The Oakland Mayor's Race finally has its first official candidates forum. This Thursday, May 10th, 100 Black Men of The Bay Area will host the "Oakland Mayoral Candidates Forum" at the First Unitarian Church at 685 14th Street in Oakland from 6 PM to 9 PM. Yes, all of the candidates will be there as of this writing.
If Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, who has not made an official statement on his future in or out of Oakland, does not show up, don't take it as a sign he's not going to run. It's June and we've got a lot of time before November. We also have a lot of candidates: ten. So many that my sources tell me 100 Black Men almost made a mistake in not inviting all of them.
At first, 100 Black Men extended invitations to three Oakland Mayor's Race participants: Don Perata and Oakland Councilmembers Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan. But the other candidates got wind of the event and literally raised hell, threatening to crash the party and present their displeasure at being excluded. 100 Black Men sent an new emailed invite, giving the candidates one day to respond. Each did.
As reported here before, The full list of Oakland Mayor's Race candidates consists of incumbent Ron Dellums, Don Perata, Don MacLeay, Jean Quan, Greg Harland, Maya Dillard Smith, Terrance Candell, and an tenth person who's still not ready for prime time, but will be. Eight of the ten will be at the 100 Black Men event. But what's 100 Black Men?
100 Black Men of The Bay Area is a great organization that holds events and fundraisers that cause the Bay Area's black business and political officials to gather and help African American youth by providing scholarships and mentoring. 100 Black Men is a membership organization that's open to everyone who wants to help, regardless of color or sex.
See you on June 10th.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Chevron Ecuador - NY Times Bob Hebert's failed column
It's funny how a person can be coaxed into wading into a very complicated issue without knowing all of the facts. That's what happened when The New York Times' Columnist Bob Herbert wrote a grossly inaccurate column about Chervron's involvement in Ecuador.
The BP Oil Spill, a totally awful event that British Petroleum should pay the damages for, has opened the floodgates for a torrent of rhetoric on the part of people who just want to point a finger, but not know the truth.
In this case, while this blogger can't make that claim against Bob Herbert, it's clear the NY Times columnist was manipulated into telling a horrible caricature of the truth behind the Chevron Ecuador environmental damage issue. A truth that leaves Ecuador itself untouched.
To put it simply, in talking and listening to the side suing Chevron -- which claims to represent the "indigeous tribes" of Ecuador, but really is representing the Government of Ecuador as well as their own desire to become billionaires...
-- and not doing a bit of independent research, let alone listening to the other side (he talked to them), Bob Hebert made the following errors:
Wrong Bob Hebert. The first error was in just reading the lawsuit without using the Internet to research the case. The fact is Texaco turned over control of the oil wells to the Ecuador-owned oil company called PetroEcuador in 1992. Chevron noted that it did clean up the land it used in 1992, but this is 2010, and the land's still being used for oil production and not by Chevron.
The undercapitalized PetroEcuador, clearly in over its head, has caused massive oil spills and explosions in the Amazon region between 1992 and today, (and mentioned before in this space). Moreover oil companies from Canada and Europe have produced oil and caused damage too, but you don't see a thing about that unless you read this space or do research.
That set of facts alone is enough to discredit Hebert's article because at no point in it does he mention PetroEcuador's activity or for that matter any other oil company. Sloppy. From Hebert's take, you'd think there was no oil exploration or production in the Amazon after 1992. How not true.
Look, Bob's taking a side, and that's cool, but Hebert doesn't know what he's writing about, that's the problem.
Bob failed to mention how Ecuador President Rafael Correa himself has worked to kick out American oil companies and nationalize oil production. Hebert failed to mention how Correa allowed Brazil to product oil in the Amazon region for compensation. Bob Hebert failed to note the 118 oil spills that have happened in the Amazon region since 1992, and some claim its even more than that.
What was Bob doing when he wrote the column?
The point is the real organization that should be sued, and has not been, is the Government of Ecuador itself, which takes petro-dollars and fails to get them to the poorest citizens. Meanwhile Ecuador and American lawyer Steve Donziger have done a good job in fooling college students into forgetting that Ecuador too has a massive responsibility to its poor that it's failed to take on.
Ecuador is responsible for the damaged Amazon, not American oil companies. Bob should rewrite his column. He's got a right to his view and I defend that. Just get it right.
The BP Oil Spill, a totally awful event that British Petroleum should pay the damages for, has opened the floodgates for a torrent of rhetoric on the part of people who just want to point a finger, but not know the truth.
In this case, while this blogger can't make that claim against Bob Herbert, it's clear the NY Times columnist was manipulated into telling a horrible caricature of the truth behind the Chevron Ecuador environmental damage issue. A truth that leaves Ecuador itself untouched.
To put it simply, in talking and listening to the side suing Chevron -- which claims to represent the "indigeous tribes" of Ecuador, but really is representing the Government of Ecuador as well as their own desire to become billionaires...
-- and not doing a bit of independent research, let alone listening to the other side (he talked to them), Bob Hebert made the following errors:
Texaco came barreling into this delicate ancient landscape in the early 1960s with all the subtlety and grace of an invading army. And when it left in 1992, it left behind, according to the lawsuit, widespread toxic contamination that devastated the livelihoods and traditions of the local people, and took a severe toll on their physical well-being.
Wrong Bob Hebert. The first error was in just reading the lawsuit without using the Internet to research the case. The fact is Texaco turned over control of the oil wells to the Ecuador-owned oil company called PetroEcuador in 1992. Chevron noted that it did clean up the land it used in 1992, but this is 2010, and the land's still being used for oil production and not by Chevron.
The undercapitalized PetroEcuador, clearly in over its head, has caused massive oil spills and explosions in the Amazon region between 1992 and today, (and mentioned before in this space). Moreover oil companies from Canada and Europe have produced oil and caused damage too, but you don't see a thing about that unless you read this space or do research.
That set of facts alone is enough to discredit Hebert's article because at no point in it does he mention PetroEcuador's activity or for that matter any other oil company. Sloppy. From Hebert's take, you'd think there was no oil exploration or production in the Amazon after 1992. How not true.
Look, Bob's taking a side, and that's cool, but Hebert doesn't know what he's writing about, that's the problem.
Bob failed to mention how Ecuador President Rafael Correa himself has worked to kick out American oil companies and nationalize oil production. Hebert failed to mention how Correa allowed Brazil to product oil in the Amazon region for compensation. Bob Hebert failed to note the 118 oil spills that have happened in the Amazon region since 1992, and some claim its even more than that.
What was Bob doing when he wrote the column?
The point is the real organization that should be sued, and has not been, is the Government of Ecuador itself, which takes petro-dollars and fails to get them to the poorest citizens. Meanwhile Ecuador and American lawyer Steve Donziger have done a good job in fooling college students into forgetting that Ecuador too has a massive responsibility to its poor that it's failed to take on.
Ecuador is responsible for the damaged Amazon, not American oil companies. Bob should rewrite his column. He's got a right to his view and I defend that. Just get it right.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg helped Kamela Harris in CA AG Race... sort of
 |
| Mark Z busts-out Chris Kelly |
No word if Zuckerberg actually showed up on Sunday, but the simple action of responding to the Facebook page may be enough to knock Chris Kelly off his campaign game with just one day to go before the Tuesday June 8th primary election. In short, Mark Zuckerberg helped Kamela Harris.
Frankly, what Chris Kelly did, saying that he sides with MoveOn.org in fighting Facebook's privacy policy, after serving as the Facebook lawyer who made the original one that itself wasn't so popular, is too little, too late.
If Chris Kelly so disagreed with Facebook on the privacy policy issue, he should have not waited until five days before election day to say so; he's had a ton of time to do this, and could have added his voice to that of tech stars like Jason Calacanis last year.
Instead, Chris Kelly's campaign is being torpedoed by this great Kamela Harris ad:
In the interest of full disclosure, this blogger will vote for Kamela Harris for California Attorney General.
San Francisco's Union Street needs more businesses, not less
 |
| The spaces available on Union Street |
To be sure, new and great restaurants like the home-away-from-home eatery called The Brick Yard at 1787 Union St (at Octavia), and replacing The Bayside Bar and Grill at a space that sat empty for two years, and the upcoming "Unwind" just down the street, promise a brighter future for Union Street, the way still has a long trek to make to recover its past luster.
There are over 20 spaces for lease along Union Street as of this writing, and overall it looks like a ghost town almost totally devoid of the vibrant street scene that once attracted thousands of people. Union Street lacks a book store and a movie house. The Apple Store was not aggressively pursued by the neighbor association; it's on Chestnut Street just four blocks away. (In fact, I was told they didn't want The Apple Store on Union Street. That was a bone-headed error.)
In fact Chestnut Street has what Union Street once had and I described it needs. In this still weak Bay Area spending economy, the success of Union Street and Chestnut Street has become a zero-sum game: someone wins and and someone loses. Chestnut is winning over Union Street.
What's the problem? Rather than teaming up with Chestnut and marketing as one, the Union Street minders have elected to go it alone - not that they've approached the Marina Merchants Association, but it would be a good idea.
Why" Joint marketing. With the development of Oakland's Restaurant industry, there's less reason for anyone to go from Oakland and the East Bay to San Francisco without a joint marketing effort.
And an aggressive one.
The other alternative is for the Union Street Merchants to form their own association. That may be the best way to go. But the new group must move to get going. One great start for any Union Street effort is the Facebook page Save Union Street, that has 519 people who "like" it so far. Check it out.
Whatever the case, Union Street needs more businesses. Now.
Sandra Bullock kiss of Scarlett Johansson means no Oscar for Sca-Jo?
But Vanity Fair's Julian Sancton says such a kiss from Bullock is the kiss of death for Scarlett Johansson's Oscar chances. Sancton compares Bullock's kiss to The Godfather's Michael Corleone kissing his brother Fredo before having him murdered in The Godfather, Part 2.
(Oh, and a note on "Sca-Jo", I know someone created the unfortunate term "Scar-Jo" but having not yet met Scarlett Johansson, it's a fair bet having a rapper nickname that reminds someone of a scar is not something she wants. Thus, the dropping of the "r".)
The Vanity Fair blogger then asserts that because Meryl Streep then failed to beat Bullock for Best Actress at the 2010 Academy Awards, and Bullock kissed her before the Oscars, Scarlett Johansson then will not win an Oscar.
Actually, it could be said that while Sandra Bullock's kiss may not mean an Oscar win, it could be the precursor to an Academy Awards nomination. So, this space confidently states that Scarlett Johansson will be at least nominated for Best Actress within the next three years because Sandra Bullock kissed her on Sunday.
Stay tuned for that one!
Apple iPhone 4 operating system causes AdMob problem
According to an interview with TechCrunch's Erick Schonfeld on Monday, in New York City for "Internet Week", AdMob CEO Omar Hamoui, said that the new Apple iPhone 4.0 Operating System has a licensing restriction such that phone data can't be sent to third party providers. It's a policy that Omar Hamoui says could be "potentially devastating" to AdMob's iPhone business.
The only good news, so far, is that Apple hasn't enforced the new policy. Hamoui told Erick Schonfeld that "It is not good for developers to have only one choice. It doesn’t make sense. I don’t think it even benefits them. They should want developers to make more money. Having more advertising providers is better than having less."
Hamoui told TechCrunch that 30 to 40 percent of iPhone AdMob ads are actually cross-promiting other apps, and that's why Apple wants to have and control that market using the new iAds system.
Sandra Bullock kisses Scarlett Johansson at MTV movie awards
Also: sandra bullock, scarlett johansson, scarlett johansson and sandra bullock, ryan reynolds, the proposal, jesse james, bullock baby louis, mtv.com, mtv movie awards
Fresh from a long period out of the public eye, actress Sandra Bullock has come back, with what can only be called a "bang" or more appropriately, a big Rolling Stones style pair of lips. One day after her first public appearance in Hollywood at the Spike TV Guys Choice Awards (and to accept the Troops Choice Award), Oscar-Award-Winning Actress Sandra Bullock kissed Scarlett Johansson at the MTV movie awards Sunday night. This blogger's first thought was "is Sandra Bullock coming out now that her divorce from husband Jesse James is in the works?
Speculation runs. But one things' for sure, Betty White doesn't want to mimic the Bullock Johansson kiss "to each his own," Betty White said when MTV asked for her opinion.
Really, the kiss wasn't all that hot; again, it seemed more the product of a PR meeting:
Internet buzz-generation aside, it's hard to believe Sandra Bullock has crammed so much activity into the year 2010, and we're just at the halfway point of the year. It started with Sandra's amazing Oscar-win for Best Actress in A Leading Role for The Blind Side, then just two weeks later, it was revealed that Bullock's husband Jesse James had affairs with not one, but as many as four and possibly five women.
When TMZ.com first reported the rumor that James was the subject of a "Nazi photo," then the picture was shown, some wondered if Bullock herself had such ideas (forgetting that her friend Forest Whitaker, who's black, introduced her for Best Actress at the Academy Awards).
But all of those views were dumped when Bullock announced she adopted an beautiful African American baby named Louis Bullock, and started the process four years ago, with Jesse James.
But then, just as it seemed the couple might get back together, Bullock filed for divorce as James was undergoing rehab for sex addiction in Arizona.
Not seen in public since the Academy Awards in March, it's now June and Bullock's come out of hiding in more ways than one. Even if she was mimicking Meryl Streep, her passionate kiss with Scarlett Johansson shows how much Bullock's life has changed since Oscar night.
Stay tuned.
Apple iPhone4 is sadly still an AT&T-only; is EVO better?
Apple's new iPhone4 was released today in San Francisco and it has exciting features, like HD video and video calling. But the one thing it does not have, is the most anticipated one thing: service from a carrier other than AT&T, like Verizon. That news alone has some going for, or sticking with, their Sprint HTC EVO, even after the iPhone4 San Francisco introduction.
AT&T's service is terrible, particularly it's auto-billing system. As I blogged before, in 2008, AT&T mistakenly put $1,033.36 on my iPhone bill each month, causing me to file a dispute claim with American Express. Thus, the $1,033.36 was sent back to AT&T.
On a conference call early in 2009, the rep AT&T admitted to the American Express rep that the charge was an error and should not be counted. In fact, that was the fourth time an AT&T rep admitted the error. The AT&T billing system system was sending out that same amount each month. Then, four months later, another group of AT&T people said the charge wasn't wrong and stopped reversing it.
In other words, those evil AT&T people were arguing for the right to charge $1,033.36 on my account each month. Seriously.
In total, I talked to about 10 different AT&T reps over the course of the history of the dispute. It was exhausting!
So, seeing I was not going to get any relief, I told AT&T they should take their contract and shove it. Unfortunately, I had to stop using my iPhone. I thought about jail-breaking it myself, tried to do it myself, and failed. Lame.
At first, I switched to a Blackberry, which was OK, except that it made "robo-calls" far too much to be tolerable. Now, I use a T-Mobile G-1, and while it's not quite an iPhone, it has just enough features to make me happy.
All the while, I was waiting for Apple to essentially unlock the iPhone, or get it out of AT&T jail. Steve Jobs was expected to make an announcement that haters of AT&T could come back home to iPhone because it was on the Verizon network, but that did not happen.
That's sad.
Why Apple and Steve Jobs have invested so much in a singular relationship with a company as awful as AT&T boggles the mind. But here we are.
Is Spring HTC EVO better?
ZDNet's buzzing about the Spring HTC EVO phone. In fact, the new version of the Google android phone was the hit of TechCrunch Disrupt New York City. Reportedly, it has so many features that it favorably compares to the iPhone 4, but ZDNet's Matt Miller ended his article by stating that Apple's best move is to offer other carriers than just AT&T.
Steve Jobs, iPhone users hate AT&T, and so do potential iPhone users. Unless you don't mind losing fans, get the iPhone out of the AT&T jail, before it's too late.
AT&T's service is terrible, particularly it's auto-billing system. As I blogged before, in 2008, AT&T mistakenly put $1,033.36 on my iPhone bill each month, causing me to file a dispute claim with American Express. Thus, the $1,033.36 was sent back to AT&T.
On a conference call early in 2009, the rep AT&T admitted to the American Express rep that the charge was an error and should not be counted. In fact, that was the fourth time an AT&T rep admitted the error. The AT&T billing system system was sending out that same amount each month. Then, four months later, another group of AT&T people said the charge wasn't wrong and stopped reversing it.
In other words, those evil AT&T people were arguing for the right to charge $1,033.36 on my account each month. Seriously.
In total, I talked to about 10 different AT&T reps over the course of the history of the dispute. It was exhausting!
So, seeing I was not going to get any relief, I told AT&T they should take their contract and shove it. Unfortunately, I had to stop using my iPhone. I thought about jail-breaking it myself, tried to do it myself, and failed. Lame.
At first, I switched to a Blackberry, which was OK, except that it made "robo-calls" far too much to be tolerable. Now, I use a T-Mobile G-1, and while it's not quite an iPhone, it has just enough features to make me happy.
All the while, I was waiting for Apple to essentially unlock the iPhone, or get it out of AT&T jail. Steve Jobs was expected to make an announcement that haters of AT&T could come back home to iPhone because it was on the Verizon network, but that did not happen.
That's sad.
Is Spring HTC EVO better?
ZDNet's buzzing about the Spring HTC EVO phone. In fact, the new version of the Google android phone was the hit of TechCrunch Disrupt New York City. Reportedly, it has so many features that it favorably compares to the iPhone 4, but ZDNet's Matt Miller ended his article by stating that Apple's best move is to offer other carriers than just AT&T.
Steve Jobs, iPhone users hate AT&T, and so do potential iPhone users. Unless you don't mind losing fans, get the iPhone out of the AT&T jail, before it's too late.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Tila Tequila- Caught by "Tilas RotSpot" by: Nikky Raney
I have been getting a lot of positive feedback and a lot of e-mails asking that I please continue to do more stories/blogging about Tila Tequila. So, I guess she can be apart of my side project. It's quite amusing. If you write "Nikky" in any comments on her page, the post will automatically be deleted. Try it out.
Anyway, my birthday is June 7 (tomorrow), so I won't be blogging for a bit.
But this is a quick post to show you some evidence I have found.
The site dedicated to keeping tabs on Tila is called "Tila's RotSpot."
I was sent this link via tweet and when I clicked it I found some very interesting reports.
Tila has since deleted the blog entries, but the Rotspot was able to do some research and posted more of her tweets.
The Rotspot posts PROOF that the photo taken by Tila of her arm was actually taken days PRIOR.
Since I will be busy celebrating my 20th birthday (Yes, I turn 20 tomorrow), you can get your fix of Tila exposure at Tila's Rotspot. They go into detail about what happened when the LAPD arrived at the home of Miss Tequila.
I'll post more soon.
Happy Birthday To Me!
Nikky Raney @ nikkyraney.com & twitter.com/nikkyraney
Tila made lots of blog posts saying how stupid people are to think she would try to kill herself.
Tila is Jane.
Jane tried to kill Tila.
So, that means that Tila tried to kill Tila.
Good Night everyone. I'll post more soon.
& some Jersey Shore scoop.
(p.s. you hear the failure to censor at the mtv movie awards? Fortunately the FCC is more lenient after 11 pm)
Social Networking is really Social Broadcasting
 |
| Social Broadcasting |
Two events led to the use of the term Social Broadcasting for this blogger. First, on April 10, 2008, James Earl Buck used Twitter to get out of an Egyptian jail. What happened was that Buck, a University of California at Berkeley, or "Cal student", was in Mahalla, Egypt reportedly covering an anti-government protest when he and his colleague Mohammed Maree were arrested.
While being transported to jail, James Earl Buck used his cell phone to send a message that read "Arrested." (If it were me, I'd have sent a tweet rather than a message.) Eventually, bloggers and friends at Cal and around the World were activated. They got him a lawyer, and got him out of jail.
The second event is that a number of people, generally over 40 or 50 years of age, and for the most part in the advertising industry, ask why they should "do" social networking. They want to know why they should connect with people they do not know.
On Linkedin, the busines-oriented social broadcasting system, that question comes up so frequently it's become annoying. I give the same answer all the time: to get out a message. That's when I realized the reason many don't do social networking is because the very term itself is misleading. It's social broadcasting.
According to Wikipedia, the definition of "Broadcasting" is:
"..the distribution of audio and/or video signals which transmit programs to an audience. The audience may be the general public or a relatively large subset of the whole, such as children or young adults."
But that definition is outdated because it implies the use of electronic communications as practiced in the 20th Century with television and radio. The Internet changed all that, as websites and blogs, and mobile devices allow us to send text messages.
So, to that old definition of "broadcasting" one only has to add the word "text" to understand my point, so the definition now looks like this;
"..the distribution of text, audio and/or video signals which transmit programs to an audience. The audience may be the general public or a relatively large subset of the whole, such as children or young adults."
Think about that: "The audience may be the general public or a relatively large subset of the whole, such as children or young adults." It can also be your Facebook friends and Twitter followers or YouTube subscribers. Or all of them.
In my case, it's all of them. Zennie62 YouTube video distribution is done at times using Tubemogul, which permits me to upload one video to as many as eight different video distribution sites. Then the same video automatically goes to my Facebook, Friend Feed, and Twitter accounts. This is also true for Zennie62.com blog posts.
The distribution to my network of followers, friends, and subcribers is something I call my "horizontal broadcast network." Why? Because its "cross-platform," that is from Twitter to Friend Feed to Facebook and so on. Each one of those systems is a platform.
My "vertical broadcast network" is simply the number of people in that platform I have as friends, followers, or subscribers.
So by adding platforms you expand your network horizontally. By adding more people in each one you grow it vertically.
I use the Social Broadcasting System to get out information. My Facebook page is listed as for "networking." I'm not concerned about privacy issues on Facebook because there's nothing on it I don't want people to see. Many of my Facebook friends are people I have not met before. I'm using it for Social Broadcasting. On Twitter, I practice "retweeting" which is just a way of passing on information from one broadcast network, or set of Twitter followers, to another - in this case, your own.
This is no different than the old newspaper distribution system of subscribers. In that case, one newspaper had so many subscribers. From the newspapers perspective, some knew the writers and publishers, but most did not.
But Social Broadcasting's cross-platform reach brings in the concept of going to a Twitter stream which is a lot like tuning into a radio station while driving. You can stay there or find another station. On Twiter, you can follow and unfollow with ease. That action alters the flow of information to you, and changes your broadcast reach as well.
Note that I did not mention who you should follow or friend. That's not the point, and marks the difference in thinking. The objective is to have a wide a reach as possible. Period.
You're in the broadcast business, like it or not, and for the simple reason that you can't perfectly control what anyone consumes that you chose to put out there. If it's something that your friends, think is worth sharing with someone you don't know; you're plan of control is trashed. Once it's out, it's gone.
If you think about Social Networking as Social Broadcasting, then you see we're all really social broadcasters. And that's how media has changed and why Old Media suffers. Communications technology has caused millions of small media production efforts to spring up, if we consider cell phone and especially smart phones.
An advertiser can chose to sponsor a media effort with someone you and I never heard of just because of that person's reach. And that person may have just a computer, a blog, and a cell phone. Two decades ago, that was unheard of; ad money flowed to newspapers like The New York Times and The San Francisco Chronicle and The Chicago Tribune.
Not any more.
What, then, is the answer for The New York Times and The San Francisco Chronicle and The Chicago Tribune? To team up, or buy up, blogs and websites. That's the only way to expand the Old Media brand. Not one of the Old Media companies can make as many blogs that have the same impact as buying existing ones with set a audience Social Broadcasting base (because they're likely to have a Twitter account and YouTube accounts as well).
The other answer is to copy Associated Content, Examiner.com, and Gather.com, and add writers and pay them based on a traffic-based estimate.
Or perhaps the best approach for Old Media (The New York Times and The San Francisco Chronicle and The Chicago Tribune as examples) is some combination of both.
From the ad agency perspective, the idea that Social Networking doesn't work can be changed if the agency thinks of it as Social Broadcasting. Then the idea of "media buys" is much different and extends far beyond television and into not just blogs and websites, but someone's Twitter account too.
But even with all that, it's only a dent (but if played correctly a big one) in the total sea of media producers. Why? Because that set of people includes you and me, and the teenager with the cell phone who texts every minute about every thing, and uses Twitter to retweet any tweet on Justin Bieber.
We're all social broadcasters. We're just too busy thinking of social networking to see it.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Tila Tequila tries to commit suicide via "Jane" personality
 |
| From Tila Tequila's blog and Zennie62.com |
Tila Tequila's "alter ego" or "multiple personality" Jane tried to kill her.
Seriously.
We just found out that celebrity rehab was just postponed.
I know I said I wouldn't post anymore about her, but this was just too much.
I also have a vlog that I will be posting.
She also posted a long blog entry about how Jane is trying to kill her.
Tita Tequila's reported multiple personalities first surfaced during the assault accusation controversy with San Diego Chargers Linebacker Shawne Merriman last year. Then, Tila Tequila was revealed in this space to be a person who has real mental problems, even posting a message on her website about her personalities and their behavior.
While such reports are easy to laugh at, in reality they're no laughing matter at all. Nikky Raney posted the shocking text that Tila left just below the bloody photo you see above. Here it is:
I don’t know what happened. People don’t believe I have multiple personalities but this morning the last thing I remember was falling asleep cuz I was so tired. I blacked out and now that I just woke up from excruciating pains all over my body, there was blood and dope everywhere! She is evil! She single handedly smashed and broke EVERYTHING in my bedroom! Both nightstands, the bed lights, all of the surround sound system, my tv boxes and there’s glass everywhere. There’s even chunks of meet coming out of my arm from the deep slits from her slicing up my arm from all the broken glass! My arm meet from inside is starting to bubble up and seep through the cuts. This is so fucked up. Now that I’m awake, she just left but I have no recollection of what happened to me. I’m just crying right now hiding in my toilet… my entire room is in shambles. All the new furniture is broken and glass all over the bed. I don’t know whats happening! =(
Little Tila"
Raney has the full account at Zennie62.com. Check it out.
And here's a wish that Tila gets the help she needs.
Stay tuned.
Helen Thomas says Jews should get out of Palestine
 |
| Helen Thomas |
A video surfaced where Helen Thomas is asked, at of all things the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration on May 27th 2010, "any comments on Israel." Helen Thomas said "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. Not Germany. Not Poland."
When the questioner, who knew he's caught a live one, asked what Jews should so, Thomas didn't miss a beat, saying "They go home. Poland. Germany. And America and everywhere else." Here's the video:
That was just plain awful. As the video reminds us, 6 million Jews were killed in Germany and Poland. Plus Palestine includes Israel and the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. While it's possible Helen Thomas was talking about specific land disputes, she did not exclude Israel itself from her comments.
While Helen Thomas has apologized, saying "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon," it's too late to curb the torrent of complaints from bloggers, some calling for Hearst Newspapers to drop her.
Unfortunately, the matter has degenerated into a left / right issue from the rightwing-nut fringe. The normally baseless Michael Savage rightly commented on the issue, but then goes on a psychotic rant about liberal communists. Just because Thomas is liberal does not mean other liberals are at fault for her behavior. Some people, regardless of politics, can be just plain stupid.
For example, I was at a fund-raiser for an Oakland nonprofit last night, and this older white woman and I were talking about Israel and Gaza. Then, suddenly she said something about the oppressed being the oppressor and then African Americans having abusive families. At that point, I knew I was sitting next to a racist from the looney bin. And guess what? She's liberal like me.
But she's one of those Oakland older white and bigoted liberals who see African Americans as 'these poor, downtrodden people' she has to save, which is a kind of racist view in itself. The reason is that people who think that way sometimes find it hard to deal with African Americans who are their financial and intellectual equals or beyond them. I know that from experience.
But I digress. In having an out-of-body experience, I said that one could make statements like that about a number of people, but it doesn't make it true. I told her I've heard her comments before, and I don't believe them. Rather than get angry with her, I caused her to see that she made a mistake.
The positive aspect of such encounters is they do express a willingness to change. You have to give them that.
Some people can be just stupid, but overall they mean well. It would seem Helen Thomas fits into that category.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)