This week, we're still hanging around in the 80s... I wasn't ready to step away quite yet!
I present to you the song of the week: "Oh Shiela" by Ready For The World.
Enjoy... and I challenge you to NOT nod your head & sing along!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
For the Videogame Lover In You...
Hilarious spoof video from IGN.
Watch & enjoy -- all my fellow video game fans should be able to easily relate.
Watch & enjoy -- all my fellow video game fans should be able to easily relate.
Random Song of the Week: 7/12
This is something that I do every week at work, so I figured I'd start doing it here. I'd like to share with you what I'll call my "Random Song of the Week."
This week, I plan to take you back to a time when music was the veritable SHIT.
I present to you: "Rock Steady" by The Whispers.
Enjoy... and I challenge you to NOT nod your head & sing along!
This week, I plan to take you back to a time when music was the veritable SHIT.
I present to you: "Rock Steady" by The Whispers.
Enjoy... and I challenge you to NOT nod your head & sing along!
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Guilty Until Proven Guilty
Why is it that someone can be found not guilty of a serious crime, but can never remove the stigma associated with the accusation? Michael got off -- not once, but twice -- on criminal child molestation charges. Charges against Kobe were quickly dismissed. R. Kelly has yet to be convicted of statuatory rape. Our legal system seems to work just fine... but our collective brain seems to be stuck on stupid.
Michael Jackson is guilty of only one thing: loving people too much and putting himself in a silly predicament more than once. Some argue that he must have been guilty, since he settled out of court -- which would be the wrong train of thought.
What people fail to realize is that the boy's family initially suggested settlement. They said that they would cease the pursuit of their civil suit if he would fork over the money. Not wanting to be subjected to continued ridicule and scrutiny, MJ decided to pay up. He negotiated the family down and settled out of court -- but not before the multitude of reports that he had been accused (or in our society, found guilty) of inappropriate behavior. Little do folks know, it was later found that there was not enough evidence to go forward with the criminal case and it was dropped.
The second time around, MJ decided to fight the charges in court -- and the jury found him not guilty. Now, I'm not sure if it was because he'd already been in trouble for it once (and didn't learn his lesson about letting the children be around him in that setting), but folks just couldn't seem to understand that a verdict of NOT GUILTY means that there wasn't suffficient evidence to suggest that the charges brought against the man were valid... so why is it that he was referred to constantly as a child molester? Because we don't know how to separate accusations from the truth.
At one point, Kobe Bryant's lawyer argued that "using the word 'victim' constitutes a kind of prejudicial communication that could taint the process" (ed. note: SO true). Makes sense when you consider that although the charges were dropped, that didn't stop people from calling Kobe a rapist & despising his very existence. You don't have to like him, but why are so many still holding something against him that was not proven to be true?
R. Kelly may never get a fair shake, on account of the type of music that he normally performs. He has proven himself as a singer-songwriter, responsible for many huge hits -- including "Fortunate" (Maxwell) and "You Are Not Alone" (Michael Jackson). Neverthelesss, he also had a penchant for freakier fare -- which is why it was so feasible that he might have committed statuatory rape. At one point, there was a video floating around that was purported to feature him bathing the young lady in a "golden shower." As of yet, he has not been convicted... but will that stop folks from calling him a rapist until proven otherwise? Highly doubtful.
When does it stop? What happened to the presumption of innocence? I was pretty sure that it was how we did things here in the US. For example: An Idaho man named Charles Fain was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting & murdering a 9 year-old. After spending 18 years on Death Row, DNA evidence was tested -- proving that he was in fact not the perpetrator. This man was incorrectly placed on DEATH ROW, but proven to be innocent. Are there those that will think twice about walking near this man or having him around their children? You bet. Wanna know why? Because we're allergic to the facts.
Maybe one day we'll get over this prevailing mentality... but I have a feeling that the healing won't begin until the media stops plastering biased information everywhere. Tupac & Roman Polanski were actually CONVICTED of violent crimes -- but they still sold plenty of records & won an Oscar, respectively. Backwards, huh?
If we went back to the days when the media served only the purpose of disseminating information (rather than spreading one-sided opinion pieces), then maybe -- just MAYBE -- people would have a decent chance of shaking accusations... especially AFTER being found NOT GUILTY.
< /rant >
Michael Jackson is guilty of only one thing: loving people too much and putting himself in a silly predicament more than once. Some argue that he must have been guilty, since he settled out of court -- which would be the wrong train of thought.
What people fail to realize is that the boy's family initially suggested settlement. They said that they would cease the pursuit of their civil suit if he would fork over the money. Not wanting to be subjected to continued ridicule and scrutiny, MJ decided to pay up. He negotiated the family down and settled out of court -- but not before the multitude of reports that he had been accused (or in our society, found guilty) of inappropriate behavior. Little do folks know, it was later found that there was not enough evidence to go forward with the criminal case and it was dropped.
The second time around, MJ decided to fight the charges in court -- and the jury found him not guilty. Now, I'm not sure if it was because he'd already been in trouble for it once (and didn't learn his lesson about letting the children be around him in that setting), but folks just couldn't seem to understand that a verdict of NOT GUILTY means that there wasn't suffficient evidence to suggest that the charges brought against the man were valid... so why is it that he was referred to constantly as a child molester? Because we don't know how to separate accusations from the truth.
At one point, Kobe Bryant's lawyer argued that "using the word 'victim' constitutes a kind of prejudicial communication that could taint the process" (ed. note: SO true). Makes sense when you consider that although the charges were dropped, that didn't stop people from calling Kobe a rapist & despising his very existence. You don't have to like him, but why are so many still holding something against him that was not proven to be true?
R. Kelly may never get a fair shake, on account of the type of music that he normally performs. He has proven himself as a singer-songwriter, responsible for many huge hits -- including "Fortunate" (Maxwell) and "You Are Not Alone" (Michael Jackson). Neverthelesss, he also had a penchant for freakier fare -- which is why it was so feasible that he might have committed statuatory rape. At one point, there was a video floating around that was purported to feature him bathing the young lady in a "golden shower." As of yet, he has not been convicted... but will that stop folks from calling him a rapist until proven otherwise? Highly doubtful.
When does it stop? What happened to the presumption of innocence? I was pretty sure that it was how we did things here in the US. For example: An Idaho man named Charles Fain was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting & murdering a 9 year-old. After spending 18 years on Death Row, DNA evidence was tested -- proving that he was in fact not the perpetrator. This man was incorrectly placed on DEATH ROW, but proven to be innocent. Are there those that will think twice about walking near this man or having him around their children? You bet. Wanna know why? Because we're allergic to the facts.
Maybe one day we'll get over this prevailing mentality... but I have a feeling that the healing won't begin until the media stops plastering biased information everywhere. Tupac & Roman Polanski were actually CONVICTED of violent crimes -- but they still sold plenty of records & won an Oscar, respectively. Backwards, huh?
If we went back to the days when the media served only the purpose of disseminating information (rather than spreading one-sided opinion pieces), then maybe -- just MAYBE -- people would have a decent chance of shaking accusations... especially AFTER being found NOT GUILTY.
< /rant >
Bill O'Reilly
...is a bigoted, right-wing creton with some of the most self-serving opinions I've ever heard. I would never do him the honor of watching him speak or paying to read anything he publishes. He's a worthless creep and does not deserve any more energy or attention than what I've just given him.
< /rant >
I agree that racism needs to go away. There are many who rely far too much on the race card, admittedly -- and the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world are overly quick to react... but that doesn't mean that racism doesn't happen.
I've written about this topic before, but He-Who-Deserves-Not-Be-Named inspired my wrath once more. What folks seem not to understand is that although racism is cited more often than necessary, IT STILL HAPPENS. Ask around and see how many people think only blacks are on welfare or live in the "ghetto." Ask your friends how many of them clutch their purses more tightly when they walk past a group of black kids. Ask how many of your friends think Hispanics are all illegal immigrants that aren't good at anything but landscaping & gangbanging. Ask them if they think that Asians are all great mathematicians that are destined to own dry cleaners & chinese food stores. Or maybe they think all Indians can't speak English and don't know anything other than convenience stores & Dunkin' Donuts franchises.
Now imagine that YOU'RE one of said persons of color. Imagine that you've had to combat these discriminatory notions for your entire life. Just imagine it -- because that's all you can do, if you've never actually lived it. Don't let the media fool you into thinking anything else... and don't let media bias sway you into adopting a mob mentality. I can't tell you how many times I've watched media outlets manufacture controversy -- and racial episodes & ideals are certainly not excluded.
Fourty years after we were finally freed legally of the remnants of slavery in America, it is still difficult to cope with racial attitudes in this country. Don't get me wrong -- like myself, there are a lot of people out there that can look someone in the eye and see past everything... but there are so many that can't get past the level of melanin in your skin. I can genuinely say that I have wonderful people in my life of all colors, who I love without regard to their skin -- and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Whenever the day finally comes that no person in America is made uncomfortable by the glances & stereotypes bestowed upon them by virtue of centuries of racist mentalities, then -- and only then -- can the subject of race truly be dropped.
That and when they stop asking that damn question on job applications.
< /rant >
I agree that racism needs to go away. There are many who rely far too much on the race card, admittedly -- and the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world are overly quick to react... but that doesn't mean that racism doesn't happen.
I've written about this topic before, but He-Who-Deserves-Not-Be-Named inspired my wrath once more. What folks seem not to understand is that although racism is cited more often than necessary, IT STILL HAPPENS. Ask around and see how many people think only blacks are on welfare or live in the "ghetto." Ask your friends how many of them clutch their purses more tightly when they walk past a group of black kids. Ask how many of your friends think Hispanics are all illegal immigrants that aren't good at anything but landscaping & gangbanging. Ask them if they think that Asians are all great mathematicians that are destined to own dry cleaners & chinese food stores. Or maybe they think all Indians can't speak English and don't know anything other than convenience stores & Dunkin' Donuts franchises.
Now imagine that YOU'RE one of said persons of color. Imagine that you've had to combat these discriminatory notions for your entire life. Just imagine it -- because that's all you can do, if you've never actually lived it. Don't let the media fool you into thinking anything else... and don't let media bias sway you into adopting a mob mentality. I can't tell you how many times I've watched media outlets manufacture controversy -- and racial episodes & ideals are certainly not excluded.
Fourty years after we were finally freed legally of the remnants of slavery in America, it is still difficult to cope with racial attitudes in this country. Don't get me wrong -- like myself, there are a lot of people out there that can look someone in the eye and see past everything... but there are so many that can't get past the level of melanin in your skin. I can genuinely say that I have wonderful people in my life of all colors, who I love without regard to their skin -- and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Whenever the day finally comes that no person in America is made uncomfortable by the glances & stereotypes bestowed upon them by virtue of centuries of racist mentalities, then -- and only then -- can the subject of race truly be dropped.
That and when they stop asking that damn question on job applications.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Inappropriate
This is just inexcusable.
OK! Weekly magazine decided to use a close-up photo of MJ being attended to by medical personnel in what would be his final moments.
To say that I'm disturbed would be an understatement. MJ or not, I really don't think this was appropriate by any measure. As inappropriate as I think this celebration was, this magazine cover really took the cake... then again, I don't even want to get started on NY politician Peter King. It's only a matter of time before his dirty laundry is aired -- after all, he is a politician. Politicians without skeletons in their closets are like baseball players without steroids: presumed to be the minority. I'd love to hear what he has to say when the shoe is on the other foot.
I understand that his passing was tragic and that he meant a lot to so many (which some of us didn't realize until it was too late), but this is sensationalism beyond comprehension.
The link is below, if you so dare to click. If so, I'd love to get your opinion; if not, I'm sure that I've given you enough information to opine anyway.
WARNING: This link says it all...
OK! Weekly magazine decided to use a close-up photo of MJ being attended to by medical personnel in what would be his final moments.
To say that I'm disturbed would be an understatement. MJ or not, I really don't think this was appropriate by any measure. As inappropriate as I think this celebration was, this magazine cover really took the cake... then again, I don't even want to get started on NY politician Peter King. It's only a matter of time before his dirty laundry is aired -- after all, he is a politician. Politicians without skeletons in their closets are like baseball players without steroids: presumed to be the minority. I'd love to hear what he has to say when the shoe is on the other foot.
I understand that his passing was tragic and that he meant a lot to so many (which some of us didn't realize until it was too late), but this is sensationalism beyond comprehension.
The link is below, if you so dare to click. If so, I'd love to get your opinion; if not, I'm sure that I've given you enough information to opine anyway.
WARNING: This link says it all...
MJ versus Jesus?
Don't intend to create controversy, but I had to share something...
I was listening to Charlemagne this morning (formerly of Wendy Williams' radio show in NYC, now the host of the morning show on 100.3 The Beat here in Philly) and he brought up an interesting conversation he'd had last night on Twitter with some guy who made a VERY bold statement:
MJ is more popular than Jesus.
Now, that may initially sound blasphemous to any religious folks reading this; however, he immediately proceeded to put his comment into its proper context. What he meant was that in today's society, MJ was relevant to more people than Jesus is. He pointed to a recent study that was done with high school freshmen, in which they were shown pictures of MJ and Jesus. Practically every one of them said that they recognized MJ. Jesus? Didn't fare quite as well.
I will readily admit that there are some flaws with the study (e.g., is there such a thing as a true "picture" of Jesus? As far as I can tell, there are only artistic representations of him -- so who knows how those kids "saw" Jesus in their heads?) Nevertheless, I found it all quite interesting... so when he asked for listeners' opinions, I was the first one to call and speak to him on air.
The whole thing coincidentally reminded me of a convo that I'd had on Friday with a co-worker, the gist of which I recanted to him. She was upset that more people seemed to be mourning and/or reporting on MJ's death than Pope John Paul II. I remarked first that the Pope was VERY old and sickly for quite some time -- so people "saw" it coming; meanwhile, MJ just dropped dead at 50. Additionally, not everybody is a Christian/Catholic/etc. that views the Pope as an important figure in the same regard as those of that religious orientation.
There are plenty of Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc. to whom the Pope was no more than a little guy with a BIG hat; meanwhile, MJ's music touched people in all countries, of all colors, creeds, sizes, shapes, origins, etc. MJ had today's thugs in red jackets and white socks not so long ago. From bums to billionaires, MJ has reached more kinds of people than any of us could ever dare count in our lifetime -- and will more than likely continue to do so for some years to come. As for the Pope? Honestly, I don't even know the current one's name. As the young kids say, that's "real talk."
Now, don't even get me started on the commercial nature of the J-man's b-day. Most kids don't (and may never) know what Christmas is supposed to observe. They think it's about snow, trees, dinner and presents -- and probably think the pope is what their grandfathers puff on every night in the family room. While I admit that I observe it as a day for family & friends to spend precious time together, I would argue that Christmas is just as commercial a holiday as Valentine's Day.
For those that believe in him, Jesus is most certainly as important as anyone or anything comes -- but MJ is probably more widely known and/or recognizable. Mind you, there is a big difference in connotation, relative to popularity... I mean, people don't pray to MJ -- although I guess it could be argued that some worshipped him, what with all the fainting & such. I'd be willing to bet that someone in Sri Lanka is doing the "Thriller" dance in the living room as we speak... and that nobody is practicing their Pope Wave™.
At the end of the day, I think that I agree with the guy: I think that MJ is more popular/recognizable (just look at the posts he's inspired me to create) than Jesus -- but that is not to be confused with "important", "enduring" or anything like it. I acknowledge that organized religion is a powerful force in society and will not go away any time soon, considering that it has survived 2 millenia (ed. note: why does everyone call Buddhism a religion? It's more accurately described as a "way of life" than anything). I respect the religious convictions of others and would never say intentionally disrespect things; nevertheless, I feel like MJ's reach extended beyond religious & cultural boundaries -- and that's what made him more recognizable.
For now, anyway...
Your thoughts?
I was listening to Charlemagne this morning (formerly of Wendy Williams' radio show in NYC, now the host of the morning show on 100.3 The Beat here in Philly) and he brought up an interesting conversation he'd had last night on Twitter with some guy who made a VERY bold statement:
MJ is more popular than Jesus.
Now, that may initially sound blasphemous to any religious folks reading this; however, he immediately proceeded to put his comment into its proper context. What he meant was that in today's society, MJ was relevant to more people than Jesus is. He pointed to a recent study that was done with high school freshmen, in which they were shown pictures of MJ and Jesus. Practically every one of them said that they recognized MJ. Jesus? Didn't fare quite as well.
I will readily admit that there are some flaws with the study (e.g., is there such a thing as a true "picture" of Jesus? As far as I can tell, there are only artistic representations of him -- so who knows how those kids "saw" Jesus in their heads?) Nevertheless, I found it all quite interesting... so when he asked for listeners' opinions, I was the first one to call and speak to him on air.
The whole thing coincidentally reminded me of a convo that I'd had on Friday with a co-worker, the gist of which I recanted to him. She was upset that more people seemed to be mourning and/or reporting on MJ's death than Pope John Paul II. I remarked first that the Pope was VERY old and sickly for quite some time -- so people "saw" it coming; meanwhile, MJ just dropped dead at 50. Additionally, not everybody is a Christian/Catholic/etc. that views the Pope as an important figure in the same regard as those of that religious orientation.
There are plenty of Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc. to whom the Pope was no more than a little guy with a BIG hat; meanwhile, MJ's music touched people in all countries, of all colors, creeds, sizes, shapes, origins, etc. MJ had today's thugs in red jackets and white socks not so long ago. From bums to billionaires, MJ has reached more kinds of people than any of us could ever dare count in our lifetime -- and will more than likely continue to do so for some years to come. As for the Pope? Honestly, I don't even know the current one's name. As the young kids say, that's "real talk."
Now, don't even get me started on the commercial nature of the J-man's b-day. Most kids don't (and may never) know what Christmas is supposed to observe. They think it's about snow, trees, dinner and presents -- and probably think the pope is what their grandfathers puff on every night in the family room. While I admit that I observe it as a day for family & friends to spend precious time together, I would argue that Christmas is just as commercial a holiday as Valentine's Day.
For those that believe in him, Jesus is most certainly as important as anyone or anything comes -- but MJ is probably more widely known and/or recognizable. Mind you, there is a big difference in connotation, relative to popularity... I mean, people don't pray to MJ -- although I guess it could be argued that some worshipped him, what with all the fainting & such. I'd be willing to bet that someone in Sri Lanka is doing the "Thriller" dance in the living room as we speak... and that nobody is practicing their Pope Wave™.
At the end of the day, I think that I agree with the guy: I think that MJ is more popular/recognizable (just look at the posts he's inspired me to create) than Jesus -- but that is not to be confused with "important", "enduring" or anything like it. I acknowledge that organized religion is a powerful force in society and will not go away any time soon, considering that it has survived 2 millenia (ed. note: why does everyone call Buddhism a religion? It's more accurately described as a "way of life" than anything). I respect the religious convictions of others and would never say intentionally disrespect things; nevertheless, I feel like MJ's reach extended beyond religious & cultural boundaries -- and that's what made him more recognizable.
For now, anyway...
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)