Just watch...
I can already see it happening...
The Circus that was the life of Michael Jackson will return in a tour de force now that he's dead.
His family will (very publicly) fight over his will; his funeral will be a media frenzy; his ex-wife will want a cut of the pie; Sony Music will demand BILLIONS for Jackson's share of copyrights; his dad will make a spectacular fool of himself [once again];
his brothers and sisters will use his death to make themselves richer by preying off his name; his kids will be hounded by the paparazzi who will document every action they make; accusations will fly; Jackson's mother will make demands regarding Michaels Estate; the will will end up in court, contested by every family member and slimeball wanting a piece of the Michael Jackson pie; and on, and on, and on.
The new Circus is just beginning, and it will be a pathetic display of manipulation, disgusting greed, and self-serving interests.
Now, let's see just how much of this comes about....
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Hypocrites and Michael Jackson
(I'm probably going to take some heat for this one; but truth is still truth...even if you don't want to hear it.)
How soon we forget...
First he was a MoTown sensation.
Then he was a Pop Music genius.
Then he was called "The King of Pop."
Then he started getting "weird."
Then we heard rumors of increasing and disturbing peculiarities regarding children at his Neverland Ranch.
Then he was charged with [basically] pedophilia.
Then, after exhoneration, he fled the country in shame.
The press hounded and derided him. Tabloids called him "Wacko Jacko." Pretty much everyone with any sense distanced themselves from him. His financial empire crumbled faster than any of Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns. His life was pretty much in ruins, and nobody seemed to care.
Then, on June 25th of this year, Michael Jackson died suddenly, unexpectedly from an apparent cardiac arrest at the age of 50.
Suddenly, a media transformation ocurred. Gone were the accusations, intimations, and derisions. In death, Michael Jackson had gone from a humorless joke to beloved pop icon once again. The "world" is suddenly praising the man who once had familially unrelated children sleeping with him in his bed.
Don't get me wrong here--I'm truly sorry that his kids are now without their father; that his family is undoubtedly heartbroken by his death. I really am.
However, the same press and other detractors who once made fun of Michael Jackson every chance they could, are now praising him for his impact of popular music, and the legacy he leaves behind. They cannot say enough good about the man.
I only have one word for these writers and commentators, and that word is "Hypocrites." That is exactly what these folks are. It was just fine to tear him down in life, and point out his abundant falacies; but in death,...well...everything is forgiven...right? We'll forget about the humiliating public scandals, and his trial for pediphilic activities. We'll just ignore the remembrances of holding his infant out over a hotel balconey railing some 5 stories up showing the kid off to the press; or how he brought humiliation and derisive commentaries upon his children by parading them around in full bhurka-type clothing.
Naahhh...all that stuff doesn't matter any more because we'll only remember all the good things about Michael Jackson. Things like...Let's see...Thriller (the video and the song)...ummm...Billie Jean (and some illegitimate child)... and ummmmm....the moonwalk...and.....oh yeah--how cute he was as a young member of the Jackson 5...and.... well,...hmmmm...nope, that's really about all. The rest is really all about weirdness, scandal, and, well, more weirdness.
I sincerely appreciate what Michael Jackson contributed to Pop Music. Even though he hasn't had a certifiable hit single in over twenty years, his impact on the music industry can be felt to this day. Musically, he'll be remember for years to come.
But unlike so many other icons who died early (Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, Elvis Presley, Freddie Mercury), Michael Jackson will not just be remembered for his music. He'll be remembered for all the things in his life that went wrong; that hindered or stalled his career; that brought shame upon himself, and his family. Not exactly a legacy I would be proud of; but one that is there nonetheless...even if the world press chooses to hypocritize themselves by praising the same man they once splashed so many disturbing headlines about all across their front pages.
How soon we forget...
First he was a MoTown sensation.
Then he was a Pop Music genius.
Then he was called "The King of Pop."
Then he started getting "weird."
Then we heard rumors of increasing and disturbing peculiarities regarding children at his Neverland Ranch.
Then he was charged with [basically] pedophilia.
Then, after exhoneration, he fled the country in shame.
The press hounded and derided him. Tabloids called him "Wacko Jacko." Pretty much everyone with any sense distanced themselves from him. His financial empire crumbled faster than any of Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns. His life was pretty much in ruins, and nobody seemed to care.
Then, on June 25th of this year, Michael Jackson died suddenly, unexpectedly from an apparent cardiac arrest at the age of 50.
Suddenly, a media transformation ocurred. Gone were the accusations, intimations, and derisions. In death, Michael Jackson had gone from a humorless joke to beloved pop icon once again. The "world" is suddenly praising the man who once had familially unrelated children sleeping with him in his bed.
Don't get me wrong here--I'm truly sorry that his kids are now without their father; that his family is undoubtedly heartbroken by his death. I really am.
However, the same press and other detractors who once made fun of Michael Jackson every chance they could, are now praising him for his impact of popular music, and the legacy he leaves behind. They cannot say enough good about the man.
I only have one word for these writers and commentators, and that word is "Hypocrites." That is exactly what these folks are. It was just fine to tear him down in life, and point out his abundant falacies; but in death,...well...everything is forgiven...right? We'll forget about the humiliating public scandals, and his trial for pediphilic activities. We'll just ignore the remembrances of holding his infant out over a hotel balconey railing some 5 stories up showing the kid off to the press; or how he brought humiliation and derisive commentaries upon his children by parading them around in full bhurka-type clothing.
Naahhh...all that stuff doesn't matter any more because we'll only remember all the good things about Michael Jackson. Things like...Let's see...Thriller (the video and the song)...ummm...Billie Jean (and some illegitimate child)... and ummmmm....the moonwalk...and.....oh yeah--how cute he was as a young member of the Jackson 5...and.... well,...hmmmm...nope, that's really about all. The rest is really all about weirdness, scandal, and, well, more weirdness.
I sincerely appreciate what Michael Jackson contributed to Pop Music. Even though he hasn't had a certifiable hit single in over twenty years, his impact on the music industry can be felt to this day. Musically, he'll be remember for years to come.
But unlike so many other icons who died early (Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, Elvis Presley, Freddie Mercury), Michael Jackson will not just be remembered for his music. He'll be remembered for all the things in his life that went wrong; that hindered or stalled his career; that brought shame upon himself, and his family. Not exactly a legacy I would be proud of; but one that is there nonetheless...even if the world press chooses to hypocritize themselves by praising the same man they once splashed so many disturbing headlines about all across their front pages.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
A New Direction in International Relations
Historically, the Department of State (informally known as The State Department) follows the lead of the President in our relations with other countries. The President is the one who sets the tone and intention of the diplomatic emphasis of the State Dept.
Under George W. Bush, the general tone of the diplomacy coming out of D.C. was adversarial at the least. Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, President Bush, in attempting to form a coalition of states with which to make war on Afghanistan and the Iraq, made the statement that governments were “either with us, or against us.” This easily, readily defined the International Relations tone of the United States, and the Secretary of State was the face of this aggressive rhetoric.
This hard-line diplomacy was met with skepticism both domestically and abroad. The 'join us or you’re our enemy' tactic was, I feel, poorly advised, and executed even worse. For decades the USA has been the model of diplomacy, and of the democratic process. Countries wanted to be like us. Over the course of GW Bush’s two terms, many solid allies began to question the real intent of the United States. Where before we had been a leader, many countries now began to see us as the big bully who would threaten you if you went against our wishes. Decades-long friendships were in jeopardy, or lost all-together.
I think that for a number of countries, the end of President Bush’s time in office couldn’t have come any sooner. Diplomatically, the US was in a deep hole; and it had a multitude of fences to mend with allies, with estranged governments, and potential enemies.
The choice of Hillary Clinton (By President Barack Obama) as the new Secretary of State was a wise decision. Her former experience as First Lady, and as a New York Senator has proven to be invaluable; and unlike her predecessor, Mrs. Clinton has the tact required to actually engage in constructive diplomatic efforts.
In his recent trip to the Middle East, President Obama set a new tone regarding the intent of the United States in its relations with the world. Gone are the adversarial tone and actions of the former Administration. Instead of it being us against the world, President Obama is looking on Secretary Clinton to heal the wounds caused by the Bush policies, and to open actual dialogue with governments that have, over the last 8 years, been treated as enemies.
President Obama’s speech in Cairo really let the world know that change is coming. He wants to assure world leaders that the policies of the GW Bush Administration are gone, and that the USA no longer views things as “with us, or against us.” It is a long time coming, and I am hopeful that the new approach works as well as President Obama hopes. Though we are the world leader in many regards, even the US cannot stand alone. I can only hope that Secretary Clinton can show world leaders how much we all need each other, and how much the future depends on this new diplomatic approach.
Under George W. Bush, the general tone of the diplomacy coming out of D.C. was adversarial at the least. Following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, President Bush, in attempting to form a coalition of states with which to make war on Afghanistan and the Iraq, made the statement that governments were “either with us, or against us.” This easily, readily defined the International Relations tone of the United States, and the Secretary of State was the face of this aggressive rhetoric.
This hard-line diplomacy was met with skepticism both domestically and abroad. The 'join us or you’re our enemy' tactic was, I feel, poorly advised, and executed even worse. For decades the USA has been the model of diplomacy, and of the democratic process. Countries wanted to be like us. Over the course of GW Bush’s two terms, many solid allies began to question the real intent of the United States. Where before we had been a leader, many countries now began to see us as the big bully who would threaten you if you went against our wishes. Decades-long friendships were in jeopardy, or lost all-together.
I think that for a number of countries, the end of President Bush’s time in office couldn’t have come any sooner. Diplomatically, the US was in a deep hole; and it had a multitude of fences to mend with allies, with estranged governments, and potential enemies.
The choice of Hillary Clinton (By President Barack Obama) as the new Secretary of State was a wise decision. Her former experience as First Lady, and as a New York Senator has proven to be invaluable; and unlike her predecessor, Mrs. Clinton has the tact required to actually engage in constructive diplomatic efforts.
In his recent trip to the Middle East, President Obama set a new tone regarding the intent of the United States in its relations with the world. Gone are the adversarial tone and actions of the former Administration. Instead of it being us against the world, President Obama is looking on Secretary Clinton to heal the wounds caused by the Bush policies, and to open actual dialogue with governments that have, over the last 8 years, been treated as enemies.
President Obama’s speech in Cairo really let the world know that change is coming. He wants to assure world leaders that the policies of the GW Bush Administration are gone, and that the USA no longer views things as “with us, or against us.” It is a long time coming, and I am hopeful that the new approach works as well as President Obama hopes. Though we are the world leader in many regards, even the US cannot stand alone. I can only hope that Secretary Clinton can show world leaders how much we all need each other, and how much the future depends on this new diplomatic approach.
Friday, June 5, 2009
The "Offensive" US Flag???!
Political Correctness has now reached complete lunacy. Last week a nursing supervisor in Houston had a flag of the United States removed from her office (without her consent) because someone [who worked in the hospital] was actually offended by the flag. Yeah...you read that right...someone was offended by the US flag!
The hospital, seemingly desperate to conform to a single complaint, didn't even wait to inform the supervisor--they went into her office, took the flag down, rolled it up (not folding it as stipulated by regulation), and left it on the floor of her office (a complete disrespect of the flag)! The reason? Because a female employee, who is an immigrant of fourteen years, decided that the display of Old Glory was offensive!
What the FRACK??!!!
This one completely boggles my mind! I cannot even begin to comprehend how this woman could possibly be offended by the universally recognized symbol of these United States of America--the country she immigrated to; the country she lives in; the country that gives her the freedom to live her life in any way she chooses. I just don't get it.
We, as a people, should be up in arms over this one. It's not as if we're talking religion, bibles in the classroom, homosexual equality, animal rights, or anything of the sort. This is about a single person deciding they were offended by the flag of their chosen country, and about the whoosie hospital administrators who actually agreed with the complaint enough to disrespect the flag by not only rolling it up, but also by leaving it on the ground.
PC-ness run amok is an understatement here. The Administrators should lose their jobs, and the complainant should get over herself. The supervisors personal rights were trampled on. She deserves praise for showing her patriotism--not vilification. This whole thing stinks a stink so intense that even the ACLU would be crying for mercy.
I am proud of the history of the United States! I am proud of my Citizenship! I am proud to see our Flag and all that it represents. I say, God Bless the United States of America!!!
The hospital, seemingly desperate to conform to a single complaint, didn't even wait to inform the supervisor--they went into her office, took the flag down, rolled it up (not folding it as stipulated by regulation), and left it on the floor of her office (a complete disrespect of the flag)! The reason? Because a female employee, who is an immigrant of fourteen years, decided that the display of Old Glory was offensive!
What the FRACK??!!!
This one completely boggles my mind! I cannot even begin to comprehend how this woman could possibly be offended by the universally recognized symbol of these United States of America--the country she immigrated to; the country she lives in; the country that gives her the freedom to live her life in any way she chooses. I just don't get it.
We, as a people, should be up in arms over this one. It's not as if we're talking religion, bibles in the classroom, homosexual equality, animal rights, or anything of the sort. This is about a single person deciding they were offended by the flag of their chosen country, and about the whoosie hospital administrators who actually agreed with the complaint enough to disrespect the flag by not only rolling it up, but also by leaving it on the ground.
PC-ness run amok is an understatement here. The Administrators should lose their jobs, and the complainant should get over herself. The supervisors personal rights were trampled on. She deserves praise for showing her patriotism--not vilification. This whole thing stinks a stink so intense that even the ACLU would be crying for mercy.
I am proud of the history of the United States! I am proud of my Citizenship! I am proud to see our Flag and all that it represents. I say, God Bless the United States of America!!!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Why I Won't Watch The NBA Anymore
Well, the NBA Finals are here once again, and it is yet another year I won't be watching. Why? First, because the Lakers are in it...again...(BORING!). Second, because I don't feel that NBA stands for National Basketball Association any more. Nope. I think the more appropriate name would be the National Basket-BRAWL Association.
You see, there was a time not so long ago (i.e. pre-Detroit Pistons of the late 80's/early 90's) when the NBA maketed a game based on actual skill...not on how brutal a player can be against another before getting called for a fowl.
I know that some of you out there are going to whine and say the game has changed; blah, blah, blah. As far as I am aware, the rules are still the same; it's the enforcement of the rules that has changed.
It used to be on free throws that no player could step into the lane prior to the ball leaving the hands of the shooter. If they did, it was a lane violation--usually a team foul. In today's game, as soon the shooter begins a shooting motion of any kind, we are seeing players crowding the lane, jockeying for the best rebounding position.
How many steps are involved in a traveling violation? Well todays players would have you believe it to be at least 4 or 5 steps. In actuality, the rules stipulate two steps (while holding the ball) are legal. A third constitutes a Traveling violation.
Lastly (or at least, the last of what I'm highlighting), placing your hand/arm on an opposing player's back used to be an automatic defensive foul. In order to defend, you relied on footspeed, non-contact arm waving, and mental anticipation of what to expect of the player you were defending against. In today's basket-brawl, we see players leaning into opponents, placing whole forearms on a back, and simply pushing an offensive player around. No skill is required...just brute strength/force, and the officials not caring that fouls are being committed all over the court.
These examples are just the surface of a game that has almost entirely lost its identity as a performance of actual skill. Instead of strategy and finesse, we see pushing, shoving, throwing players to the floor, flopping, brutal elbows, slapping, whining, and the disgusting "I didn't do anything!" attitude now permeating nearly every professional sport.
The NBA admits that it has an image problem. It knows that gate receipts are down, merchandizing income is low, and owners are so hungry for a winning team that coaches are on a revolving platform as they get shuffled in and out faster than Mark Cuban can accrue fines.
(Did you know that in the 21 years Jerry Sloan has managed the Utah Jazz, there have been over 250 Head Coaching changes throughout the rest of the NBA?--an unbelieveable stat!)
Commisioner David Stern does nothing to solve the real issues that are damaging Professional Basketball. He looks at ratings, marketing, and the next big wave to further elevate the business. What would happen if actual skill was expected of players entering the league; or that the NBA employed refs that actually enforced the rules of the game; or players actually stopped whining about whatever babyish thing, and actually learned to play basket-BALL?
It would be a joy to watch the game once again. It would be fun! But I also think that the fans of today have gotten so used to the brutality of basket-BRAWL that a game of actual skill would be boring to most people. Too bad on that, because the truly great teams of years gone-by relied on skill--a concept now almost completely lost.
You see, there was a time not so long ago (i.e. pre-Detroit Pistons of the late 80's/early 90's) when the NBA maketed a game based on actual skill...not on how brutal a player can be against another before getting called for a fowl.
I know that some of you out there are going to whine and say the game has changed; blah, blah, blah. As far as I am aware, the rules are still the same; it's the enforcement of the rules that has changed.
It used to be on free throws that no player could step into the lane prior to the ball leaving the hands of the shooter. If they did, it was a lane violation--usually a team foul. In today's game, as soon the shooter begins a shooting motion of any kind, we are seeing players crowding the lane, jockeying for the best rebounding position.
How many steps are involved in a traveling violation? Well todays players would have you believe it to be at least 4 or 5 steps. In actuality, the rules stipulate two steps (while holding the ball) are legal. A third constitutes a Traveling violation.
Lastly (or at least, the last of what I'm highlighting), placing your hand/arm on an opposing player's back used to be an automatic defensive foul. In order to defend, you relied on footspeed, non-contact arm waving, and mental anticipation of what to expect of the player you were defending against. In today's basket-brawl, we see players leaning into opponents, placing whole forearms on a back, and simply pushing an offensive player around. No skill is required...just brute strength/force, and the officials not caring that fouls are being committed all over the court.
These examples are just the surface of a game that has almost entirely lost its identity as a performance of actual skill. Instead of strategy and finesse, we see pushing, shoving, throwing players to the floor, flopping, brutal elbows, slapping, whining, and the disgusting "I didn't do anything!" attitude now permeating nearly every professional sport.
The NBA admits that it has an image problem. It knows that gate receipts are down, merchandizing income is low, and owners are so hungry for a winning team that coaches are on a revolving platform as they get shuffled in and out faster than Mark Cuban can accrue fines.
(Did you know that in the 21 years Jerry Sloan has managed the Utah Jazz, there have been over 250 Head Coaching changes throughout the rest of the NBA?--an unbelieveable stat!)
Commisioner David Stern does nothing to solve the real issues that are damaging Professional Basketball. He looks at ratings, marketing, and the next big wave to further elevate the business. What would happen if actual skill was expected of players entering the league; or that the NBA employed refs that actually enforced the rules of the game; or players actually stopped whining about whatever babyish thing, and actually learned to play basket-BALL?
It would be a joy to watch the game once again. It would be fun! But I also think that the fans of today have gotten so used to the brutality of basket-BRAWL that a game of actual skill would be boring to most people. Too bad on that, because the truly great teams of years gone-by relied on skill--a concept now almost completely lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
