" Kinda Surprised Greenpeace Hasn't Come Down On Herman Melville...."

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear...."

                         ---George Orwell

NEW YORK (AP) — First lady Michelle Obama urged Hollywood to give a more accurate portrayal of veterans and defended the Oscar-nominated "American Sniper," which has received criticism for its depiction of war.

Bradley Cooper, who is nominated for best actor for his portrayal of the late Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, joined Obama and media heavyweights in Washington, D.C., on Friday to launch "6 Certified" with representatives from Warner Bros., National Geographic Channels and the Producers Guild of America.

The initiative will allow TV shows and films to display an onscreen badge that tells viewers the show they're watching has been certified by the group Got Your 6, which derives its name from military slang for "I've got your back." To be approved, the film or show must cast a veteran, tell a veteran story, have a story written by a veteran or use veterans as resources.

"We hope our country will welcome back our veterans — not by setting them apart but by fully integrating them into the fabric of our communities," Mrs. Obama said.

Mrs. Obama also came to the defense of "American Sniper" — about Kyle, considered the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history. It has become a box-office sensation and has strong supporters but has also weathered a growing storm of criticism that the film glorifies murder and serves as war propaganda.

"While I know there have been critics, I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I've heard firsthand from military families over these past few years," she said.

Chris Marvin, managing director of Got Your 6 and a former U.S. Army officer and Blackhawk helicopter pilot, said their campaign isn't hoping to show veterans in a good light but in an honest one.

"Most Americans tell us that they only see veterans portrayed as broken or as heroes who walk on water in film and television," he said by phone. "We're missing something in the middle. Veterans are everyday people.

"They're your next door neighbor who helps you bring your garbage cans back when they blow away. They're your kids' fifth-grade math teacher. It's the person running for city council," he added. "You see them every day in your own life but you don't see them on film or television."

The Got Your 6 group was launched in 2012 to enlist Hollywood in the effort to discourage stereotypes and promote more accurate representation of the 2.6 million soldiers coming home over the past 10 years. Surveys have found that many Americans presume veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, are homeless or are addicted to drugs or alcohol.

The group has taken lessons from other successful efforts to change national viewpoints, including increasing gay rights, reducing teen pregnancies, encouraging colonoscopies, improving animal rights and reducing drunken driving. It has identified Hollywood as an engine of cultural change.

"This is more of a challenge than anything else. We're challenging the entertainment industry — myself included — to live up to the responsibilities inherent in the powers we have and with the reach that we have," said Charlie Ebersol, a producer and creator of the "6 Certified" program.

Ebersol said films like 1987's "Full Metal Jacket" by Stanley Kubrick and Clint Eastwood's new "American Sniper" would likely be eligible for certification because they portray veterans accurately, even if the soldiers in those films aren't representative of the population of veterans.

Mrs. Obama cited TV shows including "Nashville" and "Doc McStuffins" as ones that share stories of "our veterans in new and meaningful ways." She said telling veterans' stories honestly makes for "tremendous TV and movies" and "are good for business as well."

Ebersol had his own list of shows with positive veteran portrayals, including the Jay Pritchett character in "Modern Family," Sam Waterston's portrayal of veteran Charlie Skinner on "The Newsroom" and Seth Rogen's guest role as a veteran on "The Mindy Project." In all them, being a veteran wasn't their defining characteristic.

"We have a real opportunity to go way beyond the platitudes of the entertainment industry. We love to say, 'I support the troops!' and 'I've got a yellow ribbon!' but there's an actual, tangible way to make a difference. That's what the challenge is here."

In bureaucratic America, nothing springs to life faster than a good cause.

And, of course, a group, panel, committee and/or advisory board to lead the charge in the pursuit of said cause.

Hidden, of course, in the "whereas's" and "therefore's" of the proclamations and/or declarations of principles that trumpet the missions of the aforementioned group, panel, committee and/or advisory board leading the charge in pursuit of said cause is a more often than not obvious, but not necessarily noticed, inevitable conclusion.

The lack of need for the aforementioned group, panel, committee and/or advisory board leading the charge in pursuit of said cause.

Primarily owing to the lack of need for said cause in the first place.

In this case, the Got Your 6.

Now, if, at this moment, you're inclined to instinctively fire off some snappy/snarky/savage comment, opinion and/or retort, usually, but not always accompanied by the ferocious waving of your flag and/or the sounds of Lee Greenwood wafting in the background, angrily taking me to task for my lack of patriotism, please allow me this suggestion.

Shut up.

I  love this country just as much as you love this country, I support the men, women and their families who give time, energy and, too often, their lives in service to this country as much as you support them and I don't need to hear your rah rah, blah blah, love it or leave it bullshit now or anytime in the future.

Because what I'm talking about here has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism.

And has everything to do with political correctness.

Pandering.

Placating.

Piffle.

I haven't seen American Sniper. Probably wont until it shows up on Netflix.

No reflection at all on the content of the film.

I just don't go out to the movies much anymore.

I don't know what I will think of the movie until I see it.

There is, though, one thing that I am rock solid, bet the farm, absolutely sure that I do know.

It's a movie.

From a book.

Neither of which required, or shall ever require, a group, panel, committee and/or advisory board to lead the charge in pursuit of the cause.

Let alone legitimize them.

Or the cause.

See, here's the thing.

It's a free country.

And free is like pregnant.

No such thing as "a little bit".

And I don't need or want to seek approval from a group, I don't need or want to hear endorsements from a panel, I don't need or want recommendations from a committee and I damn sure don't want or need to see a ribbon, medallion, logo and/or Good fucking Housekeeping Seal on a motion picture to help determine whether I want to see it or not.

What, ideally, I do want is to be left alone to use my intelligence, common sense, core values and/or basic humanity to determine what I want to see and how I will feel about it once I see it.

And, not for nothin'.....but, ideally, that's what I want for you, too.

I don't care what the MPAA thinks about movies.

I don't care what the Parents Television Council thinks about TV shows.

And I don't care if Got Your 6 approves or disapproves of the content of a film.

I'm smart enough, old enough, wise enough and in sufficient control of my faculties to determine for myself whether a film, TV show, book, recording, et al moves me, inspires me, offends me, repulses me, angers me, delights me.....

...and whether it is a classic of its category.....or a stereotype I have no interest in endorsing.

Truth is, I can't, in fact none of us can, tell the difference between that which moves, inspires, delights and that which angers, offends or repulses unless I have free, unfettered, unbiased, unequivocal access to all.

Those who chafe at the idea of government regulation or, for that matter, regulation in general too often overlook a key element in the discussion.

Swords cut both ways.

Even the swords of freedom.

Especially the swords of freedom.

Singer/writer Steve Earle once said to me that Nashville record producers had an annoying habit of always asking to be pitched songs that were "up-tempo, positive...up-tempo, positive...".

Steve's take on it was "if you're doing that all the time, you're not painting a complete portrait because, let's face it, life ain't always up-tempo, positive...sometimes, it's down-tempo, negative..."

I'm not interested in cinema that perpetually portrays the military in a negative light.

Nor am I interested in cinema that perpetually portrays the military in a positive light.

I am interested in cinema that moves me, inspires me, offends me, repulses me, angers me, delights me.....

...and whether it is a classic of its category.....or a stereotype I have no interest in endorsing.

I am interested, it turns out, in the freedom to make up my own mind.

Freedom in the purest sense of the word.

So, thanks anyway, Got Your 6.

Don't need you.

Come to think of it, neither do the veterans.

We've got their 6.

"....Exclusion Is Not Automatically Defined As Lack of Inclusion...."

Yada yada yada.

Blah blah blah.

Or, lest we be accused of a lack of diversity.....

Black, black, black.

When the Oscar nominations were announced Thursday morning, it didn't take long for people to notice that for the first time since 1995, every single one of the 20 actors contending for the prestigious award were white. There was also not a single woman represented in the writing or directing categories. 

The hashtag #OscarsSoWhite began trending almost immediately as more and more critical thinkpieces were released discussing the lack of diversity in this year's race, and particularly the glaring snubs of Selma, the biopic about Martin Luther King, Jr.

On Friday night, the film academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs responded to the backlash in an interview with The Associated Press, saying the all-white acting slate has only inspired her to further push for diversity in the Academy, but that she remains proud of this year's nominees.

"In the last two years, we've made greater strides than we ever have in the past toward becoming a more diverse and inclusive organization through admitting new members and more inclusive classes of members," said Boone Isaacs, the Academy's first black president. "And, personally, I would love to see and look forward to see a greater cultural diversity among all our nominees in all of our categories."

But while Boone Isaacs insists that the academy is "committed to seeking out diversity of voice and opinion," according to a survey conducted by The Los Angeles Times, the academy is nearly 94% white and 77% male with a median age of 62.

Speaking of the controversy over Selma failing to earn Ava DuVernay a directing nod or star David Oyelowo an acting nod, Boone Isaacs insisted this wasn't a reflection of a strong racial bias in the academy. "What is important not to lose sight of is that Selma, which is a fantastic motion picture, was nominated for best picture this year, and the best picture category is voted on by the entire membership of around 7,000 people," Boone Isaacs said.

She also said the academy is proud of all their acting nominees and that the five men up for best actor - Steve Carell, Bradley Cooper, Benedict Cumberbatch, Michael Keaton and Eddie Redmayne - "are all at the top of their game."

"There are quite a few actors this year at the top of their game," she said. "There are five nominees and this year; these were the five."

Sometimes, in this life, things are, by nature and necessity, complex.

This is not one of those things.

If we mean what we say when we say that we aspire to not judge by the color of skin......

Then we should not judge by the color of skin.

Whether it's the more abstract judging of one's place in society.

Or the simpler judging of one's performance in a motion picture.

Put even more simply....

Color should not prevent one from being nominated for an Oscar.

Nor should it assure one of a nomination, either.

There's really no such thing as a double standard with only one side.

It's a clear as black and white.

".....As Bogie Might Say...'I Don't Mind A Symbol Of Our Resolve...I Just Object To A Cut Rate One....."

As with so many things in this day and time, the real issue here isn't the question.

 

It's the next question.

 

 

 

Editor's note: Jeff Yang is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal Online and contributes frequently to radio shows, including PRI's "The Takeaway" and WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show." He is the co-author of "I Am Jackie Chan: My Life in Action" and editor of the graphic novel anthologies "Secret Identities" and "Shattered." The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

 

(CNN) -- In 1940, Hollywood's most popular comedian made a movie that subjected a world leader to ruthless parody, turning a brutal despot into a figure of fun.

At the time, Adolf Hitler was consolidating his hold over Europe; the full monstrousness of Nazi atrocities were still to be revealed, and the United States was not yet at war with his regime.

 

But the film had been controversial from the start. Two years earlier, German officials raised questions about it and the secretary of the British Board of Film Censors wrote to his American counterpart saying it could violate a rule against depicting a living person on screen without his consent.

 

Of course, "Dictator" went on to become Charlie Chaplin's biggest commercial success, and is today regularly listed among the greatest films in Hollywood history.

 

One wonders what would have become of "The Great Dictator" today, given Sony's decision Wednesday to respond to threats from anonymous hackers by yanking the raunchy North Korea satire "The Interview" with Seth Rogen and James Franco from theatrical release.

 

Granted, it's unlikely that "The Interview" is in the same league as Chaplin's magnum opus -- given that the film's comedy rests on subtle, nuanced plot elements such as Rogen being forced to hide objects in his anus, I'm not even sure it's playing the same sport. And Sony was compelled to pull the film after being subjected to debilitating leaks that have cost it hundreds of millions in lost time and business, and confronted with a new set of cyberterrorist intimidations that included a promise of "9/11-style violence" -- threats that ultimately led a half-dozen of the biggest theater chains in the United States to announce that they would refuse to show "The Interview" if Sony chose to distribute it.

 

Sony's surrender is more than just a humiliating black eye for one of the world's largest entertainment companies -- more, even, than the first notes of a dirge for the studio and its beleaguered leadership. It opens a new and insidious chapter in artistic censorship that raises the question of whether any work that lampoons or derides a powerful public figure or institution can now be made in today's entertainment industry.

 

Art (and for this argument's purposes, let's include "The Interview" in the category of "art") has always been deeply intertwined with politics.

 

Many of the greatest works in history would never have been created without the patronage of powerful world leaders and institutions, from kings and queens to religious faiths to merchant princelings.

 

And of course, the flipside of the coin of patronage has always been repression: the Iconoclastic Controversy of Byzantine emperor Leo III; Hitler's purging of "degenerate" art; Mao's Cultural Revolution; more recently, the death threats and vandalizations that have accompanied displays of Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," a photo of a crucifix immersed in urine; the fatwa that sent Salman Rushdie into hiding for writing his literary fantasy "The Satanic Verses"; the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making the documentary "Submission," which questioned the treatment of women under Islam; and the controversies over the cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and on Comedy Central's "South Park."

 

Sony has given saboteurs a virtual veto over its productions, and Hollywood seems likely to follow suit.
 

America's recent midterm elections were affected by the question of art's intersection with politics: The Benghazi riots that served as the backdrop for a militant assault that killed several U.S. diplomatic officials, including J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were initially claimed to have been part of a global series of protests after the Internet release of an amateurish anti-Islam film called "Innocence of Muslims."

 

What Sony's capitulation shows, however, is that in our postmodern era, shutting down the arts no longer requires jackbooted soldiers, raging mobs -- or even manifest physical danger. It doesn't matter if North Korea was originally behind the Sony hack; even if it was, it's certainly unlikely that the vague threats to public safety in the more recent warnings could ever have been carried out.

 

But after Sony's decision, the mere threat of attack by shadowy digital forces may now be enough to forestall interest in depicting "controversial" public figures -- or subjects. And this chill won't be limited to political leaders. After all, any institution or individual can buy a black-hat hacker's time; a single individual with enough time and skills can wreak unprecedented havoc on a multibillion-dollar company, and some of the most brilliant inhabitants of the digital dark side do their dirty deeds for nothing but the promise of "lulz."

So the question remains: Could "The Great Dictator" be made today? Could "Team America: World Police"? What about HBO's forthcoming documentary on Scientology, "Going Clear"? The repercussions from Sony's junking of "The Interview" are already being seen: Fox Studios and New Regency were working on a Steve Carell thriller set in North Korea that was ready to begin shooting in March. On Wednesday, they quietly killed the project.

 

Sony could have stood its ground and decided to release the film, even if only in a single theater. It could have chosen to distribute it globally via on-demand streaming, and probably would have made hundreds of millions from curiosity-seekers and those who want to send a message against censorship.

 

It might have even chosen to fight fire with fire, broadly releasing the film to pirate sites and illicit-sharing platforms as an upraised middle finger to those who tried to suppress it -- the money has already been spent on it, after all, and an act of bravura of that caliber might even have brought Sony a patina of cool.

 

Instead, the dominoes will continue to fall. Sony has given saboteurs a virtual veto over its productions, and Hollywood seems likely to follow suit. In short, at least in this battle, the terrorists have won.

 

 

 

Voices crying out from Hollywood and the other assorted pins on the map that designate the stomping grounds of the artistic, creative community are naturally, and expectedly, doing their crying out in the key of "C" for censorship. Joining in the cacophony, of course, are the more liberal members of the body politic and, for that matter, those listed in the phone book under "zealous and immediate advocates, without hesitation or pause, of the freedom of _______(whatever freedom or freedoms apply here)".

 

And for those of us who resist, at least and, often, resent any attempts to be held hostage in any way at any time for any reason are, also, if not ready to put on our "I Can't Breathe If I'm Not Free" T-shirts just yet, not all that happy that the decision has been made to bail on this movie.

 

Here's some thoughts, though.

 

First, young Mr. Yang's point about Chaplin's movie is, on surface, cogent, if not compelling.

 

But it's also out of context.

 

And out of step with the times in which we live.

 

The "hue and cry" about Charlie's lampooning of Hitler undoubtedly raised the hackles of the dreaded Nazi menace if, for no other reason, the last thing that despotic types seem to possess is anything resembling a sense of humor, let alone a sense of self deprecation.

 

In 1940, though, chances were pretty slim to none that Germany, or even small bands of fanatical members of the Nazi Party and/or any devoted splinter group, would go so far as to take over a couple of airliners and fly them into Buckingham Palace just because Charlie Chaplin pissed them off.

 

The world, in those days, was, in its own way, just as bat shit crazy as it is today.

 

The key phrase there, though, is "in its own way."

 

War, then, brutal and bloody as it was, was still fought within certain parameters of etiquette and/or expectation.

 

The term "civilized warfare", oxymoronic or not, was still pretty much the leash which, at the very least, assured us a little control over the dogs of war.

 

War doesn't work that way any more.

 

Hitler was, beyond any reasonable doubt, a wack job despot of unprecedented proportions.

 

Yet, a despot who, for all of his wack, pretty much colored inside the lines when it came to your textbook variety attempt to conquer the world.

 

And, yes, this includes the Holocaust that, while clearly and undeniably horrific, was still, as a premise, nothing more or less than the defeat and destruction of a perceived enemy during wartime.

 

Even if that perceived enemy was defeated and destroyed hundreds, even thousands, at a time rather than dozens or hundreds on this or that field of battle.

 

Hitler was a wack job.

 

But those zany Kim Jong boys make Hitler look like a guy trying to invade your personal space by becoming the fourth person to wedge themselves onto a park bench obviously made for only three.

 

Do I think that if what happened in 1940 was happening today Hitler would see to it that hundreds or thousands of innocent people were killed in retaliation for the astonishingly no big deal act of poking a little fun at him?

 

I really don't, no.

 

Do I think that The Un and Only would react similarly?

 

Bet the farm, baby.

 

Or pagoda, as the case may be.

 

And while I totally get, understand, dig and, while we're at it, endorse and agree with the philosophy that proclaims we will not "negotiate with terrorists",  this is one of those situations that requires a little more consideration and a little more conversation.

 

We're not negotiating here.

 

We're faced with, if not the actual threat then certainly the very real possibility of, the threat that a lot of innocent people could be hurt here.

 

And while it is in the nature of things that sometimes, in fact, often, we have to risk life and limb to stand up to wack job despots and, in our best Jean Luc Picard voices, offer that "the line must be drawn...here...and no farther", there is, in this particular situation, a question that, at least to these ears, keeps rising up and above all the other questions being screamed out as passions rise and tempers flare and flags start a wavin'.

 

Do we really want to draw that line and say "fuck you, hit us with your best shot" over an asinine movie that, had none of this brouhaha brewed in the first place, probably would have ended up out of theatres and onto DVD before the ball drops in Times Square?

 

And if the answer to that question is "hell, yes, we sure do", then I think there's a next question that follows immediately.

 

What shall we say to the parents, wives, husbands, kids, et al of any one who dies should any of the threats of retaliation prove to be realized?

 

That your dad died so that we could take that last island and finally defeat the enemy of democracy?

 

That your daughter was blown up so that we could take back that government building that the enemy thought they had hijacked from us?

 

That your husband is dead so thousands of innocent lives were spared, his dying preventing that plane from getting to the Capitol Building?

 

Or that your loved one is gone so that perhaps up to a few thousand bored movie goers could have a cheap laugh or two at a couple of bozos clowning around in a film that makes "Bad Grandpa" look like "Citizen Kane"?

 

"The Great Dictator" was a film Charlie Chaplin offered as a biting, satirical, but cautionary tale of an evil that we needed to know about and, ultimately, do something about.

 

"The Interview" is a cheap, transparent and, most very likely, juvenile means of filling theatre seats and selling ten dollar popcorn to those who think Seth Rogan is Laurence Olivier and Family Guy is Masterpiece Theatre.

 

And even if it turns out to be the comedy classic of the ages, one thing is rock solid sure.

 

It's nothing to die for.

 

 

 

 

 

".....I See....Black People......"

O. Henry.

Rod Serling.

Blue Telusma.

Bards of a feather.


{Blue Telusma is a Washington-based writer for theGrio.com, an online venue devoted to perspectives that affect and reflect the African-American community. Follow @theGrio on Twitter or like it on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. }

(CNN) -- Camille Olivia Hanks was studying at the University of Maryland when she met Bill Cosby in the early '60s. He was doing stand-up comedy in Washington when the two were set up on a blind date. They fell in love and she left school to support his burgeoning career in entertainment.

By 1964, the two were married and they would go on to have five children together. In 1997, their son Ennis (who inspired the character Theo Huxtable) was murdered, and a few years later Dr. Camille Cosby did a one-on-one with Oprah explaining how she'd eventually been able to find joy after mourning the loss of a child.

 

Throughout that interview it was so clear that you were looking at the real-life Clair Huxtable that even Oprah seemed a bit star-struck by her poise and grace.

 

During her 2000 appearance on Oprah, Camille revealed:

 

"I became keenly aware of myself in my mid-thirties. I went through a transition. I decided to go back to school, because I had dropped out of college to marry Bill when I was 19. I had five children, and I decided to go back. I didn't feel fulfilled educationally. I dropped out of school at the end of my sophomore year. So I went back, and when I did, my self-esteem grew. I got my master's, then decided to get my doctoral degree. Education helped me to come out of myself."

When asked why she wasn't content to just settle for being the wife of a famous entertainer she continued:

 

"I don't know exactly what it was, except that for me, integrity is important. For me friendships are important, family is important, and it is a blessing if we can have monetary benefits. That's wonderful, and I love it. But I have to have the security of people who really care about me, and me about them. I want to be surrounded by people who have integrity. And, of course, my name is Camille, not Bill."

 

That was a beautiful answer. But a lot has changed since then.

 

These days, Camille Cosby is standing alongside her husband during what may turn out to be the worst month of his long career.

 

For the last few weeks, the beloved TV dad who used to sell us Jell-O pudding pops has been at the center of an ever-growing scandal. He has canceled several appearances, Netflix has postponed the launch of his stand-up special, NBC nixed plans for a new comedy show, and this week Janice Dickinson became the latest woman to make allegations against him; telling E News that he raped her in 1982 after she'd done a stint in rehab.

 

Cosby is arguably the most successful African-American performer in television history, but this isn't the first time he has found himself under scrutiny for extramarital affairs.

 

In his biography, "Cosby: His Life and Times," Mark Whitaker makes mention of the legendary comedian's "roving eye" and even tells an anecdote about how he finally cut back on his womanizing by breaking up with his long-time girlfriend. Now it seems those softball admissions about having a weakness for beautiful women may have been shrouding something much more sinister than an affair.

 

In the last decade alone, more than a dozen women have accused Cosby of rape or sexual assault. No formal charges have ever been successfully filed, so even with all the media speculation, these claims are technically only allegations. But there is one person in this melee whose anguish is virtually indisputable: his wife, Camille.

 

So how does a woman like that end up spending 50 years of her life beside a man who is now alleged to be a serial rapist? One can only imagine the embarrassment she must be experiencing through all this. But her dilemma is a lot more common than you may think.

 

In a world that asks you to be a mother, a wife, a businesswoman and an alluring sexual being, women grapple with finding the balance between respecting themselves and prioritizing their relationships. While many say they would leave a spouse who cheats, experts estimate that approximately 50-75% of couples rocked by an affair stay together.

 

There are many reasons why some women choose to stay: the fear of being alone, financial dependency, belief that they can alter the behavior of their mate, professional status of their partner, deep emotional investment and family obligations.

 

It is hard enough to come back from infidelity in private, let alone when you have the added stress of being a public figure. Both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards have weathered similar storms with men they devoted their lives to. And one could argue that it is a lose/lose situation for any wife who finds herself in that position: If you stay, people judge you for not standing up for yourself, and if you leave there is endless speculation about why your marriage failed.

 

But this isn't just a simple case of being cheated on. There are some very serious stories coming to the forefront from those who describe Cosby as a sexual predator, who for decades allegedly drugged and violated young women who looked up to him as a mentor.

During one of Cosby's old routines, he actually jokes about drugging young women.

 

Coincidentally the set is from his album "It's True! It's True!" which was released in 1969, the same year Joan Tarshis claims he drugged and raped her.

 

We can only speculate on what Camille's reasons are for staying in her marriage, when she found out about each rape claim, or whether she believes in her husband's innocence. She's been stoic and tight-lipped through all this, exuding the unflappable composure that she is known for.

 

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, many believed that had Hillary Clinton left her husband, his political career would have collapsed. Hillary Clinton may have well understood that her marriage wasn't just a union between a man and a woman but a much larger political machine. Perhaps Camille Cosby, who is equally responsible for her husband's career, feels a similar responsibility to maintaining the legacy and philanthropic institution she and her husband have built together.

 

Few knew that in the original "Cosby Show" pitch, Bill had planned to have Heathcliff be a limousine driver who was married to a Latina handywoman. Programming executives weren't too thrilled with that idea, but it was Camille who convinced her husband to go in another direction.

 

According to another excerpt in Whitaker's book:

 

"The producers felt strongly that both [parents on the show] should be college graduates. As Cosby had proved in his stand-up act, the war of wits between parents and children was even funnier if the parents thought of themselves as highly intelligent people.

 

"Finally, shortly before 1 in the morning, Cosby said the words that made Carsey think that she might be getting someplace: 'I think my wife would agree with you.'

 

" 'You will not be a chauffeur!' Camille said when he briefed her on the meeting. 'Why not?' Cosby asked. 'Because I'm not going to be a carpenter!' Camille said."

 

That snippet gives a rare glimpse into the type of bond these two have, and also illustrates that Mrs. Cosby has not just been her husband's muse, but also a trusted adviser who keeps his career on track, behind the scenes.

 

Sunday when NPR host Scott Simon asked Cosby about the resurfaced rape charges, he was met with a wall of silence. Later on, Simon admitted to CNN that during that awkward moment in the interview, the one thing he couldn't do was look at Camille.

 

"I did not look at Mrs. Cosby, and I don't mind saying I might've been a little uncomfortable doing that anyway," Simon said.

 

That's what many find so unsettling about all this: the deafening silence of it all. The same man who has spent years waxing poetic about every social issue under the sun has now fallen completely mute on us, with his equally reticent wife by his side.

 

The Cosbys' union remains seemingly stable through half a century of life's ups and downs, and as someone who respects the institution of marriage I find that commendable. But when does the adage of "stand by your man" go too far?

 

I'm rooting for black love as much as the next person -- but not like this.

 

 

 

 

Shortly after beginning Ms. Telusma's piece, I realized that she was on to something that had been overlooked in all of the frenzy and fracas of the Cosby allegations.

 

Call it an issue inside an issue, if you will.

 

The devotion of, and likely damage done to, the wife who, through no fault of her own, has to bear the burden of her husband's demons in a setting very much outside the tight circle of what goes on behind their own closed doors.

 

In, in fact, the supernova light of  public scrutiny.

 

And, as these kinds of observations go, my take on Telusma's take was that it was thoughtful, considered and way above the bar set for a lot of profiles in an E!TV MTV WeTV culture.

 

Then, in the great tradition of the aforementioned Mr. Henry and Mr. Serling....

 

...as if from out of nowhere or, at the very least, left field....

 

Boom.

 

Twist ending.

 

Not to mention the sudden mention of the issue inside the issue inside the issue.

 

Race.

 

From the picture included in the online post of Ms. Telusma's article, I'm guessing that she is a relatively young woman. Young, for our purposes here, being defined as, say, under the age of 40.

 

Not the age of someone you would ordinarily expect to wax racial in a situation like this.

 

So the direction that her piece suddenly took came as a little surprise to me.

 

Because, from word one, her essay was, for lack of a better term, colorless.

 

The people described, the people involved in this unfolding human drama could just as easily all be Caucasian...or Latino....or Asian....or even Republicans.

 

But, as effortlessly as we were once suddenly made to realize that Bruce Willis was, and for that matter, all along had been, dead, Blue Telusma made us just as suddenly, and, frankly, unnecessarily aware that we were supposedly dealing now with not only a moral issue, a relationship issue, perhaps even a criminal issue.

 

But, also....a black issue.

 

I'm rooting for black love as much as the next person -- but not like this.

 

Wow.

 

Didn't see that coming, how about you?

 

Haven't had a really good jolt like that since that moment we all discovered that "To Serve Man" was a cookbook.

 

And, almost instantly, I heard that little voice inside my head offer up what I believe to be a perfectly natural, almost inevitable question as regards the reference to love between blacks.

 

WTF?

 

In a rapid fire of brain wave functioning, I tried to find some benefit of the doubt I could offer up. Maybe my tendency to sometimes read too much into things too quickly might have prematurely fired.

 

That thought evaporated just as quickly as I glanced down at the very first comment from a reader on the site where the article was posted.

 

I also liked this article but then the last line killed it for me: "I'm rooting for black love as much as the next person".
Black love? Why did the author drag race into this? Skin color has nothing to do with this. Love is love and her final line should've just been "I'm rooting for love as much as the next person".
*smh*

SMH, for those who aren't hip and groovy to the latest cool cat jargon, is the online acronym for "Shaking My Head".

Yeah, I hear ya, sistah.

Or brother, as the case may be.

The Cosby saga, of course, at this writing has a seemingly long way to go before it completes playing itself out.

But, already, thanks in no small part to Blue Telusma, I find that I've already learned a few things.

Not the least of which is that, sadly, although we'd all like to believe otherwise, we still have a long way to go when it comes to effectively dealing with the problem of women being unwilling and/or frightened to come forward at the time that they are assaulted, abused, even attacked for fear of  resistance, rejection. even retribution.

And judging from the almost Freudian surprise ending the young lady offered up, although we would like to believe otherwise, we still have a long way to go when it comes to effectively dealing with each other.

Blue makes that as clear as black and white.

 

 

 

"...And That Goes For The First Round Draft Choice, Too, Pal...."

Right on, Garth.

And....not even close, buddy.



(reprinted from countrymusicnation.com)

Jason Aldean and Taylor Swift aren’t the only artists coming out strong against the digital music industry. In a recent interview with Access Hollywood, Country singer Garth Brooks joined the chorus of those voicing their opposition to various digital music outlets and streaming services like iTunes and Spotify, saying that artists and songwriters are being hurt by not receiving fair compensation for their work.

“I think a lot of people are going to start following. When music starts standing up for itself, it’s going to get a lot better,” Brooks remarked. “And there are some big friends of ours in music we need to stand up to, too,” adding,”if iTunes is going to tell you how to sell your stuff and it’s only going to go this way – don’t forget who created the music and who should be doing this stuff.”

Brooks also made it clear that he’s no fan of YouTube, stating that the popular streaming service isn’t really paying the people who are creating the content.

And I’m telling you, the devil – nice people, but YouTube. Oh my gosh,” Garth replied. “They claim they pay people. They’re not paying anything either and people are getting millions and millions and millions of views and they don’t get squat. Trust me.” “Songwriters are hurting,” he continued. “I applaud Miss Taylor and I applaud everyone for standing up for the songwriters, because without them, music is nothing.

Brooks notably launched his own digital music service GhostTunes in September of this year, but in the interview he said it’s basically impossible to keep his music off sites like YouTube.

“Yeah, you can do it. But you can’t get out of it. I had a sweet meeting with them. They were all fired up. They’re the sweetest… and they’re all like 12,” Brooks jokingly remarked. “I had the first question: ‘How do you get out?’ Silence. You don’t. It’s totally backward right now,” he continued. “If the artists will just keep hammering away, unify, stick together, then music will become the king again, which is what it should be. Music should always be first.”

Right off, we should get a coupla things out in the open.

First, I am neither anti-capitalist nor anti-profit.

I enjoy having, or at least the idea of having, a nice, big fat bank account.

And there is a reasonable case to be made for product in the market place receiving a fair profit based on what the market will bear.

Second, though, I'm not sure that when it comes to pleading the case of profits being out of line, the best spokesperson for that case is someone like Garth Brooks.

Oh, he's very pleasant and quite the articulate fellow.

But, at last check, he has, give or take, more money than God.

And, whatever investment savvy he may or may not possess, the non-IRS dibbed portion of that ginormous pile of dough came to him courtesy of every day people paying, in one form or another, for his music.

While his fortune is, in fact, actually irrelevant in terms of his right to speak out on this, or any, issue, one fact remains ever true.

Perception is reality.

And no matter how right or wrong it might actually be, Joe and Jane Everyday are not likely to be all that sympathetic to a lament, no matter how valid or invalid in might actually be, that multi-millionaires have a problem with their current rate of payment.

Mr and Ms Everyday are less inclined to jump on that bandwagon than they are to help Garth (and others on this particular soapbox) out by picking up the old smart phone and calling them a  Waaaambulance.

Thirdly, here's the kind of bone that not only seems worthy, to some, of picking but manages, somehow, to get stuck in other people's throats at the same time.

It's a little thing called compensation.

And what, in terms of the creative and/or artistic life, actually constitutes compensation.

Flashback to age, say, 12.

Every songwriter, singer, musician, artist, writer, et al that I have ever known in my life (to date), including myself, began to sing and play music and draw and paint and write because they felt something in their hearts and minds and souls and fingers and toes that led them to want to write songs or sing or play or draw or paint or write.

Not a single one I've ever encountered, including myself, has ever shared that sometime around that suddenly inspired age of 12, they awoke in the middle of the night, awash in the glow of an epiphany. the likes of which they had never experienced, an awareness that if they sang or played or drew or painted or wrote that they could very quickly, with the right contacts and a little luck, amass a fortune the likes of which they had never previously dreamed of experiencing.

They wrote songs ,sang, played, drew, painted and/or wrote because they wanted to.

Moreover, as a good, long ago departed friend/peer of mine once said "because we have to."

It's what we are. It's who we are.

It's what we do.

And if we should happen to stumble into a ginormous pile of dough as a result, well....then, it's kind of like finding a bag of onion rings in the order you originally placed that included only burgers and fries.

An unexpected, bonus windfall.

The dilemma here, of course, is that, by now, most folks reading this piece are assuming that I'm advocating for art solely, and strictly, for art's sake.

And that the pursuit of fame and fortune shouldn't play a part in the process.

In fact....I'm not.

But I am aware, because I've been around awhile and I've witnessed some evolution and some revolution, that the "money thing", as money things are wont to do, has ever so slowly, but ever so surely, managed to shove its way to the front of the line for a lot of songwriters, singers, musicians, artists and writers.

Consider.......

....the abundance (some would call glut) of material in music, movies, TV, etc that follows what is obviously some kind of formula, clearly designed to appeal to the largest number of people possible, "artistry"?.....not so much.......

...the abundance (some would call glut) of songs (be they pop, country, hip hop, et al) that, literally, sound, if not the same, then certainly alike enough to be tip toeing the line of "the same"......think "the Mona Lisa".....now imagine hundreds of them coming down the assembly line like chocolates in front of Lucy and Ethel) (PS, this example is in no way meant to imply that the original song had any real value, other than consumer consumption, at all)

...the passionate popularity of "contests" like Idol, X Factor, The Voice......filled with well meaning and, often, undeniably talented kids whose goal is just share that talent with....oh.....wait......

Okay.

There's nothing "wrong" with any of this.

If someone wants to crank out and can get people to give them money for what's cranked out, then good for them and God bless America.

A long time ago, in a fit of cynicism far, far away, I actually said to someone " if you give me the right marketing resources, I can take dog shit, put in a can, sell it and people will buy it like was going out of style."

Obviously, not every piece of creativity that finds its way to the market place is dog shit.

But.....neither is it necessarily art.

Nor....was it necessarily created, shared, performed, offered or given to an audience, be that an audience of one or ten million, for nothing more than the simple joy of  songwriting, singing, playing, drawing and/or writing.

I agree, and disagree with something Garth had to say there.


“If the artists will just keep hammering away, unify, stick together, then music will become the king again, which is what it should be. Music should always be first.”


Music should always be first?

Agreed.

Music will become king again, which is what it should be?

Nope.

Because a king is worshipped and lauded with tributes of endless streams of gold and silver.

A lot of us got started doing it.....and still do it.....to share what we've been given with you.

Appreciation and, sure, a little reasonable compensation is appreciated.

No worship required.

"....Deliberations Will Be Conducted In A Room....Not Under A Bridge..."

One thing for sure I don't know.

One thing for sure I do know.



Netflix and NBC have tough decisions to make about Bill Cosby. Allegations against the comedy icon -- that he sexually assaulted a number of women earlier in his career -- have resurfaced with a vengeance in recent days.

Cosby has refused to comment on the allegations, which his attorney called "decade-old" and "discredited" in a statement on Sunday.

But the charges seem likely to follow Cosby wherever he goes, at least for the time being.
And the next place Cosby is going, virtually, is Netflix. The streaming service is scheduled to debut a Cosby stand-up comedy special on the day after Thanksgiving.

"I thank @Netflix for this opportunity to show my talent all around the internet," Cosby wrote in an August tweet when the special was announced.

It's titled "Bill Cosby 77" because it was recorded on his 77th birthday in July.

Netflix has declined to comment in the wake of Barbara Bowman's Washington Post op-ed and CNN interviews accusing Cosby of drugging and raping her in the 1980s.

NBC has also declined to comment. This year the network has been developing a new sitcom with Cosby. But it is not yet in the pilot stage, which means the network could walk away from the project relatively easily.

In an interview on CNN's "Reliable Sources," televised on Sunday, Bowman said she believes it is "a little bit on the irresponsible side" for NBC to be developing a new show with Cosby.

Separately on Sunday, another woman, Joan Tarshis, wrote an essay alleging that Cosby raped her in 1969.

Bowman and Tarshis first shared their accounts of Cosby's sexual abuse years ago.

"It seemed the scandal had been put to rest," a story in Monday's Washington Post stated. "But as the past few weeks have shown, it's become more difficult to bury a story for good -- especially a story like this one, which has many of the components for going viral: a famous name, a shareable video, lurid personal accounts. "

Some of Cosby's fans resent the sudden media attention -- but that's not going to make it go away.

The Hollywood news site Deadline.com called it a "P.R. nightmare" and said NBC faces a "conundrum" about what to do.

Cosby declined to answer questions about the accusations when he was interviewed by NPR. The interview was broadcast on Saturday; Cosby's attorney John P. Schmitt said Sunday that "Mr. Cosby does not intend to dignify these allegations with any comment."





One interesting quirk of human nature I've observed in my ever growing pile of years is it turns out that the expression "looking for the good in people" , despite what we would like to believe about ourselves, isn't necessarily an unconditional virtue.

Because deep down in that place where we keep those things that we keep deep down, it turns out that more often than we might like to admit, we tend to look for the good in the people we feel good about in the first place.

And, of course, tend, then, to look for the bad in the people we don't care for much.

I suspect it has something to do with our primal need for validation mixed in a "peanut butter in the chocolaty" style with our wish to think of ourselves as compassionate, caring types.

There's a certain "a-HA! I KNEW it!" that attaches itself to pretty much any outcome, depending on our original intuition and/or opinion about it.

Simply put, if we like and respect folks, we assume them to be worthy of our like and respect even when faced with reports, rumors and/or evidence to the contrary..

And if we dislike and have no respect for folks, we assume them to be worthy of our dislike and lack of respect even when faced with, etc. etc.

If, for example, I found out that Kim Kardashian really, in fact, did have an IQ hovering somewhere around the number enjoyed by the average bag of rocks, I would be neither surprised or disappointed.

"a-HA!"

The brain twister comes along when the reality and our perceptions are in conflict.

If, for example, I found out that Kim Kardashian actually, in fact, had a very high IQ and that her whole presentation was just a very clever, and beautifully performed, caricature that she had invented for the purposes of entertainment and profit, I would find my synaptic functioning shorting out like Dish TV every time two or more rain drops fall from the sky.

Similarly, this whole slimy business with Bill Cosby is a poser for me.

Because I like and respect the guy.

I respect him for the things that he has accomplished in his life and career. I like him because he is personable.

And, yes, my objectivity is invalid because I did a pretty lengthy phone interview with him some years ago which was engaging, energetic and, in the course of our discourse, he paid me a very high, and completely unsolicited, compliment about my work.

Now, in the year 2014, Bill Cosby, at the age of 77, finds himself facing, if not any actual legal challenges, what looks like the very beginnings of a very public, and potentially harmful, stoning.

Because he is being accused of some pretty serious behavior.

This ain't cooking the books on some TV or movie contract he signed.

This is sexual assault on women.

A crime with no justification, rationalization, reason, excuse or defense.

This dilemma has some pretty serious horns.

One horn, in particular, hangs me up pretty good as I watch and wait to see how this plays out.

And it has nothing to do with hotel rooms or, even, bedrooms.

It has to do with basements.

Basements in big cities and small towns across the width and breadth of America, basements occupied by individuals whose time in this life is largely spent in front of one type of computer screen or another, firing off, with cogent thought, or lack of it, reasoned insight, or lack of it, fair and balanced opinion, or lack of it, their respective two cents about every thing and anything that is happening at any given moment of any given day, convinced of their convictions, satisfied, if not smug, that they are serving the public good with their opines, no matter how inaccurate, non-cogent, unreasonable, unfair and/or unbalanced their points of view, or even they, are.

The slang term is "trolls".

As in "trolling" the Internet, sailing around offering the aforementioned opinions and/or declarations and/or "absolute truths" while sitting safely in the shadows of their media center lairs, in their well worn padded chairs, amidst the scattered remnants of old pizza boxes, Cheetos crumbs and/or the ashes of an endless stream of Marlboro Lights.

With nary a hint of Fabreeze or common sense to be found anywhere in their air.

Trolls whose primary reason for getting out of Pringles crumbed beds in the morning to return to their Cheetos crumbed nerd rooms/news rooms is to resume play in a nationwide game of the children's classic "Telegraph"....

One voice whispering something into the ear of the person next to them and around the circle it goes, evolving, or mutating, as the case may be, by the time it arrives back at the original place in the circle to a something so very unlike it's original content so as to be rendered unrecognizable.

Or, even worse, something so egregiously unfair, unlikely and/or untrue, that by the time it arrives back at the original place in the circle, it has mutated into something seemingly fair....likely...and true.

Whether, in fact, it is.....

...or it isn't.

By then, though, two other quirks of human nature have been activated.

A lie repeated often enough by enough people can, in fact, take on the appearance of truth.

And perception is reality.

Mr. Cosby certainly faces some rough water ahead churned up by the accusations made by the women involved.

And if, in fact, these accusations are true then those of us who like and respect the man have a little choppy water of our own to navigate.

But there is one thing, for sure, that I don't know.

I don't know if Bill Cosby sexually assaulted anyone.

So I won't be offering any attempts at cogent thought, reasoned insight, fair and balanced opinion or two cents worth of theory.

Let alone two bit versions.

Because there is one thing, for sure, that I do know.

Our system of justice is predicated on the assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. And should it become necessary for Mr. Cosby to answer for these charges within that system that he could very easily find himself being judged by a jury.

The Sixth Amendment both insures, and insists upon, that methodology.

It says absolutely nothing about......

....being accused, tried, judged and/or convicted by twelve or more individuals whose time in this life is largely spent in front of one type of computer screen or another, firing off, with cogent thought, or lack of it, reasoned insight, or lack of it, fair and balanced opinion, or lack of it, their respective two cents about every thing and anything that is happening at any given moment of any given day, convinced of their convictions, satisfied, if not smug, that they are serving the public good with their opines, no matter how inaccurate, non-cogent, unreasonable, unfair and/or unbalanced their points of view, or even they, are.

If Bill Cosby finds himself being judged.....

....it should be by a jury of his peers.

Not a gnarly little mob of trolls.

"...60 Plus Years Of Setting Insanely Unreasonble Expectations On The Shoulders Of Women Is About To Come Roaring Around Like Katrina Hitting Pompei..."

 

hey, guys….

I’ve stumbled across a couple of the trailers for the forthcoming movie version of “Fifty Shades of Grey” as well as the first snap, crackle and pop of female posts on FB regarding it…while I don’t profess to be fluent, I have, in fifty plus years of experience, begun somewhat proficient in, at least, speaking female so, by way of doin you boys a solid, here‘s my 8 step plan to pre-emptively prepare yourself for what’s coming (and no, the puns have not begun yet).

 

1.   Read as much as you can stand of, at least, three or four of the various and sundry novels written by such writers as Danielle Steel, Nicholas Sparks, et al.....this will give you a foundational understanding of the concept of romance and/or seduction that doesn't always necessarily, automatically and instantly get you laid.

2. Watch as much as you can handle of any Merchant Ivory produced movie (Remains of the Day, et al)...here, you will receive, at least, a rudimentary lesson in understanding confusing and indecipherable phrases like "secrets of the heart", "unrequited love", "sacrifice for my beloved" as well as the soon to be necessary "a feverish dance", "lips to skin like cool ice on a summer day" and "backs that arch without breaking, fingers that intertwine without imprisoning".

3. Buy an inexpensive dictionary, highlight, read and then re-read the definitions of the following words until you can recite their meaning from memory.

   A. sensual

   B. erotic

   C. passion

   D. foreplay

   E. caress

   F. linger

   G. stroking (not you...her)

   H. pulsating

    I. urgent

   J. climax (not Klymax, that was a band)

   K. desire

   L. aching

   M. simultaneous

   N. unselfishly

repeatedly re-read, in particular...A, B, C, E, F, G, K and most importantly N.

   4. Do a "cleanse" and avoid any hip hop music of any kind. This will at least give you a running chance of understanding that the way to a woman's heart, even her soul, is through her eyes and not her va jay jay.

   5. Resolve never to be heard saying the term "va jay jay" out loud.

   6. As Valentine's Day (and the movie premiere) draw near, do a comprehensive refresher of all the steps listed thus far.

   7. No more than two days before the movie premiere, suck it up and read as much as your DNA will allow you of the actual book. Worst case, you'll decide that you actually can live without sex with a woman ever again as there is simply no way on God's green Earth that you could possible measure up. Best case, you'll have some small idea of what you're going to be up against for pretty much the rest of the year (your life).

   8. Starting February 14....take your lady to dinner, offer to sit with her through "The Notebook" at home on the couch while you cuddle and suggest, no, insist, that it would be great fun to spend the coming weekend shoe shopping because once this Grey matter goes mainstream, the chance of your scoring without, at least, those incentives are significantly less that the chances of Tampa Bay scoring between now and the playoffs.

BONUS TIP: in the event of a total failure to either impress or, at best, distract her from this possibly fatal blow to our manhoods (yeah, we're pretty much knee deep into the pun thing, now), simply return to the step list, choose step #3, Definition "G", reverse and re-read the words found in the parenthesis.

Repeat every 12 hours, as needed......

Good luck, my friends...