September 30, 2004

    Volume 28 


September 1, 2004

The Olympics


Congrats to all the athletes who won medals in the Olympics. Even if you didnít win, congrats on participating (the people who didnít win are probably saying ďOh, shut up!Ē ). When you lose, you really donít want anyone telling you things like, ďitís not whether you win or lose, itís how you play the game.Ē Just kidding.


Was it wrong to enjoy it and chuckle when a gymnast fell off the bars. No reason, I was just wondering (kidding).


During the opening ceremony, didnít you feel a little bad for the countries who only had a few people walking for them. Why didnít they just pad the group with more people from their country, like some promoters do at concerts when they don't sell enough tickets. Then again, you ask some of the few people walking for some countries and theyíd tell you that everyone in their country is already walking with them. Just kidding. I thought it was all very dignified. Everyone looked great.


And what was up with the cameramen going for these close ups of people crying when they lost. Let the people cry in peace without the close-ups. Four years worth of work down the drain and there you are sticking a camera up their noses to capture it all. Iím just kidding. Just participating is a big deal.


Some of the commentators were so wrong. One lady asked a young gymnast how it felt to mess up then watch the other girl do well. The poor kid was already depressed from losing and you asked her that.


I know the Olympic Committee had a few snags in putting together the event, but did they also snag the female volleyball playersí clothes. What happened, did you guys run out of fabric.




Watched Arthur Ashe Kids Day again. They raised a lot for charity. Did you guys see Andre Agassi kissing his wife Steffi after she did well. Oh great! - you know, with those two so taken with each other and still breeding, they'd probably just produce more genetically engineered tennis players. How will my future children beat a Graf/Agassi on the court (well, if they listen to their mommy and trip people during changeovers, they will win). At the rate those two are going, I'd have to coach my offspring from age 7 months for them to win matches against those Agassi's. I'm just joking.


Donald Young - I saw his interview at the charity and he was so unassuming. I hope he retains that. He has a lot of potential. He could benefit from a good, sensible advisor who knows the business. I hope he has that and I hope he does well. When you see someone young go into the entertainment or sports industry, you're almost a little nervous for them because you know how difficult it can be and what it can do to people. I hope things go well for him.




Aww, Miami looked so nice as the backdrop for the show. Ok, now that I've gotten the mushy stuff out the way...

Why was Beenie Man banned? Here's an article excerpt from the Herald:


Beenie Man Banned From MTV Concert


"We don't want anything to overshadow what will be a great weekend of music events for South Floridians," MTV spokeswoman Marnie Black said Wednesday. She declined further comment, reports the Associated Press."


I don't agree with Beenie Man's lyrics calling for homosexuals to be killed. Any lyrics calling for anyone to be killed is wrong. It is a sin. I also don't agree with homosexuality, as I'm a Christian and the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, just as adultery and fornication are sins as well. No one is born gay, as some have stated, as God would not make you something then tell you what He made you is a sin. Homosexuality, just like other sexual sins like fornication and adultery are sins people do of their own free will.


God grants us all the right to make our own choices, even if it goes against His Word (The Bible), but He holds us accountable for our actions. If you do not agree with someone, hatred is not the answer, as the Bible says we are to love people. I love people whether they are gay or straight.


What I don't get in all of this is why MTV banned him from the concert when Eminem, whose lyrics insult, degrade and threaten gay people, was never banned, even in the face of heavy protests at the VMA's a few years ago.


Why was Eminem allowed to attend the show and perform - and with one of the biggest, most expensive and elaborate sets of the night - yet Beenie Man was actually banned. Marilyn Manson had inappropriate lyrics telling kids to kill their parents and he was never banned from the VMAs either. Dude was at last week's show being his usual morbid self (it's not too late for you to turn around and ask God for forgiveness - one can deduce from your speech that you feel you are too far gone, even suicidal, but you are not too far from the grace of God).


So why was Beenie Man banned? Personally, I don't agree with any of the above mentioned artists' lyrics, but when you get publications like Vibe crying foul over him being banned, it is understandable under the circumstances.


Vibe magazine excerpt from the Miami Herald:


"Is the objective to have a constructive dialogue about these sensitive issues or simply to punish someone and shut down their career? And why is it OK for an artist like Eminem to have that kind of constructive dialogue through a media blitz? Instead, Beenie Man has to be shut down."


In other VMA stuff...what was up with Beyonce's "hair." It looks very familiar - the abundant blonde curls. Where did they come from all of a sudden. Why is it when she sees someone with a hairstyle she likes she goes out and gets a wig or weave and tries to knock it off. A former member of the group she is in complained that she used to wear her hair in crimps and when she joined she was forced to dye her naturally sandy brown hair red and stop wearing her trademark crimps, as Beyonce would now wear crimps and color her hair that color. Then there's all the Jennifer Lopez knock offs. I saw a pic in the paper this week and at first glance I thought it was Lopez because it was the same outfit and hairstyle she'd worn to an awards show prior...but this time it was on



Then appearing in hair commercials, flinging those weaves around telling people to buy a product that will supposedly get their hair to look like the wigs and weaves she always wears? What's next? Britney Spears endorsing chastity belts (I'm just kidding).

There is nothing wrong with wigs and weaves. Many look great, but if you wear them you really ought not to be endorsing hair products. Writers from The Seattle Post, Sunday Post (Ireland) and a Texas web site have done articles on how questionable it is for her to endorse hair products under the circumstances. And if you change your hair color as often as she supposedly does, your hair will end up in the sink. Most hair can't withstand those types of changes, especially relaxed hair because of the kind of harsh chemicals in relaxers. You do the public, especially the black community a great disservice, as black relaxed hair is more susceptible to breakage, by knowingly endorsing products you know did not give you those results.


Some over the counter hair colors produce significantly different colors than what is featured in the commercials, in print ads and on the product box (this happens for a number of reasons). I was born with auburn hair and I've been coloring and highlighting my hair for over 14 years. I've also colored other people's hair for over 10 years. I know what will get certain results and what won't.


- I read an article by Michael Jackson's former surgeon Dr. Werner Mang, which stunned me. I wasn't shocked at what he said, but more that he said it. Here's an excerpt:


"Yet because of the entertainerís bizarre appearance, he doesnít want to be known as Michael Jacksonís surgeon, fearing the public will think heís responsible for the earlier operations."


In the article, he said he reconstructed Jackson's nose once with ear cartilage, but didn't want to be known as the doctor who did so many surgeries to his face. Yea, but it is worse to be known as the doctor who has no respect for his patient's privacy. Reading the article I felt like I was going through his medical records/files.


It's not so much about Michael Jackson, but what it meant in that doctors take an oath to keep their patients medical information private. It's called the Hippocratic Oath, not the hypocritical oath. An excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath that is particularly fitting in this situation:


"I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me so that the world may know."


Since when are doctors allowed to discuss their patients medical conditions and in such great detail as he did in the article, without receiving permission from the patient to do so. Why don't you just tell everyone his blood type and social security number while you're at it.


Do some doctors think celebrities are fair game? It reminds me of the other gross invasion of privacy I wrote about regarding another individual's medical condition, the late Arthur Ashe. How does anyone think they have the right to broadcast a person's medical condition/records. An ethical doctor wouldn't do that. They wouldn't like it if people broadcasted their medical information or that of their children.


How do some doctors lose their compassion for people. Unprovoked, how do they think they can say and do anything they want, as unethical and offensive as it might be. Bad enough someone's unwell; they have to deal with that as well. I think some doctors would do far better if they talked less and listened to their patients more.


A few years ago my mother was unwell. She had a cold and other symptoms. She went to see her doctor, who she'd told me she really didn't want to go to, as she didn't do much when she told her of certain problems. My mother hated going to her doctor's office, because she didn't listen - however, her office was close by. Her favorite doctor's office was about 30 miles away.


She went to see the doctor close by and she barely checked her and dismissed it as a cold. Since when does coughing, diminished feeling in the legs and slight numbness equal a cold? I mean, Dr. Pepper would have figured out something was wrong.

Thankfully, my mom sought a second opinion from an intelligent, thorough doctor who is the father of one of her former students. He paid attention and decided to check if it was something else. It turns out it was and something far more serious. It was the viral strain that contained Guillain Barre Syndrome, which if not caught early spells paralysis (I have her permission to discuss this).


Guillain Barre has been around for years. It's not some obscure medical condition. It's even in the dictionary, people! (yes, I checked). She wouldn't have even had to open a medical journal to find it. The minute my mother told her former student's dad all the symptoms, he immediately knew what it was and ordered the tests. His diagnosis was correct.


Many people have contracted it with the common cold or after vaccinations. The symptoms were clearly there, yet Dr. Pepper didn't bother to check. You would think that she would be more thorough and careful considering one of the biggest attorneys in Miami has an office a few blocks away from her medical practice, which specializes in malpractice (how ironic).


If he hadn't decided to do a thorough check up instead of quickly trying to see as many people as possible, then bill the insurance company, my mother would have ended up in a wheel chair.


That other doctor ought to be glad I'm being nice right now in not putting her name on here. However, had he not caught that information by the grace of God, I would have severely sued her and demanded she answer for her negligence. I'm an understanding person, but once your unethical actions/negligence produces discernibly bad results, you have crossed the line, as that's not an accident or a mistake.


Why are doctors like her dangerous? Because people go to them sick, rely on them for help and an accurate diagnosis, yet they quickly and dismissively check them out, don't listen, talk over them and send them home. These people walk away thinking it's all in their head when they are really sick and in some cases, gravely ill.


Doctors are not God, they don't know everything. Therefore there will be mistakes and that's understandable. If you do the best you can, no one can fault you for that. That's all people really ask for. People will appreciate your efforts even if they are not successful.

However, there are mistakes ...and then there's negligence.


With some (not all) doctors, you have to be bleeding on their waiting room floor before they think something's wrong.

When you treat all your patients like they are hypochondriacs instead of listening to them and keeping abreast of all the latest findings, you become a liability to your profession. If you're going to behave like that, please, for everyone's sake, quit your day job.


- On July 10, 2004 I wrote about singers ripping off other singersí careers, among them I listed Jessica Simpson as one of the people whose career was being ripped off. Last week it was announced that Britney Spears is planning on getting married then turning it into a reality show with the intent of becoming the new Newlywed(s), which originally featured Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey. A few months ago when Simpson announced she was coming out with a perfume and cosmetics line, Spears announced the same shortly after. Now comes the new version of the reality show, which will taint what that show has become.


People didnít know as much about Simpson and Lachey, which made it different. I didnít like certain things that were said on the show, but I understood why the show did well. They were very likable. Simpson and Lachey will be a tough act to follow. Spears' show will basically translate into a mom with two black biracial kids and a back up dancer who abandoned her while she was pregnant to live in sin with Spears. The Simpson-Lachey show had credibility, this new one with Spears = the Jerry Springer show. It is going to taint what the show became. However, people would watch the show to witness the dysfunction.


It also looks like an attempt to latch onto someone elseís gravy train - ride someoneís coattails. Why do some singers think who God made them is not good enough, that they have to try so hard to morph into other singers, taking away from other artists and what they've accomplished.


Ė There were headlines recently about Madonna that read ďDirector Blames Madonna For Heart Attack,Ē which subsequently killed him. She said the troops were going into foreign countries killing foreign people, yet she was invading foreign countries finishing off foreign directors.


Her behavior on a film set caused the director so much stress that he said it caused his heart attack, which landed him in the hospital during the making of what ended up being his last film. He died shortly after. What a terrible way to end his career.


He bequeathed his notes to the BFI and in it he voiced his displeasure at her trying to take over his film, which has been written of her a few times before regarding other films. The BFI made these notes public and it was written about in the Telegraph.


He won an Oscar for his previous work, but her ego actually fooled her into thinking she knew more about directing than he did, even though she canít even act. She made his life miserable on his own film set with her demands and by trying to change the film/script. When the film was released it bombed and was terribly panned, well, mostly Madonnaís performance was panned.


That's what I don't get (no, not them panning her performances Ė hey, she earned those horrible reviews). A group of people get together with the objective of making a film. It's supposed to be a pleasant, memorable experience. How some manage to turn it into a stressful, antagonizing, frustrating, ego-driven fiasco is beyond me. How does a film set disintegrate into that. Itís totally uncalled for.


Most people are happy to make their film. They show up to work excited. They are trying to create a great piece of cinema. They understand their jobs. After all, they had pre-production meetings. Everyone knew what they were supposed to do. They signed contracts, so how is it some get on the set shortly after and act like egotistical brats whose objective is to conquer and destroy the film.


The problems occur when you get know it all actors with no talent for filmmaking deciding that they want to take over the set. A sensible person would look on at it and, how delusional.


I donít know why directors allow some actors to do that to them. I donít mean that in a bad way. I mean it rhetorically, in that you love your work and want it to do well, so you make sacrifices, even if it means putting up with egocentric behavior. However, directors really should stop that. Take control of your set. No oneís that good that they are worth destroying your health and career (And in that case she wasnít good to begin with).


I can understand if you have some great acting talent, but even then, to allow them to destroy you should not be an option. No film is worth that. And if there is that much chaos on a set, the film is going to be a mess, anyway.


Going on a set and trying to change the script and antagonizing the director is unprofessional and shows a bad work ethic. You almost feel sorry for some directors having to deal with certain actresses.


If an actor annoys you, why tolerate it. If itís a self-centered vain actress, revise the script and then tell them there's a new scene that calls for them to wear no make up with their hair pulled back, under 20,000 watt lighting. Then say, ďyou don't mind do you, good,Ē pat the actress on back and quickly walk away before they can answer. The actress will be left shocked and mortified. Not even Botox could fix that scene. No actress wants a scene like that.


Some filmmakers allow certain people to drive them to despair and sometimes illness. Don't let them ruin your movie. Don't let them ruin your health. Don't even let them ruin your day.


Then again, certain actors know who to try that with. They aren't going to try that with a Spielberg or a Jackson, because their arrogance and incompetence would show for all to see.


The fact of the matter is everyone on a set has their roles defined. You do what you were hired to do and what you are getting paid to do. You don't try to take over other people's jobs. Thereís a reason that person has the job. Itís because they have a talent for it and they know what they are doing (well, unless they slept with someone to get the job).


Do you even realize how bad it looks trying to take over a set. And 99% of the time the ideas being foisted on the director are bad. The director usually resents it. You take a lot of time to plan out your film and here comes a know it all telling you what the film should be.


These films make actors, but some act like itís the other way around.


Itís one thing to request that a line or a few lines be changed, as you are not comfortable with them. Thatís understandable, but some actors go to egocentric extremes in trying to drastically alter films. They canít write, canít direct, some of them canít even act, but they are trying to alter the film.


You really donít need talent anymore to make it as an entertainer. The entertainment industry worldwide has proven many times in the last few years that all you need is the right look and the willingness to compromise all ethical standards.


You can get anyone that is morally challenged and willing to prostitute themselves and turn them into a celebrity. Talent is no longer required. Yet, some in that delusional state start believing their own hype and convince themselves theyíve got talent, when they didnít get to where they are on merit, but on a willingness to compromise themselves and everything ethical.


Really, think about it. Look at some of the celebrities who are in the mainstream right now. The non-singing singers and a slew of cookie cutter actresses with no talent. I canít even tell the new breed of cookie cutter actresses apart and for someone who reads trade papers and has for many years, that says a lot. Not to mention they are so annoyingly trendy that thereís nothing serious or of any notable substance about them. Itís all highlights, lip gloss and cookie cutter haircuts.


I was flipping channels the other day, saw a show with a few of these actresses and thought, which one of them is that and whoís the other one? No personality, no intelligence, just the willingness to be raunchy. Thatís not talent.


When you watch their interviews, you donít think young Hepburn, you thinkÖwhich strip club did they find her in (kidding).

Whatís worse is some of them think they are the best thing since sliced bread, when far more accomplished, intelligent women preceded them. Their definition of talent and great acting is an envelope pushing sex scene that will have the trade papers abuzz. Face it, youíre porn stars, not actors.


Their roles seem to revolve around their highlights, their lip gloss and how much clothes theyíre not wearing. Then they spoon feed younger audiences that rubbish and really give them nothing to aspire to. Instead of kids looking at the intelligent young actors who are tackling great roles, they are looking at the scantily clad, trendy ones who are in the mainstreamÖwhose careers wonít last. You can only do that rubbish so long.


Youíve got a few actresses in the mainstream who donít have that airheadediness about them. You sense that they are humans and not brainless clones, as they look human, not silicone injected with clueless expressions on their faces.


However, some of their peers are inexplicably vapid and dress like prostitutes to get attention. You drop some of them off in certain areas and theyíll mistakenly get arrested for soliciting.


They become celebrities in the mainstream, but as soon as their 15 minutes of fame wears off, so does their legacy. Once you end up in that group you will be typecast and not considered for serious roles. There is a set of actors that serious directors always over look for good roles, even though it was in the trades that they auditioned for the part. They are viewed as bubblegum and a smart director with good projects wouldnít want to be affiliated with that, as it will affect their credibility as well.


Recently, I saw an interview with a singer/actress that was terrible. It dragged on and on and was filled with contradictions and mispronunciations. After over 30 minutes of talking, she essentially saidÖnothing. Inarticulate speech about different things that just didnít make sense, littered with uhís and umís. Thereís no excuse for that. She wasnít nervous. She just spends her time focusing on airheaded subjects, which is why virtually nothing of worth escapes her mouth.


However, some have learned that if they are raunchy and wear little clothes, theyíll get attention, regardless of their lack of talent. To the aspiring singers and actresses out there, donít go that route. The people who do are not respected or taken seriously. If you want longevity and respectability, learn your craft and use discretion. Keep your clothes on and comport yourself with dignity.



© Copyright 2002 - 2017 AG. All Rights Reserved. Web site design by Aisha for Sonustar Interactive

Aisha | Goodison Trust | Sonustar | Sonustar News | Judiciary Report | Sound Off Column | Celluloid Film Review | Consumer News Reviews | Compendius | United Peace Initiative | Justice And Truth | American Justice System Corruption | Medicine And Science Times