No Time To Blog Today.

Sorry folks, it beez like this sometimes. My current assignment is kickin' my behind, so I gotta focus right now.

If ya'll wanna get somethin' started in the comments section, have at it. Fresh content tomorrow!

Elin Woods Is One Cold-Hearted Chick.

No matter how you spin it, reality is, the court system is simply not fair to men when it comes to matters of child and spousal support. We all know that dude who's found himself financially destitute and living in a van down by the river when his marriage went south either by his own doing or that of his spouse. It doesn't matter, 99 times out of time, the guy's gonna lose. It's just like that.

Few folks would disagree that Tiger Woods has put Mrs. Tiger through some scandalous sh*t. Few folks would also disagree that Mrs. Woods deserves a nice financial parting gift for all of her trouble. But just how much is enough?

Tiger Woods will reportedly pay Elin Woods $750 million, including the $80 million new mansion just being completed in Jupiter, Fla., in their impending divorce, sources say.

In addition, Elin is requiring that Tiger not expose their children to any future female companions "unless he is married to said person."

Tiger and his legal team apparently spent a lot of time writing language preventing any Elin tell-all or media interviews by Elin, but the Swedish native is "so private. The last thing she would ever do is revisit this horrible period in her life," a longtime Florida friend said of her.

Custody remains an issue, with the two differing over how much time the Woods children will spend outside the United States. Elin Woods (AP)the United States. Elin is pushing for much more than what Tiger wants.

So, dude is reportedly worth only $600M, but she can hit him up for a cool $750M, which basically makes him an indentured servant? The f*ck?!? What part of the game is that?

Question: Even if you agree that Tiger messed up, is a $750M settlement really fair? Why doesn't the issue of unfair treatment in divorce/child support proceedings ever become a hot button political issue?

Divorce reportedly will cost Tiger $750 million [People]

Name That Sample - "Fallin' In Love"

Name That Sample is simple: I play the original song, you tell me who sampled it. Winner gets a day's supply of Cyber CapriSuns™. As always, no Googling! Google is for losers.



This obscure tune by Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds has only been sampled once to my knowledge. If you've had your ears littered by commercial Power/Hot/Kiss radio, you should prolly be able to smiff this one out in your sleep. The guy who recently sampled this song is currently being sued for copyright infringement. It wouldn't be the first time this guy's been sued over this song this year alone. Maybe some originality wouldn't hurt, but hey, this is the cRap game we're talkin' about.

Difficulty Level: Eaaaaasy. I should probably be ashamed of this sorta cherrypicking.

Question: How dumb do you have to be to sample someone's song for a Top 10 hit, and not pay royalties TWICE?!?

AB.com NewsBriefs - BET Awards Edition.

Another tough week ahead. We'll get back to our regularly scheduled features soon, but till then, here's the rundown.

The BET Awards - Folks, lets stop hatin'. Sure, it's easy to keep poppin' sh*t about how bad BET used to be, but the network's not half bad anymore. No, I don't care for those reality shows either, but they're hardly the biggest problem black America has. I can give credit where it's due. The BET Awards was well done, very entertaining, and very low on overall coonery. Can we give these folks some credit, for slowly, but surely getting it right?

Chris Brown - I still can't figure out of C-Breezy was actually crying during his MJ tribute, or if that was a rare stroke of PR brilliance, but what's certain is that guy has his career back now. He atoned for the whole Rihanna thing. He paid his debt to society. Let the man breathe. On a related note: I sure hope Trey Songz invested well, cause his 14 minutes are over.



Twitter, FTW! - What did black people do before Twitter? I'm still trying to remember, but what's clear is that an "event" like the BET Awards is 20x better if you're following your timeline.

Elena Kagan Confirmation - Sorry, I don't care one bit. The fact that yet another qualified black woman was passed up for a SCOTUS nod, just so Obama can check everything on his 2012 demographic "To Do" list irks me. If this makes me racist, then so be it.

Chris Henry RIP - An autopsy is now revealing that recently deceased Bengals WR Chris Henry suffered a form of degenerative brain damage as a result of all those hits, which contributed to his death. It's time for the NFL to get serious about head injuries and do something about it. Yeah, it's a man's sport, but that doesn't mean something can't be done to make it safer for these guys longterm.

Bob Byrd RIP - Meh.

USA Loses To Ghana - Who cares? No, seriously, who cares? America didn't care about soccer two weeks ago and now that our team's out of the World Cup, won't care about it two days from now. Just bein' honest.

Jan Brewer Must Be Stopped - She now refers to all illegal aliens as "drug mules". [Insert your own punchline about Jan Brewer's face here.]

Question: What did you think of the BET Awards? Was Chris Brown sincere, fakin', or both?

What's On AB's iPod?!? - Roy Ayers Tribute Mixtape.

Anyone who's been even a casual reader of this blog knows my favorite artist of all time is Roy Ayers, hands down. I've seen the guy in concert a million times, and even at advanced age, he's one of the most engaging soul/jazz/funk performers there is. Unlike his contemporaries (Stevie Wonder, Donnie Hathaway, Curtis Mayfield) it always puzzles me that despite making equally timeless (and arguably more sampled/remade) music, Ayers' name seldom comes up when all-time greats are discussed. Go figure.

Anyways, if you're not familiar with the man's work, cop this excellent Tribute/Interview mix, courtesy of Bama Love Soul.

On-Point Roy Ayers Mix & Interview [BamaLoveSoul]

Get On Your SoapBox Day.

Not that you didn't already notice, but it's been a real struggle for me to deliver the usual AB.com quality of daily posts here of late. The Day Job's been kickin' my butt even more than usual, I been back on the road, The Fam needs their time, and something's gotta give. Lately, it's been this blog.

I appreciate everyone that rolls thru everyday to help keep this thing going. Without you guys, there would be no reason for this blog, so pat yourselves on the back.

Anyways, today, the floor is open. You guys have proven to be a relatively self-sustaining online community. So, start some chatter amongst yourselves. Drop links. Get it poppin'. If you've ever wanted to write your own post for the rest of AverageNation™ to respond to, this is your day!

Just in case you guys are equally strapped for ideas, here's a few to mull over:

NBA Draft - The Wiz picked John Wall, which more or less makes them the winners. How'd your team do? What's up with all these squads dumping salary for Lebron though? Miami, New York, and Chicago all have lots of cap room, but someone's gonna get screwed when the dust settles.

Obama's General Problem - I didn't do a post on the whole Rolling Stone brouhaha because honestly, I don't give a sh*t, but what do ya'll think? Did Obama do the right thing?

Tiki Barber - Man, this guy's divorce/custody battle is real grizzly. You could argue that he bought a lot of this on himself by creepin', but there's always two sides to every story. Still, $150k/month in support? No way.

iPhone 4 Lines - Sorry, if you stand in line for more than 24 hours to buy anything, you are a loser. It's called pre-ordering, folks. Get familiar.

Financial Reform Bill - Raise your hand if you honestly have any clue what this accomplishes. Be honest.

Rand Paul Is A Jackass - Turns out this guy wasn't even a licensed eye doctor. Great job, Kentucky!

More Obama Navel Gazing - Wingnuts and Health Nuts equally enraged that Obama takes Russian President to greasy spoon for burgers and fries.

Okay, have at it kids.

A Black Republican I'd Actually Consider Voting For.

As a black man married to a black woman, admitting when I'm wrong is a defense mechanism way of life. In short: I can admit when I called one incorrectly. And for those on the Right who thought I was hatin' when I said not a single Black GOP'er would make it to DC come November, this half-assed apology is for you.

State Rep. Tim Scott took a step toward history Tuesday night, handily locking up the Republican nomination for the 1st Congressional District.

His 3-1 win over his former Charleston County Council colleague Paul Thurmond makes him likely to become the first black Republican to serve in Congress since J.C. Watts of Oklahoma retired six years ago.

With all five counties reporting, Scott had won about 68 percent of the vote to Thurmond's 32 percent. In Horry and Georgetown counties, where Thurmond had garnered a lot of support from local candidates, Scott still won by a smaller margin with about 56 percent of the vote in both counties.

Scott, 44, owns an insurance business and became the first black Republican in the South Carolina Legislature in more than a century when elected two years ago. Before that, he served 13 years on Charleston County Council and was elected chairman four times. This week's primary results in South Carolina indicate a Republican Party growing more diverse in a state that continues to distance a past rooted in the darkness of slavery and segregation.

Scott's big win is a bright spot for national Republicans trying to diversify their party. While Michael Steele, the first black to head the Republican National Committee, recruited 32 African-American candidates, most have lost or are expected to lose.

If these unofficial results hold and Scott also wins on Nov. 2, he would become the first black Republican elected to Congress from the Deep South since Reconstruction.

It's odd that South Carolina House candidate Tim Scott didn't get the same level of media attention as some of his more visible Negro counterparts (ie: Allen West and Michael Williams) in the time leading up to his primary a few weeks ago. Of course, Scott was the unsung winner when he essentially won a race against a son of the late, and not-so-great Strom Thurmond.

Call it what you like, but beating a Republican with that sort of name recognition in a state which is synonymous with Thurmond is probably more impressive than anything Alvin Greene did that same night. Of course, this being SC and all, if you don't get 50% of the vote in a primary, you've gotta redo things with a run-off. Scott vs Thurmond round 2 was earlier this week, and it looks like the GOP has found their next JC Watts to parade around as a beacon of progress while generally disregarding his opinions for the next 2 years.



While this guy is spouting the typical GOP talking points, one thing I haven't seen in the few times I've watched him on YouTube is the typical GOP greasy Tea Party, "Us vs Them" rhetoric. I might have just missed this, but to me, Scott seems pretty reasonable.[1] He's the type of Republican I've voted for in the past, and would vote for in the future.

If the GOP's smart, they'll find and push sensible, non-mouth breathing candidates like this, regardless of color.

Meh, who are we kidding, this is still the GOP we're talkin' about.

Question: Is Scott's election a signal that the GOP is moving in the right direction?

GOP state Rep. Scott defeats Thurmond [SunNews]

[1] Go watch that campaign speech. If I didn't know his party affiliation, I'd assume this guy was a liberal.

Whatever Happened To Journalistic Integrity?!?

Athletes are often criticized for being dismissive, and somewhat hostile to the press. Barry Bonds more or less ruined his shot at the Hall Of Fame by being perceived as standoffish and confrontational with those whose job it is to cover him. It's easy for those of us who live normal lives that nobody's interested in to find fault with Bonds' actions, but seriously, how many of us would be outwardly hospitable to people who might have made up total and complete lies about us? I'm not saying Bonds was right, but come on. Yes, those in the press have a large bearing on how the public perceives athletes (and any public figure for that matter). But reporters also should have some level of integrity and be certain that what they are reporting is both correct, and in reasonably good taste.

This weekend, on Father's Day no less, The Washington Post published a wordy expose on Kentucky point guard John Wall, a guy who will likely be the Washington Wizards #1 pick in Thursday's NBA draft. For even the casual DC sports fan, Wall's arrival is being trumpeted as the coming of a savior, as players with his level of talent and off court magnetism can lift a miserable franchise like the Wizards from mediocrity. He is the best pure prospect to enter the NBA since Lebron. Or at least that what the folks trying to sell me season tickets are saying. Doesn't matter, I'm buying anyway.



Anyways, if you're not familiar with Wall's backstory, it's sorta interesting. Raised by a single mother in my hometown of Raleigh, NC, Wall had to overcome a huge personal tragedy early in life when his father died due to a bout with liver cancer. Wall's travails with overcoming teenage years full of displaced anger to become the best college basketball player in the nation last year have already been well covered. Likewise, the fact that Wall's father spent many of Wall's formative years in prison is well known. What's never been discussed is exactly why his dad was in prison.

The Post story started out as a very well-intended expose on Wall's relationship with his long deceased father, and how the kid's admiration of his Dad has turned him into the man he is today. But somewhere along the way, Post reporter Eric Prisbell decided to probe a bit too much into why Wall's father was in prison, and in my opinion, made the sort of journalistic decision that makes both athletes and readers not trust newspapers anymore.

Wall's mother, for probably lots of very obvious reasons, made the decision to not tell her kids why their father had been incarcerated prior to his death. Yes, all of this stuff is public record, and thus easy for anyone who cares to go look up. Wall's mother didn't tell him, not did Wall want to know. Prisbell, the reporter, decided instead to go dig up the information himself (without the family's consent) and more or less "spring" it on Wall during a casual conversation as part gathering info for the story.

Turns out Wall's father was charged with 2nd degree murder.

So now, Wall begins a new career in a new city with the specter of everyone knowing his belated father as a killer. That information would have been hard enough for an adult to willingly discover. For a 19-year old to have that information unwillingly dumped on his lap, against the wishes of his family is downright callous. For the Post reporter to do this is classless, and oddly enough, really didn't add anything of value to any otherwise decent bio. It was the ultimate cheap shot, and the Washington Post should issue an apology and reprimand Prisbell.

If John Wall mysteriously stops speaking to the Washington Post at some point in the future, could you really blame him?

Question: Did the Washington Post reporter overstep the bounds of solid journalism by informing Wall that his father was a murderer? Would you want such personal information to be disclosed in the newspaper against your will, or is this sort of treatment merely part of being a famous person?

Despite the angst that his father's jail stint and death created, John Wall reveres him [WashPost]

What The Heck Is Going On In Chicago?!?

[Editor's Note: We've become so immune to inner city crime that last weekend's shooting spree in Chicago barely even registered a blip on the national media radar. Nearly 60 people shot and 10 killed should make Chi Town the center of a national emergency, but, well, most folks just consider it "n*ggas bein' n*ggas" and go right back to listening to that new Drake album. My homie C-James goes in on what's goin' on in The Windy City. Show our guest some love you-know-where.]

This is a story that warrants attention not just from MSM but mostly from our community. And I have to start by asking WHAT IN THE HELL IS GOING ON?

A bloody weekend of gun violence spilled into Monday, leaving 10 dead and nearly 60 men, women and children wounded all around the city.

Investigators tied some of the shootings in the Gresham and Englewood neighborhoods to stepped-up in-fighting among Gangster Disciple gang members.

And some of the violence on the West Side was attributed to retaliation over the slayings of three men found shot dead early Saturday in the 2300 block of South Springfield.

But the remainder of the shootings followed no pattern and were not being tied together, leaving emergency rooms busy, investigators with scores of open cases -- and national newcasts focusing on Chicago violence.

The youngest victim was a 1-year-old girl who suffered a graze wound to her neck when shots rang out at a barbecue about 12:15 a.m. Monday on the Near West Side.

The 10 dead included a man dressed in women's clothing found dead on a sidewalk in the 7500 block of South Halsted Street, two naked men found dead near railroad tracks in the 900 block of South Holland and the three men found in and around a car on South Springfield.

People are shot and killed all the time and I completely understand that it's just and unfortunate ill of society. But this incident has so many overtones that it isn't even funny. It's not just the media turning a blind eye to it but the community in general is beginning to project a bit of indifference toward this. Small arms fire in Afghanistan makes the evening news and this doesn't even make the front page of the Chicago Tribune. I can't blame MSM either because most of the people I have talked to about this incident have given the proverbial response of "ummmm, that's terrible". Loosely translated that means, "It's bad for them but it ain't in my backyard".



I need answers folks because this is beyond just BAD NEGRO BEHAVIOR. There's lots of angles to approach this issue. Could this be the manifestation of years of racist policies. I know the contrarian will say that slavery ended 150 years ago and that these social problems are brought on mostly by our own negligence. I say to that, the first atomic bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945 but the effects of the bomb are still being felt to day in communities FAR from Hiroshima. What are the effects of centuries of family breakdown? Centuries of women raped? etc? etc? etc?

What if it's not racist policies? Could there be a core morality issue? The fact that this incident barely made any news means that we as a society have become insensitive to problems in other communities. Many feel that this incident is just something that happens in poor (mostly black) communities and since they never plan to visit any of these communities, they feel that this is not their problem. Many have turned a blind eye to the problem. I say, When does this become a problem to everyone?

Question: What is the real problem here? Can this be blamed on Racist policies? Is this an issue that we can solve?

54 shot in latest violence [ChiSun-Times]

Too Much Glenn Beck, Not Enough Common Sense.

Admit it, you had to know a Census backlash was coming. From the day Obama took office, wingnuts have been jibber jabbering about how Obama was going to twist and turn the 2010 Census to somehow provide payback to all of his supporters, which some even equated to reparations for "The Blacks". Combine this with a steady drumbeat of conspiracy theories everyday on talk radio, and what's happened out in the field to poor Census workers is no shocker.

This is the scary season for the nation's census takers.

Since they began making follow-up house calls in early May, census takers have encountered vitriol, menace and flashes of violence. They have been shot at with pellet guns and hit by baseball bats. They have been confronted with pickaxes, crossbows and hammers. They've had lawn mowers pushed menacingly toward them and patio tables thrown their way. They have been nibbled by ducks, bitten by pit bulls and chased by packs of snarling dogs.

Some days, being cursed at seems part of the job description.

So far, the Census Bureau has tallied 379 incidents involving assaults or threats on the nation's 635,000 census workers, more than double the 181 recorded during the 2000 census. Weapons were used or threatened in a third of the cases. While most homeowners have received census takers graciously, some say they have been surprised at the degree of anger exhibited by Americans who consider them the embodiment of intrusive government.

"I came across loads of hostility," said Douglas McDonald, who summoned police in Deltona, Fla., after a tug-of-war with an irate homeowner over a census form. The homeowner threw his ripped half in the toilet.

Sherri Chesney, 46, said she was cursed and spat at during follow-up visits in Houston. One day, she encountered a woman working in her garden. Chesney showed her census badge, she said, prompting the woman to launch into a tirade: "I don't need the blankety-blank government snooping in my business." Then she threw a metal patio table at Chesney, who escaped injury by ducking.

Workers were beset by mean-tempered animals. Wendy Soto, who was knocking on doors in California, still can't move two fingers after being attacked by a pit bull that pushed open a security door. The dog bit Soto in the stomach, leg and hand. The census is paying for her doctor's bills, medication and replacement clothing. She doesn't know when she will be physically able to return to her regular job as a special-education teacher's aide.

In a rural part of California's Nevada County northeast of Sacramento, two census workers told authorities that a man ordered them off his land. He mentioned his submachine gun, then followed them down the drive with a crossbow in hand. No charges were brought against the resident, the sheriff's department said.

A homeowner in Marion, Ohio, called police, saying he had just used his baseball bat against a stranger on his property. The perceived interloper was a census taker who told police the resident flew off the handle as soon as he mentioned the word census. The census taker was struck in the forearm, warding off blows from the aluminum bat. The resident was charged with felonious assault.

Among the more troubling were incidents that arose from residents' seething resentment that anyone from the government would seek their personal information.

Some people pointedly mentioned President Obama.

Hmmm, wonder where these folks gathered this curious "Census = Too Much Gubb'ment" idea from?



I'm never quite understood where all this anti-government sentiment comes from, but I do I know I certainly didn't hear as much of it prior to January 2009. Do these folks not realize that 1 in 10 Americans works for the government in some capacity? My Mom was a public service lifer who usually took far less than she could have earned in the private sector because she wanted to make a difference, and memorably did some work during the 1990 Census. According to these loons, she's a government interloper hellbent on taking away their Constitutional rights.

Ehhh, doesn't matter. Of course every government job, Census or otherwise, benefits liberals who don't otherwise have the ability to fend for themselves. Of course these folks, with their miserly $30k/yr jobs are the reason we're deeply in debt as a country, not, oh, the fact that we've got two unfinanced wars and pointless tax breaks for the wealthy contributing to the problem.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: just by virtue of awakening wingnut America, the election of Obama was the worst thing to happen to this country in decades.

Question: Does this constant drumbeat of anti-gubb'ment angst concern you? Am I merely seeing this whole thing through my liberal tinted glasses, or were people just as concerned about government intrusion before January 2009?!?

An unexpected result for some census takers: the wrath of irate Americans [WashPost]

Why Detroit Stays Losin'.

If you'll recall a few months back, Detroit Public Schools President Otis Mathis was under fire for his less-than-stellar readin' & writin' skillz. Not that The "D" wasn't already a laughing stock, but the mere notion that a guy who can't complete a coherent sentence held a high paying job leading school children was Chappelle's Show-comical. In case your recollection is hazy, here's some moving pictures. I know how ya'll folks hate reading and whatnot.



Black folks typically being reactionary and all, the story soon faded to the background and Mathis got the keep his Day Job. But in a twist of fate so weird and pervy, even I couldn't make it up, it looks like Mathis has a much bigger problem on his hands now. Pun intended, and yes, PAUSE! on that last statement.

One day after facing accusations of fondling himself, Detroit Public Schools President Otis Mathis wrote a letter to colleagues today blaming "ongoing health problems" for his "poor judgment." The letter, which attempted to rescind his resignation he submitted Thursday, doesn't explicitly address accusations from Superintendent Teresa Gueyser that he touched himself during a private meeting.

But Mathis acknowledged that he "made inappropriate actions toward a professional employee of the board" and promises to remove himself from personnel decisions involving her.

"I am following up with my doctors because I need to pursue treatment, and because I want to make sure that what happened doesn't ever happen again," Mathis said. "However, I do not need to resign in order to take care of my health."

The letter to colleagues came the same day board Vice President Anthony Adams today released a two-page letter from Gueyser accusing Mathis of fondling himself during a meeting this week. She called it his "usual habit" during one-on-one meetings. She said she tries to ignore it.

Gueyser's letter describes in detail an incident during a meeting about her employment agreement. Her contract is to be reviewed tonight.

"President Mathis continued to fondle his genital area for approximately 20 minutes, or the entire time I was talking," Gueyser wrote. "At one point, I lifted some papers from my binder above my eyes to separate my peripheral view in order to avoid watching his activity."

The letter doesn't explicitly say when the incident occurred, except that the meeting began at 4:55 p.m.

"He then re-zipped and unzipped his pants again; again placing the hand with the handkerchief inside the zipper area; this time moving his hand as if to be masturbating in front of me," Gueyser wrote.

All together now.... "Eeeeewwwwwwwwwww."

Get it together Detroit. Otis, get a hooker Hooked On Phonics, and keep it in your pants to crissakes.

Question: Why does Detroit stay losin'?

Detroit schools president: Health woes caused 'poor judgment' [DetNews]

AB.com NewsBriefs

I'm workin' harder than usual today. Here's the quick rundown.

So, The President Can't Even Take His Kids To A Ballgame, Huh?!? - Folks, let's be honest: nobody works 24/7, not even in times of crisis. So the latest wingnut attack on Obama for going to a baseball game with his daughters is particularly silly, given the fact that it was Father's Day weekend. Getting on Obama for enjoying a round of golf and some time to rewind with family is just as silly as those critics who argued that Bush didn't deserve a vacation on his ranch in the weeks after 9/11. If Obama was down there in Louisiana cleaning pelicans all day everyday, folks would criticize him for not worrying about the economy. Enough already. Unless you personally spend each and every waking moment on your Day Job, just shut up.

So, A CEO Can't Even Take His Kids To A Regatta, Huh?!? - Likewise, BP CEO Tony Heyward is under fire for being seen at a yatch race this weekend. Come on, people, what more do you want from the man. His company's just been hit up for $20B to clean up the Gulf, and reality is, he probably won't be able to afford that yatch much longer. Let the man live for Crissakes.

Strasburg Mania Takes A Hit. Sorta. - The casual sports fan might not know, but Obama went to the baseball game the other night to see Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg, an MLB rookie sensation who is essentially the baseball equivalent of Lebron. I'm not even remotely a baseball fan, but the guy's good enough to make me tune in and watch entire games, which is quite a feat. If you haven't seen him yet, do yourself a favor and get familiar. Sadly, until the Nats get some hitters, this guy's brilliance is being wasted.

Tiger Loses - Ehhhh, who are we kidding? I didn't watch this sh*t. Still, come November, I'm betting nobody even remembers all those strippers and Perkins waitresses. Does anyone even remember right now?

Happy Belated Father's Day - Hope the kids treated ya'll good yesterday.

Question: What's on your mind right now?

What's On AB's iPod?!? - Tupac "16th Of June" Mixtape

I'm sure someone will gank my Ghetto Pass for saying this, but I generally find Tupac to be one of the most overrated rappers to ever bless the mic. Sure, the man made quite a bit of classic material, but I suspect people who put him in the G.O.A.T. discussion are probably tipping their fitteds in honor of Pac's cultural impact and the sheer enormity of his body of work, not necessarily his verbal skills. I can at least admit that as much as I hate the whole "Thug Life" BS, I admire the guy's productivity. Who else could have made enough songs to continue putting out a new album each year after his untimely demise?

Anyways, Pac's birthday would have been June 16th, which makes this "16th Of June" mixtape by Terry Urban timely if nothing else. There's not really anything new here if you're even a casual Pac fan, but hey, it's free. Go cop it now, courtesy of Real Talk NY.

Tupac – 16th Of June(Tupac’s Birthday) Mixtape [RTNY/DatPiff]

Question: Am I blasphemous for saying Pac's a wee bit overrated, or does he truly deserve to be mentioned among the greatest evar?!?

Frederick Douglass Should Have Left You N*****s Enslaved.

I know some of ya'll have sorta been giving me the side eye for calling out female cRappers the past few weekends. In the interest of gender equity clowin', I present to you this ignant sh*t, which I'm kinda shocked didn't end up as a Tea Party anthem. As usual, ya'll tell me all the stuff wrong with this video, since I can't bear to type anymore.



And they say The South ruined hip-hop. Hmmmph.

Is Obama Too D*mn Smart For His Own Good?!?

Seems like President Obama just can't win. They want him to get more "angry" then get mad when he uses the term "kick a$$". They want him to quit overreaching into private industry, yet complain that he didn't step in sooner to close BP's leak. They assail him for being elitist, yet call him inauthentic when he orders buffalo wings and drinks beer. For many people Barack Obama will never be good enough, simply because he isn't the guy they voted for back in 08'.

That said, I've seen some nonsensical navel gazing thus far, but this might take the cake.

President Obama's speech on the gulf oil disaster may have gone over the heads of many in his audience, according to an analysis of the 18-minute talk released Wednesday.

Tuesday night's speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture.

Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," Payack said.

At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said.

Obama's nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 "Yes, we can" victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said.

"The scores indicate that this was not Obama at his best, especially when attempting to make an emotional connection to the American people," he added.

Before anyone gets all up in arms about this being more Fox News trickery, this story appeared on CNN, a cable network that's quickly becoming about as relevant as Fine Living and MaverickTV. At least those channels are interesting, I can't say the same for CNN.

Look, even I'll admit Obama can be overly wordy and downright boring at times, but the guy's intelligence is never something I worry about. He's a well-reasoned, considerate thinker who considers all information before just jumping to a flippant decision. But this line of criticism is particularly silly because after 8 years of George Bush, I figured we'd want a President who could speak in a complete, coherent sentence. I mean, seriously, would you rather have boring, wordy Professor Barry, or this bumbling moron representing us to the rest of the free world?



Bush was folksy though, and Conservatives Americans love "folksy". I guess an Honest Tea drinking, arugula eating, chain smoking guy like Obama just isn't regular enough for us. Nope, want folksy. Give us folksy.

Seriously, is this who we want representing us?!?



Uh, I'll take Boring Kenyan Guys for $200, Alex.

Seriously, CNN. Get it together.

Question: Is Obama too darn smart and professorial? Does he need to dumb it down to better appeal to "real Americans"? Would a Bush/Palin style of communication benefit him in any way?

Language guru: Obama speech too 'professorial' for his target audience [CNN]

When Should You Stop Resisting Arrest And Just Shut Up And Take The Cuffs?!?

I, for many, many reasons don't run stories on police brutality/beatdowns here at AB.com, but chief among them is the sentiment that I can seldom add anything more to the story than what's there. I mean, there's a video, there's someone catching a fair one from 5-0, and usually a bunch of gray matter. Trying to make some grand analysis on how well/badly police treat black folks based on a grainy 30 second cellphone video with little context is an exercise in futility. Besides, I'm much more concerned about all of the cases that don't just so happen to be conveniently caught on tape.

That said, I'm making an exception to the rule today to ponder a bigger question: When you're being arrested and you did nothing wrong, just how much (if at all) should you resist?

Ya'll know how much I hate excessive cut and pasting of news articles[1], and I would like each of you to hit the link below to read all the details, but here's the gist of a case study in When Keepin' It Resistant Goes Wrong.

Seattle police are investigating what they call an assault of an officer in South Seattle. However, a police officer is seen punching a 17-year-old girl in the face during the incident captured by a video camera on Monday.

The incident began when an officer spotted a man jaywalking, the man was some 15 feet away from a pedestrian overpass, police said. The officer was talking to the man when he saw four young women jaywalk across the same street at the same spot. The officer asked the women to step over to his patrol car, but the women were being "verbally antagonistic toward the officer," according to officials.

One of the women, later identified as a 19 year old, began to walk away from the scene despite the officer's instructions, prompting the officer to walk over to her and escort her back to his patrol car. The girl then "began to tense up her arm, and pull away from the officer while yelling at him," investigators said. The officer told the girl to place her hands on his patrol car, but she refused. When the officer tried to grab hold of her, "she pulled away and twisted, breaking free of the officer's grip several times," the blotter report said.

When the officer tried to handcuff the girl, another girl, this one 17 years old, intervened and placed her hands on the officer's arm, "causing the officer to believe she was attempting to physically affect the first subject's escape," police said. The officer pushed back the second girl, but the girl came back at him. The officer then punched her, police said. The officer then handcuffed the 19-year-old woman. Other officers arrived and helped handcuff the second girl.

Both teens were cited for jaywalking. The older suspect was booked into the King County Jail for investigation of obstructing an officer. The 17-year-old girl was booked into the Youth Service Center for investigation of assault of an officer. Nobody was injured during the incident, police said.

Okay, here's the video. The actual punch is around the :30 mark. Beware, this will probably be a little difficult to watch, but according to the police, nobody was seriously injured. I wonder what homegirl's jaw has to say about that.



There's a lot wrong here. Arresting someone for something as trivial as jaywalking strikes me as a particularly silly abuse of police power. This kinda nonsense does little to combat the public perception that many cops are too trigger happy, and don't care about the people they're paid to protect and serve.

On the flipside, come on sistas, f'real? If a cop asks you to stop and walk over to the car, you comply. You don't pop sh*t back to the policeman, no matter how much he might be in the wrong. And you sure as hell don't fight arrest while poppin' sh*t and telling the cop "f*ck you" repeatedly. These girls are lucky they only caught a one-piece and a case. They could very well be in a pine box, had the crossed the wrong cop on the wrong day.

He who has the gun (and badge) has the upper hand. Let them read you your rights and lawyer up.

For a good example of how to handle this, checkout the young brother in the background wearing the Mariners fitted and teal shirt. He tries his best to stop the girl in pink from intervening, but she breaks free and gets popped. Dude was like "f*ck it, I tried to tell her". Now that's a young man with some common freakin' sense.

I'm sure some of you are going to slam me just like you did during the whole Gates-gate situation last year. Many will say I'm being a coward for allowing cops to infringe upon my personal liberties, and teaching my kids a bad lesson by not standing up for myself. Fine.

But ask yourselves this: Had these two girls gotten a bullet to the temple as a result of this nonsense, what exactly would that have proven? Is losing your life, being permanently paralyzed, or in a best case scenario, getting a criminal record, to protect your right to cross the street in any manner you damn well please really worth it?

I think not.

What say ye'?

Question: What would you do? When you're being arrested and you did nothing wrong, just how much (if at all) should you resist? Got any real-life examples to share? Where's the fine line between standing up for your rights and dealing with cops in a manner that doesn't get you arrested or dead? Could these young ladies have handled this situation better? What should happen to the cop as a result of this incident?

Seattle officer punches girl in face during jaywalking stop [KOMO]

[1] Newspapers are now suing bloggers for quoting anything more than 3 paragraphs, BTW. Beware.

Sarah, Just Shut The F**k Up, Already.

This woman's 15 minutes ran out 20 minutes ago,. Why her followers are still making her rich when it's clear she's dumb as dirt is beyond me. At least Bill-O doesn't give her nonsense a free pass.



"the Dutch... they are known, in The Norwegian"

"known for dykes and for cleaning up water and for dealing with spills."

"with the proverbial can't even got a phonecall back"

Jesus, please, please, please let Miss Sarah declare for 2012. Watching her have to debate serious GOP candidates who've paid their dues is going to be must-see TV. I'm already clearing space on the Tivo.

Question: What's up with the media's (and my) continuing interest in this woman?!?

3 Play Thursday - Minnie Ripperton.

It's 3 Play Thursday. Today: classic soul singer Minnie Ripperton.

Minnie Ripperton is the textbook musical example of "what if?". In her truncated musical career, she delivered perhaps one of the most beautiful songs of all time, the classic "Loving You", which showcased her breathtaking 5-octave range. While many think she was a one-hit wonder, she'd go on to make other great music during a life that was shortened by breast cancer at the age of 31. If nothing else, Ripperton's discography provided a boatload of material for sampling. Listen to any one of the songs below, and you can start rattling off dozens of songs that looped these delightful bars.

Anyways, here's a trio of my favorite Minnie Ripperton tunes. Cop them headphones and go in.

"Loving You"



"Inside My Love"



"Memory Lane"



Question: What's your favorite Minnie Ripperton tune? How many songs can you count that sampled her work?

Game Seven's Tonight: Who Ya'll Got?!?

A few weeks ago, I predicted The Finals would go to a Game Seven. It was inevitable, given the parity between the two teams and the injury woes of Lakers' center Andrew Bynum. Honestly, I expected better games to this point, but most of them haven't really been all that competitive. Doesn't matter, David Stern wanted ratings, and Celtics/Lakers is Neilsen gold. Game Seven is just a cherry on top, and the fact that it's the first one in 16 years only shows you how big a deal this is.

So far this series has provided everything but a signature performance. Sure Derek Fisher's Game 3 heroics, and Ray Allen's 3 point spree were notable, but we've yet to really see a performance for the ages. Tonight, we shall witness that performance, as Kobe Bean Bryant will drop 40 some points to lead his team to victory.

That's just my prediction, what's yours?!?

Question: Who will win tonight's Game Seven and the 2010 NBA championship? Is Kobe due for a "for the ages" performance, or will the Celts find a way to pull it off?

AB.com Open Discussion: Anchor Babies.

Clearly, the state of Arizona is in full blown "eff' them Mexicans" mode right now. From the new immigration law that could lead to racial profiling, to removing Hispanic studies classes from high schools, to even whitewashing a freakin' mural, it's clear the state is in many ways living up to its reputation of intolerance. As if those incidents weren't enough, witness what's about to go down next in The Valley Of The Sun.

The author of Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is considering a new proposal that would block the children of illegal immigrants from becoming citizens if they were born in the United States.

Critics of the bill that Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce is weighing say it would fly in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

Pearce contended that the bill would not violate the 14th Amendment, saying only that “we would write it right.”

Previous efforts to get around the citizenship provisions in the amendment, including one in the late 19th century challenging the citizenship of the children of Chinese immigrants, have been unsuccessful.

Still, Gov. Jan Brewer and other Arizona Republicans have indicated their support.

“It is illegal to trespass into our country. It has always been illegal, and people have determined that they want to take that chance,” Brewer said in a recent interview with Tucson ABC affiliate KGUN. “They can take their children back with them.”

Well, say what you will about Jan Brewer, but at least the woman's upfront about her intentions. No need to wonder where you stand with her. Hopefully Arizona voters will show her where she stands this fall when re-election time comes.

For those unclear about what an "anchor baby" is, here's a bit of background info from The World's Most Accurate Encyclopedia.

"Anchor baby" is a term used by immigration reductionists in the United States to describe a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. It is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who as a U.S. citizen through the legal principle of jus soli, may facilitate immigration for relatives through family reunification. Family reunification, or family-based immigration, in the USA is a lengthy process and limited to categories prescribed by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The term "anchor baby" assumes that having a US citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family. This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his parents until he or she turns 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay. Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation. In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.

In the public debate surrounding "anchor babies", it is also frequently assumed that an "anchor baby" would be beneficial in deportation proceedings. Such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. Approximately 88,000 parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years. Federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.

Legalese aside, I can sorta understand where opponents of the whole "anchor baby" concept are coming from. On the surface, a person benefiting from an illegal action shouldn't be rewarded with citizenship simply because they have a child on US soil. While I've repeatedly said here that I think under the table cheap labor is the disease and cracking down on illegal immigrants is merely treating a symptom, reality is these folks cost taxpayers a grip in entitlements without paying their fair share in return. And that's wrong. Especially not when there are millions of people trying to become US citizens via the proper channels.

On the flipside, much like all the rest of the immigration-related sabre rattling in Arizona, I can't help but think that is yet more election year posturing by Brewer. Suddenly getting concerned about an issue when your job is up for grabs is a bit disingenuous, and since "anchor babies" seldom have prevented deportation proceedings in court, this just seems like more "Us vs Them" style politricks as usual.

What say ye'?!?

Question: Should having a child on foreign soil automatically make you a citizen? Is Arizona wrong for cracking down on "anchor babies" or is this just political posturing?

Arizona targets 'anchor baby' citizenship [Politico]

AB.com Guest Post - Obama's Wasted Race Card.

[Editor's Note: Ya'll know how I feel about Obama's delicate balancing act with being concerned and being angry. My main man RiPPa has his take here. As usual, show our guest some love you-know-where.]

I never thought I'd see the day that I actually agreed with Bill O'Reilly on something, and publicly admit it. Sure I might lose some of my street cred and a few ghetto passes for this one, but I think he's right. Yeah, I know that's strange coming from a veteran racism chaser such as myself. But defending the criticisms of Obama's lack of an emotional response to the disaster in the Gulf by throwing down the "Angry Black Man" race card is foolish. If anything, what it says, is that the president is weak and incapable on leading because he happens to be a black man:



I'm sorry, I'll defend Barack Obama from obvious racial attacks from the likes of assholes on the right. You know the stuff I've highlighted on this site for the last two years. However, I refuse to accept the argument that suggests that he cannot afford to show anger towards BP and their obvious incompetence, for fear of being seen or perceived as an angry black man. Especially when said black man defied all the odds to become America's first black president, who has taught us to take responsibility, and shed all excuses.

You see, when you throw out race cards when it's not necessary, you open up doors for slave catchers like the black dude in the video above to run his bullshit rhetoric that even Bill distanced himself from. Listen, America is angry about the fifty plus days of oil spewing into the gulf; and rightfully so. If Barack Obama stood up and showed his disgust about what's happening at the hands of BP, nobody white is going to stand up and criticize him or judge his behavior to be typical of black men, or any black person in America.

The sister on the panel has a valid point as does Jonathan Capehart in his article as far as the stigma of the angry black man or woman. However, in this case, I just don't see where being cautious of this is applicable. The truth is, we all want this crap in the gulf to come to and end; and if it means gettin' a little gully and snatching some collars, then so be it. It doesn't matter whether the president is black or white, what matters is that the American people feels a connection between themselves and the president.

The real irony of this is as Bill points out, president Obama has responded to his critics with a shift in tone and presentation. This is the very reason the administration is pulling out all the stops in regaining lost political capital, with his current tour of the gulf states today and tomorrow. But hey, don't tell that to the some of his strongest supporters who refuse to be critical of the man they voted for to run this country and lead the free world. A man who they themselves looked past color and voted for based on his capability to do a better job than his opponent.

Question: Could/Should Obama display a bit more anger at what's going on with the oil spill, or does he legitimately have to worry about being tagged with the "Angry Black Man" label?

The AB2010 Campaign Starts Today!!!

With the obvious exception of comments, blogging is really a thankless endeavor. Few of us do this for money (as if), and most bloggers I know have to sacrifice personal and family time to keep things running. Mix in a difficult Day Job, and sometimes I wonder how I manage to provide running commentary on this strange world we live in 7 days a week. But somehow, I do. Of course, none of this would make any sense if there weren't people willing to log in and read it, so as always, I thank you guys.

That said, it's also not like I don't have an ego that sometimes needs to be stroked. And to be perfectly honest, while I haven't actively pushed for my readers to nominate and vote for me in the annual Black Weblog Awards[1], I'd be lying if I said I wasn't slightly salty to watch the returns come in with my name conspicuously absent the last couple of seasons. So before I get all Susan Lucci up in this piece, I'm gonna have to ask ya'll for a favor.

The BWA's are accepting nominations for Best Blog in a number of different categories from now till mid-July. Please don't wait till the last minute to go vote, because as we all know, that sometimes results in some very strange outcomes.

Word to Alvin Greene.

The process is simple, head over there and nominate me (or your other 2nd favorite blogger) for something, anything. Actual voting (this is essentially the primary) begins in August, I'll hit ya'll up again when we cross that bridge.

Thanks.

-Jay

[1] I know, I know. I've won one of these already, back in AB.com's first year, so it's not like I'm on some Karl Malone/Charles Barkley "never got a raing" sh*t. Still, I want more, so nominate me already.

To Weave, Or Not To Weave?!?

As a black man married to a black woman, I probably know a lot more about hair than a straight man I probably should. Since I didn't grow up with any sisters, the whole concept of black women and their hair was dead to me until AverageSis and I got hitched, and over the past decade, I've forgotten far more about the subject that most men probably know.[1] And chief among this massive bank of knowledge is how to tell what's a weave and what's not.

Since my wife has "good hurr", and can grow it down her back with relative ease (although, I should note, it's been very short for the past 6 months or so, and I love it), she's never rocked a weave since I've known her. But since she often has her hairdresser come by the house to do her "do", and I've got a keen ear, I know all about tracks, glue, edges, etc.

One common misconception is that women rock weaves solely for length. Not always true. Sometimes it's just about volume, be it on the top of the head, or just fuller hair down the back. Essence.com recently took to the streets to see if brothas could really tell what's real and what's fake.



Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with a woman wearing a weave, as long as it's a good one. If you can't grow it, why not buy it? It's not like this is a purely black phenomenon either: prolly 90% of the white women you see in movies, on TV, or reading the news have a lil' Yaki of their own. Oddly though, if you Google Image Search the term "hair weave", you get nothing but page after page of sistas.

Where Is Rebb'n Al?!?

My only qualm is a bad weave. When I can see your tracks, if the grade of the weave and your own hair are so obviously different, and if you've got anything that looks like whatever the hell that is on Brandy's head, you might wanna consider rockin' a natural. Seriously.[2]

If all this sounds incredibly sexist, then feel free to hand me a cyber-kick in the nads just for good measure.

Question: Fellas, what do you think? Do you prefer women with their own hair, or does a weave work, so long at it's well done? Ladies, assuming you've worn one before, did you see a difference in how men approached when you've worn a weave?

[1] Too bad we only had boys. All this knowledge is going to waste, I prolly coulda done some wicked hair braiding.

[2] Yeah, I know, Brady wears a lacefront. Save the comments.

Poll Position: Kobe Needs Some Help.

Like many of ya'll, I've been watching these NBA Finals, and while I'm not a Laker fan by any means, I'm pulling for them cause I really don't care for the Celtics at all. I ran a poll for the past week or so asking who ya'll thought would win this year's title. The results are pretty inconclusive, as has been the series to this point.
With the series sitting at 3-2 and the Lakers on the brink of elimination tonight, your guess is as good as mine about how this series could end. But a few things stand out.

Where's Kobe's Help?!? - We already knew not to expect sh*t from Ron Artest (although he's done a decent job on Paul Pierce), but what's up with the rest of the Lakers. Pau Gasol has regressed. Derek Fisher helped win Game 3, but otherwise, Rajon Rondo has eaten his lunch. Andrew Bynum is injured and hurts more than he helps. The one that married the Kardashian looks like he'd rather be on E! than the court. Seriously, if Kobe's gotta go for 40 tonight (which he could), the Lakers are toast.

The Celtics Bench Is Better - Who figured Lil' Nate and Big Baby would be playing crunchtime minutes. Rasheed Wallace is defending the post and those Robert Horry 3's are finally falling. Tony Allen is making Kobe work. Who saw this coming?

Change The Format Back, Please! - I hate this 2-3-2 format with a passion, and David Stern should change it. There's really no point. Teams travel in AirForce-1 level accommodations, so travel shouldn't be an excuse. How dumb is it to reward the team with the lesser record by giving them a 3 game stretch at home?

Still, The Lakers Will Prevail - As I told ya'll before, supporting cast or not, Kobe is in Dynasty-building mode right now, and nobody is going to stop him. I see an easy Lakers win tonight, followed by an epic Game 7 which will probably be the most watched NBA game of all time. Expect greatness from Kobe, we're talking 50 point for-the-ages Kobe in Game 7.

Question: How can the Lakers get back in this series? What happened to Kobe's supporting cast?

Name That Sample - "A Night in Tunisia"

Name That Sample is simple: I play the original song, you tell me who sampled it. Winner gets a day's supply of Cyber CapriSuns™. As always, no Googling! Google is for losers.



This classic tune by Miles Davis & Charlie Parker has only been sampled once to my knowledge. After all these years of wondering where it came from, I stumbled across it the other day.

Difficulty Level: Easy like Sunday Mooannn'in'.

Question: Did you know this was the song sampled for the mystery tune before now?

Vince Young Has Waaay Too Much School Spirit.

As much of a black eye as the NBA gets for being full of thugs and miscreants, it always puzzles me that "America's Sport", the NFL, seldom gets lumped in the same bucket. Sure, there's the occasional bout of dogfighting and a star quarterback might take it!!! fondle an innocent co-ed in a nightclub bathroom stall every now and then, but the NFL's PR folks are savvy enough with spin to prevent this from becoming the dominant narrative about their league.

Meanwhile, The Association is reduced to those lame NBA Cares™ PSAs, which oddly, always seem to feature only black and Hispanic kids, even in Utah.



Could someone explain this? Aren't white kids supposed to want to be like Kobe Bean too? I'm sure this was also part of Dr. King's Dream.

Anyways, watching former Texas star Vince Young's dizzying Sugar to Sh*t to Sugar career arc has been puzzling. The guy once looked like the next Randall Cunningham, then he looked like Richie Cunningham. Demoted in favor of the abominable Kerry Collins, parked on the bench, then handed the reigns again for the Titans this year, it looked like Young was finally getting it all together.

Then, this sh*t happened.

Police cited NFL quarterback Vince Young in the assault of a man who disrespected the University of Texas Longhorns inside a northwest Dallas strip club early Sunday morning.

Surveillance video shows the former University of Texas star and Club Onyx employee Creiton Kinchen, 45, exchanging words for a few minutes before the scuffle in a small, crowded office area about 3:30 a.m.

At one point Kinchen, who police believe is from Oklahoma, can be seen flashing an upside-down "Hook 'em Horns" hand sign at Young.

"There was a conversation going on between Mr. Young and several people inside the office," said Dallas police Lt. Craig Miller, acting commander of the Crimes Against Persons Division. "One of the [club employees] makes a gesture contradictory to the University of Texas, the 'Hook 'em' sign upside down. This obviously made Mr. Young upset."

Kinchen suffered a cut lip. Police believe alcohol was a factor in the feud. Young, who was not arrested, faces up to a $500 fine on the Class C misdemeanor charge.

Here's the video, which pretty much removes any slim alibi Young might have had.



It's silly that some in the media are calling this a fight over alma maters. As if Vince Young majored in anything other than passing and running at UT. This was clearly the often lethal combination of brown liquor, money, skrippers, late hours, and ghetto posturing. Young should be lucky he only got a slap on the hand from the cops.

The NFL, given how image conscious it is, and the number of pro ballers who've had strip club run-ins in recent years, is prolly about to deliver a suspension. But is it fair?

Question: How much of a suspension should Vince Young's N*gga Moment warrant from the NFL front office? Given the numbers of arrests per capita, why does the NFL largely avoid being labeled as a league of malcontents and primadonnas, while the NBA can't seem to shake those very labels?

Young cited in assault at club after employee disparages Horns [DallMornNews]

Is "Ladies' Night" Sexist?!?

I don't club anymore, but back in my single days when I did, I always used to love Ladies' Night.



The reasons are simple: free admission + free/discounted drinks for women = more ladies. I'm hardly the drink buying type, so more women loaded off their own money/free drinks is even better.

Of course, in the most legalistic thinking, something like Ladies' Night is kinda silly. Purposely giving a perk to another group and excluding another from getting such a perk is textbook discrimination. But come on. For all the reasons I mentioned above, only a gameless d-bag would have a problem with the concept of extra drunk women up in the club.

Apparently, the great state of Minnesota disagrees.

It's a bastion of bar culture: "Ladies' Night," staged to attract female customers by cutting their drink prices and cover charges.

It's also illegal gender discrimination, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

The department charged this week that by having ladies' nights, five Twin Cities establishments denied men the right to "full and equal enjoyment" of their businesses.

In 1994, Gators, a now-defunct Mall of America club, resolved a human rights case by paying less than $500 to Steve Horner of Apple Valley. He had complained of having to pay a cover charge on ladies' night, and the department said the club discriminated against him.

I gotta tell ya', this is just silly, and whoever this Steve Horner guy is, needs his ass whipped just on GP for messin' up the fun for everybody else. So, I say this is officially a case of too much gubb'ment intrusion.

On the other hand, with women on the come-up professionally, outpacing men in levels of education, and quickly approaching them in the earning power, maybe the ole' Ladies' Night concept is a relic of the past that needs to go away. What say ye'?

Question: Is Ladies' Night sexist, or is this one of the rare occasions where a discriminatory practice benefits all involved parties? If you think Ladies' Night is okay, would you be okay with a Guys' Night, where men get in free and women had to pay?

Ladies' night not all right, state says [MinnStarTrib]

Harriett Tubman Should Have Left You Behind.

Are these chicks really rhymin' about gettin' paid for the nookie, or am I just missing something here?!? I don't have enough time to count all the things wrong with this video, maybe you can make your own list, you-know-where. Go at it.



* Hat Tip To C&D

Is Alvin Greene The Real Life "Distinguished Gentleman"?!?

Although I absolutely hated it when it came out, one of my all-time favorite (okay, maybe Top 200) movies is the Eddie Murphy flick The Distinguished Gentleman. In it, Eddie plays a small-time Miami con-man who capitalizes on the shared name of a recently deceased US Congressman to get himself elected and sent to DC. If you haven't ever seen this, it's still on cable, likely on one of those 67 Starz channels you never tune to. Heck, the whole movie is over on YouTube if you wanna get familiar.



Anyways, not that South Carolina isn't already pockmarked with enough political scandals this year, but there's another "strange as fiction" story brewing after Tuesday's Democratic primaries.

Alvin M. Greene never gave a speech during his quixotic campaign to become this state's Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate. The mystery man of South Carolina politics didn't launch a Web site or hire consultants or plant lawn signs. There's only $114 in his campaign bank account, he says, and the only check he ever wrote was to cover his filing fee.

Indeed, in the course of a rambling, repetitive and frequently inchoate three-hour interview, this jobless military veteran could not name a single specific thing he'd done to campaign for lofty political office. Yet, more than 100,000 South Carolina Democrats voted for Greene on Tuesday, handing him a resounding victory over a well-funded ex-judge who has served four terms in the state legislature.

"I'm the Democratic Party nominee," he says. "I mean, I mean, the people have spoken. The people of South Carolina have spoken. The people of South Carolina have spoken. We have to be pro-South Carolina. The people of South Carolina have spoken. We have to be pro-South Carolina."

Things have gotten even stranger since Greene's startling win. First, the Associated Press reported that Greene faces pending felony obscenity charges for allegedly showing pornography to a University of South Carolina student. Then, the state's Democratic Party chairman called on him to withdraw from the general election. He's been accused of being a Republican plant and listened to his victory explained away as a fluke that resulted from his name coming before his opponent's in the alphabet.

All of this barely fazes Greene. He says he has no intention of withdrawing and is challenging his opponent, the incumbent Republican Jim DeMint, to a September debate.

Okay, so it's not quite like that Eddie Murphy movie, but it's just as freakin' weird. Here's Greene, explaining why his bid for US Senate is real, and why he ain't droppin' out.



I normally find Keith Olbermann to be an obnoxious d-bag, but he actually won some points with me by showing rare constraint in dealing with Greene, who clearly is a few footlongs shy of a Quiznos.

This story just ain't addin' up. How an unemployed cat living in his father's basement can scrounge up 10 stacks for a longshot political campaign, yet doesn't actually campaign at all, then ends up winning the Democratic bid in a landslide over a freakin' judge is beyond me. Of course, the LameStream™ media is digging up every bit of dirt they can on this cat. They checked his RushCard™ and saw he's barely got $100 to his name. Then they found a pRon charge that looks real bad. Clearly they think this guy's a hustler, and they're out to get him. File that one away the next time you hear someone complaining about liberal media bias.

Word to Joe The Plumber.

Conspiracy theorists are saying the state GOP paid for Greene's campaign registration fee, and given the open nature of Tuesday's election, somehow got 100,000 people to vote for him to keep a more formidable Democratic opponent off the ticket in the Fall. If true, this would constitute an all-new low for the South Carolina GOP, and that's saying quite a bit.

Anyway this shakes out, I smell a Grand Hu$tle and something tells me Mr. Greene will be doing a perp walk real soon.

Enjoy your 15 minutes, Alvin.

Question: What the heck is really going on here? How did Greene come up with $10k to enter a campaign when he can't even afford his own Froot Loops? Is the GOP behind this nonsense? Should the SC state Democratic Party be asking Greene to step down, if he legitimately won the election? Would people be as suspicious of Greene if he was a white dude?

S.C.'s Alvin Greene a mystery man despite becoming Democratic Senate nominee [WashPost]