic insight to the real mood and thoughts of the nation. This is never more true than during a holiday, or the Super Bowl. And Audi really made a statement early into the season.
Now I have to admit that I did not notice the problem in this commercial the first time I saw it. It was a friend of mine who saw it on Friday and asked if I had noticed something glaring in the commercial. I finally found a copy of it and I wonder if you will see the problem.
You only need to pay attention to the details of the commercial to get the message. It’s subtle and visual, and only on for 2 seconds.
Need help? I did at first too. Look at the road that each guy gets. It’s not the design of the road, it’s the size of it. And that says a lot, especially when each home is considered too.
The Black couple have a piece of the road, a very small piece. They have a decent if not plainly decorated home. There is no extravagance, and their clothes are neither new nor impressive.
The next couple is White. They have a far bigger piece of road. The style the room is decorated in seems to imply an apartment while the art, furniture, lamps, and books imply white-collar professionals. That means the apartment is a condo. And this implies a higher income than the Black couple.
The last couple are also White (or at least the man is, and the woman could be argued to have some Latina traits though I don’t see it). They have a huge home, and an equally large section of road.
I realize that Audi included middle-class African Americans in their commercial. I know they are projecting an image of success for them as well. And obviously they want African American customers. But that’s just a secondary thought. They really are saying that they want White customers. And that they value White customers over Black ones.
Some might say I am overly critical of the television commercial. I think not, because when you have only 30 seconds to make a statement everything that is seen is part of your message. There are teams of people making more than I do each, pouring over every detail in this commercial and then another group of even better paid people that approve the idea and pitch it to Audi. And then Audi’s really well paid people go over it all before it gets a greenlight.
Audi doesn’t care if Billy Joe working at the gas station likes the commercial. They don’t care if Santiago working at the printing company watched the commercial. They want people with money and tons of it. And that is reflected in the commercial.
What the commercial really says is if you are Black and can put some money together you might be able to own an Audi. If you are a yuppie in the city you can own their car, and if you relax at the country club you are a member of on the weekend and live in the suburbs you need to own this car. Because it’s the White guy with the big house that gets the car in the end.
Now I will say again that I didn’t pay attention to this commercial the first time I saw it. But I have watched it since a few times. And I’m happy that Audi has joined the growing number of companies targeting African Americans for their products. It’s nice to see that at least commercials are willing to acknowledge the existence of, and buying power controlled by, African Americans. They are ahead of television programming that continues to emphasize a view of the world more akin to 1960 than 2000.
But that does not mean I enjoy the message they are sending out. It’s not as bad as the insulting commercials that McDonald’s puts out that are obvious in their targeting of African Americans via stereotypes in the media. But the message is not as positive as it could have been either. Simply having all the pieces of the road the same size (hell they could have used the same piece for all it mattered) would have been enough. A simple statement that all the customers that could afford an Audi are equal in their eyes, and welcome. But that isn’t what they believe according to their commercial.
Again, commercials are the window to the thoughts in the back of the collective minds of the nation. It’s the backhanded compliment (like when Colin Powell and President Obama are called clean and articulate), or the obliviousness of using terms based on racial segregation and Jim Crow that thankfully stopped being used 25 years ago (Lindsey Lohan ring a bell?).
I’m not saying that every commercial has to include African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Indians (who you really never see at all) and every other group in America. But I am saying that when the majority of commercials exclude all these groups, and when the small portion that do show us imply imperfections and secondary status, I speak on it. It means to me that America still has a long way to go. That it’s not just people in Pennsylvania or West Virginia that have problems. That the world continues to feed upon the negative images our media provides, diminishing the nation by diminishing parts of our nation.
Do I like the Audi? Yes I do. Would I buy one after seeing this commercial? I might. But what I would rather see are commercials for whatever product that includes people just like me, in exactly the same manner as they target anyone else. Because I have the same Rights, money, and dammit I have earned it.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Did Prince say it?
The question is really what does Prince think. So far there is the voice of the New Yorker which states that Prince said
Then there is Perez Hilton who quotes an annonymous source close to Prince that says Prince is upset, and misquoted.
My first problem is that an annonymous source is never reliable. It could be anyone, the gardner, the maid, the mailman or it could actually be someone close to Prince. There is just no way to tell.
Since Prince himself has yet to say anything directly, I have to believe that the New Yorker is correct. If they weren’t, well a lawsuit would surely reach their offices by now. So annonymous source or not I believe it is true.
In addition to that there is the fact, which many media sources seem incapable of understanding, that Prince has recently become very religious. His focus on religion came well after the 80’s and the multiple sexually charged records, performances, and outfits that Prince is well known for. So it does not strike me odd that he could have a song like Darling Nikki, and be highly religious. They didn’t happen at the same time so why can’t he have his views? Probably because the same Democrats (or liberal media if you prefer) the quote refers to can’t understand a person changing their mind to more conservative views at a later (possibly wiser) point in their lives.
Of course I’m sure that San Franscico is losing its collective mind yet again. But in looking at the quote again, I don’t hear Prince saying that this is the only viewpoint or that his religion is best for everyone. He was stating his view, which matches his religion. So how that affects what America does I’m not sure. Especially since the majority of Americans are not Jehovah's Witness.
But again it brings up a point I’ve made in the past, and that several gay friends of mine either agree or disagree with depending on the person. The argument is the wrong one. It’s a fight over a word, and not the most important one at that.
Marriage is meant as the unification of a man and a woman for life, to achieve progeny that will continue the human species. Basically you get married so your kids know their parents and have a stable home. Everything else about marriage is baggage we have thrown on it.
Homosexuals are not capable of procreation with their partner without scientific intervention, or adultery (if they were married). So it violates the prime reason for marriage. Thus what gay proponents want is the equal rights of a married couple, not a word. They want the same ability to gain healthcare, advize treatments, insurance coverage, and so on. Which I have no problem with.
But to fight for a word gains none of those things. It only pisses off religious groups, and creates heated battles that cause anyone not on one or another side of the extreme to back away from the debate altogether. Which then causes the goal to be that much harder to secure. Which is basically where things are now.
I bet if the fight over the word marriage stopped tomorrow, and the focus became respecting the committed relationship of 2 people and ensuring their rights we’d see many more people agree. Legislation would be infinitely more easy to pass, and support from some of those opposed to the marriage word issue would be gained. It all just gets much simpler. Because the point of angst for many is removed, and few in America would deny basic rights to any person.
Now that isn’t what Prince said. Nor do I believe that is what he means. But that is his opinion. He has a right to it. And the amazement of some in the media really needs to stop. Prince isn’t banging down the doors of Congress. He just is stating that there is a middle ground that is likely the best answer to the question at hand.
“You've got the Republicans, and basically they want to live according to [the Bible]. But there's the problem of interpretation, and you've got some churches, some people, basically doing things and saying it comes from here, but it doesn't. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum you've got blue, you've got the Democrats, and they're, like, 'You can do whatever you want.' Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right."
Then there is Perez Hilton who quotes an annonymous source close to Prince that says Prince is upset, and misquoted.
My first problem is that an annonymous source is never reliable. It could be anyone, the gardner, the maid, the mailman or it could actually be someone close to Prince. There is just no way to tell.
Since Prince himself has yet to say anything directly, I have to believe that the New Yorker is correct. If they weren’t, well a lawsuit would surely reach their offices by now. So annonymous source or not I believe it is true.
In addition to that there is the fact, which many media sources seem incapable of understanding, that Prince has recently become very religious. His focus on religion came well after the 80’s and the multiple sexually charged records, performances, and outfits that Prince is well known for. So it does not strike me odd that he could have a song like Darling Nikki, and be highly religious. They didn’t happen at the same time so why can’t he have his views? Probably because the same Democrats (or liberal media if you prefer) the quote refers to can’t understand a person changing their mind to more conservative views at a later (possibly wiser) point in their lives.
Of course I’m sure that San Franscico is losing its collective mind yet again. But in looking at the quote again, I don’t hear Prince saying that this is the only viewpoint or that his religion is best for everyone. He was stating his view, which matches his religion. So how that affects what America does I’m not sure. Especially since the majority of Americans are not Jehovah's Witness.
But again it brings up a point I’ve made in the past, and that several gay friends of mine either agree or disagree with depending on the person. The argument is the wrong one. It’s a fight over a word, and not the most important one at that.
Marriage is meant as the unification of a man and a woman for life, to achieve progeny that will continue the human species. Basically you get married so your kids know their parents and have a stable home. Everything else about marriage is baggage we have thrown on it.
Homosexuals are not capable of procreation with their partner without scientific intervention, or adultery (if they were married). So it violates the prime reason for marriage. Thus what gay proponents want is the equal rights of a married couple, not a word. They want the same ability to gain healthcare, advize treatments, insurance coverage, and so on. Which I have no problem with.
But to fight for a word gains none of those things. It only pisses off religious groups, and creates heated battles that cause anyone not on one or another side of the extreme to back away from the debate altogether. Which then causes the goal to be that much harder to secure. Which is basically where things are now.
I bet if the fight over the word marriage stopped tomorrow, and the focus became respecting the committed relationship of 2 people and ensuring their rights we’d see many more people agree. Legislation would be infinitely more easy to pass, and support from some of those opposed to the marriage word issue would be gained. It all just gets much simpler. Because the point of angst for many is removed, and few in America would deny basic rights to any person.
Now that isn’t what Prince said. Nor do I believe that is what he means. But that is his opinion. He has a right to it. And the amazement of some in the media really needs to stop. Prince isn’t banging down the doors of Congress. He just is stating that there is a middle ground that is likely the best answer to the question at hand.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Is Chinese Democracy good? You win even if it's not
Guns n’ Roses’ can be called many things. Sporadic, drugged, crazed, genius, lyrical, inspirational all have been used and fit well to this band. Perhaps this can all best be ascribed to lead singer Axl Rose, a man with a plethora of issues, passion, demons, and intensity. And it can be said that Axl’s many weaknesses are his strengths as well. But one of the short-comings of the band he famously heads will soon be naught but the memories of the past.
It’s been more than a decade since Guns n’ Roses’ last released an album. The upcoming album Chinese Democracy has been worked on and redone since 1994. And most believed that it would be the equivalent of Meatloaf topping Bat Out of Hell. It just won’t happen. But all things are probable, even the improbable (as a certain engine proved).
Thus Chinese Democracy is going to come out in a mere handful of days. Most in Rock and Roll are more than just a bit surprised. And no one is sure what to really expect. Well no one except a blogger that placed early bits of the album on his blog, and was rudely awoken by the police because of it.
Will this be a good album? Will it be worth the wait? To be honest, I doubt it. Anything that takes that long to make, and is not destined to operate in outer space is most likely to be a ruinous waste of time. There might be a song or 2 that are ok, but the rest will fail miserably. The past glory will remain in the past – no matter the sales of all the curious.
But even if this new album is a complete waste of time, an utter disgrace confirming that some things are best left undone, you will be able to gain something from the effort. And you won’t even need to buy anything to get it. Yes you can be rewarded for the sweat, humiliation, and decade of work laid out by Axl Rose. Courtesy of Dr. Pepper.
Back in March of this year Dr. Pepper bet that Chinese Democracy was as likely to be released this year as Hillary Clinton becoming the sweetheart of America. Senator Hillary Clinton is still despised by some 50% of the nation (including more than a few in the Obama camp), but Dr. Pepper lost their bet. And that means that every person in America wins. You are now entitled to a free 20 ounce Dr. Pepper. Talk about buying a round for the house.
As of 12:01 Sunday you will have one day to get a coupon, at their website located at www.drpepper.com, which will be good until Feb. 28, 2009. That coupon will get you your free drink.
I have to admit that I never thought they would do this. It’s rare to see a major corporation live up to the letter of their word – when it’s costing them money. Then again the release of Guns n’ Roses’ album is even more rare an occurrence.
It’s been more than a decade since Guns n’ Roses’ last released an album. The upcoming album Chinese Democracy has been worked on and redone since 1994. And most believed that it would be the equivalent of Meatloaf topping Bat Out of Hell. It just won’t happen. But all things are probable, even the improbable (as a certain engine proved).
Thus Chinese Democracy is going to come out in a mere handful of days. Most in Rock and Roll are more than just a bit surprised. And no one is sure what to really expect. Well no one except a blogger that placed early bits of the album on his blog, and was rudely awoken by the police because of it.
Will this be a good album? Will it be worth the wait? To be honest, I doubt it. Anything that takes that long to make, and is not destined to operate in outer space is most likely to be a ruinous waste of time. There might be a song or 2 that are ok, but the rest will fail miserably. The past glory will remain in the past – no matter the sales of all the curious.
But even if this new album is a complete waste of time, an utter disgrace confirming that some things are best left undone, you will be able to gain something from the effort. And you won’t even need to buy anything to get it. Yes you can be rewarded for the sweat, humiliation, and decade of work laid out by Axl Rose. Courtesy of Dr. Pepper.
Back in March of this year Dr. Pepper bet that Chinese Democracy was as likely to be released this year as Hillary Clinton becoming the sweetheart of America. Senator Hillary Clinton is still despised by some 50% of the nation (including more than a few in the Obama camp), but Dr. Pepper lost their bet. And that means that every person in America wins. You are now entitled to a free 20 ounce Dr. Pepper. Talk about buying a round for the house.
As of 12:01 Sunday you will have one day to get a coupon, at their website located at www.drpepper.com, which will be good until Feb. 28, 2009. That coupon will get you your free drink.
I have to admit that I never thought they would do this. It’s rare to see a major corporation live up to the letter of their word – when it’s costing them money. Then again the release of Guns n’ Roses’ album is even more rare an occurrence.
Holiday gift ideas – from M V Consulting, Inc.
I recently displayed the new Wanna Ride? line of clothing at my online store (www.cafepress.com/nova68). And I promised that there would be more on the way. I always work hard to live up to my promises.
So in addition to
the Wanna Ride? selection of mousepads, coffee mugs, t-shirts, Teddy bears, sweats, thongs, and other items I present the new Cowboy line.The new Cowboy line is a strong statement of self. It looks good in t-shirts, steins, pet water bowls, calendars, hats, hooded sweatshirts, and over a dozen other items. And the design is another original from HB Designs made exclusively for M V Consulting, Inc. So you can be sure this is a unique gift for anyone on your Holiday lists, or yourself.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are even more unique clothing designs being worked on as we speak, covering thoughts from the sexy to the flirty to just funny. And each unique clothing design will be available on dozens of styles of clothing, and a huge assortment of other products like boxer shorts, kitchen aprons, keepsake boxes, throw pillows, coffee mugs, gift cards, 2009 calendars, coaster tiles, and more.
Out of the hundreds of items available, there is definitely something for everyone including yourself. And they all can be purchased from the warmth and ease of your home and/or office. So just click here and take a look at what is available.
Keep an eye out for our model photos that will be coming soon. This way you can see real people in the various clothing designs at our online store.
Sincerely,
Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
info@vassconsult.com
** If you wish to submit a design or clothing idea please contact us.
And we are always interested in new models – male or female, of every race and age – for our photo shoots. If you wish to be considered please send a photo with your contact information to us here.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Jazz otaku - the things you learn
When you think of Jazz music what comes to your mind? Take a moment, I’ll wait.
Now some might instantly come up with Miles Davis, or Herbie Hancock. Others might be thinking of Etta James. Some might envision the 1950’s in America, or perhaps Harlem in its heyday. For me all of these and other aspects of jazz come to mind. But I just learned of one aspect that I doubt most would come upon.
Jazz and Japan.
The 2 sound like an odd mix. It almost jars the mind to conceptualize the 2 together. But Jazz coffeeshops have long maintained the connection in Japan.
It is a post about Professor Michael Molasky of the University of Minnesota that provided me the connection that these 2 share. He is also a jazz pianist, and spent a year searching out the jazz coffeehouses. And in them he found a rich history which he shared with an audience at UCLA.
In reading about Prof. Molasky I found out that jazz was first introduced in coffeeshops in 1929. Of course the first such establishment was across from the University of Tokyo. And at the time jazz was not associated with African Americans by the general populace.
Even in the 1950’s when French films incorporated jazz wholesale there remained a separation of the expression and power of jazz and African Americans. But that changed in 1961 when Art Blakey did a tour of Japan. It was the first time multitudes of Japanese were able to see a Black man, let alone connect them to jazz music. Which in a way I find amazing.
I find it hard to understand how jazz could be separated from the artists and musicians that created it. That a music genre could be so isolated from those that created it. Of course there was no cable television, not music videos, so to a degree it is understandable. And when you add in the fact that the cost of audio equipment and foreign music was prohibitive to most Japanese people it make a tinge more sense. Yet for the otaku (roughly geeks or hardcore fans) I would have expected a different take.
Still Prof. Molasky expressed that it was the connection of Art Blakey and jazz that had many Japanese people not only going to the jazz coffeeshops, but also intensely following the Civil Rights Movement. Again this was something I was unaware of. I had no idea that anyone in Japan cared. Not because they were racist or anything of that nature, just because they are so far removed physically and socially.
Of course jazz in Japan was an inspiration, just as it was and is in America today. It was a feature with the Japanese Student Movement, influenced Nobel Prize winner Oe Kensaburo, and provided a living to Haruki Murakami.
All of this were things I had no idea of. I’ve always enjoyed jazz, and knew of its influence in Europe. But I always felt that the biggest impact was just here in the U.S. It seems that I was very wrong, and niaeve.
For me, I find it refreshing to have learned all of this. It’s a bit of humbling, and moreso learning. It makes my appreciation of jazz all the more stronger. And it makes the world just that much more friendly.
And for my readers that have never ventured far from the reheated refuse that is gangsta rap, or the overly commercialized R&B of these days, I suggest you check out jazz. There is more there than you might imagine. Just as I have learned today.
Now some might instantly come up with Miles Davis, or Herbie Hancock. Others might be thinking of Etta James. Some might envision the 1950’s in America, or perhaps Harlem in its heyday. For me all of these and other aspects of jazz come to mind. But I just learned of one aspect that I doubt most would come upon.
Jazz and Japan.
The 2 sound like an odd mix. It almost jars the mind to conceptualize the 2 together. But Jazz coffeeshops have long maintained the connection in Japan.
It is a post about Professor Michael Molasky of the University of Minnesota that provided me the connection that these 2 share. He is also a jazz pianist, and spent a year searching out the jazz coffeehouses. And in them he found a rich history which he shared with an audience at UCLA.
In reading about Prof. Molasky I found out that jazz was first introduced in coffeeshops in 1929. Of course the first such establishment was across from the University of Tokyo. And at the time jazz was not associated with African Americans by the general populace.
Even in the 1950’s when French films incorporated jazz wholesale there remained a separation of the expression and power of jazz and African Americans. But that changed in 1961 when Art Blakey did a tour of Japan. It was the first time multitudes of Japanese were able to see a Black man, let alone connect them to jazz music. Which in a way I find amazing.
I find it hard to understand how jazz could be separated from the artists and musicians that created it. That a music genre could be so isolated from those that created it. Of course there was no cable television, not music videos, so to a degree it is understandable. And when you add in the fact that the cost of audio equipment and foreign music was prohibitive to most Japanese people it make a tinge more sense. Yet for the otaku (roughly geeks or hardcore fans) I would have expected a different take.
Still Prof. Molasky expressed that it was the connection of Art Blakey and jazz that had many Japanese people not only going to the jazz coffeeshops, but also intensely following the Civil Rights Movement. Again this was something I was unaware of. I had no idea that anyone in Japan cared. Not because they were racist or anything of that nature, just because they are so far removed physically and socially.
Of course jazz in Japan was an inspiration, just as it was and is in America today. It was a feature with the Japanese Student Movement, influenced Nobel Prize winner Oe Kensaburo, and provided a living to Haruki Murakami.
All of this were things I had no idea of. I’ve always enjoyed jazz, and knew of its influence in Europe. But I always felt that the biggest impact was just here in the U.S. It seems that I was very wrong, and niaeve.
For me, I find it refreshing to have learned all of this. It’s a bit of humbling, and moreso learning. It makes my appreciation of jazz all the more stronger. And it makes the world just that much more friendly.
And for my readers that have never ventured far from the reheated refuse that is gangsta rap, or the overly commercialized R&B of these days, I suggest you check out jazz. There is more there than you might imagine. Just as I have learned today.
Italian futbol reaches new lows
Sports are known for great moments, superb players, and some of the worst decisions and strategies ever conceived. No matter the sport this is always true. Taking futbol (soccer) for example there are the greats like Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo, and Ronaldinho. There are great moments like these
and
but then there are things like I have just learned of.
It seems that Italian futbol is taking on a new low. Literally. They are lowering their shorts, in one case to their knees, to be able to win. It’s just awful.
Why in the world would any team do this? Well it’s being done during free kicks to block the view of the goalie. And it has been effective, at least in the recent Catania win. Is it worth it though?
According to Pietro Lo Monaco
Like that makes it worth doing. The referee should never allow this. It should not become a trend. It is the utmost in unsportsmanlike play. It is insulting to players and fans.
If this is the only way that Italian teams can win, they need to lose. I can only hope that this does not catch on and be displayed in the next World Cup.
Futbol is a great game, and the world enjoys it. But tricks like these don’t even deserve to be done or seen. Zenga knows better as do his players.
and
but then there are things like I have just learned of.
It seems that Italian futbol is taking on a new low. Literally. They are lowering their shorts, in one case to their knees, to be able to win. It’s just awful.
Why in the world would any team do this? Well it’s being done during free kicks to block the view of the goalie. And it has been effective, at least in the recent Catania win. Is it worth it though?
According to Pietro Lo Monaco
“This is a strategy that [Walter] Zenga tries continually in training.”
Like that makes it worth doing. The referee should never allow this. It should not become a trend. It is the utmost in unsportsmanlike play. It is insulting to players and fans.
If this is the only way that Italian teams can win, they need to lose. I can only hope that this does not catch on and be displayed in the next World Cup.
Futbol is a great game, and the world enjoys it. But tricks like these don’t even deserve to be done or seen. Zenga knows better as do his players.
Celebrities and entertainers that should retire
Things in Hollywood tend to happen in 3’s. Whether it’s a franchise of movies (before everyone stops caring about the series of films), celebrity deaths, or now early retirement. The current news flash about the silver screen is that Joaquin Phoenix, Angelina Jolie, and Nicole Kidman have all lost the acting bug. But does it matter?
What happened to the old days where good actors and actresses worked until they stopped getting roles or just sucked so bad that they stopped trying? When did entertainers publicly announce the fact that directors and Hollywood execs had lost faith, or found them too problematic, and stopped taking their calls?
Now this may not be true of each of the above movie stars. Angelina Jolie still packs in the crowds and her movies have been quite good of late. WANTED was a good film and made decent money (though she was way too skinny). Changeling seems to be doing alright in theaters, Beowulf and Kung Fu Panda don’t count as they were animated. And she was nominated twice for her work in A Mighty Heart. So to see her give up film work is a bit of a loss. Then again no one is really looking forward to Lara Croft 3.
Joaquin Phoenix is still riding high off of his work on Walk the Line (which was excellent). But his work on Gladiator, Ladder 49, and Hotel Rwanda easily cover the lesser known Two Lovers and Reservation Road. And the fact that he is Puerto Rican (which most do not seem to focus on) is a bonus to me at least. But like many actors, music is a drive that is currently consuming him.
Nicole Kidman though needed to retire years ago. Seriously, her retirement is more the fact that she does not deserve the pay she makes. The last success she had was Happy Feet, which was animated. It could be argued that Cold Mountain was a hit, but you really need to go back to The Hours or Moulin Rouge – roughly 8 years ago. Her career seriously peaked in 1990 with Days of Thunder, which former husband Tom Cruise (and the NASCAR cars) had more to do with.
But if every one of these actors stopped making films, who would care? Besides their fan clubs, not many. These are not the Humphrey Bogart’s, John Wayne’s, Lucille Ball’s, Lena Horn’s, or Katherine Hepburn’s of film. 2 of the 3 are very good, but not a single one is great. Their loss really amounts to nothing.
It’s not like the masses are losing anything. And telling the world that you won’t make another bad film we wouldn’t watch on DVD (mostly in Kidman’s case) only means we have something to look forward to, not lament.
No what this really says to me is that Hollywood is sitting on it’s laurels too much. That too many are overhyped. That the dearth of real talent is more obvious today than perhaps at any point in movie history. And that many of the more bankable and successful actors and actresses are still not going to get the attention they deserve.
If anything I hope this leads to a flood of retirements among the current crop of entertainers out now. Perhaps the following could retire and save us the movies, trailers, and DVD’s that flood the market now. I’d love to hear that the following are going to avoid smiting my eyes in 35mm
The list is not perfect (there should be more on it) but in each case it is clear that the people here are each in need of serious acting classes, or at least better screening of the scripts they agree to.
I’m sure some will not agree with at least a few of these choices. Every actor that makes it to the big screen has a few fans. And looks trump talent these days. But not one of these actors or actresses can match up to real talent – thankfully they don’t even appear in movies where real talents appear. As I recall none of the above have performed with
I don’t think I need to go on.
But if you could pick anyone to remove from movie screens and television forever who would you pick? Do you agree with my choices, and who might I have left out?
What happened to the old days where good actors and actresses worked until they stopped getting roles or just sucked so bad that they stopped trying? When did entertainers publicly announce the fact that directors and Hollywood execs had lost faith, or found them too problematic, and stopped taking their calls?
Now this may not be true of each of the above movie stars. Angelina Jolie still packs in the crowds and her movies have been quite good of late. WANTED was a good film and made decent money (though she was way too skinny). Changeling seems to be doing alright in theaters, Beowulf and Kung Fu Panda don’t count as they were animated. And she was nominated twice for her work in A Mighty Heart. So to see her give up film work is a bit of a loss. Then again no one is really looking forward to Lara Croft 3.
Joaquin Phoenix is still riding high off of his work on Walk the Line (which was excellent). But his work on Gladiator, Ladder 49, and Hotel Rwanda easily cover the lesser known Two Lovers and Reservation Road. And the fact that he is Puerto Rican (which most do not seem to focus on) is a bonus to me at least. But like many actors, music is a drive that is currently consuming him.
Nicole Kidman though needed to retire years ago. Seriously, her retirement is more the fact that she does not deserve the pay she makes. The last success she had was Happy Feet, which was animated. It could be argued that Cold Mountain was a hit, but you really need to go back to The Hours or Moulin Rouge – roughly 8 years ago. Her career seriously peaked in 1990 with Days of Thunder, which former husband Tom Cruise (and the NASCAR cars) had more to do with.
But if every one of these actors stopped making films, who would care? Besides their fan clubs, not many. These are not the Humphrey Bogart’s, John Wayne’s, Lucille Ball’s, Lena Horn’s, or Katherine Hepburn’s of film. 2 of the 3 are very good, but not a single one is great. Their loss really amounts to nothing.
It’s not like the masses are losing anything. And telling the world that you won’t make another bad film we wouldn’t watch on DVD (mostly in Kidman’s case) only means we have something to look forward to, not lament.
No what this really says to me is that Hollywood is sitting on it’s laurels too much. That too many are overhyped. That the dearth of real talent is more obvious today than perhaps at any point in movie history. And that many of the more bankable and successful actors and actresses are still not going to get the attention they deserve.
If anything I hope this leads to a flood of retirements among the current crop of entertainers out now. Perhaps the following could retire and save us the movies, trailers, and DVD’s that flood the market now. I’d love to hear that the following are going to avoid smiting my eyes in 35mm
Johnny Knoxville
Vince Vaughn
Jennifer Lopez
Halle Berry (yes she has an Oscar, but name the film she won for. Or a great role she has done? Or a great film she was in.)
Jennifer Aniston
Ashton Kutchner (he was bad on television. Take away Demi Moore and you have nothing worthwhile about him)
Topher Grace
Ben Stiller
Leonardo DiCaprio (over-hyped)
Jessica Alba (looks but no talent)
Hillary Duff
Lindsey Lohan
Jean Claude Van Damme
Steven Segal (his time is passed)
Beyonce Knowles (stick to singing)
DMX
Ja Rule
Virtually every gangsta rapper
Cedric the Entertainer
Ben Afflect
The list is not perfect (there should be more on it) but in each case it is clear that the people here are each in need of serious acting classes, or at least better screening of the scripts they agree to.
I’m sure some will not agree with at least a few of these choices. Every actor that makes it to the big screen has a few fans. And looks trump talent these days. But not one of these actors or actresses can match up to real talent – thankfully they don’t even appear in movies where real talents appear. As I recall none of the above have performed with
Denzel Washington
Jamie Foxx
Robert Downey Jr.
Terrence Howard
Michael Douglas
Al Pacino
Benicio Del Toro
Johnny Depp
Kiera Knightley
Susan Sarandon
Tom Hanks
Forest Whitaker
Morris Chestnut
I don’t think I need to go on.
But if you could pick anyone to remove from movie screens and television forever who would you pick? Do you agree with my choices, and who might I have left out?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Shaun White should stick to real boards
Shaun White. I almost don’t have to say very much more about the Olympic gold medalist, multiple X-games gold medal winner and renown skateboarder (body varial frontside 540).
Well I suppose I could mention his new video game
It looks great but the reviews are not as lively.
Over at Gamespot it has received just a very low 5.0 out of 10. That’s the mark of a game to ignore. Overall critics are looking at the game as a 6.2, and users a 6.9. None of which are much better.
The problems are big ones. You never feel the speed. The mountains are made up. But the really big problem, the crashes. In a game where the average kid tries to emulate the extraordinary moves of the pros some of the most fun can be seen in the crashes. Hell, often gamers just play the game for the crashes. And this does not live up to it at all.
This really just does not do justice to the sport, nor one of it’s biggest stars. Scratch this off of your Christmas list and hope for a better try next year.
Well I suppose I could mention his new video game
It looks great but the reviews are not as lively.
Over at Gamespot it has received just a very low 5.0 out of 10. That’s the mark of a game to ignore. Overall critics are looking at the game as a 6.2, and users a 6.9. None of which are much better.
The problems are big ones. You never feel the speed. The mountains are made up. But the really big problem, the crashes. In a game where the average kid tries to emulate the extraordinary moves of the pros some of the most fun can be seen in the crashes. Hell, often gamers just play the game for the crashes. And this does not live up to it at all.
“Because of the dichotomy between real-life actions and fantasy land adventuring, Shaun White's first game is choppy, unfocused, and way too aggravating to be fun…
Shaun White Snowboarding is like trying to save a snowball in your freezer until summer--it seems like a good idea, but never really works out.”
This really just does not do justice to the sport, nor one of it’s biggest stars. Scratch this off of your Christmas list and hope for a better try next year.
All it takes is a phone call and a dream
Timing is everything
This truism applies to everything in life. From buying or selling stocks, hitting a baseball, crossing the street, asking someone out on a date to getting a starring role in a opera.
Yes, starring in an opera.
Adriano Graziani is the well-fated man who called into the Welsh National Opera – planning to get tickets for Friends of Welsh National Opera performance – and wound up getting an offer for the lead role. Not only did he take the offer, his performance was so strong that he will now star in that opera company’s production of La Bohème in 2009.
Now before every opera hopeful starts dialing the Metropolitian Opera, there is a bit more to the story. Graziani was a student at the Cardiff International Academy of Voice, and part-time singer when not at his full-time banking job. So they had heard him sing before. In addition the lead tenor had taken ill that day, and Graziani is a tenor.
So it was a combination of a lot of work before hand, talent, and timing that all came together. But once they did it was lightning in a bottle.
It’s kind of like Paul Potts – the winner of the Britain's Got Talent television show. I featured a video of Potts before in the post The uplifting theme of 2007
Like they always say,
Success is 90% hard work and 10% luck
Watchmen: 2nd movie trailer out
I've spoken about the Watchmen movie previously, and my excitement continues to build. A new movie trailer has come out which sets the tone of the movie quite well.
That got my blog pumping. If you don't see this movie, you must be dead. Ok, a bit extreme but I really think this movie is going to surprise and blow away people in hordes.
There's nothing more to say, the video clip has done it all.
That got my blog pumping. If you don't see this movie, you must be dead. Ok, a bit extreme but I really think this movie is going to surprise and blow away people in hordes.
There's nothing more to say, the video clip has done it all.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Lindsey Lohan: unpleasant words from an unpleasant mind
I heard about it yesterday, and found it on Youtube today. The brilliance of Lindsey Lohan is stunning to behold I must say. If you have not heard about this I now present you with Lohan handing out a compliment.
The key moment in this conversation is the 13th through 19th seconds. In 6 seconds Lohan both states he thrill at an Obama win, and then insults him harshly. It’s so simple and obviously so common that Maria Menounos of Access Hollywood doesn’t even notice.
Colored. As in the defining word in Jim Crow laws and segregation that prevented Blacks from voting, or even sitting on a bus, for nearly 100 years.
I have a friend, who is 50, and he mentioned to me what she had said and asked why it was a big deal. He honestly had no idea though in several years I’ve never heard him utter the word once. For the benefit of others in the world, it is a big deal to many. NEVER call an African American colored.
That one word was used, along with the n-word in less polite circles, to describe African Americans. And it was meant as a derogatory term. It was a means of separating and belittling. It was meant as a way of inferring both difference and dislike.
Is it a hateful word? Not entirely, depending on the person that states it. But I can say that I have never heard the term uttered by anyone under 60 before. I’ve encountered diehard racists that never used the term, though they did use the n-word with frequency (while they had teeth). And in the years since 1970 the only reference I have been aware of for that usage is when someone is trying to be polite in public and does not want to use the n-word. It’s a tell that would be like jumping up and down at a poker table.
The fact that Lohan uses this term does not surprise me. I am sure that her circle of drug addicted, drunken friends are anything but the most enlightened souls. Often the most ignorant, stupid, small-minded, weak-willed, imbecilic and verbally constrained people are drunks, drug addicts, and/or racist. Which makes perfect sense when considering the crowd around Lohan.
But I did notice that Access Hollywood seems to be taking up for Lohan’s racial remark by stating
Unintelligible? Hardly. I heard it a clear as a day. And it is not some kind of made up word out of the dictionary only Don King uses. It was very intelligible. And no one should be trying to obscure what she said.
I know that the NAACP has stated that they think the use of colored was
And I disagree. Not one friend I know, nor any person of color I have ever known would find her comment inoffensive. Perhaps if I were born in the highly racist 1950’s or earlier in America it wouldn’t matter. But I and most Black Americans alive today were not. Nor was she.
Is it racist? No. Is it racially insensitive and insulting, Yes. The mere fact that as America has become less racist the term has ceased being used is proof enough of that. One day the term Black may be as well. But right now, there is no reason why Lohan would use such a term without being in an environment that fosters and promotes negative stereotypical views of Blacks.
One thing is for sure, the fact that much of America didn’t blink an eye, like Maria Menounos and the editors of Access Hollywood, tells me that thinking of Black people as second-class and offensive still is as much a part of America as it was half a century ago.
President Obama is Black, and that one act did not change America’s racist heritage nor the racially charged problems of today.
The key moment in this conversation is the 13th through 19th seconds. In 6 seconds Lohan both states he thrill at an Obama win, and then insults him harshly. It’s so simple and obviously so common that Maria Menounos of Access Hollywood doesn’t even notice.
Colored. As in the defining word in Jim Crow laws and segregation that prevented Blacks from voting, or even sitting on a bus, for nearly 100 years.
I have a friend, who is 50, and he mentioned to me what she had said and asked why it was a big deal. He honestly had no idea though in several years I’ve never heard him utter the word once. For the benefit of others in the world, it is a big deal to many. NEVER call an African American colored.
That one word was used, along with the n-word in less polite circles, to describe African Americans. And it was meant as a derogatory term. It was a means of separating and belittling. It was meant as a way of inferring both difference and dislike.
Is it a hateful word? Not entirely, depending on the person that states it. But I can say that I have never heard the term uttered by anyone under 60 before. I’ve encountered diehard racists that never used the term, though they did use the n-word with frequency (while they had teeth). And in the years since 1970 the only reference I have been aware of for that usage is when someone is trying to be polite in public and does not want to use the n-word. It’s a tell that would be like jumping up and down at a poker table.
The fact that Lohan uses this term does not surprise me. I am sure that her circle of drug addicted, drunken friends are anything but the most enlightened souls. Often the most ignorant, stupid, small-minded, weak-willed, imbecilic and verbally constrained people are drunks, drug addicts, and/or racist. Which makes perfect sense when considering the crowd around Lohan.
But I did notice that Access Hollywood seems to be taking up for Lohan’s racial remark by stating
“We believe the word in question that Ms. Lohan used was unintelligible.”
Unintelligible? Hardly. I heard it a clear as a day. And it is not some kind of made up word out of the dictionary only Don King uses. It was very intelligible. And no one should be trying to obscure what she said.
I know that the NAACP has stated that they think the use of colored was
“…outdated and antiquated but not offensive.”
And I disagree. Not one friend I know, nor any person of color I have ever known would find her comment inoffensive. Perhaps if I were born in the highly racist 1950’s or earlier in America it wouldn’t matter. But I and most Black Americans alive today were not. Nor was she.
Is it racist? No. Is it racially insensitive and insulting, Yes. The mere fact that as America has become less racist the term has ceased being used is proof enough of that. One day the term Black may be as well. But right now, there is no reason why Lohan would use such a term without being in an environment that fosters and promotes negative stereotypical views of Blacks.
One thing is for sure, the fact that much of America didn’t blink an eye, like Maria Menounos and the editors of Access Hollywood, tells me that thinking of Black people as second-class and offensive still is as much a part of America as it was half a century ago.
President Obama is Black, and that one act did not change America’s racist heritage nor the racially charged problems of today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)