An NFL quarterback named Colin Kaepernick decided to sit during the national anthem in a preseason game last week, while the rest of his teammates stood to honor the nation and the flag. The act has drawn both support and condemnation immediately. As a professional athlete, hearing your national anthem is routine at sporting events and is done to honor the country and the people who have served to protect it since its inception.
In a statement given to reporters after the game, he explained that he will not honor the flag in a country that oppresses black people and people of color. He went on further to say that this is bigger than football and that there are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder. He went on to say that if football and endorsements are taken away from him, he will know that he made the right decision.
I don't see a big deal with Colin not standing for the anthem, since it is not required by the league and there's no requirement by the sporting venue, nor the personnel serving the sporting event. You don't want to stand, you don't stand. As long as your teammates are alright with you doing your own thing while the rest of the team stands for the anthem and the team unity is not defined by this act, you're not hurting anyone.
But here are the reasons why this entire episode stinks of opportunism. In 2015, he lost his starting job with the San Francisco 49ers after a long string of underwhelming performances. This followed his request to be traded during the off-season. Without a resolution to the request, during the preseason friction with the management has increased and questions about his future in the NFL became a lot more pronounced. Fighting just to stay on the team, the situation did not look good.
A statement like the one he made during last week's preseason game's national anthem was sure to raise eyebrows and make any decision on Kaepernick's future by the 49ers a lot more scrutinized, if in fact the franchise were to decide to release him. By taking the civil rights stand, his place on the team became secure, at least as a backup quarterback for the time being. No franchise would take a chance at alienating a large portion of its fans by cutting a player who took a civil rights stand.
The civil rights issues he has addressed didn't just occur during this off-season. They have been front and center in every publication and social media site for the past three years. Yet he made no recorded mention in the media with this respect and did not provide anything that could be construed as a distraction to his team until his own future in football was on the line.
Well known NBA athletes like Dwayne Wade, Chris Paul, LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony made more powerful and more effective civil rights statements in the same arena during this year without refusing to stand for the national anthem. Anthony stood proudly for the anthem, as it played during the Olympics in Rio, as he and team USA won the gold. But then again, these athletes didn't have to assure themselves of a roster spot.
Whoever Colin Kaepernick's Public Relations agent is, I believe they are doing a bang-up job of keeping him employed... for now.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Brexit and Inevitability
By now the global media outlets, as well as true journalists, have had a full week to digest the fallout from the people of the United Kingdom saying 'no more' to their subordination to the European Union rules and regulations - the popular vote known as Brexit. True Democracy isn't pretty, but it is definitive. That is because it shows that you cannot abandon the people at large and expect them to support the status quo when important decisions are on the line. Yes, once in a while the people will kick the establishment in the ass for not paying attention to them. That's what True Democracy is about.
The people in charge wanted Great Britain to stay within the European Union organization, because it would have been great for the banks who count debts as assets, for the political class that sheers money from kickbacks & sweetheart deals, and for the businesses that depend upon cheaper labor via freedom of movement clause. All the while, the small guys who catch fish, grow crops, etc. would be subjected by the impractical homogenized collective farm style rules that make it all but impossible to earn a living wage. Oh and the kicker - to continue to fund the European Union's financial debt, the United Kingdom's citizens were forced to "contribute" via public funds to prevent the giant ticking debt time bomb that is the EU from going off one more cycle.
A lot of people from the Remain camp have accused the Leave campaign advocates of using fear and racism to get the people to vote. They have accused them of having no plan, no leadership and no clue. However, take the following points into the consideration. One, did the Remain campaign wave a financial doomsday flag of fear in front of all the British citizens? Second, does the status quo need a plan to continue doing things the same as they were before? Lastly, if they were any kind of effective leaders, why were they unable to convince the European Union to compromise and provide common sense regulations for its people?
If you look objectively, the incompetence in leadership is glaringly evident on both sides of the Brexit vote. However if I were a British citizen, I would choose to go independently with my Incompetent and British-centric leadership; rather than continuing with Incompetent Euro-centric leadership that gets taken advantage of by the European Union collective farm system and is unable to effectively protect the interests of their own country's people.
Over a long enough timeline, the will of the people cannot be suppressed in an environment where the average person is taken advantage of by their government. By vote or by blood, it is inevitabe. Any drastic change such as this is bound to have growing pains - that is also inevitable. But nothing worthwhile is ever achieved without that initial failure.
I thank the people of Great Britain for showing the rest of the world what a direct Democracy looks like - leaving leadership in fear of the people, not the other way around. The rest of the world governments that neglect their people are officially on notice as of this vote.
The people in charge wanted Great Britain to stay within the European Union organization, because it would have been great for the banks who count debts as assets, for the political class that sheers money from kickbacks & sweetheart deals, and for the businesses that depend upon cheaper labor via freedom of movement clause. All the while, the small guys who catch fish, grow crops, etc. would be subjected by the impractical homogenized collective farm style rules that make it all but impossible to earn a living wage. Oh and the kicker - to continue to fund the European Union's financial debt, the United Kingdom's citizens were forced to "contribute" via public funds to prevent the giant ticking debt time bomb that is the EU from going off one more cycle.
A lot of people from the Remain camp have accused the Leave campaign advocates of using fear and racism to get the people to vote. They have accused them of having no plan, no leadership and no clue. However, take the following points into the consideration. One, did the Remain campaign wave a financial doomsday flag of fear in front of all the British citizens? Second, does the status quo need a plan to continue doing things the same as they were before? Lastly, if they were any kind of effective leaders, why were they unable to convince the European Union to compromise and provide common sense regulations for its people?
If you look objectively, the incompetence in leadership is glaringly evident on both sides of the Brexit vote. However if I were a British citizen, I would choose to go independently with my Incompetent and British-centric leadership; rather than continuing with Incompetent Euro-centric leadership that gets taken advantage of by the European Union collective farm system and is unable to effectively protect the interests of their own country's people.
Over a long enough timeline, the will of the people cannot be suppressed in an environment where the average person is taken advantage of by their government. By vote or by blood, it is inevitabe. Any drastic change such as this is bound to have growing pains - that is also inevitable. But nothing worthwhile is ever achieved without that initial failure.
I thank the people of Great Britain for showing the rest of the world what a direct Democracy looks like - leaving leadership in fear of the people, not the other way around. The rest of the world governments that neglect their people are officially on notice as of this vote.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Hillaryous Liar
Hillary Clinton may well become the Democratic Party's nominee for the President of the United States. And while we have been verbally bombarded enough to accept that the political version of reality includes a certain degree of bending the truth, the amount of straightforward lies told by the former secretary of state Hillary Clinton is astounding and obliterate that standard entirely.
The plethora of events in her life around politics support the fact that she is a pathological liar. She lies to achieve a certain political objective every time. And we have witnessed these lies in plain view over her entire career. Some highlights of these spectacular lies are listed below, starting with the most recent, and ending with her unethical role in the Watergate proceedings. The lack of ownership of what she says and inability to fact-check is truly remarkable. Yes, Hillary, you are a natural politician - you have learned to shamelessly lie in order to get what you want.
1) Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't know where Bernie Sanders was, when she was trying to push forward the healthcare reform in 1993 and 1994, when not only was he standing right behind her, but she also turned around and thank him directly in a speech.
2) Hillary Clinton's claim that while Bernie Sanders criticizes Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, while he doesn't criticize George W. Bush. That was a flat out lie, which Sanders struck down with "I gather Secretary Clinton hasn’t listened to too many of my speeches".
3) Hillary Clinton's use of personal email account for official business purposes. As the Secretary of State, she has undoubtedly had a lot of classified information pass through her email account. Which is why it is important to use the official email account which comes with all the security protections - so that no classified information may fall in the wrong hands. Her action is currently under Federal investigation, for which she may very well get indicted; unless she greased the wheels of the Federal investigators like she has of the Democratic super-delegates. Her excuse for using the private email account instead of an official one is that her predecessors were doing the same thing and that it is no big deal. Hypocrisy runs rampant in her logic. If it is no big deal, Hillary, then why did you send out a notice to all of your staff stating to only use their official email accounts when you took office?
4) Hillary Clinton's responsibility on the Benghazi tragedy. As the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton lobbied for a reduced military presence around the American embassy in order give the impression to Libyan people that the United States. But in that office, her primary allegiance should be to the American people and to keep the American people safe. Just as she has in much of her career, she has put the interests of foreigners ahead of her own countrymen. As a result of the diminished security around the embassy, American lives were lost. However, when asked about her role, she decided to play dumb and say that decisions about the security of the embassy compound were made by other individuals.
5) Hillary Clinton's "Clinton Foundation" is a Slush Fund. She and her husband have consistently boasted about how much good this non-profit organization provides. However, the figures just don't add up. When you bring in $140 million dollars in donations and only pay out $9 million in aid, while spending the rest on payroll, administration fees, conferences, flights, etc.; you're helping yourself first and foremost. While not directly on the foundation's payroll, the Clintons do receive free flights and other perks that fall into the administration fees category. Lying to the American public is natural for Hillary, but when you do it under the guise of aiding charities and noble causes, that's downright disgusting and fraudulent.
.
.
.
999) Hillary Clinton was dishonest and unethical from the very beginning. Forging political relationships with Ted Kennedy's campaign team and lying to skew the rules in his favor at the sake of due process in the investigation of Richard Nixon's actions leading up to the Watergate scandal. While working on the Watergate investigation in 1974, the lawyer who shared an office with her, John Labovitz, came to the Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee to report Hillary Clinton for "her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon legal counsel". Upon further investigation, that same Chief of Staff who supervised Hillary Clinton, came to the conclusion that she "engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules". That lie was also politically motivated - she was doing everything in her power to aid Ted Kennedy's potential bid for the White House.
So when you head to the polls in the Primary, remember that we have no idea what self-interests Hillary will bring with her to the White House. But we can be certain of one thing - it will be primarily a self-serving tenure at the expense of the American people.
The plethora of events in her life around politics support the fact that she is a pathological liar. She lies to achieve a certain political objective every time. And we have witnessed these lies in plain view over her entire career. Some highlights of these spectacular lies are listed below, starting with the most recent, and ending with her unethical role in the Watergate proceedings. The lack of ownership of what she says and inability to fact-check is truly remarkable. Yes, Hillary, you are a natural politician - you have learned to shamelessly lie in order to get what you want.
1) Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't know where Bernie Sanders was, when she was trying to push forward the healthcare reform in 1993 and 1994, when not only was he standing right behind her, but she also turned around and thank him directly in a speech.
You have to admit, this is pretty funny.LIKE our page at Groopspeak for more!
Posted by Groopspeak on Saturday, March 12, 2016
2) Hillary Clinton's claim that while Bernie Sanders criticizes Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, while he doesn't criticize George W. Bush. That was a flat out lie, which Sanders struck down with "I gather Secretary Clinton hasn’t listened to too many of my speeches".
3) Hillary Clinton's use of personal email account for official business purposes. As the Secretary of State, she has undoubtedly had a lot of classified information pass through her email account. Which is why it is important to use the official email account which comes with all the security protections - so that no classified information may fall in the wrong hands. Her action is currently under Federal investigation, for which she may very well get indicted; unless she greased the wheels of the Federal investigators like she has of the Democratic super-delegates. Her excuse for using the private email account instead of an official one is that her predecessors were doing the same thing and that it is no big deal. Hypocrisy runs rampant in her logic. If it is no big deal, Hillary, then why did you send out a notice to all of your staff stating to only use their official email accounts when you took office?
4) Hillary Clinton's responsibility on the Benghazi tragedy. As the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton lobbied for a reduced military presence around the American embassy in order give the impression to Libyan people that the United States. But in that office, her primary allegiance should be to the American people and to keep the American people safe. Just as she has in much of her career, she has put the interests of foreigners ahead of her own countrymen. As a result of the diminished security around the embassy, American lives were lost. However, when asked about her role, she decided to play dumb and say that decisions about the security of the embassy compound were made by other individuals.
5) Hillary Clinton's "Clinton Foundation" is a Slush Fund. She and her husband have consistently boasted about how much good this non-profit organization provides. However, the figures just don't add up. When you bring in $140 million dollars in donations and only pay out $9 million in aid, while spending the rest on payroll, administration fees, conferences, flights, etc.; you're helping yourself first and foremost. While not directly on the foundation's payroll, the Clintons do receive free flights and other perks that fall into the administration fees category. Lying to the American public is natural for Hillary, but when you do it under the guise of aiding charities and noble causes, that's downright disgusting and fraudulent.
.
.
.
999) Hillary Clinton was dishonest and unethical from the very beginning. Forging political relationships with Ted Kennedy's campaign team and lying to skew the rules in his favor at the sake of due process in the investigation of Richard Nixon's actions leading up to the Watergate scandal. While working on the Watergate investigation in 1974, the lawyer who shared an office with her, John Labovitz, came to the Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee to report Hillary Clinton for "her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon legal counsel". Upon further investigation, that same Chief of Staff who supervised Hillary Clinton, came to the conclusion that she "engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules". That lie was also politically motivated - she was doing everything in her power to aid Ted Kennedy's potential bid for the White House.
So when you head to the polls in the Primary, remember that we have no idea what self-interests Hillary will bring with her to the White House. But we can be certain of one thing - it will be primarily a self-serving tenure at the expense of the American people.
Monday, March 14, 2016
The Anti-Establishment Candidate
The race for the POTUS post in 2016 has been anything but conventional so far, and we are only mid-way through the primary season. By all indications, it will ratchet up to reach new highs and lows in the coming months. Both major parties' primaries have seen the rise of an unconventional, anti-establishment if you will, candidate.
The Tycoon
In the case of the Republican party, we have the bombastic and brash businessman Donald Trump. He was born with a silver spoon in hand and progressed the Trump empire to the point where organizations now pay him a substantial amount of money to simply license his name. By his own account, he knows the art of the deal, and there's even a book about it. Judging by the way he has worked the Republican party and galvanized his supporters to this point, he is certainly a shrewd tactician. His freshman entry into politics is described as being out of the love for the country and the desire to make it great again. He speaks his mind, regardless of whether or not it is abrasive, thereby angering both the liberals and the Republican financial supporters.
The Activist
In the case of the Democratic party, we have the self-described mild mannered Democratic Socialist Bernard Sanders. He was standing at the picket line out of the womb, standing up for the rights of those who have been wronged by society, government, etc. He spent his early life struggling and writing, before entering politics. He has been, if nothing else, consistent in his career. He stands up for the poor and the middle class, using his vote to surgically pursue his agenda while striking down any notion to help the wealthy and the elite. He doesn't get into mud-slinging exchanges, even when provoked. He is financed largely through social media (crowdfunding), thereby posing a threat to both the Washington Lobbyists and the Democratic colleagues who are backed by corporate sponsors.
Dividing Bulworth
Both candidates bear resemblance to the fictional character Jay Billington Bulworth, a disillusioned senator played by Warren Beatty in the 1998 movie "Bulworth". In this movie, the character finds a purpose to his life by becoming a beacon of hope to the minority population that has become apathetic toward the political process, convinced that the government doesn't care about them.
Trump certainly brings the open speech with blunt sledgehammer statements that became the trademark of Bulworth. He is willing to attack the establishment status quo and its sponsors without fear of retribution. He has a plan to deport illegal immigrants, build a wall on the Mexican border, tax imported goods at a high percentage, temporarily suspend immigration of Muslims, and revise international trade deals in order to reduce the deficit. He does not believe in political correctness and believes we have become too sensitive to small issues, while being desensitized to the larger problems. The bravado and flamboyant orator skills of Bulworth, without a question belong to Trump.
Sanders has been an activist his entire life and is relishing the moment to speak during his campaign about the existing injustice on a national stage. Just like Bulworth, he aims to disclose the minority discrimination in both the legal and economic arenas. In addition, he attacks the insurance companies and their close relationship with the government. He also attacks the big businesses and bank industry for destroying the incomes of the poor, middle class, as well as the income race to the bottom that has been spawned by businesses exporting American jobs overseas. Furthermore, he insists that public colleges and universities should roll back their tuition to close to small fraction of their current cost. The initiative of Bulworth to protect minorities, poor and the middle class certainly belong to Sanders.
Establishment Opposition
Both parties wanted to oust Trump and Sanders as soon as they saw their candidacy being viable. It is worth noting that both Republicans and Democrats initially laughed at the rookie politician coming from real estate industry and the socialist activist independent. However, when they gained sifnificant momentum, both parties started 'greasing the wheels' in order to stonewall both campaigns.
For the Democrats, who have the most undemocratic means at their disposal in the form of 'superdelegates', it is a simple task. Therefore Sanders' only opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, began to kiss superdelegate ass right away, and now has a gigantic lead over Sanders in this aspect - virtually assuring that Sanders will not be the Democrat nominee, even if he wins the popular party vote by the time of the Democratic convention. But if he wins the popular vote, the outcry against Clinton nomination will be justified and could turn the predictable outcome the other way.
For the Republicans, they came to realization that Trump is a real contender way too late. Now that he has a sizable delegate lead heading into March 15 primaries that will put 25% of Republican Delegates up for grabs, they have poured tens of millions of dollars into negative ads against Trump, has senior party members speak out against him and use the media to place him in negative light every step of the way (even when the spin is a far stretch from reality). But if Trump runs the table on March 15th, his nomination is almost guaranteed.
The Conclusion
For far too long, both parties have enjoyed their status quo lobby money and corporate sponsorship. For far too long, we the public have been sacrificed for the good of the corporate America by the very politicians we elect. And we have all grown apathetic towards the election process for this very reason. We now stand on the precipice of a tremendous event in politics - where our next President is not guided by the corporate sponsors nor influenced by lobbies in any way shape or form. Our elections could have a deep meaning again, if we can only reject establishment candidates.
Obviously, your vote is yours and so is the decision you make when your state votes in the primaries/caucuses and the general election. But I urge you for the sake of our country, please consider the non-establishment candidate when you go to the polls.
The Tycoon
In the case of the Republican party, we have the bombastic and brash businessman Donald Trump. He was born with a silver spoon in hand and progressed the Trump empire to the point where organizations now pay him a substantial amount of money to simply license his name. By his own account, he knows the art of the deal, and there's even a book about it. Judging by the way he has worked the Republican party and galvanized his supporters to this point, he is certainly a shrewd tactician. His freshman entry into politics is described as being out of the love for the country and the desire to make it great again. He speaks his mind, regardless of whether or not it is abrasive, thereby angering both the liberals and the Republican financial supporters.
The Activist
In the case of the Democratic party, we have the self-described mild mannered Democratic Socialist Bernard Sanders. He was standing at the picket line out of the womb, standing up for the rights of those who have been wronged by society, government, etc. He spent his early life struggling and writing, before entering politics. He has been, if nothing else, consistent in his career. He stands up for the poor and the middle class, using his vote to surgically pursue his agenda while striking down any notion to help the wealthy and the elite. He doesn't get into mud-slinging exchanges, even when provoked. He is financed largely through social media (crowdfunding), thereby posing a threat to both the Washington Lobbyists and the Democratic colleagues who are backed by corporate sponsors.
Dividing Bulworth
Both candidates bear resemblance to the fictional character Jay Billington Bulworth, a disillusioned senator played by Warren Beatty in the 1998 movie "Bulworth". In this movie, the character finds a purpose to his life by becoming a beacon of hope to the minority population that has become apathetic toward the political process, convinced that the government doesn't care about them.
Trump certainly brings the open speech with blunt sledgehammer statements that became the trademark of Bulworth. He is willing to attack the establishment status quo and its sponsors without fear of retribution. He has a plan to deport illegal immigrants, build a wall on the Mexican border, tax imported goods at a high percentage, temporarily suspend immigration of Muslims, and revise international trade deals in order to reduce the deficit. He does not believe in political correctness and believes we have become too sensitive to small issues, while being desensitized to the larger problems. The bravado and flamboyant orator skills of Bulworth, without a question belong to Trump.
Sanders has been an activist his entire life and is relishing the moment to speak during his campaign about the existing injustice on a national stage. Just like Bulworth, he aims to disclose the minority discrimination in both the legal and economic arenas. In addition, he attacks the insurance companies and their close relationship with the government. He also attacks the big businesses and bank industry for destroying the incomes of the poor, middle class, as well as the income race to the bottom that has been spawned by businesses exporting American jobs overseas. Furthermore, he insists that public colleges and universities should roll back their tuition to close to small fraction of their current cost. The initiative of Bulworth to protect minorities, poor and the middle class certainly belong to Sanders.
Establishment Opposition
Both parties wanted to oust Trump and Sanders as soon as they saw their candidacy being viable. It is worth noting that both Republicans and Democrats initially laughed at the rookie politician coming from real estate industry and the socialist activist independent. However, when they gained sifnificant momentum, both parties started 'greasing the wheels' in order to stonewall both campaigns.
For the Democrats, who have the most undemocratic means at their disposal in the form of 'superdelegates', it is a simple task. Therefore Sanders' only opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, began to kiss superdelegate ass right away, and now has a gigantic lead over Sanders in this aspect - virtually assuring that Sanders will not be the Democrat nominee, even if he wins the popular party vote by the time of the Democratic convention. But if he wins the popular vote, the outcry against Clinton nomination will be justified and could turn the predictable outcome the other way.
For the Republicans, they came to realization that Trump is a real contender way too late. Now that he has a sizable delegate lead heading into March 15 primaries that will put 25% of Republican Delegates up for grabs, they have poured tens of millions of dollars into negative ads against Trump, has senior party members speak out against him and use the media to place him in negative light every step of the way (even when the spin is a far stretch from reality). But if Trump runs the table on March 15th, his nomination is almost guaranteed.
The Conclusion
For far too long, both parties have enjoyed their status quo lobby money and corporate sponsorship. For far too long, we the public have been sacrificed for the good of the corporate America by the very politicians we elect. And we have all grown apathetic towards the election process for this very reason. We now stand on the precipice of a tremendous event in politics - where our next President is not guided by the corporate sponsors nor influenced by lobbies in any way shape or form. Our elections could have a deep meaning again, if we can only reject establishment candidates.
Obviously, your vote is yours and so is the decision you make when your state votes in the primaries/caucuses and the general election. But I urge you for the sake of our country, please consider the non-establishment candidate when you go to the polls.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Diversity and Oscars
Let me start off at first by saying that judging any form of art, cinema included, is a highly subjective endeavor. What may appeal to some critics and individuals, may well be intensely disliked by others. Unlike running a 100 meter dash or swimming a 100 meter freestyle, where the winners are without dispute clearly evident, the art of cinema is subject to scrutiny by its critics and fans. In addition, the nominations and winners of the cinematic pinnacle of excellence (Academy Awards) are determined by the voting panel chosen by the Academy itself.
You may think that this voting panel has the ability to improve the diversity of the Oscar winners and nominees. However, they are bound to select the best out of the available pool of performances and movies for any given year. There's no dispute that the diversity of the panel is important, but it is also important to consider the variety of performances and stories that are being considered for the awards. After all, voting diversely for the sake of diversity is wrong, because it will ultimately leave a deserving performance out of the running for the awards.
People this year will argue that there are certain movies featuring black actors that should have been nominated. In my subjective judgement, the movies Beasts of No Nation and Concussion deserved a better fate. But to be fair, a lot of movies featuring white actors also suffer the same fate at times. In addition, don't forget that Slumdog Millionaire and Life of Pi didn't feature any white actors, while being raging successes at the Academy Awards. There is no concrete formula that leads from a performance to the receipt of the Oscar statue. But there is strength in numbers. And the numbers throughout the Academy Awards illustrious history tell us that there are very few African American movies or movies featuring African American actors and actresses that get any love at all from this organization.
The key is diversity. Not in forcing the Academy to nominate African American actors for the sake of it, but in planting the seeds of diversity across the board so that there is a larger and more accepted selection of diverse performances to choose from.
1) Offer the scripts with the highest chances for success to a diverse group of actors, producers and directors. This step is aimed at achieving a greater degree of diversity in terms of quality position in the entertainment landscape.
2) Improve the diversity of the voting panel at the Academy. Since all performing arts judgement is subjective, those judging should represent the diversity of those being judged.
3) Promote the creation of original story lines for diverse groups. Let's face it - a lot of story lines on the Oscar docket this year were written for white actors and actresses (whether historically or fictitiously). The only way to achieve fairness with this respect is to have original quality story lines that are well written for African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other minority groups.
You may think that this voting panel has the ability to improve the diversity of the Oscar winners and nominees. However, they are bound to select the best out of the available pool of performances and movies for any given year. There's no dispute that the diversity of the panel is important, but it is also important to consider the variety of performances and stories that are being considered for the awards. After all, voting diversely for the sake of diversity is wrong, because it will ultimately leave a deserving performance out of the running for the awards.
People this year will argue that there are certain movies featuring black actors that should have been nominated. In my subjective judgement, the movies Beasts of No Nation and Concussion deserved a better fate. But to be fair, a lot of movies featuring white actors also suffer the same fate at times. In addition, don't forget that Slumdog Millionaire and Life of Pi didn't feature any white actors, while being raging successes at the Academy Awards. There is no concrete formula that leads from a performance to the receipt of the Oscar statue. But there is strength in numbers. And the numbers throughout the Academy Awards illustrious history tell us that there are very few African American movies or movies featuring African American actors and actresses that get any love at all from this organization.
The key is diversity. Not in forcing the Academy to nominate African American actors for the sake of it, but in planting the seeds of diversity across the board so that there is a larger and more accepted selection of diverse performances to choose from.
1) Offer the scripts with the highest chances for success to a diverse group of actors, producers and directors. This step is aimed at achieving a greater degree of diversity in terms of quality position in the entertainment landscape.
2) Improve the diversity of the voting panel at the Academy. Since all performing arts judgement is subjective, those judging should represent the diversity of those being judged.
3) Promote the creation of original story lines for diverse groups. Let's face it - a lot of story lines on the Oscar docket this year were written for white actors and actresses (whether historically or fictitiously). The only way to achieve fairness with this respect is to have original quality story lines that are well written for African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other minority groups.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Misguided Power of Social Media
We live in world flooded by information. Technology has made it very easy for us to receive alerts from Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and others. In the past we just had news outlets to acquire information. Flawed as they were and are, these outlets attempted to fact-check and give you as accurate information as possible. Now everyone armed with a cellphone and an observation can report their opinion to the masses on social media without a shred of accountability. What is sad - is that media outlets are beginning to compete with these "citizen reporters" and their often uninformed and reaction-only biased opinion. What is even more dangerous is that these social media reports can be easily manipulated to stir up violence by terrorist organizations like Hamas.
The current spate of violence in Israel has such roots. The terrorist organization Hamas was not content with the recent period of calm between Jewish and Palestinian people. So, this organization decided to spread rumors via social media about the Israeli government planning to restrict Palestinian access to the Noble Sanctuary. These rumors were quickly used as a spark to light the fire of the current violent clashes.
The Palestinian people took these rumors at face value, despite no indication from the Israeli government of these rumors being anywhere near reality. What followed was a series of stabbing, shooting, and vehicular attacks by Palestinian individuals on Israeli Jews. Now the situation has spiraled out of control with stones, burning tires and Palestinian mob setting fire to Joseph's Tomb in the city of Nablus (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34547523). There was one reprisal stabbing as well by a Jewish settler, as well as shooting of Palestinian protesters that threw stones and homemade gasoline bombs at riot police.
The Israeli government has put more police and security forces in and around Israel in order to protect its people. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas stated that Palestinian people are not interested in further escalation of violence. However, he has no real power against the Palestinian governing party Hamas. And what Hamas has done is put out instructional videos (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34513693) on how to stab Jewish people, fueling the hatred and violence even further. Now they are spreading the rumors of a third uprising (intifada).
This is an extreme case. And not every rumor or opinion misrepresented as fact on the internet will cause loss of life. However, glancing at the headlines of posts and blogs does impact people's thinking at a subconscious level. With the bombardment of multiple information sources we have, it is impossible to have time to research every headline you come across. The next time you feel like posting an uninformed fact-less opinion or support a sensationalist story that has no merit, remember that this is a technique that has been usurped by terrorist organizations. Don't be ignorant and don't be an accomplice. Do a little research and know the facts.
The current spate of violence in Israel has such roots. The terrorist organization Hamas was not content with the recent period of calm between Jewish and Palestinian people. So, this organization decided to spread rumors via social media about the Israeli government planning to restrict Palestinian access to the Noble Sanctuary. These rumors were quickly used as a spark to light the fire of the current violent clashes.
The Palestinian people took these rumors at face value, despite no indication from the Israeli government of these rumors being anywhere near reality. What followed was a series of stabbing, shooting, and vehicular attacks by Palestinian individuals on Israeli Jews. Now the situation has spiraled out of control with stones, burning tires and Palestinian mob setting fire to Joseph's Tomb in the city of Nablus (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34547523). There was one reprisal stabbing as well by a Jewish settler, as well as shooting of Palestinian protesters that threw stones and homemade gasoline bombs at riot police.
The Israeli government has put more police and security forces in and around Israel in order to protect its people. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas stated that Palestinian people are not interested in further escalation of violence. However, he has no real power against the Palestinian governing party Hamas. And what Hamas has done is put out instructional videos (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34513693) on how to stab Jewish people, fueling the hatred and violence even further. Now they are spreading the rumors of a third uprising (intifada).
This is an extreme case. And not every rumor or opinion misrepresented as fact on the internet will cause loss of life. However, glancing at the headlines of posts and blogs does impact people's thinking at a subconscious level. With the bombardment of multiple information sources we have, it is impossible to have time to research every headline you come across. The next time you feel like posting an uninformed fact-less opinion or support a sensationalist story that has no merit, remember that this is a technique that has been usurped by terrorist organizations. Don't be ignorant and don't be an accomplice. Do a little research and know the facts.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Culture of Cheating
It's easy to pay the price via a lost draft pick, cash, or a suspension after you have won the Super Bowl and don't have to give the Vincent Lombardi trophy back. History is written, and the NFL has shown its incompetence in terms of taking action when it would have actually mattered - before the Super Bowl was played.
The NFL, New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, and cheating. These words have been bound together over the past decade, and perhaps even earlier. Whether it is spygate, deflategate, or something the Patriots have committed (but haven't been caught for), the verdict is clear - there is a culture of cheating in the New England Patriots organization and it is tolerated by the NFL's lack of decisive and appropriately harsh action.
Despite a plethora of evidence against the Patriots, the NFL and the comissioner Roger Goodell decided to allow the Patriots to play for the title against the Seahawks, stating the the investigation would take place after the Super Bowl. Now, if you want to take decisive action to preserve the integrity of the game - you halt all festivities and work overtime to find out if the NFL equipment has been tempered with and the process of verification of football pressure has been violated before the game. Furthermore, if you find that the Patriots cheated before the game, it makes it that much more simpler to disqualify them from Super Bowl contention.
That is the path you take, if you actually care about the integrity of the game and truly believe that cheaters never prosper. But that did not happen, and the Patriots wound up winning the Super Bowl over the Seahawks on the game's last play. The punishment has to be harsh enough to send a message that you can't win through cheating, as the first punishment for Spygate years ago did not seem to do the trick. After the game is played, unless you take away the Super Bowl title from the New England Patriots, suspend Brady and Belichick for the year (as they are multiple offenders), the only message you're sending to the rest of the league and the fans is - Cheating is a perfectly OK tactic to win the Super Bowl.
Cheaters never win... unless their owner is a really good friend of the NFL Commissioner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)