• Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 7:06 AM

    Race in America: Plus ca change…

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    Screen Shot 2016-01-29 at 9.46.29 PM

    The contamination of drinking water in Flint, Michigan, has so outraged community advocates that they now pose a powerful question: Was the city neglected because it is mostly black and about 40% poor?

    Several advocates say yes. They charge that Flint residents are victims of ‘environmental racism’ – that is, race and poverty factored into how Flint wasn’t adequately protected and how its water became contaminated with lead, making the tap water undrinkable.

    (CNN, January 28, 2016)

  • Friday, January 29, 2016 at 5:51 AM

    White Actor Playing Michael Jackson Exploits His Self-Hate

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    September 2001 was allegedly witness to one of the strangest road trips in history: Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor, and Marlon Brando driving from New York to Ohio in an attempt to get home [to California] following the 9/11 terrorist attacks…

    The saga is now being dramatised in a one-off special for Sky Arts, starring Joseph Fiennes as Jackson, Stockard Channing as Taylor, and Brian Cox as Brando.

    (London Guardian, January 26, 2016)

    Unsurprisingly, this casting of a white actor to play Michael Jackson has incited viral outrage. Never mind that Michael would probably have been every bit as flattered by a white actor playing him as Rachel Dolezal would be by a black actress playing her.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-28 at 4.56.44 PMOf course, the outrage her “passing” incited has already been lost in the black hole of hashtag protests. No doubt the outrage this casting incited will be in short order too.

    But at least Rachel is honest enough to admit she’s doing all she can to look black because she does not want to be identified as white. By contrast, Michael maintained the charade of saying, I’m black and I’m proud.

    Except that he never looked more dishonest, if not delusional, than when he said this during that famous 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey.

    Oprah questioned him about reports that he wanted a white child to play his younger self in a Pepsi commercial. Michael protested that the very thought of this was “stupid … ridiculous … horrifying … crazy.”

    article-0-0583B1CD000005DC-754_468x411He protested too much, methinks. Not least because those words unwittingly described the racial metamorphosis Michael was undergoing at the time, which would soon see him get “whiter than white” and even produce white children to play his own … in real life.

    The most manifestly troubling aspect of Michael’s personal life was his role as a father. In addition to many other Freudian questions, I wonder about the psychological impact on his three lily-white children of having this black man (notwithstanding his appearance) insist that he is their biological father.

    Just imagine the psychological defect (self-hate?) or physical dysfunction that led Michael to choose the sperm of a white man, instead of using his own (or that of a black man), to inseminate the (white) surrogates who gave birth to his designer babies.

    (“Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, Is Dead,” The iPINIONS Journal, June 27, 2009)

    Frankly, it was as plain as the nose on his face that Michael hated features that made him look black. Perhaps that’s why his fake nose kept falling off every time he lied about this. In any event, the racial self-hate he personified evoked in me sadness bordering on pity, so much so that I still find it impossible to listen to his music with unbridled joy.

    Sociologists have proffered the notion of “complex personhood” to explain the psychopathology of blacks bleaching themselves white. But, no matter how nuanced or complicated the psychology that causes this pathology, there’s no denying the racial abnegation involved.

    No great poet has ever been afraid of being himself…

    But this is the mountain standing in the way of any true Negro art in America – this urge within the race toward whiteness, the desire to pour racial individuality into the mold of American standardization, and to be as little Negro and as much American [i.e. white] as possible…

    I am ashamed … for the colored artist who runs from the painting of Negro faces … because he fears the strange unwhiteness of his own features.

    (Langston Hughes, “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain,” 1926)

    joseph_mjMind you, given that Michael cast a white man to father his children, one can hardly blame producers for casting a white man to play him. They clearly hope the casting’s the thing wherein they’ll catch viewers for this macabre farce.

    Incidentally, it bears pointing out that September 2001 was allegedly witness to an even stranger trip: the FBI helping 14 Saudis flee from Kentucky to Saudi Arabia following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This, I respectfully submit, is far more worthy of dramatization.

    Meanwhile, MLK famously preached that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Michael famously sang that “it don’t matter if you’re black or white.”

    But it clearly mattered to him. What’s more, he practically compelled us to judge him not by the content of his character, but by the color of his (bleached) skin.

    Not to mention that if you’re black or white has always mattered. And we did not need #BlackLivesMatter or #OscarsSoWhite to throw this into stark relief.

    That said, it’s not the artistic license producers are taking that troubles me. After all, if a black man can play Thomas Jefferson in the hit Broadway musical Hamilton, surely a white man can play Michael Jackson in a TV tragicomedy.

    Except that Jefferson had no psychological defect that made him want to be black, notwithstanding his sexual penchant for black female slaves. Therefore, the producers of that musical cannot be accused of wantonly exploiting the psychopathology of racial self-hate. The same cannot be said of the producers of this farce.

    Related commentaries:
    Rachel Dolezal
    MJ: the kid’s not my son

  • Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 6:52 AM

    British Inquiry Finds Putin Ordered London Hit. No Sh*t

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    Last week, the British Government published the long-awaited findings of its inquiry into the 2006 hit on ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko. No doubt the most sensational finding is that Russian President Vladimir Putin had to have ordered FSB (formerly KGB) agents to execute it:

    Mr. Putin is likely to have signed off the poisoning of Mr. Litvinenko with polonium-210 in part due to personal ‘antagonism’ between the pair, it said.

    Home Secretary Theresa May said his murder was a ‘blatant and unacceptable’ breach of international law.

    (BBC, January 21, 2016)

    Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 8.27.22 AMBut there’s something to be said for the very British way Putin’s hitmen, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovturn, killed Litvinenko: they invited him to afternoon tea, and then laced his cuppa with poison.

    Never mind its copycat nature. After all, any student of the deadly art of spy craft had to have recognized similarities with the 1978 hit on Bulgarian defector Geogi Markov.

    In that case, the KGB and Bulgarian secret police conspired to have a hitman use a poison-tipped umbrella to pin prick Markov while he waiting for a bus on Waterloo Bridge. Clearly, only poisoning a target at afternoon tea could be more British than that. But I digress.

    Sir Robert Owen, chairman of the Inquiry, published the findings in a report on January 21. Unsurprisingly, the outrage it incited in Britain was matched by the contempt it incited in Russia.

    As it happened, I telegraphed this outrage and contempt, respectively, almost ten years ago. Here, in part, is what I wrote in “Putin Probably Ordered the Hit. But No One Will Do Anything about It,” November 28, 2006.


    The prevailing suspicion is that Putin targeted Litvinenko because he was becoming too credible in his criticisms of the Kremlin. Litvinenko fled for his life in 2000 after accusing the FSB of killing over 300 Russians in 1999 in a Machiavellian scheme to frame and discredit Chechen rebels.

    Then he began publishing the findings of his high-profile investigation into what many suspect was a Putin-ordered hit on journalist Anna Politkovskaya last month. She herself was publishing too many inconvenient truths about that ‘Chechen conspiracy.’ Putin had had enough of them both…

    Nonetheless, with all due respect to Scotland Yard and Interpol, no matter how probative the circumstantial evidence of Putin’s guilt, neither he nor his putative hitmen will ever be held to account for this murder. And everyone knows it.

    I coined the term “Putinization” to describe the way Putin has been ruling Russia for years more like a criminal enterprise than a democratic country…

    russiaspye-796848Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Putin would order the assassination of a spy who, for all intents and purposes, he considered not only an insufferable critic but also a traitor. Nor should it surprise anyone if/when this case results in terminal frustration for Litvinenko’s loved ones (namely his avenging wife and son) and patented futility for British authorities.

    However, if one appreciates that Putin seems determined to emulate former Russian strongman Joseph Stalin, his ordering the assassination of these two journalists would seem relatively benign. After all, Stalin ordered the assassination of at least one million Russians (at home and abroad) and threw another 18 million in the Gulag for political offenses.

    putinvilniusc-789876Of course, it’s in the nature of totalitarian leaders like Stalin and Putin to manage their public image the way they manage sycophantic bureaucrats. Therefore, it should also come as no surprise that Putin would do all he could to intimidate critics he cannot kill.

    In this regard, here is how he warned the British and others against drawing reasonable conclusions about his involvement in Litvinenko’s murder:

    I hope the British authorities won’t fuel groundless political scandals… It is a great pity that even such tragic things as human death are used for political provocations. As I know, the medical certificate of British doctors does not indicate that he died a violent death. It does not say that. Hence there is no reason for such talk at all.

    (New York Times, November 25, 2006)

    His perversely proud reference to the insidious rather than violent method his assassins used to kill Litvinenko speaks volumes, even if unwittingly. Alas, I suspect Putin will feel obliged to say no more.


    Moscow_3215206cBut if ever there were an assassination worthy of “such talk,” it happened last year. That’s when Putin allegedly ordered the most brazen hit of his rule. And the four bullets in the back of this target made it a very violent death indeed.

    Boris Nemtsov, a leading opponent and former deputy prime minister was gunned down in Moscow just a few hours after a radio interview in which he denounced Vladimir Putin’s ‘mad, aggressive’ policies…

    Nemtsov, 55, was shot in the shadow of the Kremlin shortly before midnight on Friday in a murder that bore all the hallmarks of a contract killing.

    (London Telegraph, February 28, 2015)  

    I duly lamented in “Fated Assassination of Russian Opposition Leader Boris Nemtsov,” March 1, 2015.

    On the other hand, this Inquiry report also found that a salacious “personal antagonism” motivated Putin to kill Litvinenko. Here is how the London Daily Mail highlighted this angle on January 22:

    Alexander Litvinenko claimed that Vladimir Putin had been caught on camera having sex with young boys…

    Litvinenko made the accusation after the president was pictured kissing the stomach of a five-year-old boy during a walkabout in the Kremlin in June 2006…

    The inquiry report describes how the dissident claimed Mr. Putin was a ‘paedophile’.

    kiss_4Mind you, I remember thinking when I saw that picture that, even though strange, there was nothing sexual about it. And it’s not as if Litvinenko had not already given Putin more than enough reasons to kill him.

    But I can see how this accusation could have been the triggering event, perverting as it did the macho, he-man image Putin always cultivated. Sure enough, Litvinenko was dead within five months of making it.

    All the same, nothing in this report challenges what I wrote 10 years ago. What’s more, despite the sensational reporting and expressions of outrage it incited, the British government still seems loath to even attempt to hold Putin to account. Hell, it did all it could to prevent the Inquiry in the first place.

    Signs are the British state may not be keen at this moment to further escalate tensions with Russia, particularly because of Moscow’s role in the Middle East and the Syria crisis.

    (BBC, January 21, 2016)

    imagesThe aforementioned home secretary betrayed the government’s intent in this respect. Specifically, she made a parliamentary show of freezing the nominal assets of the alleged assassins, while uttering nary a word about Putin, the man who ordered the assassination.

    Granted, anyone who has seen any James Bond film knows that the British themselves are avid practitioners of the deadly art of spy craft. I don’t mean to make light of Litvinenko’s death. But it would not surprise me to learn that British leaders have ordered similar assassinations abroad, and that the host government did even less about it.

    To be sure, the findings in this report are as devastating as they are unimpeachable. Yet Putin was right. There was no reason for such talk of legal consequences, especially given that even I knew from the outset that it would amount to sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Related commentaries:
    Putin ordered hit
    Hit on Boris Nemtsov

  • Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:49 AM

    NFL Conference Championship Sunday: Hail, Broncos! Hail, Panthers!

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    Real Football fans will tell you that the most exciting day of the NFL season is Conference Championship Sunday, not Super Bowl Sunday — as casual fans might say.

    (“Historic NFL Championship Sunday,” The iPINIONS Journal, January 22, 2007)


    The media hyped the American Conference Championship (AFC) game between the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos as a bout between their respective quarterbacks, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-24 at 9.17.43 PM

    Arguably, Brady and Manning have been the two best quarterbacks in the NFL over the past 16 years. They’ve met 17 times over that period, with Brady besting Manning 11-6 in regular-season matchups. More significantly, going into this game, they were tied 2-2 in the playoffs. But Brady has led his team to 4 Super Bowl wins, whereas Manning has led his to only 1.

    IFTo be fair, even I was more interested in which alleged cheater would prosper than which team would win.

    After all, Brady remains dogged by credible allegations that he masterminded the infamous Deflategate cheating caper. I reveled in the deflation of his all-American ego in “NFL on Brady’s Appeal: He Cheated, then Lied, and then Obstructed Justice,” July 29, 2015. And Manning remains dogged by credible allegations that he fueled his play over the past few years with performance-enhancing drugs.

    It just so happens I commented on their improbable bond as cheaters a few weeks ago in “Steroids: Peyton Manning Caught on the ‘Dark Side,” December 29, 2015.


    Not just die-hard fans but even seasoned analysts are rushing to defend Manning. Except that they are defending him by denouncing Charlie Sly as if his name alone should discredit everything he said. What, pray tell, do you suppose they would have insinuated about the credibility of ‘Deep Throat’ in real time?

    Mind you, I get it: Finding out that Peyton Manning cheated in Football is rather like finding out that Jimmy Carter cheated on his wife. Never mind that having Tom “Deflategate” Brady defend Manning’s professional integrity is rather like have Vladimir Putin defend Bashir Assad’s democratic values…

    Manning is playing out the final year or two of his career. Notably, a career in Football that has been as celebrated and accomplished as Armstrong’s was in Cycling. It’s a shame his now seems fated to end in a similar fall from grace. What fateful symmetry….


    Perversely, Manning could now vindicate this symmetry and seal their disreputable bond. All he has to do is win this year’s Super Bowl with steroids dogging him, the way Brady won last year’s with Deflategate dogging him….

    That said, this AFC game did not live up to the hype. In fact, the highlights of the first three quarters all featured Manning and Brady scrambling for their lives. And, unlike Cam Newton below, neither of them is known for exciting fans as much with his running as with his passing.

    308B487500000578-3414908-image-a-52_1453679582866Granted, the last four minutes of the fourth quarter almost made up for the rest of the game. No doubt fans of both teams were experiencing heart palpations as the Patriots seemed poised to pull off a miraculous comeback. This was highlighted by two improbable fourth-down conversions and a touchdown with less than a minute to go, to pull within 2 points.

    Only a failed two-point attempt stopped them from sending this game into overtime, during which I suspect a thoroughly demoralized Broncos team would’ve simply ceded victory to the Patriots.

    But, as indicated above, I couldn’t have cared any less which team won. It turned out to be the Broncos by the hair on their chinny chin chin, 20-18.

    As of the QB matchup: Manning passed for 176 yards with 2 touchdowns; and rushed for 11. Brady passed for 310 yards with 1 touchdown, 2 interceptions; and rushed for 13.


    Instead of hyping the AFC game so much, the media should have hyped this National Conference Championship (NFC) game between the Carolina Panthers and Arizona Cardinals much more.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-24 at 11.26.35 PM

    Sure enough, Cam Newton and the Panthers wasted little time showing why: They scored almost as much in the first quarter as Manning and the Broncos scored all game, jumping to a 17-0 lead over Carson Palmer and the Cardinals. And Newton showed why he’s as good a passer as any quarterback and (almost) as good a rusher as any running back in the league.

    As it turned out, it was mostly icing on the cake for the Panthers and humble pie for the Cardinals for the remaining three quarters. But I exercised my mercy rule and switched to Doc Martin on PBS after the Panthers went up 24-7 with 2 minutes left in the first half.

    -cff61795783b50eeThey ended up winning 49-15, scoring the most points in championship history.

    As for the QB matchup: Newton passed for 335 yards with 2 touchdowns, 1 interception; and rushed for 47 with 2 touchdowns. Palmer passed for 235 yards with 1 touchdown, 4 interceptions; and rushed for 0.

    Mind you, the Panthers should be playing out the most storied season in NFL history. But a funny thing happened on the way to the Super Bowl:

    Gone was the Carolina Panthers’ 18-game regular-season winning streak, which dated to last season. Gone was their quest to be just the second team to finish a regular season 16-0.

    [T]heir pursuit of history, to potentially join the 1972 Miami Dolphins as the only unbeaten Super Bowl champion, came to an abrupt end with the 20-13 loss to the Atlanta Falcons.

    (USA Today, December 28, 2015)

    Their only pursuit now is for annual Super Bowl glory. I’m rooting for them to win it when they meet the Broncos for the Golden Super Bowl at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California on February 7.


    Go Panthers!

    Super Bowl commercials

    That said, I would be remiss not to comment on the annual hype surrounding Super Bowl commercials — for which companies are paying $5 million for a 30-second spot this year. Frankly, we are treated to so many previews that, by game time, they hold about as much interest as those eye-rolling commercials for erectile dysfunction.

    super-bowl-commercials-2012-header.jpgI gather companies release them early to become trending topics online. Except that, like most topics on social media, people suck them up and spit them out in a viral flash.

    Not so long ago, even die-hard fans waited with bated breath to see them air during the game; and the best ones trended, in real life, for days and weeks thereafter. These days, most people just see them as opportunities to go to the toilet.

    Which raises the question: Why pay millions to run a commercial on TV during the Super Bowl, only to have people ignore it, when you can pay pittance to release it online during Super Bowl week, and generate viral interest? Surely it’s only a matter of time before this fact dawns on companies.

    Then, of course, there’s this: I have watched many funny, even interesting Super Bowl commercials over the years. But none has ever moved me to purchase the product being advertised. You…?

    NOTE: My team is the Philadelphia Eagles. But the only thing that distinguished them this season was firing head coach Chip Kelly before the final game of regular-season play. Hope springs eternal.

    Related commentaries:
    Peyton Dark Side

  • Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 7:17 AM

    Snowmageddon II: We Survived!

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 1.54.13 PM

    Screen Shot 2016-01-23 at 8.04.22 PM

  • Friday, January 22, 2016 at 6:44 AM

    #OscarsSoWhite! Duh. But Boycott? Nah.

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    The world is all atwitter about the “lily-white Oscars.” Because, for the second consecutive year, the 20 nominees for best performances are all white.


    I commented on this racial snub when it happened last year. And, frankly, everything I wrote back then remains as relevant today. Most notably, that commentary, titled “Oscar Snubs Selma. Good,” January 16, 2015, includes the following excerpt.


    The increasingly popular Huffington Post, which too often panders to blacks, promptly blared – “White Gold: Whitest Oscars since ’98” – as if blacks are entitled to a quota of nominations, regardless of the merit of their work.

    You’d never know that, just last year, this same Academy, whose over 6,000 voting members are 94 percent white (77 percent male, and average age 62), not only nominated blacks in most major categories, but also awarded the most-coveted Oscar, for best picture, to a “black movie,” 12 Years a Slave.


    In fact, members went beyond tokenism by awarding an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress to black Lupita Nyong’o and another for Best Adapted Screenplay to black John Ridley.

    Frankly, it has become farcical to watch race-baiting activists, like Reverend Al Sharpton, perform racial tantrums every time this lily-white Academy fails to meet some de facto quota of black nominations.

    It would’ve occurred to well-intentioned civil rights activists long ago to negotiate behind closed doors to better integrate the Academy. Failing that, genuine black pride would’ve compelled them to simply establish their own version of the Oscars. They could’ve named their Academy Award of Merit, the Leroys – given that there’s an ‘Uncle Leroy’ in practically every black family…

    Folklore has it that Margaret Herrick, the Academy director during the 1930s, had an uncle named Oscar whose features seemed to have been used to mold the famous golden statue. Further, that this resemblance inspired Academy staff to begin calling their Award of Merit, the Oscars — in homage to her uncle.


    All the same, I would be remiss not to comment on this year’s racial snub, especially given the backlash Jada Pinkett Smith and Spike Lee set off.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 4.45.30 PMSmith triggered it Monday when she called for a boycott of the Oscars. Spike Lee seconded that (e)motion by declaring his intent to be otherwise entertained.

    Except that Lee betrayed how ill-advised this was when he began insisting, just 36 hours later, that he never called for a boycott. Suffice it to know that there’s a reason the mainstream media reported on his and Jada’s statements as follows:

    Invoking the Rev. Martin Luther King’s legacy on his birthday, two prominent African-Americans announced Monday that they will boycott this year’s Academy Awards over a lack of diversity among nominees.

    Filmmaker Spike Lee and actress Jada Pinkett Smith posted separate messages Monday saying they would not be attending the February 28 ceremony. The Oscars have drawn criticism a after an all-white slate of major nominees was announced Thursday for the second year in a row.

    (CNN, January 19, 2016)

    Meanwhile, George Clooney is leading a viral chorus of stars venting outrage about Hollywood “going in the wrong direction.” Significantly, though, none of them is saying anything about boycotting the Oscars. And that’s a good thing.

    After all, boycotting the Academy Awards because they’re so white is rather like boycotting the BET Awards because they’re so black. More to the point, blacks boycotting the Academy Awards would have about as much impact as blacks boycotting the Republican National Convention.

    This is not the NBA, NFL, KFC, or Burger King – whose bottom line depends on blacks either playing or paying. Nobody will miss you. What’s more, I would not be at all surprised if the ironic impact of this backlash is that this year’s broadcast becomes the most watched in history.

    Not to mention that Lee and Smith do not inspire solidarity … the way MLK and Rosa Parks did. Instead, they race bait and alienate … the way Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters do.

    rs_1024x759-160119105858-1024.fresh-prince.cm.11916With respect to Smith, this was thrown into sharp relief when Janet Hubert took to social media to respond to her call. Hubert co-starred with her husband Will on the hit sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-1996). Here, in part, is what “Aunt Viv” said:

    Just because the world doesn’t go the way that you want it to go doesn’t mean that you can go out and then you start asking people to stand up and say we can overcome…

    You have a huge production company that you only produce your friends, your family and yourself…

    You are a part of the system that is unfair to other actors.

    (Huffington Post, January 19, 2016)

    Reports are that, in the early days of The Fresh Prince, Hubert lobbied Will to use his clout to get more pay per show for all cast members; you know, like actors on “White shows” do. According to her, he refused, saying in effect, I got mine, y’all get yours.

    Therefore, Hubert can be forgiven for acting like a woman (still) scorned, especially because this seems to be the first starring role she’s had since then. But there’s no denying the merit of her response. I, for one, believe her charge that Jada would not be calling for this boycott if Will had been nominated for Concussion – even if he were the only black nominated in any category.

    will-smith-gma-interview-oscars-controversyAs it happens, Will unwittingly betrayed their self-serving motivation during an interview with ABC’s News earlier today. He claimed that he’s joining his wife’s boycott because he’s concerned about the message all-white nominees sends to little black children.

    Which raises this obvious question: Why the hell wasn’t he concerned about this message last year? The obvious answer, of course, is that he had no skin in the game. As Hubert knows all too well, Will is only about getting his….

    With respect to Lee, I have condemned him over the years for the very kind of rash reaction to legitimate racial issues he demonstrated in this case. For example, I  refer you to “Spike Lee vs. Clint Eastwood Over No Blacks in Hollywood War Movies,” June 10, 2008. Enough said.

    Again, my commentary on last year’s snub was prescient and seemed pretty comprehensive. Yet here are brief comments on three subjects it did not cover:

    It’s the Movies, Stupid

    Given that Monday was the MLK holiday, it’s understandable that this backlash has been littered with allusions to the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955. But the proper corollary would be a boycott not of the Oscars, but of the movies that are so white.

    500fullI referred above to George Clooney taking a leading role in speaking out against this racial snub – as he is wont to do. Therefore, it might surprise you to learn that “MoviesSoWhite” include many that Clooney himself produced.

    Except that, if he’s comfortable casting his wedding of the century “so white,” it’s hardly surprising that he’d be equally so casting his movies as such:

    It’s just that Clooney is a vocal, proud, and celebrated Hollywood liberal. So, if even he could have a wedding party as lily-white as his apparently was, the sad fact is that the wedding hour on Saturday might be the second most segregated hour in America.

    After all, from Hollywood to Washington and even throughout Africa, no white celebrity appeared to have nurtured more cross-racial/cultural friendships than he. Yet, while it’s understandable that Barack Obama had far more pressing matters, it strains credulity that every one of his other black ‘friends’ was otherwise occupied.

    (“Clooney Nuptials Show Saturday Weddings as Segregated as Sunday Services,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 27, 2014)

    Given this, one could fairly assert that George Clooney venting outrage about the lack of blacks in Hollywood is like Donald Trump doing so about the lack of Hispanics in the Republican Party

    Still, it was Matt Damon who exposed the root cause of the Oscars being so white. It happened last September when he famously asserted that there’s nothing wrong with having no blacks in position to greenlight movies. He insisted that all would be h[o]nky dory, so long as white studio heads, producers, and directors make an effort to cast blacks in their films (as tokens?). #White Hollywood hypocrites?

    Oscar’s First Black President

    In theory, Cheryl Boone Isaacs becoming head of the Academy is even more remarkable than Barack Obama becoming president of the United States. To say nothing of how improbable it is for a black to head a major studio. More to the point, I fear her promise to “bring much-needed diversity to Hollywood” will prove even more feckless than Obama’s to bring much-needed civility to Washington.

    86th Annual Academy Awards - Oscar Foreign Language ReceptionReports are that Isaacs has proposed new rules to ensure noticeable and sustainable change by next year. But I can think of nothing more anathema to the artistic license and freedom that defines Hollywood than requiring Academy members to vote like North Korean bureaucrats.

    After all, the only way Isaacs can fulfill her promise is to impose a quota for black nominees, which only a rash fool like Lee would recommend.

    There’s also talk of increasing the number of nominees in each category. The expectation is that this would give black movies like Straight Outta Compton and black actors like Idris Elba a better shot at being nominated. But this would be tantamount to the farce of awarding “participation trophies,” which diminishes recognition of all achievement. Not to mention making a mockery of the real purpose of affirmative action.

    Again, human nature being what it is, the only way to seed and grow diversity at the Oscars is to ensure diversity at every stage in the filmmaking process. This will lead organically to the Academy reflecting the demographics more of the American people than a Connecticut country club. With all due respect to Isaacs, this cannot be done in one year. But the silver lining in this backlash is that it presents this year as an unprecedented seeding season for diversity in Hollywood.

    Oscar’s Black Host


    The pressure on comedians hosting the Oscars to be funny is tremendous even under the best of circumstances – as Seth MacFarlane found out to his eternal shame. Therefore, the pressure on Chris Rock, with the black cloud of this backlash hanging over his head, must be unbearable.

    First he had to deal with misguided calls to withdraw. Now he’s having to deal with race-based demands to use his platform as host to speak black truth to white power, which for many means cracking jokes about Hollywood being so white.

    Never mind that there’s nothing Rock can say that these white folks haven’t already heard. Ironically, no less a person than Spike Lee preempted him in this respect just months ago, albeit he was under no pressure to be funny.

    spike-lee-oscars-boycottThe occasion was the seventh annual Governors Awards, at which these same lily-white members of the Academy awarded Lee an honorary Oscar:

    Everybody in here probably voted for Obama but when I go to offices, I see no black folks except for the brother man at the security who checks my name off the list as I go into the studio. … So we can talk ‘yabba yabba yabba’ but we need to have some serious discussion about diversity and get some flavor up in this. …

    This industry is so behind sports it’s ridiculous.

    (E News, November 15, 2015)

    Really, what else is there for Rock to say – no matter how funny?

    Clearly, the entitled racism white liberals in Hollywood assume is unforgivable. That must change, but I’m not holding my breath. Not least because I’ve been taking white liberals in Washington to task in similar fashion for years … to no avail. Commentaries like “Senator Kennedy Calls Bush’s Black Female Judicial Nominee an Ape,” June 7, 2005, “Hillary: Republicans Treating Democrats like Slaves,” January 23, 2006, and “VP Biden, Stop Your Dog-Whistling about Race…Now!” August 16, 2012, attest to this.

    Nonetheless, I hope Rock does not take this race bait. Because nobody wants to tune in to a celebration of Hollywood, no matter how lily white, just to hear a rich black host bitching all night about how racist and unfair life is for rich black actors.

    Besides, we all know that black comics rule when it comes to jokes about thuggish behavior among blacks in the hood. By the same token, and for the same reasons, I submit that white comics should rule when it comes to jokes about racism among whites in Hollywood, especially on this occasion.

    In any event, there’s bound to be no shortage of stars looking to use this occasion to vent Oscars-So-White outrage, hoping for an additional 15 minutes of fame.

    With that, I hope you enjoy the show. That is, unless you’re planning to join Will and Jada in their boycott by not even watching on TV. Yeah, right!

    Related commentaries:
    Oscar Snubs
    Spike Lee
    Clooney nuptials
    VP Biden et al

    *  This commentary was originally published yesterday, Thursday, at 10:40 p.m.

  • Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:21 AM

    Evangelicals Supporting Donald Trump like Israelites Worshipping Golden Calf

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a black-swan phenomenon. Nothing demonstrates this quite like so many commentators having egg on their faces for mistakenly predicting its demise.

    The only reason I don’t is that I have never underestimated the ignorance or gullibility of large segments of the American people. Such commentaries as “On Syria (and almost Every Other Issue), the American People are Insolent, Ignorant, Idiots,” September 10, 2013, attest to this.

    Nearly 10 percent of college graduates in the United States think that TV host Judith ‘Judge Judy’ Sheindlin sits on the Supreme Court, according to a recent study.

    (New York Post, January 19, 2016)


    Now consider that downtrodden people with no college education compose the vast majority of Trump’s supporters. In other words, they are an angry mob of ignoramuses who’d rather have as president a reality-TV star who entertains them than a seasoned politician who governs for the general welfare.

    Donald Trump is nothing more than the P.T. Barnum of business: a huckster who thrives on the maxim that ‘there’s a sucker born every minute’…

    Sadly, far too many people think Trump would make a good president. They are the suckers to whom he could sell swampland in the Florida Everglades as beachfront property, or discredited degrees from his Trump University as even better than accredited degrees from Harvard.

    (“Trump for President? Don’t Be a Sucker,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 8, 2011)

    This is why the Trump phenomenon says more about far too many Americans than it does about him. Which brings me to the Evangelicals and their incomprehensible support.

    I know Evangelicals. As the son of an evangelical preacher, I grew up amongst them. So trust me when I say that, for any sober Evangelical, Trump is the very personification of Mammon.

    how-donald-trump-explains-america-806-body-image-1438883172This, after all, is a man who takes diabolical pride in boasting that he never asks God for forgiveness because he’s without sin, he’s rich, and he’s like a god himself. He even boasts that The Art of the Deal, his book about the virtues of greed and the salvation of wealth, rivals the Bible.

    Not to mention that he made most of his money building gambling casinos. Because gambling is as great a sin for most Evangelicals as usury is for most Islamists.

    But Trump is probably best known for building a gilded tower in New York City as a monument to himself. And, given his delusions of grandeur, one could well imagine him challenging Jesus by channeling the Devil from atop that tower as follows:

    Finally, the Devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. He showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ‘If You bow down and worship me,’ he said, ‘I will give You all of this.’

    (Matthew 4:8)

    jesus-temptation007Of course, Jesus rebuked and then admonished the Devil to humble himself before God. You’d think Evangelicals would do what Jesus did, especially given that Trump challenges their Christian faith almost every day. Instead of rebuking and admonishing him, however, they invariably hail him as if he were, well, the second coming of Jesus Christ.

    This was the case yesterday, when he held a rally at their Gethsemane, Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Trump has an infamous and unrepentant record of iniquity; therefore, one might have expected Evangelicals there to give him a proverbial stoning. Instead, they behaved as if Trump had channeled Daniel in the lion’s den and cast a spell on them.

    Incidentally, this, from the conservative news site World Net Daily (on August 15, 2015), might explain why Trump is wooing Evangelicals so successfully:

    President Obama isn’t the Antichrist – but he sure is ‘paving the way’ for him, said some Christian evangelists who’ve been watching the White House in biblically prophetic light with alarm.

    (WND, August 15, 2015)

    160118_pol_social_trump_33x16_1600Never mind that Trump betrayed a sign that he just might be the Antichrist when he bit his tongue trying to read a scripture from the Bible:

    After vowing to protect Christians across the globe, Trump read a verse from Second Corinthians — one of the books in the New Testament. But Trump flubbed the name, pronouncing it ‘Two Corinthians.’

    (AOL News, January 18, 2016)

    As he does with everything, Trump boasts about the love Evangelicals have for him. But they have clearly lost their way. It’s a testament to just how far that more Evangelicals are filling stadiums to hear Trump boast about his wealth than are filling churches to hear pastors preach about their God.

    The only thing that explains this willful suspension of their evangelical faith is the precedent the lost Israelites set in Bible times:


    Exodus 32 relates that the Israelites, anxious about Moses’ prolonged absence, demanded that provide a god to lead them. Complying, Aaron collected the golden ornaments of the people and fashioned the gold into the shape of a calf…

    The image was immediately hailed by the people as a representation of the God who had brought Israel out of Egypt.

    (Jewish Virtual Library.org)

    donaldtrumpisreallyrich-1Trump is brazenly exploiting his “relationship” with Evangelicals for all it’s worth. Never mind that their relationship is based primarily on Trump boasting about his wealth and evangelicals hailing it as a representation of the God who will help Trump lead them down the primrose path.

    Again, it would be one thing if Trump troubled himself to show a little regard for their purported Christian values. But mean-spirited, bullying, even profane language is the feature attraction of his campaign rhetoric, which makes a mockery of those values.

    6a00d83451c36069e2013485663a12970cTo be fair, some Evangelicals are more political conservatives — who are motivated by power, than religious fanatics — who are motivated by faith. Except that Trump, the New York liberal masquerading as a conservative, should be just as much a heathen as Trump, the apocalyptic Antichrist masquerading as a fanatic.

    Which is why Evangelicals are sacrificing their Christian faith at the altar of Trump’s political ambition. Moreover, they have ceded their moral authority to speak truth to power and champion family values until kingdom come.

    And don’t get started on the sacrilege inherent in Trump comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. After all, Reagan is like a god to political conservatives and religious fanatics alike. This too is incomprehensible. But I digress.

    The point is that, Evangelicals seem drunk with wonder as they hang on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Trump. But I am constrained to ask: What will it profit an Evangelical if he gains Trump as president, but loses his own soul?

    In a similar vein, Trump would do well to heed this admonition … from God Himself:

    Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

    (Matthew 19:24)

    Evangelicals have always intoned that character matters. They too would do well to heed this admonition when choosing a candidate to enter the White House.

    Beyond this, the media would do well to stop wasting so much airtime with down-the-rabbit-hole reports about Trump failing to act more presidential. Instead they should be forcing prominent Republicans to explain their support for a candidate who has shown himself in so many ways to be utterly unfit to be president of the United States.

    Related commentaries:
    American people
    NBC to Trump: you’re fired
    Trump for res don’t be sucker

  • Monday, January 18, 2016 at 2:13 PM

    Evangelicals Supporting Trump like Israelites Worshipping Calf

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall


    More later…

  • Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 7:23 AM

    Powerball: Was the fantasy worth it for you?

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall


  • Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:47 AM

    Bowie more Popular in Death than He Ever Was in Life. Thanks for Nothing!

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    The Thin White Duke’s catalog drew 51 million views on Vevo on Jan. 11, a new one-day high-mark for any artist on the streaming music platform…

    Bowie breaks the previous same-day record, which was held by Adele whose catalog generated 36 million views on Oct. 23, 2015, the day “Hello” premiered.

    Bowie’s last album, Blackstar, was released Jan. 8 and is on track to become the singer’s first recording to top the Billboard 200. It’s also expected to bow at No. 1 on the Official U.K. Albums Chart.

    (Billboard, January 14, 2016)

    At least Michael’s fans gave him Thriller during his lifetime.

    Don’t get me started on his self-professed fans taking to social media to share how much his music meant to them. After all, if just a fraction of them had actually purchased his music, Bowie’s last hit single would not have been “Let’s Dance” … over 30 years ago. Mind you, he probably couldn’t have cared any less.

    Ironically, apropos of hits, that is bound to change with the timely release, just two days before he died, of Blackstar, his requiem/farewell album. It’s trending; therefore, millions of social-media twits must have it.

    (“David Bowie, Gender-Bending Performing Artist,” The iPINIONS Journal, January 12, 2016)

    More to the point, if you think Bowie is reveling in his grave over this, think again. Because he’s probably rolling over in disgust at this peddling of his music as a necrophiliac phenomenon. And when he’s not doing that, he’s probably just giving all of you posthumous lovers the finger – as was his wont.


    So, if you’re among the millions of rubbernecking death hags buying his music for the first time, get over yourself!

    Related commentaries:
    Bowie … dead

  • Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 4:55 AM

    Obama Delivers Final State of the Union Address. Thank God!

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    I have listened to enough State of the Union Addresses to know that they invariably amount to a triumph of style over substance. And nothing demonstrates this quite like the most memorable thing about President Obama’s address last year being not something he said, but a congressman yelling, ‘You lie.’

    (“2011 State of the Union Address,” The iPINIONS Journal, January 26, 2011)

    On Tuesday, President Obama delivered his seventh and final State of the Union address. He ascended the presidency on a platform of “Hope and Change.” But, where this annual address is concerned, he only delivered more of the same, namely soaring rhetoric, signifying nothing — except fodder for political talking heads on cable TV.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 9.20.27 AM

    No doubt Obama delivered great addresses. Alas, this has proved no more significant than the bad ones his predecessor, George W. Bush, delivered. This is why I marked last year’s address with a commentary titled, “State of the Union: A Political Spectacle … Take 2,” January 29, 2015.

    Which brings me to the only part of Obama’s final address that is even worthy of comment. It pertains to the folly of U.S. entanglements across the Middle East.

    Here is how he presented this hard-learned lesson:

    We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis. That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately weakens us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam, of Iraq, and we should have learned it by now…

    The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia…

    [W]e have to set priorities.

    (WhiteHouse.gov/SOTU, January 12, 2016)

    Except that even this bit of soaring rhetoric signified nothing. After all, Obama claimed that America was fighting the “good war” in Afghanistan. Yet 2,326 American soldiers died there … in vain. More to the point, 70 percent of them fell not on Bush’s watch, but on Obama’s … when it was already patently clear that this war had descended into an unwinnable quagmire.

    Frankly, I have written many commentaries decrying Obama’s Bush-lite war on terrorism. And each of them laments a recipe for quagmire, which resulted only in spilling more American blood and treasure.

    Here are excerpts from just a few.


    • bush-mission-accomplished-iraqFrom “Obama Escalates Afghan War; the ‘Die’ Is Cast on His Presidency,” December 2, 2009:

    I do not see how Obama can possibly justify the loss of life and waste of money that will occur over this period [to the end of 2014], just for him to end up doing what President Nixon did in Vietnam (i.e., declaring victory and going home).

    • From “Perhaps Only Authoritarian Regimes Can Govern Arab Countries,” June 11, 2014:

    The primary cause of this mess is the sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims that has been simmering in Arab countries since time immemorial [aka millennia]…

    Regarding wasted blood and treasure: according to the Washington Post’s ongoing feature ‘Faces of the Fallen,’ as of April 2014, the United States had already lost 6,805 soldiers trying to build ‘full democracies’ in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a 2013 study from Harvard University estimates that, by the time the United States retreats from Afghanistan next year, it will have spent upwards of $6 trillion trying to do so.

    Not to mention the more than one hundred thousand Iraqi and Afghan civilians who lost their lives.

    • From “Obama’s Mission Creep in Iraq Channeling JFK’s Mission Creep in Vietnam,” November 12, 2014:

    I knew when Obama announced his 300-troop redeployment in June that he’d be redeploying more … and more – as I cynically argued in “Why Have 300 Troops When 3000 Will Do?” June 20, 2014. [He has now redeployed 3,500.]

    Hence my analogy to Vietnam; after all, Obama is conducting the Vietnamization of this conflict by the book (i.e., emulating JFK’s original march of folly in textbook fashion). And all indications are that, even though not nearly as formidable a fighting force as the Viet Cong, ISIS terrorists will prove every bit as vexing and unconquerable (their greatest weapon being their fanatical ideology of anti-Western hatred).


    *** COMPOSITE ***I have been an ardent Obama supporter since he stepped onto the world stage as a wannabe president in 2006. My commentary, “It’s TIME: Run Obama, Run!” October 24, 2006, confirms this.

    I’ve proudly hailed him as a transformative president, citing, among other accomplishments, his championing healthcare reform, normalizing relations with Cuba, and striking a nuclear deal with Iran. My commentary, “Success of Obama’s Policies Confounding, Vexing, Defying Republican Critics,” December 29, 2014, confirms this.

    But I take profound exception to Obama making such a show of denouncing the deployment of U.S. troops to countries that fall into crisis. Not least because, from day one, the bane of my support and the Achilles heel of his presidency has been his decision to do just that, time and again.

    Incidentally, much is being made about how old Obama looks these days. I submit, however, that having the blood of so many American soldiers on one’s hands, and having so little to show for it, is enough to turn any president’s black hair grey. What’s more, in “Obama Saluting War Dead Will Be Defining Image of His Presidency,” October 30, 2009, I warned it would be thus.

    In any event, I vented my dismay with this plank of his foreign policy in many commentaries, including “Support the Draft to Prevent Stupid Wars,” March 14, 2007, “Obama Escalates Afghanistan War: the ‘Die’ Is Cast on His Presidency,” December 2, 2009, “Sunni, Shias, and Kurds Fighting for Control of Iraq. Stay Out, America!” June 19, 2014, “Demystifying ISIS: Case against Obama’s Bush-lite War on Terrorism,” September 10, 2014, and “Obama Amassing Coalition to Do in Syria What Bush Did in Afghanistan/Iraq,” September 30, 2015.

    But, hey, it’s never too late even for Obama to learn. Or should I say, HOPE springs eternal?

    NOTE: ‘Tis wind and nothing more,’ but my support for Obama’s presidency compelled me to continue commenting on this annual address. Nevermore!

    Related commentaries:
    Obama escalates
    SOTU Take 2
    Run Obama run
    Success Obama policies
    Withdrawal plan
    Mission creep
    Saluting war dead
    Demystifying ISIS
    Obama amassing coalition

  • Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:26 AM

    David Bowie, Gender-Bending Performing Artist, Is Dead

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    I’ve been a big David Bowie fan since high school (in the late 1970s). My classmates thought I was a weirdo. They preferred acts like Aerosmith and the Rolling Stones. But I took perverse pride and pleasure in having them gossip about my sexuality because I preferred him.

    For what it’s worth, my favorite songs back then were “Space Oddity” 1969, “Changes” 1971, “Fame” 1975, “Golden Years” 1976, and “Heroes” 1977. I’m not sure what to make of the fact that they remained my favorites throughout his career.

    Incidentally, his onstage makeup and costumes grabbed most attention. But anyone who bothered to listen knows that Bowie was always a master lyricist and composer.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-11 at 11.41.33 AM

    It just so happens I stood out as much among my classmates as Bowie did among his fellow artists. I was the only Black kid in my school, until administration officials recruited a Black girl. Whether they were benign racists seeking gender parity, or homophobes guiding my sexual orientation, is debatable. But I digress.

    The point is that even I was as shocked by the outpouring of tributes as I was by the news of his death yesterday. With all due respect to Michael Jackson, we have not seen anything like this since the news of Princess Diana’s death shocked the world in August 1997. Even the Vatican paid tribute to Bowie for Christ’s sake!

    Except, of course, that there’s this:

    I fear the expression of such sentiments [like condolences] these days is intended more to draw attention to the person tweeting them than to comfort the person (who should be) receiving them.

    (“Hey Stupid, Personal Tweet Is an Oxymoron,” The iPINIONS Journal, March 6, 2015)

    Case in point, Bowie’s grieving widow is the former Black supermodel, Iman Abdulmajid. But I’d bet good money that the vast majority of his self-professed friends never even attempted to comfort her personally. They were too busy rushing to tweet their “heartfelt” condolences for the world to see.

    To be fair, Bowie kept even close friends at arms length. Only this explains why they were as shocked by the news of his death as we were. Brian Eno, his friend and collaborator of 40 years, admitted as much in a statement to BBC News. He had no idea Bowie had been battling cancer for the past 18 months….

    3991But don’t get me started on his self-professed fans taking to social media to share how much his music meant to them. After all, if just a fraction of them had actually purchased his music, Bowie’s last hit single would not have been “Let’s Dance” … over 30 years ago. Mind you, he probably couldn’t have cared any less.

    Ironically, apropos of hits, that is bound to change with the timely release, just two days before he died, of Blackstar, his requiem/farewell album. It’s trending; therefore, millions of social-media twits must have it.

    In any event, what I admired about Bowie in his younger years, I admired about him in his golden years. Namely, his self-possessed approach to music that defied convention and trends in equal measure.

    He was never more defiant, in his inimitably cool way, than when he called out MTV for featuring only White artists like him. Black artists like Rick James had been publicly accusing MTV of rank discrimination since its debut in 1981. But it took Bowie’s public shaming for the network to finally feature them, beginning with Michael Jackson’s pioneering “Billie Jean” in 1983.

    Bowie spent much of the past 30 years reportedly making music for himself. In doing so, he shunned the rock-star lifestyle zealously. Indeed, he seemed to take perverse pride and pleasure in having people think of him as a stepford husband.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-11 at 9.42.32 PMIman provided this little insight about the man (and their nearly 24-year marriage) recently:

    David is even more of a homebody than I am… I also think that there is nothing that he hasn’t seen….

    (London Guardian, June 28, 2014)

    Perhaps even more insightful though are reports that, unlike Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, and other rock stars, Bowie declined to be knighted by the Queen. He explained that he did not need a “fancy title” to validate his life’s work.

    I intimated above that he and I had a little in common. Well, as proud commoners, we shared a mutual disdain for the presumptions, perquisites, and pretensions of royalty. My disdain is redolent in many commentaries, including “Pardon Me, Sir, but How Much Did You Pay for Your Knighthood,” July 14, 2006, “The Problem Is Not Kate’s Weight. It’s William’s Title,” February 16, 2011, and “Australia Bans British Honours. Other Commonwealth Countries Should Too,” November 3, 2015.

    Bowie was clearly hard to impress. Which is why, far from flattering him, attention-seeking performers like Kanye, Madonna, and Gene Simmons could only be flattering themselves with their fawning tributes.

    Still, I would be remiss not to acknowledge one viral sensation, which I gather tickled Bowie’s fancy as much as it did mine. It happened in May 2013, when Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield dropped his cover of “Space Oddity.” That Hadfield performed it from the International Space Station was special enough. That he channeled Bowie’s voice so uncannily was, well, otherworldly.

    “Ashes to ashes. Dust to stardust.” Indeed.

    Bowie died at his home in New York City on Sunday. He was 69.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-11 at 2.54.08 PM

    Farewell, David.

    Related commentaries:
    Personal tweet
    Your Knighthood
    Ban British honours

  • Monday, January 11, 2016 at 7:21 AM

    Germany: Muslim Men More Sexual Predators than Asylum Seekers…?

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    did-merkel-just-get-trouncedGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel can be forgiven for bemoaning that no good deed goes unpunished.

    Recall that she made quite a show last summer of welcoming as many refugees as could make it to Germany. But she soon had just cause to rue her open door policy – as reports of assimilation woes and spikes in crime attended sequent waves. I duly commented in “Migrant Invasion Causing Humanitarian Remorse in Germany,” September 28, 2015.

    Understandably, Merkel felt compelled to allay growing fears. Unfortunately, she did so by pitting the categorical imperatives of assimilation against the transforming impositions of multiculturalism. She even pledged to close Germany’s open door enough to “drastically decrease” the number of refugees entering the country. I duly commented in “Merkel Betraying Migration Policy that Won Her ‘Person of the Year,” December 21, 2015.

    Then came this bombshell:

    Germany is struggling to respond to a mass assault of women on New Year’s Eve, and news that people suspected of a role in the violence included asylum seekers…

    Merkel has proposed tougher laws that would make it easier to deport migrants after a wave of sex attacks in Cologne that were allegedly carried out by asylum seekers – an incident she is reported to have described as ‘a bombshell’…

    Volker Bouffier, the prime minister of the state of Hesse, told the meeting: ‘Cologne has changed everything; people are full of doubt.’

    (London Guardian, January 9, 2016)

    Germany-Cologne-Crime_Horo-2According to the latest reports, 370 women have filed complaints – all stemming from what appears to have been a flash-mob of sexual assaults.

    Unsurprisingly, xenophobic politicians are stoking remorse and fueling fears:

    Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas was the latest high-profile politician to speak out about the string of sexual assaults in Cologne on Sunday. In an interview with the popular Bild am Sonntag newspaper, Maas voiced his suspicions that the crimes, which have the whole country reeling, were not the result of an opportunistic mob mentality but a thought-out, planned attack on the city’s women.

    (Deutsche Welle, January 10, 2016)

    To be fair, this minister’s suspicions are not entirely unfounded. I decried such “opportunistic mob mentality” among Muslim men after flash-mob sexual assaults became a menacing feature of Arab Spring protests — as “Sustained Sexual Assault on CBS Reporter by Egyptian Protesters,” January 30, 2012, substantiates.

    I am all too mindful, however, that Muslim men are not the only ones inclined to such predatory mob behavior. In fact, a significant number of non-Muslim White men were among the predators who perpetrated this mass assault.

    Never mind that far too few news outlets are bothering to report this fact. Or that neo-Nazis are already using this incident as a pretext to assault Muslims indiscriminately.

    More to the point, though, here is why such assaults are every bit as congenital among Arabs as they are among Europeans:

    Halfway into the 2012 edition, incidents of sexual abuse at Munich’s Oktoberfest are on the rise as compared to last year, Munich daily Süddeutsche Zeitung reports…

    Irritated by the continued perception of many that women who are involved in sexual abuse of any kind are somehow ‘asking for it,’ feminist activist Anna-Katharina Meßmer said ‘somebody needs to teach [European] men how to behave themselves.’

    (Worldcrunch, October 3, 2012)

    Screen Shot 2016-01-10 at 10.10.14 PMAll the same, not just Germans but all Europeans have just cause to fear what unvanquished and unyielding waves of migrants portend:

    [Germany’s Development Minister] Gerd Müller said only 10 per cent of Syrian and Iraqi migrants have reached Europe so far and ‘eight to ten million are still on the way,’ with even more to come from Africa.

    ‘The biggest movements are ahead: Africa’s population will double in the coming decades,’ he told Bild am Sonntag, adding: ‘In the Sahara up to one million people have died trying to escape.’

    (Brietbart News, January 10, 2016)

    In truth, I am compelled to say, I told you so. For, regarding the Syrian and Iraqi migrants Müller cited, here is what I presaged in “Europe’s Migration Crisis: Sowing Seeds of Unintended, but all too Foreseeable Consequences,” September 6, 2015.


    Liberal Germans are greeting this first wave of migrants with banners, cheers, and food. But don’t be surprised if these same Germans are hurling xenophobic epithets at sequent waves a few months from now — as predictable strains/conflicts, especially with respect to gainful employment and welfare benefits, become manifestly untenable.


    Regarding the even more undesirable African migrants he cited, here is what I presaged in “Lampedusa Tragedy Highlights Europe’s ‘Haitian’ Problem,” October 7, 2013.


    As tragic as [migrants turning the Mediterranean Sea into a cemetery is], political dysfunction, economic stagnation, and civil strife on the Dark Continent are such that Africans will continue to risk life and limb to seek a better life. Just as no legal barrier or risk of drowning in the Caribbean Sea has stemmed the tide of Haitian migrants setting off for America, no legal barrier or risk of drowning in the Mediterranean Sea will stem the tide of African migrants setting off for Europe.


    Above all, though, regarding the best way to deal with this migration crisis, here is what I proposed in “Europe’s Migration Crisis…,” September 6, 2015 – long before Hillary, General David Petraeus, and others began championing it.


    European leaders should coordinate comprehensive humanitarian interventions, enabled and protected by NATO (not UN) forces, to contain would-be migrants within their borders. It’s clearly far better to provide local safe havens than for migrants to continue risking life and limb, only to end up in splendid desolation in Europe or in fetid isolation in internment camps, where millions are being detained today in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and, increasingly, in Hungary.


    It will be interesting to see how Europe copes. But I cannot resist this parting shot from “Europeans Erecting Fences to Maintain Good Relations with African Neighbors,” October 8, 2005.


    There’s no denying that America has an arbitrary, even mercenary, immigration policy (which, for example, grants Cuban migrants an EZ pass but repatriates Haitian migrants summarily). Yet, compared with that of other countries, America has by far the most inviting and humane policy of them all [notwithstanding Donald Trump].

    This fact is finally coming into stark relief for Europeans – who once chided Americans with righteous indignation for their treatment of [undesirable] migrants. Because African migrants are now posing the same challenges for Europe that Haitian migrants have been posing for the United States for decades.


    It does no bode well that NIMBY Europeans are threatening to blow their union asunder as they begin erecting fences to maintain good relations with each other … too.

    Related commentaries:
    Angela Merkel
    Egyptian protesters
    Europe migration
    Europeans erecting fences
    Lampedusa tragedy

  • Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 8:07 AM

    The business of America is business, even when it comes to gun violence…

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    This, notwithstanding Obama’s teary-eyed declarations about gun control.


  • Friday, January 8, 2016 at 5:48 AM

    Groundhog Day: North Korea Tests Nukes. World Explodes with Outrage … Again

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    Screen Shot 2016-01-06 at 8.35.35 AM

    North Korea is commanding world attention again, after claiming it tested a hydrogen bomb on Wednesday.

    Because of the way that they are made, hydrogen bombs are usually much more powerful than their atomic counterparts.

    That is why people are so worried about North Korea’s announcement — it has already launched atomic bombs, but this is the first time that it has tested a hydrogen one.

    (London Independent, January 7, 2016)

    Duly spooked, leaders from China to America are reacting like alarmed parents chastising an unruly child for playing with fire, for the umpteenth time.

    Hence the Groundhog Day reference in my title. In fact, these leaders have been reacting with similar alarm to similar tests for years. They invariably impose sanctions, which North Korea invariably accepts as more reward than punishment.

    And so the kabuki nuclear dance begins again. Politicians, reporters, and pundits alike are waxing skeptical about whether it really was a hydrogen bomb.

    Remarkably, they seem to think outrage would/should differ if this illegal nuclear test were of an H-bomb, which could kill four million people in one blast, or of an A-bomb, which could kill 200,000 (a la Hiroshima).

    Everyone is denouncing North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as insane. But what could be more insane than this splitting of nuclear hairs. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Therefore, those world leaders calling Jong-un insane would do well to look in the mirror

    In any event, commensurate with the Groundhog Day nature of this “international nuclear crisis,” I shall suffice to reprise “North Korea Craving Attention Dennis Rodman Can’t Give,” September 19, 2013.

    I wrote it the last time Lil’ Kim played with fire. And I dare anyone to show how it is any less relevant today than it was back then.


    North Korean President Kim Jong-Il is a temperamental and insecure man. Only this explains his habit of making nuclear threats from time to time. Whenever he does, he commands the international attention he craves so pathologically and extorts the aid his people need so desperately…

    When it comes to psychological warfare, this North Korean gnome is one Chicken Little who manages to jerk the world’s chain every time. Indeed, true to form, statements of concern from world leaders about what Jong-Il might do followed his antic declaration with Pavlovian predictability. But one wonders why — given his record of idle threats — world leaders even give him the time of day?!

    (“Why do World Leaders Give North Korea’s President Time of Day,” The iPINIONS Journal, October 4, 2006)

    nk3Evidently, like father, like son; because Kim Jong-un is now doing the same thing … for the same reasons. Specifically, with the international media now obsessed with goings on in Syria, and with a state visit by the American clown Dennis Rodman not generating the kind of attention he craved, Jong-un has resorted to this:

    Steam has been seen rising from North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear facility, suggesting that the reactor has been restarted.

    (BBC, September 12, 2013)

    This, of course, is the nuclear reactor his father agreed to shut down in 2007 with considerable fanfare as part of a disarmament-for-aid deal.  Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that, given the economic straits his country is in (again), Jong-un is playing the nuclear card to incite fear and extort more concessions:

    His perverse calculation is that a successful launch [or, in this case, producing more plutonium to make nuclear weapons] will give him a much stronger hand to extort (with threats to attack South Korea or sell nukes to terrorists) tons more money and food when he returns to the negotiating table for patently disingenuous talks about dismantling his nuclear program. And, past being prologue, he’s right.

    (“North Korea Commanding World Attention … Again,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 13, 2012)

    images-1That said, it’s noteworthy not only that President Obama seems less inclined than his predecessors to cave in to these patented threats, but also that Jung-un seems less inclined than his predecessors to open fire on South Korea to give credence to them.

    Whatever the case, here is what I proposed, in “North Korea to The World: Nuke Off!” December 13, 2012, as the only sensible way to deal with this little unruly nation:

    Obama should convene a coalition of the willing among Asia-Pacific countries (APEC) to forge agreement on the following resolution, which, significantly, would not be subject to a UN-style veto by any country (namely, China or Russia):


    • Recognizing that the United Nations is unable or unwilling to stop North Korea from violating its resolutions (most notably, res. 1718 against conducting nuclear tests or launching ballistic missiles) with impunity;
    • Finding that these violations pose an untenable threat to the Asia-Pacific region;

    Resolves that:

    1. Instead of continuing the feckless practice of bribing North Korea with cash, oil and food to get it to stop these violations, APEC shall henceforth impose the severest possible sanctions, unilaterally;
    2. If, either as a result of misfire or deliberate intent, any of North Korea’s missiles even threatens any APEC country, the United States shall lead the bombardment of all of its nuclear and missile facilities until they are incapable of even setting off firecrackers, let alone launching nuclear missiles.

    All else is folly….


    So, until the next dance….

    Related commentaries:
    Why do leaders give Kim time of day
    NK commanding attention
    NK craving attention
    NK: nuke off

  • Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 6:29 AM

    Minister Regrets “No VAT” in Turks and Caicos Islands

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    Rumors of the sun setting on the British Empire have been slightly exaggerated. The dominion Britain still exercises over the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), my mother country, attests to this.

    As it happened, I was in the vanguard of TCIslanders who called on the British Government in 2008 to assert its dominion by suspending the TCI Constitution:

    Alas, outrage is not sufficient to hold TCI government officials accountable for their corrupt practices. If it were, the disaffected, disillusioned and disgusted people of the TCI would have done so long ago.

    Instead, we need the British to honor their constitutional obligations to us by convening a commission of inquiry – not only to investigate the vast scope of these allegations, but also to recover public funds that have been misappropriated.

    (“Commission of Inquiry Looms for TCI,” The iPINIONS Journal, March 31, 2008)

    I reinforced the determined and sustained nature of our call in many other commentaries, including “TCI Government Attempts to Halt British Inquiry into Corruption,” July 18, 2008, and “The Case for an Interim Government in TCI,” November 14, 2008.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 11.20.49 PMAs indicated, local leaders betrayed “clear signs of political amorality, immaturity and of general administrative incompetence.” This fostered a culture of systematic corruption – highlighted by Misick using the tourism budget to fund his Hollywood lifestyle.

    It speaks volumes that the Commission of Inquiry Report we sought reads like an indictment against a notorious crime syndicate.

    In August 2009, the British suspended the TCI Constitution, stripped local leaders of all political powers, and resumed direct rule. A UK Special Investigation and Prosecution Team (SIPT) duly arrested Misick, four members of his official cabinet, and five members of his “kitchen cabinet,” and charged them with multiple counts of fraud, corruption, and money laundering.

    The defendants paid millions (using ill-gotten gains, presumably) for lawyers to file frivolous motions to delay the inevitable. In fact, their trial finally got underway just weeks ago (on December 7).

    misick-arrested_2548156cOnly God knows how long proceedings will last (estimates range from six to nine months). The evidence is such, however, that it will take a miracle for any of them to be acquitted on all counts.

    In any event, the British returned self-rule to the TCI in November 2012, after local elections for a new government. I pledged at the time to eschew commenting on politics there from my perch here in Washington, DC.

    But then came the Value Added Tax (VAT). Specifically, local leaders opposed efforts to implement it with the same kind of anti-British rhetoric with which they opposed calls to suspend the TCI Constitution five years earlier.

    I felt obliged to break my pledge. Here, in part, is how I did in “TCI Looking to CARICOM (et al) to Repeal VAT,” February 5, 2013.


    I fear our newly elected leaders are manifesting the same kind of political immaturity and administrative incompetence that doomed their predecessors.

    1-12-2015-7-22-45-AM-4187219Exhibit A is the misguided appeal these new leaders are making to CARICOM to prevent the British from implementing VAT. After all, Misick and his cronies wasted lots of time and money making a similar appeal to prevent the British from suspending the Constitution…

    Like the old government, our new government is willfully mischaracterizing the British Government’s constitutional duty to ensure good governance and sound fiscal management as a neo-colonial conspiracy to “keep us subjugated.” Never mind that I’ve been calling our local leaders’ bluff on this canard for years.

    Notably, I challenged no less a person than Misick to stop scapegoating the British and hold a referendum on independence. After all, he made quite a show of promising to do so, and the British have always promised to facilitate it.

    I congratulate Premier Misick on this historical accomplishment [of becoming our country’s first premier]. More importantly, I encourage him to lead in such a way as to inspire the spirit of independence in our people – not as a jingoistic badge of honor, but as a self-actualizing and sustainable fact of life. After all, our pending referendum should not question whether we want (or are prepared for) our independence. It should present us with the opportunity to declare it!

    (“Hail Premier Misick!” The iPINIONS Journal, August 11, 2006)

    Ironically, if he had honored his promise, Misick would not be on trial, facing decades in prison, today. But I digress.

    The British Government is proposing VAT as the fairest way to generate reliable revenue streams to fund government programs. Our new government is not only opposing it, but acting as if defeating VAT would automatically generate similar revenue streams.

    Intelligent minds can differ on whether VAT is good for the TCI. But it’s demonstrably specious for local leaders to insist that VAT will destroy our economy. Especially given that VAT is providing fair and sustainable revenues in regional countries like Antigua, Barbados, and Jamaica.

    Barbados’ former Prime Minister and eminent Caribbean Statesman, Owen Arthur, has described value-added tax (VAT) as the best option for the Caribbean region in the age of trade liberalization.

    (Tax-News, London, 12 August 2010)

    I agree.


    Unfortunately, the British deferred to local leaders on VAT. No doubt they were exceedingly sensitive to complaints about imposing their “neo-colonial” will. They had just returned the TCI to self-rule under a new Constitution, after all.

    However, I knew it was only a matter of time before local leaders became hoisted by their own petard. Confirmation came over the Christmas holidays in the form of a refreshingly honest admission by no less a person than the TCI minister of finance.

    Minister of Finance Hon. Washington Misick is beginning to regret his decision to side with opponents of the British-piloted Value Added Tax proposal…

    He hinted that those who opposed the VAT did so because of personal interest and not that of the country…

    ‘I think we, at that particular point, allowed the messenger, who was the wrong messenger, perhaps at that time in our history to influence us together with the persons who want to keep their books closed.’

    (Turks and Caicos Sun, December 18-25, 2015)

    Incidentally, Minister Misick is the older brother of the disgraced former premier now sitting in the dock. His admission suggests that his younger brother is capable of some contrition … someday.

    5-29-2015-1-04-21-PM-1933496But the Minister is being a little disingenuous. For I recall all too well how his brother scapegoated British politicians for policies he implemented as premier, which had him bankrupting the country to live in his version of a gangsta’s paradise. Now he’s scapegoating expatriate businessmen for policies he implemented as finance minister, which have him taxing poor TCIslanders to the gills to justify his decision to oppose VAT.

    I just hope he appreciates how much this admission impeaches his professional judgment. The congressional Committee on Ways and Means writes the U.S. tax code. This admission is rather like the chairman of that committee admitting that lobbyists for gun manufacturers influenced him to have their profits exempted from taxation.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-07 at 8.23.53 AMStill, to be fair, the Minister has just cause to regret relying on a Blue Ribbon Commission on taxation to vindicate his opposition. After all, the so-called experts on this commission “misled” him to believe they could either devise viable alternatives to VAT or, with time, structure a way to “properly implement” it.

    They’ve had over two and a half years to deliver. Yet, evidently, the only thing he has to show for their expert advice is regret that his government did not heed our advice to implement VAT, as the British proposed, in the first place.

    The prevailing point is that local leaders stoked anti-British resentment to oppose suspension of the Constitution in 2009 and implementation of VAT in 2013. And much of what passes for political debate in TCI still reeks of such ignorant, impudent, and self-defeating resentment.

    Interestingly enough, their visceral antipathy is such that I have often analogized the relationship our leaders have with the British to that which Republicans have with President Obama. In each case, even if the latter proposed foolproof measures to reduce violent crime, guarantee full employment, and sustain economic growth, the former would oppose them.

    Meanwhile, since demanding premature return to self-rule, local leaders have done little more than turn our country from a tranquil tax haven for foreigners into a crime-ridden tax trap for TCIslanders.

    Hope springs eternal that they will develop a mature and constructive relationship with the British. Or, perhaps they will finally find the courage to put their money where their mouth is and petition for independence.

    Their record of administrative incompetence is such, however, that I hope local leaders pursue the former – with due humility and respect. The fate of the long-suffering people of the TCI depends on them doing so.

    Related commentaries:
    Commission of inquiry looms
    TCI looking
    Case for an interim government
    Open Letter: TCI Commission of Inquiry
    Hail Premier Misick

  • Monday, January 4, 2016 at 7:01 AM

    Crappy New Year to Bill and Camille Cosby!

    Posted by Anthony L. Hall

    Disgraced comedian Bill Cosby received bad tidings of arrest and woe this Christmas season. They arose from a confidential agreement he struck in 2006 to settle a sexual-battery lawsuit.

    Screen Shot 2016-01-03 at 6.25.39 PM

    Here, in part, is how I commented on that settlement back then – in “Bill Cosby Pays Off Woman Who Accused Him of Rape,” November 23, 2006.


    Andrea Constand (32) regarded him as a mentor. She claims Cosby (69) drugged and raped her. Unsurprisingly, instead of allowing her to spill details in open court, he settled her lawsuit on Wednesday … for an amount sufficient enough to buy her silence.

    Meanwhile, Cosby’s legal woes have not caused him to retreat from his self-appointed role as the conscience of Black America. In this respect, he acts more like Cliff Huxtable in real life than he did on The Cosby Show.

    Perhaps you’ve heard him lecturing about how the lack of individual responsibility, more than “systemic racism,” is the root cause of crime, poor education, and high unemployment in Black America. For this I commend him wholeheartedly!

    But this Cosby case serves as a shocking reminder that the best of us are often as flawed as the worst of us…

    More to the point, though, if Cosby thought settling this lawsuit would keep the lid on his past sexual predations, he was/is sadly mistaken.


    Sure enough, other accusers began coming out of the woodwork. They numbered twenty last summer. That’s when the Associated Press asked Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia to unseal that 2006 agreement … in the public interest.

    Cosby’s lawyers pleaded with him not to, arguing that it would be “terribly embarrassing.” Judge Robreno rejected their plea, justifying his order to unseal it as follows:

    The stark contrast between Bill Cosby, the public moralist and Bill Cosby, the subject of serious allegations concerning improper (and perhaps criminal) conduct, is a matter as to which the AP — and by extension the public — has a significant interest…

    The defendant has donned the mantle of public moralist and mounted the proverbial electronic or print soapbox to volunteer his views on, among other things, childrearing, family life, education, and crime.

    (Washington Post, July 7, 2015)

    I commented on Robreno’s order in “Bill Cosby Caught Testifying about His M.O. as a Sexual Predator,” July 8, 2015. But this was only the latest in a series of commentaries I’ve written over the years, notably “Ten more Women Accuse Bill Cosby of…Rape,” April 23, 2005, “Bill Cosby, Serial Rapist,” October 22, 2014, and “Bill Cosby’s (all too Belated) Fall From Grace,” November 18, 2014, which includes this damning observation:

    Bear in mind that, if 20 women come out with credible stories, they probably represent less than 10 percent of women who have equally credible stories, but are still too embarrassed (or too sensible) to enter this Cosby maelstrom.

    deb6s5hsi6wxrgwn1wncIn truth, ever since he allowed himself to be deposed before settling that 2006 lawsuit, Cosby has been a jailbird walking. His accusers numbered more than fifty last week. That’s when a Philadelphia prosecutor finally issued a warrant for his arrest:

    For years, as Bill Cosby and his lawyers aggressively rebutted accusations that he was a sexual predator, his defenders could point to one incontrovertible fact: He had never been charged with a crime.

    Now that has changed, with the announcement Wednesday by a Pennsylvania prosecutor that he was charging Mr. Cosby with aggravated indecent assault.

    (New York Times, December 31, 2015)

    Reports are that his arrest on criminal charges finally proved too humiliating for his wife, Camille. For many reasons, her reaction might be the most interesting aspect of this latest development:

    ‘My husband doesn’t deserve jail, but he does deserve every bit of the hell he’s going through now even though he is still pretending that this hell doesn’t exist,’ the anguished Camille confided, according to a close family source…

    The source, who’s been close to the family for more than two decades, said the infidelities of ‘America’s Dad’ were well-known to Mrs. Cosby, 71, who simply insisted that her husband be discreet and not shame her.

    (New York Post, January 3, 2016)

    qsxck5uasshj0bxrl7wz-300x171In fact, he’s facing ten years in prison, and deserves every bit of that time. As for her, it’s probably more accurate to report that Camille simply insisted that her husband be discreet, not shame her, and keep her living in the lifestyle of the rich and famous to which she had become accustomed. This is why I questioned her motives years ago as follows:

    I gave up some time ago trying to reason why purportedly liberated women, like Camille Cosby and Hillary Clinton, stand by men who humiliate them.

    The ardent feminist in me would like to think this simply reflects their evolved understanding that marriage is about a lot more than (sexual) monogamy. But it may be that they are riding so high on the power trip these marriages afford them, they couldn’t care any less how much their husbands betray traditional notions of fidelity (or legality?).

    (“The Hypocrisy of Eliot ‘Ness’ Spitzer’s Assignation with a Prostitute,” The iPINIONS Journal, March 11, 2008)

    Frankly, it speaks volumes about her character that Camille had no problem with dozens of women accusing her husband of rape, so long as their accusations did not bring shame upon her. Well, even sister enabler Hillary did not have to endure the public shame that awaits her this week:

    In the same week that comedian Bill Cosby was arrested on sexual assault charges, his wife, Camille Cosby, learned she must testify in a civil case against the entertainer filed by seven women who said he defamed them, court documents said.

    A federal magistrate judge in Massachusetts on Thursday rejected arguments by Cosby’s wife of almost 52 years, who also has been his business manager, that the deposition would represent an ‘undue burden.’

    The deposition is scheduled for next Wednesday, a week after Bill Cosby, 78, was charged in Pennsylvania in the only criminal case brought against the actor, who has been accused by more than 50 women of sexually abusing them in incidents dating back decades.

    (Reuters, January 2, 2016)

    I pity them that it has come to this: Bill and Camille Cosby ringing in the New Year arrested and charged as a rapist, shamed and summoned as an accomplice, respectively.

    But nothing betrays how far Cosby has fallen — from his soapbox as “America’s Dad” — quite like Hollywood, universities, and corporations cutting ties with him … as if he were now “Public Enemy No. 1.”

    Related commentaries:
    Cosby pays off woman
    Cosby caught

My Books

VFC Painting


Subscribe via Email

Powered by FeedBlitz