When it came up that Michael Jackson had been rushed to the
hospital, I was sitting at my computer. Thinking it would turn out just
as the recent Heidi Montag story did when she was rushed to the hospital
during some celebrity reality show in Costa Rica, or as countless
Britney Spears ambulance stories had, I brushed the story aside a bit.
However, it wasn't long before online news outlets were running the
headline that Michael Jackson had actually, (this time), died.
From my recollection, most of the headlines were technically proper in
the announcement of the death of the King of Pop. Rather than omitting
the sources of the news in their headlines, they attributed the news to
TMZ and the L.A. Times in their headlines. Some news outlets equally
weighted their headlines with the news and the sources. Other outlets
dwarfed the sources with shocking uppercase: huge letters "MICHAEL
JACKSON DIES," small letters "LA Times reports." Eventually, news
outlets dropped the sources of their news from their headlines,
declaring plainly that MJ had died. CNN kept sources in its headlines
for an exceptionally long time. After CNN confirmed MJ's death with the
coroner, it dropped its hearsay position and finally committed to the
tragic story.
I remember being more disoriented than saddened
by the MJ news. Michael Jackson had been a part of my life for a very
long time--my whole life, actually. He played the role of background
presence or white noise. I suppose he was an institution I bought enough
into. Or maybe he was that prize exhibit running at the local zoo that
you felt proud of having in your town but never tried to see. A few days prior to his death, I entered the menagerie that is
YouTube and randomly chose to watch his jaw-dropping music video "Black
or White," only to have my mandibular muscles go slack again in
witnessing his idiosyncratic yet ingenious choices. He was very much
alive in the video. But his death wasn't a shock to me, since I'd seen
plenty of photographs recently of a frail-looking, wheelchaired man--he
seemed on his way out. Little did I know, until the posthumous release
of footage of an enormous concert he was rehearsing, that he was back to
dancing.
A few hours after the news broke, I went into my
local supermarket to grab some dinner. There I saw on the widescreen TV
CNN's independent confirmation of MJ's death. Oddly, I started to get a
little giddy. Not because Michael Jackson had died, but because there
was a palpable air of excitement over the news. The employees at Bravo
International Supermarket were tickled chimpanzees, broken by this
breaking news from the tedium of scanning items and debit-or-credit
questions. I grinned like one of them amidst the excitement. I
skedaddled into the frozen food section for dinner, then suddenly I
received a cell phone call. It was Lisa, an ex-girlfriend of mine, now
in Colorado.
Lisa asked, "Did you hear Jeff Goldblum died?"
I stopped dead.
I was immediately disturbed.
I sought more information.
Lisa said she'd heard that Jeff Goldblum fell to his death while mountain-climbing in New Zealand.
I asked her where she had heard this.
It was from Tim,
someone I didn't consider a very reliable source
but someone possibly inside the entertainment industry.
She said that according to Tim, the news was all over Twitter that Jeff Goldblum had died.
* * *
Some backstory: A month prior, I had wrapped a film called The Baster.
On it, I was the stand-in for Jason Bateman, who co-starred in the film
with Jennifer Aniston. Jeff Goldblum had a small, funny role in The
Baster, and some of my most memorable moments were with him.
For example, one day at Equinox Fitness Club in Tribeca, as the crew
hurriedly set up a shot, I found myself standing in alongside Jeff. Jeff
was this wiry, six-foot-five hypomanic actor who never seemed to stop
talking. …
Thursday, 9 June 2016
Wesley Clark: The Guy Who Almost Started World War III
General
Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and Friend
of Bill's (FOB) is
considering a run for President of these United States. In an AP report
of 29 June, former-President William Jefferson Clinton stated that Wesley
Clark would make a fine president, if he ran. After all, what are friends
for? There is also a grassroots campaign effort to "draft
Wesley Clark" for president which states, "We believe
America needs a new president. One who can be a voice for common sense
and moderation in these dangerous, uncertain times. One with the unquestionable
leadership and foreign policy credentials necessary to win in 2004.
We believe that General Wesley Clark might just be – the one. That
is why we are trying to convince him to seek the Democratic nomination
for president."
Let us
look at what kind of a president Wesley Clark would make according
to CounterPunch of November 12, 1999, "The poster child for
everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps,"
exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action,
citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division
at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994.
"At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, CounterPunch delved into the military career of General Wesley Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks derived from the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast.
"With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, 'a horse's ass.' Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the Nato command two months early."
This is the guy who received the Kosovo Campaign Medal after having been granted a waiver, although according to an article in Stars and Stripes (European addition), no one seems to know who granted the waiver in time for the general to get the first medal awarded. Even though he led the international alliance in its 78-day blitz against Yugoslavia, the waiver was necessary because General Clark's service did not meet the criteria for the award which required service in the actual theater of operation. It appears that Clark made no effort to secure similar waivers for the thousands of service personnel who supported the effort from bases outside the combat zone.
On 17 July 2001, General Wesley Clark was confronted in an often heated exchange by his critics at Border's book store where the general was promoting his book, Waging Modern War. Although one of the axioms of Clark's book is that, "A Political Problem Cannot be Solved by Military Force," what he practiced and advocated in Kosovo was just the opposite. When confronted with questions about the misuse of air power and grossly exaggerating the results as exposed in a Newsweek article titled Kosovo Cover-Up of 15 May 2000, targeting civilian targets as stated by Sen. Joe Lieberman, and consorting with KLA terrorists such as Hashim Thaci and Agim Ceku, General Clark's replies were always the same: the questioner was wrong, Sen. Lieberman was wrong, and Newsweek was wrong. "I went to the presentation very much opposed to everything Clark stood for, but it wasn't until I heard him speak and answer questions that I realized how dangerous a man like this is," writes Col. George Jatras, USAF (Ret).
'THE GUY WHO ALMOST STARTED WORLD WAR III'
In Waging Modern War, General Clark wrote about his fury upon learning that Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo, before British or American forces. In the article "The guy who almost started World War III," (Aug. 3, 1999), The Guardian (U.K.) wrote, "No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War."
"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. The Times of London reported on 23 May 2001 in an article titled, "Kosovo clash of allied generals," that "General Sir Michael Jackson [was] told that he would have to resign if he refused to obey an order by the American commander of Nato's forces during the Kosovo war to stop the Russians from seizing control of Pristina airport in June 1999."
If General Clark had had his way, we might have gone to war with Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War and we certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an ill-conceived ground war
In his article titled, "A Long, Tough Job," which appeared in the Washington Post on 14 September, Clark writes, "And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.
"Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity."
"Rely on international law"? Clinton and his gangsters broke every international law on the books regarding Yugoslavia. "Evidence must be collected?" Evidence of what? The Serbs certainly did not have weapons of mass destruction; nor did they attack us first; nor were they ever a threat to us. His words ring hollow.
You can read "Wes" Clark's letter to the National Albanian American Council of 1 November 2002, in which he says, "Let's stay in touch." For an American general who was supposed to be impartial in a civil war, it is no secret that Clark is the Albanian lobby's fair-haired boy. And why not? He delivered Kosovo to them.
General Clark brags about the fact that not one solder was killed under his command. Even though the Serbs had every opportunity to kill American soldiers, I contend that the Serbs did not want Americans to die at their hands. This was illustrated when Sgt. Christopher Stone of Smiths Creek, Michigan, upon his release, left a note to his prison guards thanking them for treating him with "dignity and respect." The Pentagon declined to release a copy of Stone's note, but a copy was made available to The Associated Press (5 May 1999). The note ended with "Thank you, you are very kind" and "God help you."
Col. David Hackworth, in his 1999 commentary Defending America, wrote of Clark: Known by those who've served with him as the Ultimate Perfumed Prince, he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die.
Col. Jatras writes that "General Clark is the kind of general we saw too often during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in a position of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the security of our nation. That it happened once again we can thank that other Rhodes scholar from Arkansas."
In this writer's judgement, what this guy is positioning himself for is the VP slot with Hillary running for President. It would be a marriage made in Hell...a Hell for all of us.
Knowing all the above, why would anyone want as president or VP a guy who was willing to start World War III for the sake of his own ego and self-importance?
"At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, CounterPunch delved into the military career of General Wesley Clark and discovered that his meteoric rise through the ranks derived from the successful manipulation of appearances: faking the results of combat exercises, greasing to superiors and other practices common to the general officer corps. We correctly predicted that the unspinnable realities of a real war would cause him to become unhinged. Given that Clark attempted to bomb the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, we feel events amply vindicated our forecast.
"With the end of hostilities it has become clear even to Clark that most people, apart from some fanatical members of the war party in the White House and State Department, consider the general, as one Pentagon official puts it, 'a horse's ass.' Defense Secretary William Cohen is known to loathe him, and has seen to it that the Hammer of the Serbs will be relieved of the Nato command two months early."
This is the guy who received the Kosovo Campaign Medal after having been granted a waiver, although according to an article in Stars and Stripes (European addition), no one seems to know who granted the waiver in time for the general to get the first medal awarded. Even though he led the international alliance in its 78-day blitz against Yugoslavia, the waiver was necessary because General Clark's service did not meet the criteria for the award which required service in the actual theater of operation. It appears that Clark made no effort to secure similar waivers for the thousands of service personnel who supported the effort from bases outside the combat zone.
On 17 July 2001, General Wesley Clark was confronted in an often heated exchange by his critics at Border's book store where the general was promoting his book, Waging Modern War. Although one of the axioms of Clark's book is that, "A Political Problem Cannot be Solved by Military Force," what he practiced and advocated in Kosovo was just the opposite. When confronted with questions about the misuse of air power and grossly exaggerating the results as exposed in a Newsweek article titled Kosovo Cover-Up of 15 May 2000, targeting civilian targets as stated by Sen. Joe Lieberman, and consorting with KLA terrorists such as Hashim Thaci and Agim Ceku, General Clark's replies were always the same: the questioner was wrong, Sen. Lieberman was wrong, and Newsweek was wrong. "I went to the presentation very much opposed to everything Clark stood for, but it wasn't until I heard him speak and answer questions that I realized how dangerous a man like this is," writes Col. George Jatras, USAF (Ret).
'THE GUY WHO ALMOST STARTED WORLD WAR III'
In Waging Modern War, General Clark wrote about his fury upon learning that Russian peacekeepers had entered the airport at Pristina, Kosovo, before British or American forces. In the article "The guy who almost started World War III," (Aug. 3, 1999), The Guardian (U.K.) wrote, "No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the West's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if NATO's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport, threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the Cold War."
"I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international KFOR peacekeeping force, is reported to have told Gen. Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. The Times of London reported on 23 May 2001 in an article titled, "Kosovo clash of allied generals," that "General Sir Michael Jackson [was] told that he would have to resign if he refused to obey an order by the American commander of Nato's forces during the Kosovo war to stop the Russians from seizing control of Pristina airport in June 1999."
If General Clark had had his way, we might have gone to war with Russia, or at least resurrected vestiges of the Cold War and we certainly would have had hundreds if not thousands of casualties in an ill-conceived ground war
In his article titled, "A Long, Tough Job," which appeared in the Washington Post on 14 September, Clark writes, "And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.
"Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity."
"Rely on international law"? Clinton and his gangsters broke every international law on the books regarding Yugoslavia. "Evidence must be collected?" Evidence of what? The Serbs certainly did not have weapons of mass destruction; nor did they attack us first; nor were they ever a threat to us. His words ring hollow.
You can read "Wes" Clark's letter to the National Albanian American Council of 1 November 2002, in which he says, "Let's stay in touch." For an American general who was supposed to be impartial in a civil war, it is no secret that Clark is the Albanian lobby's fair-haired boy. And why not? He delivered Kosovo to them.
General Clark brags about the fact that not one solder was killed under his command. Even though the Serbs had every opportunity to kill American soldiers, I contend that the Serbs did not want Americans to die at their hands. This was illustrated when Sgt. Christopher Stone of Smiths Creek, Michigan, upon his release, left a note to his prison guards thanking them for treating him with "dignity and respect." The Pentagon declined to release a copy of Stone's note, but a copy was made available to The Associated Press (5 May 1999). The note ended with "Thank you, you are very kind" and "God help you."
Col. David Hackworth, in his 1999 commentary Defending America, wrote of Clark: Known by those who've served with him as the Ultimate Perfumed Prince, he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die.
Col. Jatras writes that "General Clark is the kind of general we saw too often during the Vietnam War and hoped never to see again in a position of responsibility for the lives of our GIs and the security of our nation. That it happened once again we can thank that other Rhodes scholar from Arkansas."
In this writer's judgement, what this guy is positioning himself for is the VP slot with Hillary running for President. It would be a marriage made in Hell...a Hell for all of us.
Knowing all the above, why would anyone want as president or VP a guy who was willing to start World War III for the sake of his own ego and self-importance?
Wednesday, 30 March 2016
I'm not surprised that a white actor will play Michael Jackson
I watched with interest the selection of a white actor to play
Michael Jackson in an upcoming British comedy. But I refused to work
myself into a frenzy over this, the latest insult to black actors and
black people, because anyone who understands the history of race and
film should not be surprised.
Film has long been a driver of racist ideology. Perhaps I’m more sensitive to that as a black man. Unfortunately, the film industry doesn't share that sense of awareness.
In the minds of Hollywood apologists, the racism in early films was justified by the artistry. For example, we’ve long been told that Birth of A Nation, the D.W. Griffith film based on the novel, "The Clansman," was not a recruitment film for the Ku Klux Klan. If Hollywood elites are to be believed, Griffith's film, which portrayed black men as rapists and the murderous Klan as heroes, was a sterling example of cinematic brilliance. Hollywood hailed it a technological marvel so innovative that the Directors Guild of America's Award for Lifetime Achievement once bore D.W. Griffith’s name.
But the race-based ideology portrayed in mainstream films didn't stop with Birth of a Nation. In films such as Gone With The Wind, the movie for which a brilliant black actress named Hattie McDaniel was awarded an Oscar for playing a maid, blacks were shown as simple-minded people whose only interest was the happiness of the slave holder. In other films, blacks were shown as servants whose wide-eyed gaze and mush-mouthed dialogue served to reinforce their status as second-class citizens.
Yes, there were exceptions, like independently produced movies by filmmakers like Oscar Micheaux. There were a few mainstream films. Carmen Jones, for example, starred an all black cast, including Dorothy Dandridge and Harry Belafonte. Sidney Portier conveyed black dignity on the silver screen. But theatrically released films showing blacks as three dimensional characters were few and far between. That’s why it’s hard for me to watch old films. To me, they look like propaganda designed to tell all of us what our status in America should be.
But American blacks weren't the only ones who received short shrift in so-called classic films. Other people of color were also demeaned.
A white man employed insulting Asian stereotypes while portraying Charlie Chan. Charlton Heston played an Israelite named Moses—a man who should have looked like the brown-skinned Egyptians we see on hieroglyphics. Hollywood told us that Pharaohs were white, that Egypt is not in Africa, and that the only dark skinned people in biblical times were slaves.
So when I heard that a white actor named Joseph Fiennes had been slated to play Michael Jackson, I was neither surprised nor shocked. I was simply numb.
The 30-minute project is part of a comedy series called Urban Myths, according to a spokeswoman from the production company Sky Arts. It is about Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor, and Marlon Brando carpooling out of New York in the wake of 9/11. In my view, its comedic focus is underscored by having a white actor portray one of the great black entertainment icons of our time.
The fact that Jackson, when he was alive, explicitly told Oprah Winfrey in an interview that he was a proud African American who would not want to be portrayed by a white actor, just adds insult to the injury. Not only for Jackson’s family, but also for the entire African American community.
Unfortunately, none of this is new. It falls in line with the Academy Awards excluding black actors from nominations. It illustrates the mindset behind racist emails sent by Sony executives. It illustrates the overall attitude that keeps blacks in the background of mainstream films, if they are shown at all.
I, for one, am not surprised by this latest insult. Rather, I believe our community should be galvanized by it.
It’s time for black actors, directors, and producers to make more of their own films. It's time for black moviegoers to vote with their dollars. It's time for people of color to boldly tell our own stories.
The African American community can no longer wait for others to do it for us.
NOTE: This version has been corrected to clarify that the Michael Jackson project is a 30-minute episode in a comedy series and not a full-length film.
Film has long been a driver of racist ideology. Perhaps I’m more sensitive to that as a black man. Unfortunately, the film industry doesn't share that sense of awareness.
In the minds of Hollywood apologists, the racism in early films was justified by the artistry. For example, we’ve long been told that Birth of A Nation, the D.W. Griffith film based on the novel, "The Clansman," was not a recruitment film for the Ku Klux Klan. If Hollywood elites are to be believed, Griffith's film, which portrayed black men as rapists and the murderous Klan as heroes, was a sterling example of cinematic brilliance. Hollywood hailed it a technological marvel so innovative that the Directors Guild of America's Award for Lifetime Achievement once bore D.W. Griffith’s name.
But the race-based ideology portrayed in mainstream films didn't stop with Birth of a Nation. In films such as Gone With The Wind, the movie for which a brilliant black actress named Hattie McDaniel was awarded an Oscar for playing a maid, blacks were shown as simple-minded people whose only interest was the happiness of the slave holder. In other films, blacks were shown as servants whose wide-eyed gaze and mush-mouthed dialogue served to reinforce their status as second-class citizens.
Yes, there were exceptions, like independently produced movies by filmmakers like Oscar Micheaux. There were a few mainstream films. Carmen Jones, for example, starred an all black cast, including Dorothy Dandridge and Harry Belafonte. Sidney Portier conveyed black dignity on the silver screen. But theatrically released films showing blacks as three dimensional characters were few and far between. That’s why it’s hard for me to watch old films. To me, they look like propaganda designed to tell all of us what our status in America should be.
But American blacks weren't the only ones who received short shrift in so-called classic films. Other people of color were also demeaned.
A white man employed insulting Asian stereotypes while portraying Charlie Chan. Charlton Heston played an Israelite named Moses—a man who should have looked like the brown-skinned Egyptians we see on hieroglyphics. Hollywood told us that Pharaohs were white, that Egypt is not in Africa, and that the only dark skinned people in biblical times were slaves.
So when I heard that a white actor named Joseph Fiennes had been slated to play Michael Jackson, I was neither surprised nor shocked. I was simply numb.
The 30-minute project is part of a comedy series called Urban Myths, according to a spokeswoman from the production company Sky Arts. It is about Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor, and Marlon Brando carpooling out of New York in the wake of 9/11. In my view, its comedic focus is underscored by having a white actor portray one of the great black entertainment icons of our time.
The fact that Jackson, when he was alive, explicitly told Oprah Winfrey in an interview that he was a proud African American who would not want to be portrayed by a white actor, just adds insult to the injury. Not only for Jackson’s family, but also for the entire African American community.
Unfortunately, none of this is new. It falls in line with the Academy Awards excluding black actors from nominations. It illustrates the mindset behind racist emails sent by Sony executives. It illustrates the overall attitude that keeps blacks in the background of mainstream films, if they are shown at all.
I, for one, am not surprised by this latest insult. Rather, I believe our community should be galvanized by it.
It’s time for black actors, directors, and producers to make more of their own films. It's time for black moviegoers to vote with their dollars. It's time for people of color to boldly tell our own stories.
The African American community can no longer wait for others to do it for us.
NOTE: This version has been corrected to clarify that the Michael Jackson project is a 30-minute episode in a comedy series and not a full-length film.
Hideo Kojima vs. Michael Jackson: an unfair battle?
Versus is an occasional column in which something from the Metal Gear universe is put up against something not from the Metal Gear universe.
Often, the two are unlikely opponents. Who will win? Who will lose?
Only I can decide, because I'm writing the article. This week: Hideo
Kojima vs. Michael Jackson: who is the best creator? (NB: The article is
designed so that you read each paragraph side by side - they are point
and counter point in nature. Also, please realize that some of the
content below is simply for comedic value, or as an eye opener: there is
no way that you can compare the sales of Hideo Kojima's games to
Michael Jackson's records. But it's still funny to see how much
Jackson's sales eclipse other figures. Take that, Kojima.) [This article originally appeared on my blog, Metal Gear Scholar]
Hideo Kojima is alive, but the King of Pop is dead. You've heard it everywhere, so I'm not going to repeat it, but Michael Jackson was a great creator: music, music videos, film, and even Moonwalker, which is a great game (although I don't really know how much influence he had in its production). Hideo Kojima has also made his fair share of stuff. But whose work is better? Well, pitting games against music, it's the first edition of versus!: Hideo Kojima up against Michael Jackson. And if you really disagree with my findings (which you shouldn't), you can vote in the poll at the end of the article.
Round One: Quality of production
How well produced were each man's works? Do the games developed by Hideo Kojima eclipse the multitude of songs written and performed by Michael Jackson?
Hideo Kojima is alive, but the King of Pop is dead. You've heard it everywhere, so I'm not going to repeat it, but Michael Jackson was a great creator: music, music videos, film, and even Moonwalker, which is a great game (although I don't really know how much influence he had in its production). Hideo Kojima has also made his fair share of stuff. But whose work is better? Well, pitting games against music, it's the first edition of versus!: Hideo Kojima up against Michael Jackson. And if you really disagree with my findings (which you shouldn't), you can vote in the poll at the end of the article.
Round One: Quality of production
How well produced were each man's works? Do the games developed by Hideo Kojima eclipse the multitude of songs written and performed by Michael Jackson?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
