The Writings of Eric E. Jenkins

2010-04-18T12:43:00.003-05:00

Today, join me as I host a screening of the documentary Still Bill, which chronicles the life and music of the great Bill Withers. The film will be shown at 3PM at the Robinson Film Center@ 617 Texas Street in Shreveport. For information, go to www.ericejenkins.com. Hope to see you there.

2010-03-31T19:14:00.003-05:00

The Oakland Raiders are at it Again

As a lifelong Raider fan, I once again cannot understand what they are up to. They spent most of the off-season hiring coaches who would be able to help JaMarcus Russell to become a professional quarterback, while at the same time keeping head coach Tom Cable in limbo. Now, it appears, with two effective though not spectacular quarterbacks on their roster as well as Russell, the Silver and Black are buyers in the market for Eagle quarterback Donovan McNabb.

Why would the Raiders want to trade their best player, defensive back Nnamdi Asomugha and their second-round pick in the upcoming draft for McNabb when they feel that Russell, coming into his fourth season, is not just the QB of the future, but of the present? Because that's what the Raiders do.

The upcoming Raider season will be their attempt to win more than five games and finish higher than third in the AFC West for the first time in eight years. The Reports on Russell are that he either arrived in camp in shape or weighing 290 pounds, depending on who you believe. If it is the latter, shopping for a new QB is actually a good thing, but if he is the future of the franchise, then the team needs to get behind him once and for all or go in a different direction and make it final.

2010-02-06T12:24:00.001-06:00

Soul Review Playlist - 2/3/10

Sly & the Family Stone – Sing a Simple Song – 8:00 – Greatest Hits – Epic – 30325
L.T.D. – Holding On (When Love is Gone) – 8:04 - 20th Century Masters - The Millennium Collection: The Best of L.T.D. - A
The Persuaders - Thin Line Between Love and Hate – 8:08 - Soul Hits of the 70s: Didn't It Blow Your Mind!, Vol. 6 - Rhino
Bill Withers – Ain’t No Sunshine – 8:11 - Soul Hits of the 70s: Didn't It Blow Your Mind!, Vol. 6 - Rhino - R2-70786
The Ohio Players – Love Rollercoaster – 8:14 - 20th Century Masters - The Millennium Collection: The Best of the Ohio Pla
Al Green – I’m Still in Love with You – 8:19 - Slow Jams: The 70's, Vol. 2 - The Right Stuff - T2-28372
Dennis Edwards & Siedah Garrett – Don’t Look Any Further – 8:22 - Slow Jams, Vol. 3 - SPG – 2030
The Temptations – Ball of Confusion – 8:27 - The Ultimate Collection - Motown – 530562
The Brothers Johnson – Strawberry Letter 23 – 8:32 - Classics, Vol. 11 - A&M - 75021-2509-2
Rose Royce – Love Don’t Live Here Anymore – 8:39 – Funk Ballads - Polygram – 555138
Barry White – Playing Your Game, Baby – 8:41 - All-Time Greatest Hits - Mercury – 522459
Charles Wright & the Watts 103rd Street Rhythm Band – Love Land – 8:45 - Soul Hits of the 70s: Didn't It Blow Your Mind!,
Hot Chocolate – You Sexy Thing – 8:48 - Super Hits of the '70s: Have a Nice Day, Vol. 15 - Rhino - R2-70762
Ronnie Dyson - (If You Let Me Make Love to You Then) Why Can't I Touch You? – 8:52 - Soul Hits of the 70s: Didn't It Blow
A Taste of Honey – Boogie Oogie Oogie – 8:55 - Non-Stop Disco, Vol. 2 – Polygram - 553405

2010-01-15T12:36:00.002-06:00

Teddy Pendergrass - Years Before His Time

On January 13, 2010, the music world lost one of their own when former Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes lead singer, and one of the most sensual male vocalists in music history passed away. Teddy Pendergrass was 59 years old when he succumbed to complications related to cancer. The Philadelphia sound, associated with Kenneth Gamble and Leon Huff, was no more typified than through the music of the Blue Notes. However, it was as a solo where the true pioneer spirit of Teddy shone through.

Rhythm and Blues or Soul music of the 1960's and 70's was more about love and marriage. Teddy was one of the first artists who spoke more of relations and less about relationships, a trend that would not become commonplace in R&B music until the 1990's and later. Songs like "Close the Door", "Turn Off the Lights", "Come Go With Me", "Hold Me" (with Whitney Houston) and others showed the world that it was possible to be Mr. Right Now for a woman, but to do it while treating the woman with respect, and by appealing to her senses, something lacking in much of today's music. Teddy hosted a score of "Women Only" concerts, knowing that his style of music and performance would be one where men would feel out of place, and women would get the most out of it, and Teddy did these shows without incident and without rumor of indiscretion.

Teddy Pendergrass might be gone, but his music, and the style that he pioneered in the 1970's still exists today, as many of his songs have been sampled and many of today's hottest stars have tried to copy his style. There can and will always be only one Teddy. Rest in Peace.

2009-12-01T22:00:00.000-06:00

Tiger Woods...Why Should I Care

Submitted for your approval…picture this: The National Enquirer article alleging that Tiger Woods was involved in an adulterous affair never comes out. Now, there is no story about Tiger Woods doing anything wrong and his reputation in intact. Tiger gets involved in a single car accident while he is leaving his home. His wife states that she attempted to free him by smashing the back window of his SUV with a golf club and that she instructed the neighbors to call 911, but not to say who was involved in the accident. The police arrive on the scene and discover everything the way that it was when Tiger was discovered following the accident. Now, without the Enquirer piece, would the police be investigating the situation any further than a single car accident? And would we even care about Tiger Woods beyond his exploits on the golf course? The answer to both of those questions is a resounding “NO!”

Tiger Woods has never given the press any cause to question him, except for his occasional tantrums and swearing on the golf course. But, if you were worth one billion dollars, and every golf stroke was worth more than the entire payroll of the Los Angeles Clippers, you would curse too if something went wrong. Beyond that, Tiger has been a model citizen, even in the face of overwhelming racism (Fuzzy Zoeller’s comments) and constant criticism about his game, despite the fact that even in a down year; he wins more money than the rest of the PGA tour.

Suddenly, however, we are supposed to care about whether or not Tiger Woods has had an affair with a reputed party girl, just because The National Enquirer said so. Bear in mind, this is the National Enquirer, the enterprise that has been sued more times than Girls Gone Wild. True, the Enquirer gets it right sometimes, but they have also been very wrong in the past, and now we are supposed to believe that Tiger is having an affair because they said so. So what if he is? If you prick him, does he not bleed? If you interrupt him at work, will he not curse you out? Seems human to me.

The problem though, is not the fact that Tiger might or might not be having, or might or might not have had an affair with a woman or women known or unknown, because since he is a celebrity, this type of thing will make news. The problem is the fact that the man was involved in a car accident, and the press seems more interested in whether or not he is cheating on his wife than the extent of his injuries. This is the society that we live in ladies and gentlemen.

Actor checks into rehab. Big news. Same actor donates money to charity. Not so much. Golfer cheating on his wife. Lead story. Golfer has single car accident leaving home. Yawn. Now, don’t get me wrong, a celebrity cheating on their spouse is interesting, but I don’t, and no one else should, watch golf to find out if Tiger is cheating on his wife, just like we should be able to separate Michael Jackson the man from Michael Jackson the entertainer.

I received a ton of letters when I wrote that Chris Benoit the wrestler and Chris Benoit the man who allegedly killed his wife and son before killing himself were two different people (Chris Benoit – Separating Fact from Fiction - http://tinyurl.com/ydrmjdt), but the truth is that when I am being entertained, I can separate the entertainer from their personal politics or personal demons, unless those politics or demons interfere with their performance or my entertainment. If Floyd Mayweather came out and said that he could not fight against Philippine fighters because he doesn’t like them, then this interferes with my entertainment, because the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight might never happen. If Tony Romo came out and said that he threw mostly to Jason Whiten instead of Roy Williams or Terrell Owens because he doesn’t like black receivers, then this would also be a problem. Michael Jackson never wrote songs about child molesting and Tiger Woods does not stroll the back nine wearing a shirt that reads “Be a Tiger, Cheat on your wife”.

I know that as a writer/journalist, I am supposed to care, and in the course of researching a story, I do. But, just because it was alleged by the National Enquirer, I cannot bring myself to care more about his affair than about his health after a car accident. Maybe I’m in the minority, or just maybe, I hope that if I am ever involved in an accident, I can get medical attention, and that no one will read my credit report or reviews of my radio show just to make the story juicier than it is.

2009-11-19T11:34:00.001-06:00

The 2009 American Music Awards

The 2009 American Music Awards will air on November 22, and many of today’s hottest artists have been nominated for awards, with a usual suspect from the past who, though nominated several times, hasn’t really done anything in several years.

Michael Jackson passed away at the end of June and, as a result of his death, many of his albums had renewed sales numbers and re-charted because of the sales and airplay. Michael’s 2003 album “Number Ones”, a collection of Michael’s greatest solo hits, had the greatest sales figures and became a, pardon the pun, number one hit itself once again, and as a result has been nominated for Best R&B and Best Pop album. I can almost accept this because the album did, in fact, have a good sales year, but anyone with a hint of reasoning can see that had Michael not passed away, the album would have been a non factor, and another, possibly more deserving album, might have gotten those nominations.

Due to the album’s sales numbers, Michael became eligible for nominations for Best Pop/Rock Male Artist, Best Soul/R&B Male Artist and Artist of the Year. Even though his album sales make him eligible, just as with the album nominations, I am sure that there is someone or a group of people who could be considered more eligible for these awards. Michael’s album was a greatest hits album and the most recent selection on the album was from the album’s release year of 2003, which means that there is nothing on the album less than 6-years old. Artists who produced new material who were shunned for this year’s awards have to wonder if their time has passed because without new material in time to be eligible for next year’s awards, their opportunity to be recognized for their work might have come and gone. This, above all else, is the most disturbing thing about this entire situation.

When Magic Johnson was voted onto the 1991-92 NBA Western Conference All-Star team, he petitioned the NBA to expand the roster so that the person who might have made the team had Magic not gotten voted in would be allowed to play. Michael Jackson is not alive to make a decision such as this, but someone connected with this situation should speak on Michael’s behalf so that whoever is getting passed over in each of these categories, they can get their shot, just like in the All-Star Game. Magic became the MVP of the game anyway, and who knows, Michael might and probably will win all of his categories, but he might not, and the person who might have won could be he person who is now not even nominated.

2009-11-19T10:24:00.001-06:00

Play List for Soul Review - November 18, 2009

Minnie Riperton - Memory Lane
Junior Walker - Shotgun
Wilson Pickett - 634-5789
Marvin Gaye - Come Get to This
Graham Central Station - Can You Handle It?
Al Green - Let's Stay Together
Spinners - Cupid
Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes - Satisfaction Guaranteed (Or Take your Love Back)
Cameo - I Just Want to Be
Aretha Franklin - Respect
The Presidents - 5-10-15-20 (25-30 Years of Love)
David Ruffin - My Whole World Ended (The Moment You Left Me)
Jimmy Ruffin - What Becomes of the Broken Hearted?
Roy Ayers - Running Away
The Undisputed Truth - Smiling Faces Sometimes
The Capitols - Cool Jerk

2009-11-19T10:01:00.004-06:00

Highland Jazz & Blues Festival 2009

Last Saturday, the 6th annual Highland Jazz & Blues Festival was held at Columbus Park in the Highland area of Shreveport, Louisiana, and I must say, that it was great. I had a ball hosting the Gazebo Stage and the acts that performed on that stage were some of the best bands that I have ever seen perform.

More than 10,000 people turned out for this free event that is thrown for the purpose of giving the residents of Shreveport and the surrounding areas another opportunity to commune with one another and enjoy what the city has to offer.

Special kudos go to Liz Swaine, on of the organizers of the event and to Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover, who made an appeal at the end of the day for donations in order to be able to continue to bring the festival to the residents. Professor Porkchop was his usual entertaining self. A.J. Haynes lived up to her reputation, the little girl with the really big voice. Howlin’ Henry did his thing and Total Choice had the crowd on their feet, especially with their rendition of Z.Z. Hill’s “Down Home Blues”.

The highlight of the day, on the Pavilion Stage, was the performance of the Rebirth Brass Band. This band had the crowd, including Mayor Glover, on their feet, dancing and singing, especially when they rewrote the lyrics to “When the Saints” by saying “When the Saints, win the Super Bowl”. That got the crowd to yell even louder than they already were.

All in all, the 6th Annual Highland Jazz & Blues Festival was a grand time and I am already looking forward to next year’s festival.

2009-11-11T21:55:00.001-06:00

Play list for Soul Review - November 11, 2009

1. Earth, Wind & Fire - Let's Groove
2. Stevie Wonder - Sir Duke
3. The O'Jays - Backstabbers
4. O'Jays - Love Train
5. Joe Tex - I Gotcha
6. The Temptations - Ain't Too Proud to Beg
7. Billy Preston - Nuthin' From Nuthin'
8. Heatwave - Boogie Nights
9. Dazz Band - Ain't Gonna Hurt Nobody
10. Redbone - Come and Get Your Love
11. Marvin Gaye - Mercy, Mercy Me
12. Kool & The Gang - Joanna
13. Barbara Acklin - Love Makes a Woman
14. Gladys Knight & The Pips - I Heard it Through the Grapevine
15. Hot Chocolate - Everyone's a Winner
16. The Floaters - Float On

2009-09-20T20:30:00.006-05:00

Two Deserving Hall of Famers on the Verge of Being Snubbed...Again

It’s that time of year again. Another Hall of Fame has announced their initial nominees, and a couple of my favorite players are on the verge of being snubbed again. The National Football League has announced the nominees for the 2010 induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Though the final inductees will not be announced until the Super Bowl on February 7^th, 2010, the initial voting is underway. Now, I am and have always been an Oakland Raider fan, and two of the greatest players at their positions in the history of professional football are still waiting for their call from Canton, Ohio, and it makes no sense to me.

Professional football is a game of numbers, and many times, hall of fame induction is based on numbers. Unfortunately for my two players, there is a belief that there are no numbers for their positions that will ensure their induction into the HOF. Offensive players, defensive line players and linebackers have absolute numbers that allow them to be considered as greats of the game, but offensive linemen, and defensive backs are believed to have to earn their way in through word of mouth. For this reason, one of the greatest cornerbacks in the game, “The Judge” Lester Hayes, is not in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Lester retired from the NFL in 1986 after a 10-years career spent entirely with the Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders. Hayes was a 5-time pro bowler, a 6-time All-Pro either first or second team selection and was the 1980 Defensive Player of the year. Hayes was also a member of two Raider Super Bowl championship teams. These numbers say to me that he was one of the best at his position during the time that he played. If winning a title is a prerequisite, then Hayes has that as well. Despite this, Hayes has not been elected yet.

There is also a belief that defensive players have to have a rule changed because of the way that they played to be guaranteed induction into the Hall. Deacon Jones had the head slap outlawed, and also forced quarterback sacks to become an official stat. Dick “Night Train” Lane had the clothesline tackle outlawed. Well, when Lester played, an adhesive devise known as “stickum” was allowed for wide receivers to allow them to better hold onto the ball, especially in cold weather. Lester figured that he could use this to help him hold onto the ball if it came near him to help with interceptions. Because of Hayes’ success with stickum, the league outlawed the use of it at the beginning of the 1981 season, but not until after Hayes intercepted a league high 13 balls in 1980, so if a rule change guarantees induction, then why isn’t Hayes in the Hall? Maybe it is because he only played 10 years. Maybe it is because he is 42 interceptions shy of the career record, or maybe it is because he is a Raider.

The other player is considered the best to ever play his position. So good was he that he had a collegiate award named after himself. The thing that is keeping him out of the Hall is the institution’s insistence that special teams players do not really have a place among the great quarterbacks, running backs and wide receivers that have already been enshrined. Ray Guy, the punter for the Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders also retired in 1986, after a 14-year career where he was a part of three Raider championship teams and his reputation for punting the ball so proficiently became one such that teams would inspect footballs that he punted for the presence of helium.

Just as with Lester Hayes, Guy has numbers that should ensure him induction into the Hall, but these numbers get overlooked because they are not league records. Guy punted 1,049 times and had only four punts blocked. Guy played in 207 consecutive games, including spending some time as the team’s third or fourth-string quarterback, and Guy, in 14 seasons, never had a punt returned for a touchdown. In fact, one of Guy’s punts lead to a touchdown play in Super Bowl XVIII when his 27-yard punt pinned the Redskins at the 12-yard line and on the next play, Jack Squirek intercepted Joe Theismann’s screen pass and took it in for a Raider touchdown that helped the Raiders win the game and the championship.

Ray Guy and Lester Hayes were among the best at their positions during the time that they played. I know that I have said in the past that if you think about whether or not a person deserves to be in their Hall of Fame then they probably do not, but there is nothing to think about in these cases. Ray Guy and Lester Hayes are worthy and should be inducted. Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith will be slam dunks this year, and either Chris Carter or Andre Reed might finally get in, but Lester Hayes and Ray Guy deserve to be in as well. This is not the Pro Football Hall of Very Good, it is the Hall of Fame, for the best of the best, and Hayes and Guy were simply that; the best of the best.

2009-01-01T15:41:00.002-06:00

The Future of Boxing

I am a big professional wrestling fan, and currently, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling is running a story line where the young talent in the organization is feuding with the older, more established talent. The basis of the feud is the belief from the veterans that the "rookies" have no respect for the business, while the young stars feel that the vets are standing in the way of the advancement of the youth of the federation.I am also a huge boxing fan and, after watching the recent Oscar De La Hoya-Manny Pacquiao and Roy Jones-Joe Calzaghe fights, I am coming to the realization that the sport of boxing is suffering from the same problem that the story line in TNA Wrestling is acting out.

Within the last few months, James Toney, Evander Holyfield, Shane Mosley, Roy Jones, Oscar De La Hoya, Bernard Hopkins, Antonio Tarver and Hasim Rahman have had fights of varying significance with varying degrees of success. All of these men are over 35 years of age, and all of these men seem to have lost at least a step to their once remarkable skills. These men were all champions and marquee names in the 1980’s and 1990’s, but in the 21st century, they are simply the old guard that refuses to get out of the way of the new blood of the sport.

By no means am I saying that these men, and others of ilk, have no right to attempt to earn a living. What I am saying is that in their last fights, each of these men looked as if their better days were behind them. Losing a fight is by no means an indication that a fighter is shot, but when the losing fighter looks as if he was unable to perform physically what he conceived mentally, it is clearly time for that fighter to use his boxing experience to benefit the future of the sport in some way other than in the ring.

Oscar, Hopkins and Mosley are all partners in Golden Boy Promotions, which is quickly becoming a force within boxing promotional circles. Toney, though heavier and slower than at any time in his career, still has the smarts to be a force in a less-than-stellar heavyweight division, while Evander Holyfield, though he seemed competitive against extremely overrated champions Nikolai Valuev and Sultan Ibragimov, would be better served to find another way to earn a living instead of risking his health. Tarver might still have one good fight left in him, but Roy Jones has too many other talents to continue to diminish the legacy of a fighter who was considered the best to ever lace up a pair of gloves.

This is not to say that fighters like Joe Calzaghe and Manny Pacquiao are necessarily young, and I can’t even make the argument that these fighters have not been in the wars that the other fighters have because every Pacquiao fight is a war, but these fighters, and fighters like Ricky Hatton, Antonio Margarito, the Klitschko brothers, Kelly Pavlik (who Hopkins defeated in his last fight) and Chad Dawson are the immediate future of the business, and there needs to be opportunities for them to determine if they can become the newest stars of the sport.

It is true that the veteran fighters that I discussed are marquee names that have transcended the sport and can command large purses (even though Holyfield only received $650,000 for his fight against Valuev), but in all honesty, how many more times can boxing fans be asked to pay $49.95 for a pay-per-view to see a fighter headline a card when the fighter is clearly not the in-ring attraction that he once was?

With the exception of the heavyweights, all of the veteran fighters are facing off against the next generation of fighters, which is a good thing for the sport because once one of these up-and-coming fighters soundly defeats a legendary fighter, it should increase the victor’s marketability, except for the question of how marketable the defeat of a fighter who is past his prime is, even though that fighter has a big name? What did Trevor Berbick gain by defeating Muhammad Ali? What did Glen Johnson gain by defeating Roy Jones? What did Tommy Morrison gain by defeating George Foreman and what did Terry Norris gain be defeating “Sugar” Ray Leonard?

If a fighter, even a fighter who has had a legendary career, stays too long, not only does he diminish his own career, he minimizes the potential career boost of the man who defeats him, and not only does this damage the career of both fighters, it damages the sport as a whole because the opportunity to create a new star has been unnecessarily lost.

2008-08-07T19:36:00.003-05:00

The Truth About “Baby Mama Drama”

Often times, in our society, children are born to couples who are not married. I know this fact all too well because not only am I the father of a child from unwed parents, I am the grandfather of a child from unwed parents.

It is not uncommon for two people to get along one minute and to hate each other the next. However, when there is a child involved, the relationship between the couple can become even more volatile. This is especially true in instances where the couple breaks up and the man takes up with another woman. While it doesn’t happen every time, sometimes, the woman comes to resent everything about the situation; the fact that the man left, the fact that he is seeing someone else, and the fact that she now has a child to raise and can only count on limited help from the father of the child. This resentment often manifests itself in acts designed to make the father’s life miserable as a result of his decision. This phenomenon is often referred to in the streets of the inner cities as “Baby Mama Drama”. It is because of BMD that many women are reluctant to take up with a man who has children by another woman.

There are two forms of BMD, and they differ based on whether the child has a father who wants to spend lots of time with his child or wants to spend as little time as possible with his child. Fathers who want to take an active role in the raising of their child have restrictions placed, by the mother, on the time that they are allowed to spend with the child. The mother usually does this in an attempt to disrupt the father’s life and make it difficult for the father to schedule events and activities with his new love interest. This type of father has to keep an open schedule so that whenever his child is made available to him, he is able to spend time with the child and do whatever he can to be a part of this child’s life.

The type of father who tries to distance himself from the woman and the child will often have the child forced into his life. The mother will create situations whereby the father is demanded by the mother to relieve her of the child so that she can accomplish whatever pressing task she is confronted with, or simply as a means to alleviate stress emanating from having to raise the child without the child’s father present. This father’s schedule is disrupted because he never knows when he will be spending time with the child and has therefore not made any preparations for having the child as a part of his existence. No matter which type of father the man is, the man has to understand the he, the woman and the child will all be connected until two of the three of them passes away.

The obvious solution to this problem is abstinence. Without going into a sermon on the sins of unwed sex, it should be noted that the bible does speak out against fornication. Realizing that, in today’s society, abstinence is an unrealistic expectation, safe sex is the most responsible option. In the event that a child is born, there are things that the father of the child can do that would go a long way towards minimizing and possibly eliminating the effects of BMD.

Being a parent, in particular being a mother, is as tough a job as any other profession that currently exists, and though the rewards are great, it is the only job that has no salary and actually costs as much money as it does time and energy. The father of the child must realize this, and whether or not he and the mother are together, must do whatever he can to share the responsibility of raising and caring for the child. If he steps in without having to be asked to or forced to, the mother might (and even then it is not a certainty) be inclined to not make the father’s life miserable. The new love interest of the father must also realize that she is not as important as the man’s child, and must be willing to take a backward step and allow the father to assume his responsibilities.

Lastly, both the man and his new partner must realize that the mother will be under stress due to having to care for the child as well as the unhappiness of seeing the father of the child, someone that she gave all of herself to and created a child with, in the arms of another woman at a time when the mother of the child needs the man the most, even more than during the creation of the child. If both members of this new relationship are conscious of this fact, then the lives of all of the parties involved should be more harmonious.

While it is true that there will still be some women who will create BMD out of spite over the man’s having left or because the woman is herself a miserable person, most often, the woman just wants to know that she is not on an island by herself at a time when she most needs some help and some understanding.

2008-08-07T19:36:00.001-05:00

The “Politics” of America

Recently, while doing my laundry in a neighborhood Laundromat, I happened to be listening to the radio that was playing inside the establishment. The proprietor of the Laundromat had his radio tuned to a Spanish language station, and the program was a question and answer forum with one of the leaders of one of our larger metropolitan areas. Though I do not understand much Spanish, I was able to follow along with the program because the individual being interviewed didn’t speak Spanish either, so everything was being translated into English. This made keeping up with the conversations easier for me.

The interview focused on the usual topics of conversation in Urban America: gangs, drugs, crime, and the homeless. The questions were being answered by an individual who happened to be the mayor of his city, and his answers seemed to be the same political posturing that we the people are forced to heat and accept over and over again. The mayor informed the listeners about the numerous shelters and youth clubs that had been opened and would be opened soon. He also mentioned the different task forces that had been assigned to one problem or another. Most politicians believe that this approach is all that is necessary to clean up our cities. This led me to believe that the individuals in power in many of the major cities across the country have no idea what to do about these problems.

The usual reasons given for why a child elects to join a gang is as the result of peer pressure or fear. The reasons given for why people get involved with drugs are because they suffer from low self-esteem or depression. Homeless people are usually described as people who have suffered some significant financial hardship or who allowed substance abuse to ruin their lives beyond repair. While these are all good reasons to explain why these problems exist, they are only symptomatic of the real underlying issues surrounding these situations.

How did the homeless person come to suffer his financial hardship or substance abuse problem? What can we as a society do to help correct, or at least improve the situation? Will providing homeless people with a bed for the night help those people to become self-sufficient in the morning? These are questions that must be addressed before the plight of the homeless can truly be rectified. Questions of this kind also need to be addressed with regards to the crime, drug, and gang problems that exist across the country. Understanding peer pressure is one thing, but understanding why or how peer pressure is able to so thoroughly override the love and understanding of the family unit is one of the keys to beginning to solve the problems of society.

The politicians set up their task forces, then assign said task forces to investigate particular problems. The people assigned to the task forces spend their time, as well as our tax dollars, opening boy’s and girl’s clubs, or putting more police on the streets. These are all noble efforts, but many elected officials appear to be blind to the big picture. What they do not understand is that by simply erecting a shiny, new building for the children, and without having taken steps to curb the children’s criminal tendencies, you are simply giving the criminals a new place from which to operate.

Drug dealers and gang members are able to function in certain neighborhoods because the neighborhoods are virtually uninhabited by police officers, but the only thing that putting more police in these areas does is force the drug dealers to set up shop on a different block. What the task forces need to do is to get in touch with the parents, the neighbors, the schools, and the kids themselves, in order to find out what problems these kids and their families are having, what these kids are looking for, and how it could be obtained without the necessities of gangs, drugs or criminal activity. It is possible that these young people are having trouble in school or their parents are having trouble feeding the family. The parents may not even be present, so before we build buildings that people may not need, we should first try to find out what these people actually do need.

Homelessness is an altogether different issue. The common misconception is that all homeless people are drug addicted, alcohol abusing, lazy vagabonds or con-artists who are only interested in obtaining a quick fix. While this may be true in some cases, obviously this is not true in every situation. A good percentage of homeless people are people who simply had a series of bad breaks from which they were unable to recover before it became too late. The reason that the politicians don’t know or understand this is because the homeless problem has never actually been researched. Just like in every other situation, it is easier to open a shelter in order to get them off the streets than to actually try and conjure up a solution. Once again, the question of whether or not providing homeless people with beds at night helps them to become self-sufficient in the morning arises. What the politicians need to do is to try and find out from these people why they are in the position that they are in, examine how they got there, then try to figure out, not only how to reverse the situation, but also how to prevent it from reoccurring.

A wise person once said that before you can really understand where a man had been, you must first walk a mile in his shoes. While I am not suggesting that elected officials use drugs, join gangs, rob liquor stores or sleep on the streets, I am suggesting that it may be difficult to really understand what’s going on without having actually lived through it. For years, elected officials have been trying to solve the problems of society by spending tax dollars on buildings that they can put their names on. Until they actually get in touch with the people who are contributing to and suffering from these problems, then these problems can never really be solved.

2008-08-07T19:04:00.000-05:00

Al Green takes long time fans back to the future with new CD

Al Green, who will be appearing at the Horseshoe Casino on July 4 with the legendary Gladys Knight, has just released his latest CD on Blue Note Records. The album, entitled Lay Down, reminds us that, though he does record the occasional gospel album, when Al Green wants to do a straight ahead soul album, there are few that can match him.

Lay Down, an 11-track collection that hit stores on May 26, 2008, shows the world that Al Green is what he is, a very intelligent artist who knows what he can do and who does it very well while avoiding those things that are not common to his style. Al Green is a singer; a smooth, soulful, heartfelt singer who can get more out of less than any singer in history.

Though Green has just passed his 62^nd birthday and his 53^rd year as a performer, you cannot hear it in his voice. The falsetto range and clarity are still there, and so is the emotion that lets the listener know that what Al is saying is true and from the heart. The title track, a collaboration with current R&B star Anthony Hamilton (who sounds a touch like the Gap Band’s Charlie Wilson), has very few actual lyrics other than a constant repeating of the title, but the message is clearly there.

On this album, Green works with singers John Legend, Corrine Bailey Rae and Hamilton, but this album is all about Green. For fans of Green’s classic hits, this album is an updated extension of those songs. Produced by Ahmir "?uestlove" Thompson, drummer for jazz/hip-hop group The Roots and Grammy winning songwriter and producer James Poyser, the album has a more current feel while never straying too far from that classic Al Green sound, the sound that lets you concentrate on what is important in a collection like this; the lyrics and the singing of Green.

It is easy to tell that Thompson and Poyser wanted to create a set that would satisfy past and present Al Green fans, which it does, while creating a vibe, with the inclusion of the horn section from the Dap-Kings, that is true to the classic Al Green sound, while still sounding as fresh and lively as it did years ago.

The most amazing thing about this album is the singing. If you were to listen to For the Good Times, Take Me to the River or Love and Happiness and then listen to any of the tracks on Lay it Down, You would never be able to tell that there is a thirty-year gap between the recordings. Unlike many other singers whose voices seem to fade with age, Al Green sounds like he will still be able to do justice to his older records years from now. Al is singing as strong and clean as he did in his thirties.

Classic Al Green fans should definitely add this to their collection. Fans of true soul music should have this one as well. For fans of soul who might not have listened to Green in a while, this one is a must have. In fact, there is not a group of people within whose collection this album would not fit. Let’s hope that when Green appears at the Horseshoe on July 4, 2008, he adds some tracks from Lay it Down to his set of classics.

2008-08-07T13:59:00.000-05:00

Media Reaction - Hip Hop Harry

Every weekday at 5:30 am on the Learning Channel, and at 9am and 12:00 noon on Discovery Kids, Hip Hop Harry dances his way across our televisions. Hip Hop Harry and his television show cater to grammar school aged children (ages 6-12); the same crowd who ten years ago would have been singing “I Love You” with Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Today, those children are probably listening to rap music, thus Harry attempts to parlay those children’s love of hip hop into an enjoyable but educational experience. The show is rated TV-G which means that it is perceived to be suitable for General Audiences and that any and everyone can watch it without fear of encountering anything objectionable.

The “Hip Hop Harry” show centers around a large bear dressed in hip hop gear, and a group of children who hang out at the Hip Hop Center, presumably after school. Harry teaches these children certain values and certain life lessons through the use of hip hop beats and rap music. Just as Barney did many years ago; any chance he gets, Harry busts into song, but Harry never actually gives the children the answers to their problems or questions, he simply leads them to the solution and lets them find the answer for themselves.

The episode that I watched centered on two separate lessons; the necessity to always thoroughly wash your hands and the importance of always doing your part when there is work to be done. A young woman who hangs out at Hip Hop Central with Harry and the kids was having a birthday and one of the children wanted to throw her a party but felt as if there was more work than she could handle alone. While the other children were researching germs and the consequences of not washing their hands, the one child was afraid to ask for help, feeling that her comrades were too busy to help her. Harry convinced her to ask her friends for help, knowing that they would be more than happy to help her and that they were all willing to do their share. The children, all got along well with one another, and they were all willing help the girl with the party preparations. The party came of successfully and everyone had a good time sharing their lessons with Harry and celebrating the young woman’s birthday. Once everyone had sufficiently proved that they had learned their lessons, they all gathered in the center of the floor for some hip hop dancing.

Hip Hop Harry is just as sugary sweet as Barney used to be, except for the rap music, and there is nothing objectionable on the show. As I earlier mentioned, Hip Hop Harry teaches grade school children values such as working together and keeping their hands clean. This is a show that, because of its educational value, I would have no qualms about allowing my children to watch. Harry’s messages are positive and his delivery relates to today’s children, provided those children are fans of rap music.

2008-08-07T13:58:00.001-05:00

The Motion Picture Ratings System

In the movie Be Cool, John Travolta, in the role of movie producer/shylock Chili Palmer, is sitting and talking with Tommy Athens, as played by James Woods, and Chili is considering leaving the movie business. Chili is unhappy with some of the hoops the movie business forces him to jump through, one of which is the fact that if a movie wants to avoid the R rating, the word “f**k” can only be used once during the film, after which Chili says, “You know what I say? F**k that.” ^[2] The movie was rated PG-13 for “violence, sensuality, and language including sexual references”, as was the movie Live Free or Die Hard, which was the fourth installment of the Die Hard series. Live Free or Die Hard featured “intense sequences of violence and action, language and a brief sexual situation”, but like Be Cool, Live Free only featured one instance, though slightly obscured, ironically, by a gunshot in the background, of the word “f**k”, ^[4] which leads one to believe that Chili Palmer might actually have been right. Therefore, I will endeavor to uncover the truth regarding the Motion Picture Association of America movie ratings system and how things like profanity, violence and sexual content effect how movies are rated.

It is common knowledge to most what the various ratings used by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) stand for. A ‘G’ rating means that the movie is for General Audiences or is suitable for everyone no matter the age of the viewer. Specifically, the rating indicates that there will be no nudity, no sexual content, no drug use, minimal violence, and the language will go beyond “polite conversation”, and will feature “common, everyday expressions”. A ‘PG’ film might show a slight increase in violence, might display what is called “brief nudity”, and might also feature some profanity, but there will be no drug use in the film. ‘PG’ means that the parent or guardian of the child interested in viewing the film should be certain that the content of the film is suitable for the particular child to view. A ‘PG-13’ film is one in which the nudity will go “beyond brief” but will not be of a sexual nature.^[10] This is the controversy that Roger Ebert raises in his review of the film Beowulf for the Chicago Sun Times.

In his review, Ebert questions how the film could receive the PG-13 rating when it appears that Angelina Jolie, who appears in the film as Grendel’s mother, is completely nude in a particular scene in the movie. The justification for the PG-13 rating, as Ebert writes, instead of the R rating that Ebert obviously feels in his review that the film deserves, is three-fold: 1) The film features no profanity, 2) The “crucial areas” of Jolie’s body are obscured by “shimmering gold plating”, and 3) It is not Jolie at all but instead a character that was computer-generated and made to resemble Jolie. ^[3] Based on these factors, and because the nudity is of a non-sexual nature, though I am sure that the 13-and-older male crowd viewing the film in IMAX 3-D would disagree, Beowulf would appear to rightfully deserve the PG-13 rating, but what of Live Free or Die Hard?

“A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context.”^[9] This explanation is included in the MPAA’s description of what qualifies a movie for a rating of PG-13. In short, you could actually say “s**t” in excess of 20 times and frequently use the words d**k, d**khead, a**, and a**hole, which Live Free does, ^[4] and as long as these words are not used within the context of a sexually derived conversation, then the language of the film would not force the MPAA to give the film an R rating. Included with this is the fact that, as Chili Palmer points out, as long as the word “f**k” is only used once, ^[2] and to add the MPAA proviso, it is not used in a conversation about sex or in the description of a sexual act, the film will not be “punished” with an R rating. As for the violence, MPAA states that it cannot be “both realistic and extreme or persistent”, ^[10] but what does this mean? Does “both realistic and extreme” mean that if the violent act is something that could actually happen, then it is acceptable as long as it is not torturous in nature and if it is a truly vile act, it has to be something that could not actually happen? Is it not true that if the vile act could be conceived within the mind of a screenwriter that it could also be conceived within the mind of a homicidal maniac? My guess is that any conceivable violent act, based on the fact that it could have been or has been conceived, is realistic, whether it has happened in real life yet or not. Also, if any violent act could be conceived for a film, and that act is of an extreme nature, then that film would fail to meet the criteria for the PG-13 rating. I am sure that “realistic” refers to films of a medieval, mystic or paranormal nature, but this discussion is about a film in which a New York police officer shoots himself through the shoulder in order to kill the villain who us standing behind him. This act would seem to be realistic (depending on the caliber of the gun and the distance between the two persons), and the measure of what is “extreme” would be based on individual perception. The consensus was that this film, in the version that was released in theatres, fulfilled all of the requirements for receipt of the PG-13 rating, and the over $134 million that the movie grossed ^[1] proves that the directors and the MPAA had the right idea.

Peter Reiher, as associate professor at UCLA, has researched the movies ratings system, and is especially critical of the R rating, as he writes “In practice, the restriction simply means the child can't buy his own ticket. If he can find a cooperative adult, even a stranger, who will buy the ticket for him, in he goes. In theory, it's supposed to be the parent or someone else with a strong relationship to the child.” The MPAA’s description of the R rating makes two assertions that, according to Reiher, seem to be unenforceable in junction with the effort to sell tickets to movies. ^[5] The MPAA states that, in regards to an R rated movie, “Children under the age of 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian”, and “Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.” This seems to imply that the ratings board for the Motion Picture Association of America would rather that people under the age of 17 not view movies that have received an R rating, but, as Reiher claims, as long as the child does not buy the ticket him or herself, then once the ticket is bought, there are no other safeguards preventing the child from viewing the movie. ^[5]

“An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements”, ^[10] is what the MPAA says qualifies a movie for the R rating, but, as with many issues regarding the media, there is and will always be differences of opinion over where the “line” is regarding what is suitable for a child, even if that child is 17-years-old and what is not. Was it suitable for 17-year-old boys to see a totally nude Kristanna Loken emerge from her “shell”, walk completely nude across the street with her bare bottom showing and her long hair and some well placed objects hiding her other “crucial area” in the opening scene of Terminator 3? ^[7]I guess as long as Ms. Loken’s nudity was not used in a sexual nature then it is acceptable. However, if we examine Terminator 3, particularly in a comparison with Live Free, it would appear that the differences that caused the MPAA to give T3 the R while giving Live Free the PG-13 are minor at best.

First, comparisons of the violence between the two seem to be comparable. Each film makes an effort to show as little blood as possible and also attempts to hide the more graphic depictions of death from the camera, leaving those only to the imaginations of the viewers. Second, there is no nudity in Live Free, and the only sexual scene happens when a female character has her breast groped by her date for the evening, though both parties are fully clothed. The existing nudity in T3 is the aforementioned scene featuring Kristanna Loken, which begs the question of what constitutes brief and whether one person would consider the nudity to have remained on screen longer than it should have, thereby exceeding the PG-13 requirement. Regardless of sides in this matter, it would appear that the R rating came down to two issues; drugs and language. In one scene, a man breaks into a veterinary office to find drugs to help him deal with pain that he is having, only to find that he has consumed animal sterilization medicine. ^[7] In some circles, this would be seen as a comedic element in the film while others would see this as something that should not be seen by children, but since the R rating permits attendance of 17-year-olds, then the scene, comedic or not, potentially was seen by people legally classified as children. This scene could possible have seen the film granted the dreaded NC-17 rating, but for the comedic element. The other issue had to have been language, and the three utterances of the word “f**k”. ^[7] That, and that alone, based on the literal descriptions of each of the ratings discussed thus far, had to be what pushed the film over the edge for without these utterances, the film might actually have been able to achieve a PG-13 rating. This, however, might actually have been bad for business.

Filmmakers often labor to obtain the PG-13 rating for their films because it means that a wider group of people can “legally” go to the theater and see their films. However, the R rating is not a true death sentence as evidenced by the fact that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ grossed nearly $400 million in 2004. ^[1] The true death sentence, according to the movie industry, comes with the rating of NC-17, which was derived from the original X rating, which meant that no one under 18 was permitted to view the film. ^[6] The MPAA states that in an NC-17 film, the elements that separate a PG from an R are now too strong or too graphic for any child. ^[9]

Originally, the X rating was intended to stand for a film that the ratings board thought depicted sex, drug use, nudity, violence or language too graphically. ^[8] This rating did not appear to hurt the film industry, as some of the greatest films ever made, including Oscar nominated films such as Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange, and Last Tango in Paris all received the X rating with little or no effect. ^[5] It was not until the adult film industry began affixing the X to their films that the MPAA was forced to make the change to NC-17 because the MPAA had trademarked all of the others ratings symbols except for X. With both the MPAA and the adult film industry using the X, in order to avoid confusion, the adult film industry began using the XXX to let potential viewers know that, as Reiher states, “the film in question featured close-ups of genitalia in action”. ^[5]

According to the MPAA, NC-17 is not supposed to imply something obscene or pornographic was included in the film, but when films like Showgirls, with its graphic sexual and rape-related content, and Angel Heart, that featured a blood-soaked graphic sex scene are awarded the NC-17 rating, it is generally considered a box office death sentence, because people who are old enough to remember the transition from X to NC-17 usually relate these films as dialed back versions of pornography. The critics see this, the ticket-buying public sees this and as a result, the films see this in their bottom line.

Director Sydney Pollack, who played Victor Ziegler in Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut, was quoted in a CNN article written by Sherri Sylvester as saying, “If you have an NC-17 rating in this country, you can't advertise on network television, there are certain newspapers you can't advertise on, there are certain theaters you can't even play.” ^[6] This would tend to lend credence to the perception that an NC-17 rating hurts more than it helps. If you are the parent of a child who might have been interested in seeing Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut or a teen boy who had watched Saved by the Bell on Saturdays and now wanted to go to the theater to see Showgirls, a parent would have to be very careful to ensure that this did not happen.

Veteran film critic Roger Ebert, feeling that the NC-17 rating has become associated with “hard-core porn”, believes that the MPAA should create a new rating that would fall between the R and NC-17. Ebert believes that an ‘A’ rating would actually do what first the X then the NC-17 was designed to do. Ebert believes that the A should stand for “adult”, which would mean that the film is not suitable for children of any age. ^[6] However, the X rating was originally designed to serve that purpose, but the X became associated with the adult film industry, and then the NC-17 replaced the X, but with films scaling back their sex and nudity in order to avoid the NC-17 rating, the NC-17 rating also serves to make films seem undesirable to moviegoers. If history is any indication, before too long, the A rating will become associated with excessive sex or violence or language or nudity or drug use and then people in the know will be calling for there to be something placed between the R and the A for the purpose of identifying movies that are not suitable for children. This appears to be a cycle that will truly never end.

The movie industry is a money making business. Studios, producers, directors, investors, actors, and everyone else connected with the making of movies is in the business for the purpose of making money and making as much money as they can. Whenever a movie is released, the Motion Picture Association of America reviews the movie, assigns the movie a rating, and makes recommendations on how the movie could receive the next lower rating. PG movies want to be G, R movies want to be PG, and NC-17 movies want to be R because the more people who are able to see the movie, the more money the movie will make. It is because of this that the moviemakers will do whatever they have to in order to get better ratings.

G movies are designed to be suitable for all audiences, but as with any other situation, there will probably be someone who can find something objectionable on the screen, even in a G movie. PG movies are designed for to be slightly edgier than a G movie, so long as there is no drug use. There can be nudity, but only brief, and some bad language, not the movie must still be G rated content, but spiced up.

A PG-13 movie is edgier than a PG movie because the MPAA has determined what is suitable for a child of 13 or older. A movie like Beowulf or Live Free or Die, according to the MPAA, qualifies for the PG-13 rating even though the violence is rampant and, in the case of Beowulf, there is nudity, but nothing “crucial” is shown on the screen and, in the case of Live Free, John McClane’s signature catch phrase “Yippi-kay-ay, motherf**ker”, is only uttered one time during the movie and even then, there is a gunshot that obscures the curse word. ^[4] All it takes is a naked Kristanna Loken and two extra utterances of the word “f**k” to take a movie from a PG-13 to an R rating.

R ratings are supposed to be for 17 and older, but as Peter Reiher wrote, as long as there is an adult willing to buy the ticket, the children can get into the shows. ^[5] X, NC-17 and, if Roger Ebert has his way, A, are designed to indicate that a film is not suitable for children at all and that only adults are permitted. While these seem like good ideas in theory, it appears that as long as the movie industry insists on pushing the line further and further back, and is edging closer and ever closer to bordering the adult film industry in regards to content, then the “adult only” ratings will continue to decrease in significance and will continue to serve as the death knell for racy or ultra-violent films.

As long as filmmakers are willing to do whatever it takes to get the ratings on their movies reduced, then movies that genuinely qualify for these lower ratings will have to fight ever harder to be able to compete in the movie industry. How would a family PG-13 movie be able to compete with a Terminator 3 that, if they had cut out the two extra utterances of “f**k”, would feature car crashes, explosions, and a naked Kristanna Loken? Would the 13-year-old boys rather see the flower that speaks and utters a few sexual innuendos or a naked Kristanna Loken? When I was 13, it would have been Kristanna Loken all the way. It seems that there are a ton of hoops that the studios, producers, directors, actors, investors, and everyone else connected with the movie business are required to jump through in order to have their films be received by the widest audience possible, and even with that, there are going to be people like Roger Ebert who will insist that the ratings for the films are incorrect and need to be adjusted. Maybe Chili Palmer was right all along.

2008-08-07T13:55:00.000-05:00

Has Claiming ‘Racism’ Gotten Out of Hand?

In a June 10, 2007, Associated Press article posted to MSBNC.com, Wesley Snipes, who was indicted for failure to file a federal income tax return for the years between 1999 & 2004 among other charges, stated that he was being “selectively targeted for prosecution on federal tax evasion charges because he is black”. When the dog fighting charges were originally brought against Michael Vick, Earnest Hardy Sr., Michael Vick’s neighbor in Surry County, Virginia called the case, in an AP article dated August 3, 2007, “a witch hunt targeting a successful black man”. During the O.J. Simpson trial, Eleanor Holmes Norton, then a delegate from the District of Columbia was quoted in a Time Magazine article by Jill Smolowe saying “for many blacks, every black man is on trial”. Is it always racism, or is the fact that the defendant in black just a coincidence?

Without disregarding racism and the repeated evidence that it still exists in America, it is possible that racism, particularly what has come to be known as “the race card”, has become the mantra for the African American community whenever one of us runs afoul of the law or of European-born citizens of the United States. In many instances, African Americans, of which I am one, tend to cry racism whenever another one gets in trouble, even before all of the facts of the case, or for that matter the person, have come to light. It was this repeated behavior that caused me to want to know if African Americans too quickly cry “racism” and if it has gotten out of hand.

I would be the first to admit that racism is real. In 1986, within a month of my hire with Major Video, a video rental company based out of Las Vegas that had just branched out into California, I was told by no less than the president of the company that he had heard that I was the best new employee in the company. Despite this endorsement, I would be passed over ten times for a promotion, each time the selection being a white employee. In April of 2007, I was interviewed via telephone for a position with a company in Shreveport. After conducting two successive phone interviews, each time with higher ranking officials in the company that the previous interview, I was invited scheduled for a face-to-face interview with the head of the department that I would be working for and the vice president of the company. Two minutes into the interview, I was told that the company had several other interviews to conduct and that they would contact me, which they never did. It was obvious to me that they were extremely interested in me, but it was equally obvious that the interest waned upon their meeting me in person. These two incidents, and many others like it have convinced me of the existence of racism, but they did not convince me that it is the reason for all of the ills affecting the African American community.

The MSNBC article from June 10, 2007 cites the October 17, 2006 indictment that charges actor Wesley Snipes with fraudulently claiming refunds totaling nearly $12 million in 1996 and 1997 for income taxes already paid and failure to file returns from 1999 through 2004. According to the article, Snipes conspired with American Rights Litigators’ founder Eddie Ray Kahn and tax preparer Douglas P. Rosile Sr. to file false refund claims based on a bogus argument that only income from foreign sources was subject to taxation. Snipes, through his attorney, claims that the “prosecutors filed additional tax evasion charges against him and not against two co-defendants because they are Caucasian, while Mr. Snipes is African-American”. It is entirely possible that not filing a federal tax return for five years was enough for the Internal Revenue Service to want to discuss your finances. It is also possible that it might have been racism, but if the crime had not been committed, then it would be less likely that the IRS would be pursuing Mr. Snipes.

Mr. Hardy, in discussing Michael Vick, summed up his opinion of the dog fighting indictment very simply by referring to Vick as “a hundred-million-dollar black man”. Alton H. Maddox, a New York civil rights activist, in an MSNBC article by Alex Johnson, held a similar view when he stated that Vick was being singled out because “he is not an assimilationist”. Maddox compared Vick to Tiger Woods when he said that “in sports, they are both performing a ‘white man’s job.’ Vick, however, is doing it on the Black side”. In the National Football League, where one of the quarterback’s primary functions is to throw the ball down the field and let the other more athletic players run with the ball, Michael Vick plays the position of quarterback more as a runner than as a passer in what is considered the “black” style of playing the position. Maddox believes that this factor, not because operating a dog fighting ring is illegal and that Michael Vick was involved in illegal activity.

When Michael Vick, O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and Mychal Bell from the Jena 6 case were arrested in what would become their most widely publicized criminal offenses, cries of “racism” would flood African American radio stations. Other than the fact that each of these men, except for Bell, is or was a prominent African American athlete who revolutionized their respective sports with their extraordinary ability, each of these four men had been in trouble numerous times before making news with their highly publicized cases. All four men had been trouble several times for offenses similar to the ones that made them infamous, yet the African American community cried that white America was out to get these men.

Simpson had been arrested several times for spousal abuse, yet black America was surprised and shocked when he was arrested and charged with killing the wife that he had been brought in for beating several times and that he had divorced with his wife citing an abusive relationship. Mike Tyson, according to the abridged version of his rap sheet from CBC Sports, had been had run afoul of the law on at least eight separate occasions before being convicted of rape. Vick was accused of transporting drugs through an airport with a water bottle that contained a false bottom but the charges were dropped and Bell was awaiting sentencing for a probation violation relating to battery charges involving another white student when the ‘Jena 6’ beating took place. The beating just prior to the 6-on-1 was Bell’s fourth arrest under the age of 16, but black America only sees racism and not the fact that these are either bad people or are severely misguided. Unfortunately, in a CNN Article dated October 12, 2007, after Bell was sent back to jail, civil rights activist Al Sharpton, denounced the decision to send Bell to jail as “revenge by the judge”, never once mentioning Bell’s previous offenses.

From the advent of slavery until today, acts of racial inequality have littered the landscape of American history. From prominent acts like the lynching of slaves and freed black Americans in the south during the time of the Civil War to acts that fly well under the radar like my being passed over ten times for a promotion, racism exists and should not be discounted in any way, but there is a point where, as Popeye the Sailor was fond of saying, enough is too much. Tavis Smiley, host of the show that bears his name on PBS and the author of How to Make Black America Better: Leading African Americans Speak Out, states in Jill Smolowe’s Time piece, "When people yell racism when in fact there is no racism, they become like the boy who cried 'Wolf!' Ultimately, it comes back to haunt you." There will come a time when black America cries racism in an instance where racism is actually taking place, and the media, the legal system, and society in general will have become so desensitized through the repeated use of this cry as a means of curing the ills of black American society that when help and attention is truly needed, it will not be available.

2008-08-07T13:41:00.001-05:00

What was Halloween Intended to Be?

As a child, Halloween was always a holiday where children dressed up in various costumes, maybe had a parade or some sort of party at school, and then when the sun went down, the children would go house to house playing “Trick-or-Treat”, where they would either get candy or some kind of treat or they would play a joke on the resident of the house. This would be followed by another party or an all night candy-eating fest. In general, a fun time was had by all involved. However, as I grew older and became more spiritual, my religious studying would introduce me to information that Halloween was not intended to be a fun holiday. I would read reports that discussed the celebration of Halloween as pagan or even satanic in nature. I have also read dissenting opinions from different religious groups, some saying that Halloween is satanic and should not be celebrated and others saying that there is nothing wrong with it. Therefore, I need to know what Halloween is and what is was intended to be.

When I was a young child, I learned that the actual name of Halloween was All Hallow’s Eve, with the word hallow meaning, according to dictionary (dot) com, to honor as holy. Since I know that November 1is All Saint’s Day, and I knew that October 31 was referred to as All Hallow’s Eve, and hallow means to honor as holy, it would be a safe to assume that October 31, the day known as Halloween would be revered the same way that New Year’s Eve and Christmas Eve were. This has not been the case, as the celebrations of these other “Eves” are seen as extensions of the holidays that they precede. However, since All Saint’s Day is not a holiday that is widely celebrated, Halloween has taken on its own identity, and that has become one of dressing up as ghosts and monsters and trick-or-treating.

According to the Columbia University Electronic Encyclopedia, as posted on Reference (dot) com, All Hallows Eve, in accordance with Celtic practices, was a commemoration signaling the beginning of winter as well as the beginning of the Celtic New Year, both of which took place on November 1. The encyclopedia states that “witches and other evil spirits were believed to roam the earth on this evening, playing tricks on human beings to mark the season of diminishing sunlight…and people would disguise themselves as one of the roaming spirits, to avoid demonic persecution”. This would explain how the holiday became associated with the wearing of monster costumes and decorations that features ghosts and monsters.

Rafael Martinez, the Co-Director of Spiritwatch Ministries, addresses the pagan culture and its connection with All Hallowed Evening in his article entitled Halloween: Treat Or Trick?, and follows the celebration’s spiritual history, but the article brings to mind the question of whether or not there is a true difference between being spiritual and being religious. In the article, Martinez describes Paganism as being “spirituality based upon a belief in many gods and goddesses…and upon man's essential union with them as a manifestation of their divinity”. But what is “spirituality based” and how does it differ from being based in religious practices or beliefs? Religion is defined, at Dictionary (dot) com, as being a set of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe while spiritual is defined as “pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature”. Conversations of religion often revolve around the spirit and Christ the father, Christ the son and Christ the Holy Spirit, so this begs the question of whether or not religion and spirituality are interchangeable. If the two are in fact interchangeable, then if Paganism is “a spirituality based on a belief in many Gods” and religion centers on the belief and worship of an unseen deity, it would seem that Pagan rituals could be seen as religious practices, and if this is the case, then what does it have to do with Halloween?

According to Martinez, while Christianity began to replace the Celtic pagan spirituality in the fifth century A.D., many of the converted Celts combined their original pagan practices with the traditions and practices of their newfound Christianity. With the establishment of All Hallowed Evening by Pope Gregory IV “as a means to both honor the martyrs of the Church and assert its' authority”, many of the pagan aspects of Samhain, “a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture, and generally regarded as ‘The Celtic New Year’”, were preserved by the Celtic people and were brought by Irish immigrants to American soil.

Much of the literature written about Halloween agrees with Martinez’ historical account of Halloween’s pagan origin, but the information starts to differ when the discussion turns to Samhain. The belief was that Samhain was so named for the Celtic God of the Dead, but as Dennis Rupert, pastor New Life Community Church of Stafford, Virginia points out in his article The History of Halloween -- It's Probably Not What You Think, research has shown that there were around 350 Celtic gods “and Samhain isn't found among them”. Rupert says that the Irish did not have a lord of death and the word samhain simply means summer’s end. Without the existence of a lord of death being worshipped on Halloween, this would make one believe that Halloween’s creation being to glorify Satan would be slightly off base.

Martinez does mention in his article that the pagans practiced witchcraft as a means of contacting and appeasing spiritual entities other than God, but pagans also believed that there was more than one God. The inclusion of witchcraft in pagan beliefs is, however, where Christians start to feel that pagan beliefs border on the occult and this falls in stark contrast to the Bible, however, the differences in interpretation of the Bible with regards to individuals conveying the messages of spirits, referred to by practitioners of necromancy (contact with the dead) as ‘mediums’, is as different as the interpretations of the Bible itself among different religions. No two religions can agree on the true meanings of any of the verses within the Bible and will probably never agree on how God feels about Halloween.

Religious experts agree that God does not condone satanic worship or the worship of other Gods as evidenced in Exodus 20:2-3 of the King James Version of the Bible:

2) I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3) You shall have no other gods before me.

There are several examples throughout the bible that indicate that God does not condone evil in any form and is willing to punish those who do, but if Halloween was meant to commemorate the end of summer and the end of the harvest season, how is that evil? Also, how can the celebration of a new year, in itself, be evil? And if there was no true lord of death among the Celtic gods, is there anything connected with All Hallowed Eve, as it was celebrated in the fifth century A.D., or when Irish citizens brought the celebration to America, evil?

There is no true evidence that in 21^st Century society, rational thinking people are using Halloween as a form of idol or satanic worship. Perhaps, the inclusion of witches, ghosts, skeletons and bats is more tradition than ritual, but without the proper education it is impossible to truly understand what the meaning of Halloween is and if Halloween is really bad, and it is that education that will eventually answer this debate.

2008-08-07T11:50:00.003-05:00

Brett Favre - Is it Really Over?

This morning, the Green Bay Packers traded future Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre to the New York Jets for a conditional 4th round draft pick. The condition is that if Brett, who started 275 straight games including playoffs in a streak that is still current, takes 50% of the snaps at quarterback for the jets, the Packers will get a 3rd round pick. If Brett, who has won 160 games as a starting quarterback, which is an average of 10 per year, takes 70% and the Jets make the playoffs, then the Packers get a 2nd and if Brett takes 80% of the snaps and the Jets make the Super Bowl, win or lose, the Packers get a 1st. The other condition is that if the Jets trade Brett to the Minnesota Vikings, then the Packers get 4 first round picks. It would seem from this that the saga is over, but don't bet on it.

Initially, Brett announced his retirement and it appeared that there was going to be a 2013 Hall of Fame class that featured four of the really good guys in football. Following Brett's announcement were retirement announcements from Warren Sapp, Jonathan Ogden and Steve McNair, all HOF worthy men who, in five years, could have gone in together. The announcement of the retirement signaled the beginning of the Aaron Rodgers era. Rodgers was a 2005 first round pick who at the end of the 2005 season, was expecting to take over the Packers' starting quarterback position, at least until Brett decided to return for "one more year".

2006 led to another year in 2007, with Aaron waiting for Brett, who never missed games, to retire or get injured so that he could play. With Rodgers nearing the end of his first contract, a five year deal that he signed out of college, the time was now for Rodgers to take the reigns of the Packers, especially with the Packers drafting two more quarterbacks, Louisville's Brian Brohm in the second round and LSU's Matt Flynn in round seven. Someone needed to be sacrificed in order to ease the glut that the Packers had at quarterback, and the old guy seemed to be the likely choice.

It makes perfect sense for the Packers to draft two quarterbacks if they are sure that Brett Favre is retiring, but with his history of returning, after 2005, 2006 and now after 2007, then why would they create the logjam that they currently have, especially when Randy Moss could have been had from the Raiders for Rodgers. It seems that there is more to the story than meets the eye.

Aaron Rodgers was dubbed the future of the franchise the minute that he was drafted. He was signed to a five year deal and the 2008 season marks year four of the deal. It would seem that the Packers would not really care if he ever started because without playing time, he can never reach the incentives and thus they save money. However, if he never plays, then he doesn't resign when his contract is up, and then the Packers have no backup who is ready to step in. But is Rodgers really ready if Brett never got out of the way except during preseason? Probably not, but if he never gets to play, they also cannot get any value for him in a potential trade, so the only way that the Packers can determine Rodgers' worth is to let him play, and the only way to do this is if Favre is gone.

So thus we have the dilemma that seemingly was just resolved this morning with the trade of Favre to the Jets. Favre is gone and Rodgers is the starter, provided that he is not outplayed by Brohm or Flynn in the exhibition games. Now wouldn't THAT be the ultimate "I told you so" from Brett Favre to the Packers?

2008-08-07T11:48:00.002-05:00

Making More Out of the Draft

WWE has just concluded their “annual” ”draft”. The reason for the sarcasm is because it never happens at the same time every year and it is not a draft in the sense of the NBA or NHL drafts, because the draftees are already under contract with the parent organization, so being a number #1 draft pick does not guarantee the biggest contract. Basically, it is more like free agent signing in a league where there are only three teams and, just like the free agent periods in the major sports, the rich (Raw) get richer while the poor (ECW) suffers. Now, this piece is not intended to lambast WWE, but their decision makers are such easy targets. Instead, this is intended to offer WWE some advice on how to make the trades, and in the process, their whole product better.

Between the actual draft and the supplemental draft, 23 wrestlers, 2 divas and two announcers were moved between the three brands. Now, I am not going to sit here and write a bunch of elaborate story lines regarding what they could have done better, but I will begin this dissertation with a three word phrase that is used quite often, “Must See TV”. WWE could have, instead of making 27 wholesale changes over the span of three days, used these changes to make the fans really want to tune in.

As I said, I will not write a bunch of elaborate story lines, but I will give the genesis of what WWE could have done, and this would have made all three shows more interesting. I would have started by announcing an end to the talent exchange between SD and ECW, and followed this with two weeks of ECW with only ECW talent and SD with only SD talent to hammer home the point that these two brands are now separate. Recognizing that the SD tag titles are on ECW, I would have taken the belts from Miz & Morrison on the same show that we announced the end to the talent exchange and put them on an SD team to further hammer home the point. They could even have used the belts in a match with the stipulation being that if the champs win, then the talent exchange continues and if they lose, then the talent exchange is over. The loss would end the exchange.

Now, with the three brands separate once again, then WWE could start switching talent, but in a way similar to when the New World Order invaded WCW. There were 27 switches, and those switches could have taken half of the year, with one switch happening each week, but no one knowing which show would get “invaded” by new talent, so all of the shows would have to be watched to see who would be leaving and who would be showing up where. Some of the switches could have taken place as the result of “contract disputes” with their brand’s GM, some could have happened as the result of people “getting fired”, and some could have just been surprise invasions (i.e., “I’m tired of not getting treated fairly on ECW, so I came to Raw” or “Champ X has not faced any real competition so I am here to challenge Champ X for his title”). There could also have been instances where a particular wrestler, who is at a disadvantage and needs a tag team partner to even the sides in his war, brings in a person from another brand to help with his fight. These ways would have made the shows more interesting because each week, people would have wanted to tune in to see if someone new would be coming to a show, just like during the height of the NWO invasion.

This whole process could have started with some friendly bantering between Michael Cole and Jim Ross during the Night of Champions PPV. Cole could have made a comment, in jest, about some aspect of Ross’ announcing and Ross could have taken it personally. Then, as each man makes a comment about the other’s work during their commentary (Ross makes a comment about Cole during a Raw match and vice versa but the comments do not take away from the matches or the matches’ story lines), instead of showing a video package detailing things that fans who purchased the PPV are already aware of, the exchange becomes full blown and Ross says to Cole, “If you think that you can do this better than me big mouth, let’s see you try.” Then he makes reference to having to carry Lawler for all these years to which Cole replies with something about constantly having to change partners; from Taz to JBL to Coach to Foley. They banter back and forth for about a minute and Cole decides to call Ross’ bluff and says, “If you’re so great, let’s see you call this match with Foley.” Ross does his usual great job on the Edge/Batista match and then Ross says, “I just did you, now let’s see you do me”, after which Cole calls the HHH/Cena match with Lawler. The next night, Cole shows up with King and then on Friday, Ross shows up with Foley, each man talking about how much happier they are in their new surroundings and the switch is made.

WWE could then have followed this with the first of the talent switches. While I know that I am figuring that WWE creative can handle this situation without it becoming stale or predictable, but if your job is as a writer in the WWE Creative Department, then your job is to come up with ideas and bring them to life in such a way that they are compelling enough to make people want to tune in to your show each week. If the writers cannot execute this task, then they should not be employed in this field.

With these ideas, every show would be “Must See TV” because as Vince likes to say, “Anything can happen in WWE (“the WWE” is incorrect grammar, because “the World Wrestling Entertainment” would be bad grammar)”. Anyway, when Vince say “Anything can happen in WWE”, he would actually be speaking the truth and the fans would be starving for more. In addition, the traded wrestlers would be given chances to shine by being featured performers in the week that they start on their new shows and there would then be more wrestlers who could be pushed toward the top, and the stagnation of the WWE and the World titles would end because there would be more than three contenders for the belts, which would be the best feature of all of this.

2008-05-19T18:35:00.001-05:00

John Cena is Dead Wrong

Lately, there have been a lot of reports discussing John Cena’s feelings regarding Dwayne Johnson; the man wrestling fans came to know as The Rock, and his leaving the professional wrestling business in order to devote his complete attention to the pursuit of success in the film industry. While John Cena is entitled to his opinion, on this matter, John Cena is dead wrong, especially if he had been any kind of true wrestling fan (as most professional wrestlers claim to be).

During the Rock’s heyday in the WWF/E, the producers to WWF/E television seemed intent on ensuring that wrestling fans did not forget the story of Dwayne Johnson’s background. We were constantly bombarded with the tales of where he came from, what he did before he became a wrestler, why he became a wrestler, how he became a wrestler, how his parents felt about him becoming a wrestler, and what happened to him once he became a wrestler (how he became “The Rock”). Every wrestling fan who watched WWF/E television saw these stories dozens of times and many of them bought the book “The Rock Says…” and read even more.

Dwayne Johnson’s desire was always to be an entertainer, even when he was pursuing a career in football. Everyone knows that Rock would sing, break-dance, do impressions, and rap to entertain his friends and football teammates…at least everyone except John Cena. Everyone knew that when Rock failed to catch on in the National Football League, he continued to play football in Canada and was a teammate of football legend Doug Flutie…at least everyone except John Cena. Everyone knew that only after he was positive that he would not be a star in professional football that he turned to the world of professional wrestling…at least everyone except, awww, you get it.

Once he got into the business, of course he is going to say that it was all that he wanted to do because he knew that this would endear him to the fans. If you grab a microphone and say that you are just using pro wrestling as a means to garner a career in Hollywood, then you would not only be the most hated wrestler in the business, you would be forced to live with what has come to be known as “X-Pac Heat”, which, for those who don’t know, is when the fans genuinely hate you no matter what you do on screen or who you are aligned with, either on screen or off. This is something that John Cena knows all too well.

Now, before I get too much further into this, please allow me to set the record straight. I am not a John Cena hater. I am actually becoming a fan of Cena’s ring work and he still is one of the better promo men in the game today. Having said that, John Cena is way off base, and even worse, it seems that Cena is a little jealous.

Cena’s comments stem from the perception that the Rock was more than a bit aloof backstage at the 2008 WWE Hall of Fame ceremony, and his comments during his induction speech for his father and grandfather came off as nothing more than a Dean Martin Roast (a reference that shows my age), even though his comments were written by Rock’s good friend Brian Gerwitz. Oddly, Cena made these comments while he was away from WWE. The ironic part is that Cena’s absence was due to the fact that he was on location in New Orleans, Louisiana, filming what will be HIS second movie. Despite this obvious hypocrisy, Cena declares that he will never leave professional wrestling for a career in Hollywood. Is it because no one has truly asked him to, based on the fact that his two films were both produced by his current employer? Can Cena honestly say that if Hollywood offered him $5-10 million to do a movie devoid of WWE influence that he would not consider the offer? I doubt it, especially since Cena, even as one of the highest paid wrestlers in the business makes only around $2 million per year and the WWE year consists of working some 300 days while it generally only takes about 6-8 weeks to film a movie and get paid in excess of $5 million for a starring role. Also, according to IMDB (dot) com, Cena was a struggling voice actor who was tabbed to be the voice of Dave the Barbarian before his wrestling career truly took off, so his lack of Hollywood aspiration would be, in wrestling terms, a work.

The other thing that I find hypocritical about Cena’s comments is the fact that he doesn’t discuss Hulk Hogan, Roddy Piper, Randy Savage, The Big Show, Bret Hart, Kevin Nash, Kane, Triple H, Steve Austin, Shawn Michaels, Rob Van Dam, Ken Kennedy or any of the other professional wrestlers who have ventured into Hollywood during their wrestling careers. Is it because these men did not find the success that Dwayne Johnson did and chose to stay with what they did best? John Cena was a Division III All-American football player in college, but does he bare animosity towards Jason Taylor for wanting to give up football for movies? He might if Taylor becomes successful. It just seems as if Cena is only angry with the Rock because Rock doesn’t want to come back to WWE and wrestle a match from time to time while Hulk Hogan is begging for one more match and one more big payday.

Does Cena know that if Rocky wrestles it will be difficult for him to get insured for his films because of the risk of injury? I am sure that he doesn’t since Cena’s films are produced by the people who PAY him to wrestle. This looks like one of those situations where Cena should probably have spoken TO the Rock instead of ABOUT him.

As I said, I am a Cena fan, even though most men are not. I like his work in the ring, in interviews, and I even like his work in The Marine, but this constant diatribe about the Rock abandoning professional wrestling after wrestling made him the star that he is has got to stop. It is a nonsensical attack on a man who, if he had become successful in entertainment or football before discovering professional wrestling would never have joined the fraternity. The same, it appears, could be said about John Cena, but since Cena has not left wrestling for Hollywood, this would appear to be by choice. No one is faulting Cena for his choice to stay in wrestling, so no one should fault the Rock for his choice to leave.

2008-01-09T21:38:00.001-06:00

Who Belongs in the Hall of Fame?

The votes are in, and, in his 9^th time on the ballot, Rich “Goose” Gossage was elected to the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. This, however, is not the biggest story of the voting. As usual, the news that actually overshadows the story of who got in is the story, and in this instance, stories of who didn’t.

For the second straight year, Mark McGwire was denied induction into the Hall. Mark received the same 128 votes that he received last year and fell better than 50% short of the 75% of the voters that is required for induction. The baseball writers, who cast the Hall of Fame votes, have, in essence, told Mark McGwire that because of the suspicion that he used performance-enhancing drugs, he will not be elected into baseball’s Hall of Fame.

Without getting into the whole “there are worse cheaters already in” argument, there are many who are calling for McGwire to “simply confess and apologize” and are believing that this will endear Mark with the voters. The fact is, as long as McGwire stays silent, his career will be shrouded in the suspicion that he cheated and that his career numbers were not genuine. On the other hand, if he confesses that he actually took performance-enhancing drugs, the voters’ feelings that he cheated will transform into knowledge that he cheated, which would absolutely destroy any chance that McGwire gets into the Hall, provided that he actually deserves to be in and would be voted in anyway, as his career numbers, in some eyes, might not measure up on their own merits. This, however, is not the biggest Hall of Fame story.

Former Boston Red Sox outfielder Jim Rice failed to receive enough votes to get into the MLB Hall of Fame for the 14^th straight year. 2009 will be Rice’s final year on the baseball writer’s ballot before being resigned to hopefully being voted in by the Major League Baseball Veterans Committee. This means that for 14 years, of the baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame, not enough of them felt that Rice was Hall of Fame worthy.

National radio host Jim Rome often said that, when discussing the Hall of Fame worthiness of a particular individual, if there is a moment of hesitation before declaring a person Hall of Fame worthy, then, in your opinion, that person probably is not a true Hall of Famer. Of course, there are some voters who have personal axes to grind against certain players; like the writers who didn’t vote for Steve Carlton because he was not always willing to do interviews, but these are usually the exception. In general, a person either belongs in a Hall of Fame or not.

In sports, there are some career marks that are supposed to guarantee induction. Numbers like 500 home runs, 3000 hits, 3000 strikeouts, 300 saves, 100 touchdowns or 100 sacks are supposed to guarantee induction into the Hall of Fame in these sports, but these numbers can also be achieved by players who play extra seasons just for the purpose of achieving these numbers with the hopes that the numbers will sway voters. Championships are also said to ensure induction, but these would depend on the player’s role in his team achieving the championship. Mike Smrek won championships with the Los Angeles Lakers in 1987 & 1988, but with all due respect to Smrek, he will never be inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame.

Halls of Fame, particularly those for sports, are supposed to be reserved for the best of the best, the elite in their particular sport. Lawrence Taylor recorded 142 sacks and won two championships while playing his entire 12-year career for the New York Giants and was voted into the Football Hall of Fame on his first try. Kevin Greene recorded 160 sacks and was voted to the All-Decade team for the 1990’s while playing 15 years for four different teams. Greene holds the record for most career sacks by a linebacker, but none of his teams won championships. However, after three years of being eligible to be voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Greene has, so far, not been voted in. There are those who feel that Kevin Greene was not dominant or impactful enough to carry his teams to championships the way that Taylor was. Ottis Anderson left the NFL ranked in the Top-10 in both rushing yards and touchdowns when he retired in 1992 and was even the MVP of the Super Bowl Championship team that also featured Lawrence Taylor, but the voters have, thus far, not been enamored with Anderson’s stats and have denied him entry into the Hall. His numbers were not gaudy, just the result of a steady, consistent but not spectacular player who spent 14 years in the game but whose numbers pale in comparison to other running backs who have been able to post better numbers in a shorter amount of time.

A Hall of Famer is supposed to be the best of their era at their position. Jerry Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame. Barry Sanders belongs in the Hall of Fame, Ottis Anderson probably does not. Herschel Walker probably does not. Art Monk probably does not because after seven tries, he has not been voted in. Many people have written about how Jim Rice was one of the most feared hitters of his era, but the naysayers will point to the fact that in a 16-year career, he averaged only about 150 hits and 24 home runs per season and failed to reach either of the magic hitter plateaus for his career. Rice has good numbers, but there will be many who feel, and for 14 years, the voters felt that Rice was not a dominant player in his era and was not Hall of Fame worthy. Besides, when someone asks you if a particular player (Chris Webber, Andre Reed, Bert Blyleven, etc.) is Hall of Fame worthy, if you pause before answering, chances are, that player is not a true Hall of Famer.

2007-12-02T10:49:00.001-06:00

Reality Television – The Relationship Killer

What do Russell Simmons, Danny Bonaduce, Bobby Brown, Nick Lachey and Dave Navarro of Jane’s Addiction all have in common? Well, they are all rich, but that’s not it. Is it that they are all rich and were married to hot women? Well, that’s true too, but that’s not what I was looking for. If we answer in the form of a question the answer would be; who are men whose marriages ended after appearing in reality television shows with their families? Now, you can add to that list, the incredible, immortal, 14-time former World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion Terry Bollea, known affectionately by his legions of fans as Hulk Hogan. Hulk’s wife Linda has recently filed for divorce after 24 years of marriage and two children, so now, Hulk is just another victim of the reality show relationship jinx.

By now, everyone knows the circumstances between Terry and Linda. Everyone knows that their son Nick was arrested for drag racing and it has driven a wedge between the Hogans, but there is more to their divorce than Nick’s legal troubles or his irresponsibility. Anyone who watched the show Hogan Knows Best for any amount of time knew that Terry and Linda spent more time disagreeing than they did being romantic with one another. Many of the episodes were about the two of them trying to settle a disagreement about something relating to their children or trying to spice up their relationship and add a little romance to their lives.

Reality television is basically designed to be an inside look into the lives of people as they go about their regular routines. However, the question has always existed; if you are wearing a microphone and you know that the cameras are there, how can it really be reality television? Just because the show is “unscripted”, there is probably as much performance on reality television as there is on any other show. Most of the time, the featured players are told what to do and then they do it with the results being whatever they are. Kind of like a professional wrestling match. The beginning and the ending is scripted and the wrestlers perform the middle. The Hogans spent a lot of time disagreeing and the situations that they were placed in didn’t help matters much, but after all, controversy creates ratings, right?

All of the reports are focusing on Linda and her pursuit of Hulk’s money, but after all, unfortunately, she is entitled to it. Prenuptial agreements expire after ten years and most states are community property states, which mean that she is entitled to half of the marital assets, even if she never wrestled a match in her life. After all, Johnny Carson’s wife walked away with over $150 million after their divorce. The fight might be about his money and her desire to possess it, but the war started long before this and it was made public on their show. They could not conceal their problems, which is why the most recent season focused on their marital problems and their seeking counseling to rectify their problems. Once the relationship goes there and it is also no longer private, there is usually no turning back, and in this case, there wasn’t.

It was believed that the men that I mentioned had relationships that were solid. Gretchen was standing behind Danny despite his demons. Whitney believed in Bobby when no one else did. Nick and Jessica were America’s new hot couple so much so that their wedding was held on television. It is hard to believe that Ozzy & Sharon Osbourne are the most stable couple from the pile of reality television families. I guess when you try not to be yourself, it backfires. Ozzy was on television what he really is and his family had accepted it long ago so accepting it on television was no stretch.

The Bollea/Hogan marriage appears to over with no turning back. Terry will go on being Hulk Hogan and is slated to be the host of the new version of American Gladiators when it debuts in 2008. Linda will become…well, another celebrity’s wife who went from anonymous to famous and must now try to find ways to extend her celebrity. Do not be surprised if Linda loses a bunch of weight and we find out that she will be appearing in Playboy soon. Also, look for the Linda Hogan clothing line coming to stores near you very soon. I am kidding of course, but we have seen it all before from women who were their husband’s wives and suddenly became celebrities. After all, even Michelle Triola moved in with Dick Van Dyke and tried to become an actress.

Now, all we can do is sit back and see who the next victim (or victims) of the reality show relationship jinx will be. If you are fans of these people, then say a little prayer for Eddie George (I Married a Baller on TV One) or Joseph “Run” Simmons (Run’s House on MTV). These men could be next.

2007-11-30T22:21:00.000-06:00

Why is SpongeBob SquarePants so Popular?

I have watched many cartoons in my life. Even as an adult, I am still a huge fan of cartoons and animated television. I remember watching cartoons as a child and enjoying them simply because they were animated pictures and some funny things happened. These days, I understand some of the more mature content that was included in the Bugs Bunny shorts. I even enjoy some of today’s newer shows that appear on Nickelodeon and on Cartoon Network. That having been said, there is one show that I just do not “get,” even though this show is one of the most popular shows currently on television. SpongeBob SquarePants, in my opinion, is not interesting and is not very funny, but, if I attempt to turn him off my television, I incite a small war with my children. Therefore, I need to know what it is about SpongeBob that makes him and his show so popular.

In discussions with my children, we attempted to explain their favorite cartoons in a single sentence. “The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron” is about a boy genius who uses science to improve his life, only to find that, when his experiments fail, he has to use science to return things to normal. In the “Fairly Oddparents,” Timmy Turner makes wishes through his fairy godparents in an attempt to change his life, but, when things go wrong, he always has to wish that things were back to the way that they originally were. “Rocket Power” is a show about four young extreme athletes who have adventures while living with relatives in a town called Ocean Shores. These shows were easy. When we attempted to explain SpongeBob, it was nearly impossible to pare the show down to a single sentence. It was this failure that intrigued me the most. Before I can know why SpongeBob is so popular, I need to know what the show is about.

I discussed this topic with my 15-year-old son Timothy, and his answers were very simple, but drove me to research the topic further. When I asked him what he liked about SpongeBob, he said, “The show is just funny.” I then asked what it was that made the show different. He replied that the show is underwater and featured all of these characters living seemingly regular lives, apart from the fact that they are breathing water and not air, a concept that I found fascinating. So I decided to find out for myself what the attraction is to the little, yellow sponge that wears the square pants and “lives in a pineapple under the sea.”

The simplicity of my son’s response that SpongeBob was just “funny” made me think that there had to be more to the show than its just being comical. As I previously mentioned, many other cartoons are about something, but SpongeBob, just as “Seinfeld” was, appears to not be about anything and has no other purpose than to entertain and make its audience laugh. Mr. SquarePants lives in Bikini Bottom with his meowing pet snail Gary. SpongeBob hangs out with his friends Patrick the starfish and Sandy the squirrel who uses a spacesuit to help her breath under water. SpongeBob works as a fry cook in a fast food restaurant alongside his neighbor Squidward, who has indifferent feelings towards SpongeBob despite SpongeBob’s overwhelming admiration for Squidward. The show is not about anything more than life in the fictitious Bikini Bottom, and it might just have been designed to simply be funny.

Communications Professor Robert Thompson, Director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University, is quoted in a July 21, 2002, NY Times article by Tom Zeller as saying that, “because there’s nothing in it (the SpongeBob SquarePants Show) that’s trying to be hip or cool or anything else, hipness can be grafted onto it.” Thompson believes that SpongeBob does not try to be smarter, cooler or better than everyone else; he is simply living his life the only way he knows how to. SpongeBob creator Stephen Hillenburg, when interviewed for the Zeller article, states that “he is simply trying to make people laugh.” This might be the answer to the question. Hillenburg states that he is not trying to create a product and then attempt to analyze how it fits into pop culture. He says that he and his team endeavor to make themselves laugh with their product.

James Poniewozik writes in his December 9, 2001, Time Magazine article that SpongeBob’s appeal is found in his innocence. Poniewozik writes that SpongeBob’s personality is one of being “conscientious, optimistic and blind to the faults in the world and those around him.” Poniewozik compares SpongeBob to Pee-Wee Herman, a comparison that Hillenburg himself makes in the Zeller piece. Hillenburg states that he drew inspiration from Pee-Wee Herman, Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel, who, as Hillenburg says, “made naiveté the core of their comedy.”

So, is the main character’s overwhelming innocence the most appealing aspect of the show? Is the show popular because it does not try to be something more than a life and times piece of the inhabitants of Bikini Bottom, or is it because other shows are trying to be the next funny something and SpongeBob is just trying to be funny? The answer could be any of these, all of these, or a combination of them.

When I spoke with my son Timothy, I asked him what it was that made the show different. His reply was that the characters are leading seemingly normal lives, except that these characters live underwater. Many other shows feature characters whose lives do not seem to be “normal.” Not everyone can jump over things on skateboards like the characters on “Rocket Power,” and not many children can build robots like Jimmy Neutron does. While these feats might be normal activities to some, to others, these might appear to be extraordinary accomplishments, and, in these instances, they extend beyond what would be considered a normal existence.

SpongeBob lives in a modest dwelling with a pet, has a cranky neighbor who SpongeBob believes has a decent side underneath the gruff exterior and has a best friend who he loves and supports unconditionally, even in instances where his friend might be second-guessing their relationship. Beyond this, SpongeBob is a loyal employee at a hamburger stand, likes to spend his free time enjoying his hobbies and suffers from many of the same inadequacies that many of us endure daily. It appears that SpongeBob is not much different from any other person, except that he requires watery existence.

As a lifelong fan of Bugs Bunny, Popeye, and Tex Avery’s work for MGM, I have always watched cartoons and looked to sight gags, clever banter, or innuendo as my source of amusement. When I saw my first episode of SpongeBob, I thought that the show was utterly ridiculous. That first episode, entitled Ripped Pants, told the story of SpongeBob who, while trying to impress his friend Sandy, accidentally rips his pants. SpongeBob’s embarrassment is set aside when a group of onlookers greets the event with raucous laughter, believing that the incident was intended as a joke. This acceptance leads SpongeBob to parlay the repeated ripping of his pants into a successful comedy bit and instant popularity that lasts until it, as many popular things tend to, gets old. SpongeBob searches for a way to regain favor with the masses and a heartwarming song chronicling his mistake does the trick. The idea of him ripping his pants, first by accident and then for laughs, left me wanting more, but it might have been because I expected more from the show than I had received. Perhaps I had gotten so used to a main character outsmarting, tricking, overpowering or overwhelming someone that, when that did not happen, I felt as if I had missed something. This is not that show. This is a show where the characters have adventures and suffer mishaps, not unlike those that are possible in anyone else’s life, and those adventures and mishaps are played for laughs.

Society might just be tired of wondering who the hero is in a cartoon. Society might be tired of the one character being smarter than all the others. Society might be tired of the same formula in cartoons, where the good guy suffers at the hands of the bad guy only to vanquish him in the end. Maybe society just wants to laugh, and that is what SpongeBob provides, “No Frills” laughter. That might just be all that it takes to make this show as popular as it is.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Timothy. Personal interview. 17 Sept. 2007.

"List of SpongeBob SquarePants Episodes." Wikipedia. 17 Sept. 2007. 18 Sept. 2007 .

Poniewozik, James. "Soaking Up Attention." Time 9 Dec. 2001. 17 Sept. 2007 .

Zeller, Tom. "How to Succeed Without Attitude." New York Times 21 July 2002. 17 Sept. 2007 .

2007-10-27T09:21:00.000-05:00

Mainstream Media Involvement in Professional Wrestling Stories - Why Now?
Written by Eric E. Jenkins on 09/03/2007

On August 30, 2007, both Sports Illustrated and the New York Daily News published articles (links below) regarding the wrestlers who would be suspended by World Wrestling Entertainment (formerly the WWF) as the result of an ongoing investigation into an illegal steroid distribution network that has come to include numerous professional athletes from many different sports. As someone who has followed professional wrestling, first as an interested onlooker and then as an informed observer, for nearly 35 years, all I have to ask is why does the mainstream press care now?

I understand that much of this press stems from the murder-suicide that involved Chris Benoit, who was said to have been using illegal steroids at the time that he committed these acts. Benoit murdered his wife and 7-year-old son Daniel before hanging himself in their Georgia home, and because steroids is a hot-button topic these days, professional wrestling has become somewhat of an easy target. However, in years past, professional wrestlers were thought of as over sized cartoon characters who participated in a testosterone-filled comic ballet that was the as far from sports as "real" athletes could imagine. With that being so, why does any news outlet outside of the "sport" care about professional wrestling?

Where was the media when, in 1984, David Adkisson, who wrestled as David Von Erich, died of an alleged intestinal ailment, though David was a known drug user and there were stories that other wrestlers flushed drugs down the toilet as David lay dead in another room so that the stories of his drug use would remain a secret? Where was the media, in 1988, when Frank Goodish, who wrestled as Bruiser Brody and was the wrestler rumored to have flushed David's drugs down the toilet, was stabbed to death in the shower of an arena in Puerto Rico and the man that supposedly committed the crime was acquitted and hailed as a hero in Puerto Rico while several American wrestlers who witnessed the crime refused to testify out of fear for their lives and their livelihoods? Where was this media, in 1993, when Kerry Adkisson, David's younger brother, committed suicide because he was facing jail time due to a conviction for forging prescriptions? Where was this media, in 2006, when Mike Durham, who wrestled as Johnny Grunge, died due to unknown causes but was later revealed as one of the suppliers of drugs to Chris Benoit? Add to that the numerous overdoses and drug related deaths that have occurred in professional wrestling over the past 25 years and you wonder why the media hadn't gotten involved before now.

It couldn't be because Benoit killed himself after a life of drug use because Chris was not the first to commit this act. It must be because he also killed his seven-year-old son, which no other wrestler had ever done. If that is what it took for the media and the federal government to get involved, just how serious can their involvement be? One would think that if these entities had gotten involved when David Von Erich died, when Brody was killed, or when Kerry killed himself, Chris Benoit, and his young son Daniel, might still be alive and leading truly healthy lives.

Send comments, complaints or questions to me @ ericej@netzero.net

Eric E. Jenkins is an author who has written a semi-biographical book covering the last 30 years in professional wrestling through the eyes of a fan entitled “Reflections of a Professional wrestling Fan: My 30 Years ‘In’ the Business”. He is currently writing “Dead Too Soon”, a book chronicling the careers of and paying tribute to many of the wrestling stars who passed away very young.

2007-10-27T09:14:00.000-05:00

Professional Wrestling - The First Half of 2007
Written by Eric E. Jenkins on 07/03/2007

Each year, Pro Wrestling Illustrated puts out a wrestling almanac that chronicles all of the events of the previous year. Ironically, since the book comes out in May of the following year, by the time that the almanac is released, the new year is almost half over, but I digress. The almanac lists some statistics of certain wrestlers, title histories, PPV results and other things. The part of the almanac that I look forward to reading each year is the listing of top ten stories of the previous year.

In May of 2008, PWI will release the almanac for 2007, and once again, there will be a listing of the top ten stories of 2007, but I am not sure if the top ten will feature one story or several stories discussing the same topic. When 2007 is reviewed in the world of professional wrestling, death will be the main topic. Sure there have been many other years where there were multiple deaths, but there is something strange about 2007 and the deaths that have occurred so far this year. There have also been many years where there have been several deaths of performers before their 50th birthdays, but as I said 2007 has been a strange year.

Of all of the deaths that have occurred in 2007, the deaths of the five performers who were all stars in WWE during the Vincent K years have all been odd. Typically, when wrestlers die young, they die of accidental overdoses, heart attacks related to longtime drug use, or as the result of an accident, but this year none of this has occurred. All of the bigger-named stars who died before the age of 50 in the first half of 2007 have died under some very odd circumstances, and that is what has made 2007 a very strange year.

2007 started out with the announcement that Bam Bam Bigelow, the Beast from the East, was found dead in his home by his girlfriend Janis Remiesiewicz. This is the same girlfriend who two years earlier suffered some severe injuries and was listed in critical condition after a motorcycle crash in which Bigelow was the pilot. Bigelow was facing vehicular homicide charges if Remiesiewicz had died, but she recovered and stayed with Bigelow until his death.

Bigelow’s death was ironic because a few days before he was found dead, Pro Wrestling Insider (dot) com (pwinsider.com) received a question from a wrestling fan who was asking what Bam Bam Bigelow had been up to since he was last seen inside a wrestling ring. The answer was that no one, not even his good friend Shane Douglas knew where Bigelow was or what he was doing. The stories of his restaurant opening and closing and his various run-ins with the law were all the information that was available on Bigelow. Shortly after that post on PW Insider, a story was released that Scott “Bam Bam” Bigelow was found dead in his Florida home.

Bigelow died of a drug overdose, with lethal combinations of cocaine and a drug that Bigelow was taking for anxiety. It was also noted that Bigelow was suffering from heart problems, probably, like many other modern-day professional wrestlers, due to the drug use during his career. Death from a drug overdose in professional wrestling is fairly common these days, but having the reports of a person’s death on the day that he dies be the first information that anyone has on him in nearly two years is a very strange occurrence indeed.

The next to go was Mike Alfonso, known as Mike Awesome. Awesome’s death, among all of the deaths in 2007, oddly was the most common. Mike Awesome was released from prison after serving time for domestic violence and shortly after, went home and hung himself. Awesome was jailed because he assaulted his wife during an argument. She had him arrested and informed him that she was leaving him. After Awesome was released from jail, he went home and hung himself.

Kerry Von Erich shot himself because he was facing jail time connected with a drug related violation of his probation. Mike and Chris Von Erich committed suicide because of the struggles that they were facing simply living up to the Von Erich name in the world of professional wrestling. Wrestlers committing suicide is nothing new, so Mike Awesome is just one more member of a growing group.

Sherri Martel’s death is allegedly related to drug abuse. The police have said that there were no signs of foul play in connection with her death. Toxicology reports have not yet been completed as of the writing of this, and there will be no concrete evidence if drug use played a part in Martel’s death for several months, but this is not what makes her death so strange. The oddity in her story is the fact that for several days after she was reported dead, no one could actually confirm what Sherri was doing when she was found dead. It was known that she was at her mother’s home where Sherri had been living recently, but there was a debate over whether she was sitting on the porch drinking coffee with her mother or if she was lying in bed when she passed away. No even having this information makes finding the actual cause of her death even more difficult.

Enough has been said and written about Chris and Nancy Benoit. We all know the story, but no one knows the cause. Sure, we know how Nancy and Chris died, but we do not now, nor will we ever actually know why. Nancy is not the first professional wrestler to be murdered. Dino Bravo was shot to death, allegedly by underworld figures because of an illegal cigarette smuggling ring in Canada and Bruiser Brody was stabbed to death in the shower of an arena in Puerto Rico, allegedly by Jose Gonzales, who wrestled as Invader #1. Though Gonzales was arrested for the murder, there have not been any convictions in either case and both murders remain unsolved. The strange thing about Nancy’s murder is that she was allegedly murdered by a loved one, her husband Chris Benoit.

Chris, as we know from the beginning of this piece, was not the first to commit suicide and not the first to commit suicide as a result of issues relating with a spouse or loved one. Benoit is just the first that is known of to have (allegedly) murdered members of his family before killing himself. Benoit’s death is by far the strangest, not because of how it happened, but because of the circumstances involved in it.

When Pro Wrestling Illustrated releases the 2008 Almanac, chronicling the events of 2007, once again, death will be a central theme throughout the book (and that is probably including the “Who Killed Vince?” angle that was summarily dropped in light of the deaths of Sherri Martel and the Benoit Family). It will be very difficult to address all of these deaths as a single entry in the top ten events of 2007, but if we already have five of the top ten stories in the first half of 2007, what do we have to look forward to in the second half? We can only hope that the other five events are of a more pleasant nature.

Send comments, complaints or questions to me @ ericej@netzero.net

Eric E. Jenkins is an author who has written a semi-biographical book covering the last 30 years in professional wrestling through the eyes of a fan entitled “Reflections of a Professional Wrestling Fan: My 30 Years ‘In’ the Business”. He is currently writing “Dead Too Soon”, a book chronicling the careers of and paying tribute to many of the wrestling stars who passed away very young.

2007-10-27T09:10:00.000-05:00

Chris Benoit – Separating Fact from Fiction
Written by Eric E. Jenkins on 06/27/2007

WWE has pulled all of the Chris Benoit merchandise from the WWE shop (dot) com website, has removed mention of him from advertisements for Wrestlemania 20, changing the information to Triple H defending his title against Shawn Michaels, and has publicly stated that they would not be mentioning his name on their programs again, essentially disavowing any connection with Chris Benoit. In light of the tragedy that involved Chris and his family, and based on the fact that WWE devoted an entire show to him only to later find out that his death, and the deaths of his wife Nancy and son Daniel were linked to a sinister act perpetrated by Chris, I can understand why WWE would feel betrayed by one of their own. However, that does not take away the fact that Benoit was a spectacular wrestler, and no matter what his personal life consisted of, that is how he should be remembered.

Chris Benoit was a great wrestler, one of the best ever. Outside the ring, I did not know the man. I had never met him, had never spoken to him, and had never even been close enough to him to shake his hand while looking him in the eye. The only thing that I know about Chris Benoit is that he was a great wrestler, one of the best that I had ever seen in my 30-plus years of watching professional wrestling. That is all that I know and frankly, that is all that I want to know.

In 1993, Kerry Von Erich committed suicide by putting a bullet into his head in order to keep from being sent to jail for forging prescriptions, which was a violation of his probation. At the time, and during the heyday of World Class Wrestling, I was a big Von Erich fan. These days, with four of the five wrestling Von Erich Brothers dead before the age of 35, all under curious circumstances, I still pull out my old World Class tapes and watch the matches because I was a fan of the entertainment that they brought to me, not of their personal lives.

In the inside news, voyeuristic society that we live in, we get too caught up in the personal lives of the people that entertain us. Once that happens, it becomes difficult for some people to separate the television character that they are watching and the person behind the character who, like the rest of us, is just a person doing a job and struggling with the trials of being a human on Earth. The same problems that you or I face are the same problems that plague the rich and famous. The only difference is that if you or I get arrested for a DUI, we will not make the nightly news, while once it happens to Paris Hilton, she is a front page story and gossip column fodder until the next celebrity replaces her. We as people need to learn to separate the fact from the fiction, the television character from the real person.

In 1993, NBA star Charles Barkley became embroiled in a controversy that grew to include the Vice President Dan Quayle when he wrote the copy for and appeared in a Nike commercial in which he stated that athletes shouldn’t be role models. Charles was taken to task by society and by the government for his comments that athletes should not be role models for today’s children, but what was forgotten from the message was the call for parents and teachers to be role models for the youth of today and that parents should raise their children and not leave that responsibility to people on TV. This was a strong statement for separating fact from fiction because what Charles was saying was that since very few could do what he could do, children should idolize people that they could grow up to emulate. Be entertained by these people, but do not become so involved in their personal lives that they affect the way that you think about things.

When I am being entertained, I want to be entertained and I care about the person or persons entertaining me. I was a fan of Chris Benoit, just as I was a fan of Kerry Von Erich, because I enjoyed watching them do what they did. I will continue to watch his matches because in the ring, he is just Chris Benoit the wrestler and all of those matches happened before he became Chris Benoit the man who was believed to have committed a double murder before committing suicide. I do not care about what he does outside of his field of entertainment until it affects his ability to entertain me. Once that happens, then I have a problem and find it difficult to be entertained by that person.

Michael Jackson is an accused child molester. That is a fact that cannot be denied, but what many are trying to deny in connection with Michael Jackson is the fact that he was, at his best, arguably the most dynamic performer of his time (with the possible exception of Prince or MC Hammer). Michael Jackson could do any style of music and nearly all of his song spoke to people on levels that other performers were not able or willing to reach and this is what made Michael Jackson special. I continue to trot out my Michael Jackson CD’s from time to time because I was a fan of the music and of the performer. The man who allegedly molested children on his ranch would never be invited to dinner or to be around my own children, but that will not stop me from enjoying his music. Now, if he started doing music about molesting children, then I would have a problem with Michael Jackson and the music that he was doing, but that would still not change the music that he did in the past. I just would not continue to support him going forward.

I am a fan of University of Southern California football, and I still believe that the 1967 game between USC and UCLA is one of the greatest college football games ever played. That game was turned around by a 64-yard touchdown run by none other than Orenthal James Simpson, one of the greatest running backs in the history of football, either college or pro. I am also a fan of the Naked Gun movies, all of which feature, Orenthal James Simpson. These things will never change because while he was doing these things, he was not killing his wife and a restaurant employee (allegedly). However, I cannot support the things that Simpson has attempted to do lately in an effort to cash in on the murders. That would be an example of the personal life affecting the entertainment and that I cannot allow.

I am also a lifetime fan of the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team. From West and Chamberlain to Kareem and Magic to Shaq and Kobe, right down the line, I was a fan. When Magic Johnson said that he could not play for Paul Westhead because Westhead’s style did not highlight Magic’s talents, he was saying that because the Lakers were a team full of gazelles being forced to play like elephants. Paul Westhead was replaced mid-season by Pat Riley and the Lakers won the NBA championship. Magic was speaking for what was the best way to use the team’s personnel and as it turned out, he was right. He was perceived as injecting his own agenda into the team’s structure, so he was vilified for his choices, which is as it should be. The fans felt that he was injecting their entertainment with his personal politics and he was scorned for his actions, when it turned out right, he was again praised. For me, when I thought that Magic was tearing up my team, I was upset because, as I said, the personal was interfering with the entertainment.

Kobe Bryant is a spectacular player, one of the best in the game today. The combination of Shaq and Kobe were able to, as a tandem, win three consecutive NBA championships and then compete for a fourth within a five-year span before Kobe’s personal agenda was allowed to take precedence. It is generally believed that Kobe Bryant’s desire to be the undisputed star of the Lakers was the central component in Shaq’s being traded following the 2003-2004 NBA season. Since that time, Kobe Bryant has lead the NBA in scoring twice, but the Lakers have become an abysmal team, failing to win playoff games or survive the first round of the NBA playoffs. These days, Kobe is expressing the desire to have the team’s General Manager replaced and to be traded to a team with a chance to win immediately unless the team can be instantly upgraded. Despite the team’s efforts at improving their roster, Kobe is insisting that he would like to leave the Lakers for another team, which would make the team worse than it currently is. I am having tremendous difficulty continuing to be a fan of Kobe Bryant because his personal agenda is negatively affecting my favorite basketball team, thus affecting the way that I am entertained. I would prefer to see him leave and to see the team rebuild around another star than to continue to have him there as a cancer on the team that would eventually spread to other players and would irreparably destroy the team.

What does all of this have to do with Chris Benoit? Well, it is simple; Chris Benoit was a great wrestling performer, and that is what we should remember. Shawn Michaels is a great wrestling performer, and that is all that we should care about. It shouldn’t matter if he is a Christian, as he says, or is a hypocrite hiding behind Christianity, as Bret Hart has said. It shouldn’t matter, unless you were a fan of Bret Hart in the WWF, and his leaving affected the way that you were entertained. Then, dislike HBK if you choose, but do not deny that his many other matches, with wrestlers other than Bret Hart, were spectacular and worth watching over and over. If John Cena were to suddenly become a Nazi sympathizer (in real life), and he were converting other wrestlers into Nazi sympathizers, and other white wrestlers were suddenly refusing to perform with black or Jewish wrestlers because they felt that they were inferior people, I would be unable to watch John Cena perform and would stop. Since this has not happened, I will continue to be entertained by Cena and other professional wrestlers, until one’s personal life affected his ability to entertain. Then, and only then, would I care about his personal life.

Send comments, complaints or questions to me @ ericej@netzero.net

Eric E. Jenkins is an author who has written a semi-biographical book covering the last 30 years in professional wrestling through the eyes of a fan entitled “Reflections of a Professional Wrestling Fan: My 30 Years ‘In’ the Business”. He is currently writing “Dead Too Soon”, a book chronicling the careers of and paying tribute to many of the wrestling stars who passed away very young.

2007-10-27T09:06:00.000-05:00

Professional Wrestling "Journalists" - Covering the Big Stories
Written by Eric E. Jenkins on 03/24/2007

I have been writing about wrestling for nearly seven years. It all started with a column about how there were too many non-wrestling women in the WWF (kind of ironic how history is repeating itself, huh?). I followed that with a piece about how I felt that superstar tag teams were killing tag team wrestling (anyone say Cena & Michaels?). During that time, it has always bothered me how others who write about wrestling (notice that I am not calling them columnists or journalists?), with a few exceptions, ever tackle the tough stories.

In those last seven years, I have written about the Al Snow Doll being pulled from Wal-Mart shelves in the Atlanta area, the potential for death in a wrestling ring, Bill Goldberg receiving 48 stitches to close a gash in his arm and having the Globe newspaper refer to it as a wrestling tragedy, professional wrestling’s substance abuse problem, violence against women, Lionel Tate, The Parent’s Television Council and their war against professional wrestling, backyard wrestling, John Gonzalez and the wrestling related murder of a 3-year old and wrestling’s role in youth violence. Through all of this, I get tons of letters asking why I don’t talk more about story lines and who I think will win at Backlash. The reason for this is simple…because everyone else does.

This tirade is not to put myself over as a serious journalist or to demean any other writer because I respect anyone who puts in the work to represent the sport of professional wrestling with their words. I just have a problem with the lack of time that is spent addressing the stories that the mainstream press latches onto because all we ever hear in professional wrestling is that there is a lack of mainstream press. Understand this, mainstream press is not going to glorify professional wrestling or professional wrestlers, nor will they trumpet the fact that Wrestlemania is a few days away. Only music columns talk about Britney Spears or Bobby Brown’s new CD’s, but the rest of the mainstream press touches on their shortcomings, so it seems that professional wrestling should actually be honored that they get the same treatment as Bobby Brown. Remember, wrestling media will talk about the good in wrestling and the New York Post or Sports Illustrated will discuss the bad. It is the same for any entertainment medium.

I said all of that to say that this tirade comes to you courtesy of the SI (dot) com piece about steroids in professional wrestling. The SI story hit the Internet on March 19, 2006, and since that time, other than publishing the involved wrestlers’ takes on the story and their explanations for using and buying steroids, there has only been ONE editorial about the story and its ramifications to the sport, and that one piece was written tongue-in-cheek with a premise that we should not be surprised by this and that it is not news because we knew about this all along. My outrage stems from the fact that there have been no other takes on the story from any other writers and in the world of professional wrestling, with all that steroids have meant to the sport, this is a huge story.

In 1994, Vince McMahon stood trial for steroid distribution, and though acquitted, many of the biggest (figuratively and literally) wrestlers in the business were swallowed up in the web of the acquisitions. The dramatic changes to the physical appearances of guys like Hulk Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior made it clear that those who had been using were no longer using and the entire sport of professional wrestling got smaller with guys like Bret Hart & Shawn Michaels ascending to the top of the WWF. Today, there is another steroid scandal in professional wrestling and it bears a striking resemblance to the one in professional baseball.

Those of us wrestling fans that also follow Major League Baseball are aware of the steroid scandal in that sport. The Federal Government is investigating baseball in the hopes of finding a connection between steroids and many of the top players in the game, particularly Barry Bonds. Arguably the top player in baseball over the last 15 or so years, Bonds’ physical appearance and increased power numbers have suggested that he might be chemically enhanced and the Federal Government in hot on his trail, though they have not been able to gather any concrete evidence against Bonds. The only players that the government has been able to gather proof on is the some third-string catcher for some minor league club or some retired player who only had one or two good years anyway and those were the years that he was using steroids.

In professional wrestling, it would be as if Triple H was implicated in the SI story, but that was not the case. However, the names that were listed were not the minor leaguer or the retired journeyman. The names listed included probably the best all-around performer in the game, the two top heels in WWE, one of the top two or three best pure athletes in the business, and the longest reigning champion in the last seven years. The net of the steroid scandal was not able to grab Triple H, someone who, like Bonds, has seen his physical appearance dramatically change over the years, but the implication of Kurt Angle, Edge, Randy Orton & Rey Mysterio in the story is as bad for professional wrestling as it would be for baseball if Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, Ryan Howard and Derek Jeter failed steroid tests. They are not the biggest names in the game, but they represent the next tier of stars in baseball just like Angle, Mysterio, Edge and Orton do in wrestling.

There would be a national outrage among baseball fans if any of the names that I mentioned were implicated in a steroid scandal because it would mean that the fans’ suspicions about the sport were correct and true fans of Major League Baseball would have a difficult time accepting what they probably suspected to be true for many years. As the writer of the one piece that I read inferred in his article, we all know that it is there, so we have no real reason to be surprised. But we are surprised because as professional wrestling is seemingly getting bigger and bigger with champions like Batista & Bobby Lashley ruling two of the three WWE brands, these men were not included in the article either. We are surprised because looking at Edge, Randy Orton & Gregory Helms; we do not see the typical steroid bodies. We see lean, athletic men. Though each of these men have said that they were prescribed the drugs by a physician to help them to recover from injury, the fact remains that their names are being linked to an illegal steroid distribution ring and it will be very difficult to explain this away, no matter how genuine the explanations sound.

As wrestling fans and as people who accepted the responsibility of writing about the sport of professional wrestling, we cannot only comment on the outcomes of matches and the story line conclusions on PPV’s. We have to address the hard stories just like the mainstream press that we are so critical of does. As I said, when Nirvana released a new CD, it was usually covered by entertainment-based press, but when Kurt Cobain shot himself, it was covered by the rest of mainstream media because it is always big news when a public figure commits suicide. What we fail to realize is that in the reporting of the Cobain suicide, the newscasters and the newspaper reporters had to give some background on Cobain and the nature of his celebrity, both for themselves and for their audiences, who were probably not very familiar with Cobain or his work. The same goes for professional wrestling news.

The mainstream press is only going to cover the big stories, so it is the responsibility of those of us who cover wrestling regularly to cover all of the news, and that includes the big stories. Besides, it should be much easier for us to cover these types of stories because for our audiences, we do not have to give as much background. We can just report the news and give a more accurate assessment of the story because we know and understand the business better than some writer for Sports Illustrated who never watches wrestling (because if he did, he would not still be calling Helms “Hurricane” when he stopped using that name after a match in November of 2005 and the SI piece was from an investigation in February of 2007). Or we can continue to just write about the matches and the story lines and complain about the coverage that our sport gets outside of itself.

Send comments, complaints or questions to me @ ericej@netzero.net

Eric E. Jenkins is an author who has written a semi-biographical book covering the last 30 years in professional wrestling through the eyes of a fan entitled “Reflections of a Professional Wrestling Fan: My 30 Years ‘In’ the Business”. He is currently writing “Dead Too Soon”, a book chronicling the careers of and paying tribute to many of the wrestling stars who passed away very young.

2006-04-04T07:26:00.000-05:00

New Article @ The Wrestling Voice and Wrestling Planet

Wrestlemania – What Happens Next

Now that WM22 is over and everyone knows what happened in the ring, it is time for the old man to sit back on his sofa and tell the world what all of the craziness that happened in the ring on April 2 means to World Wrestling Entertainment and better or worse, depending on which wrestler you are, what it means to the careers of the stars of WWE. Since I am also watching Raw as I write this, I will be adding the results of Raw to these observations.

http://thewrestlingvoice.com/columns/ericjenkins/headlines/146127842.shtml

http://www.wrestlingplanet.com/cgi.php?id=wpnews/headlines/146127834.html

2006-03-31T08:09:00.000-06:00

DVD Review - New Jack: Hardcore

On the heels of all of the ECW nostalgia, Hollymood Entertainment has released a DVD chronicling the most hardcore member of the hardcore revolution. The DVD, which is aptly titled New Jack: Hardcore, traces the career of Jerome Young, the wrestler known as New Jack. From the formation of the Gangstas with Mustafa Saed and D-Lo Brown to their rise to stardom in ECW and beyond, this DVD covers the entire career of New Jack in Jerome Young’s own words.

New Jack: Hardcore gives the viewer an inside look into the world of professional wrestling through the eyes of one man who has lived it. Almost entirely comprised of interview footage of Jack, the DVD is devoid of any real wrestling action. In fact, there are only two complete matches, one which is included in the bonus features section and the other in the main portion of the disc. Jack tells the story of the October 2004 match where he was jailed for repeatedly stabbing his opponent and shows footage from this match on the disc. The match in the bonus section is a match between Jack and the allegedly 75 year old Gypsy Joe. Jack tells the story of the perceived disrespect that Joe showed him during the match and of Jack’s reaction to the slight.

Despite his gangster persona inside the ring, on this disc, Jack shows his human, intelligent side, though sprinkled with some profanity. Jack discusses the how the Gangstas came to be and their purpose for being created. He discusses Jim Cornette, Smokey Mountain Wrestling, the night that he infuriated both white wrestling fans and the NAACP, and how the Gangstas ended up in ECW. He also discusses the circumstances behind the breakup of the Gangstas and how he became a solo in ECW.

Jack also answers a lot of questions that wrestling fans have asked over and over of both wrestling writers and Jack himself. Jack gives the real story behind the heat between himself and the Dudley Boys and also gives his feelings on drugs and groupies in wrestling and relates a humorous story of the night that the Sandman got naked inside an ECW ring.

Jerome Young the man says in Hardcore that he appreciates backyard wrestlers as fans trying to emulate his style, but he doesn’t respect any of them that get spots in wrestling without the proper training. Jack repeatedly hammers home the necessity of gaining proper training before becoming a professional wrestler.

In this disc, Jack also discusses his feelings toward wrestling fans, wrestling internet sheet writers, the ECW talent raids during the Monday Night Wars, XPW and other “hardcore” wrestling federations and mostly, the ECW locker room and the guys in it. Jack makes it very clear who in ECW he liked and who he didn’t.

At the end of the bonus features section, New Jack the fan comes out as he discusses what he feels are some of the dumbest gimmicks that he has ever seen in professional wrestling. You can truly tell from this discussion that Jerome Young is a true fan of the sport as it comes through with the gimmicks that he discusses.

Unlike the WWE produced personality discs of Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit and others, this disc is not full of match highlights since most of Jack’s best stuff is owned by Vince McMahon and WWE had no part of the release of this disc. However, for true historians of the sport of professional wrestling, this disc answers a lot of previously unanswered questions about events of New Jack’s life as well as the behind the scenes workings of ECW. For that reason alone, anyone interested in the history of the sport, should include this disc alongside their copies of Forever Hardcore and The Rise and Fall of ECW.

You can watch trailers for the DVD and order the DVD at www.HollymoodEntertainment.com

Send comments, complaints or questions to me @ ericej@netzero.net

2006-03-24T13:09:00.000-06:00

New Article @ The Wrestling Voice and Wrestling Planet

But Vince...He's your Son!

This article discusses how dangerous Shane McMahon's wrestling style is and how Vince McMahon should be concerned for his son's safety.

http://thewrestlingvoice.com/columns/ericjenkins/headlines/145234363.shtml

http://www.wrestlingplanet.com/cgi.php?id=wpnews/headlines/145234309.html

Previous Article @ The Wrestling Voice and Wrestling Planet

The WWE Hall of ???

This article discuss the wrestlers who have been and will be inducted into, and more importantly, left out of, the WWE Hall of Fame.

http://thewrestlingvoice.com/columns/ericjenkins/headlines/144277866.shtml

http://www.wrestlingplanet.com/cgi.php?id=wpnews/headlines/144277992.html