This is a Man’s World…or is it?

This week I have treat for my followers, guest blogger Sharon Denny, an acclaimed author and good friend of mine. Sharon is an avid follower of Opinionated and wanted to share her opinion this week. So here we go...

In 1966, the Godfather of Soul, James Brown, musically proclaimed that men rule the world when he recorded the song It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World, a title that Rolling Stone magazine characterized as “almost biblically chauvinistic”. The song attributes all the productive work that goes on in the world to the male gender, but also states that it would all amount to “nothing without a woman or a girl.” This song became a staple of Brown’s live shows and went on to rank number 123 in 2004 in Rolling Stone magazine’s list of the 500 greatest songs of all time.

Let’s fast forward 45 years to 2011, a new time and a new generation of pop culture where things are looked at a little differently. Beyonce´ Knowles, famed pop singer/entertainer and wife of hip hop mogul Jay-Z, has seemed to ruffle some feathers, of roosters no doubt, when she recently came out with the hit song Who Run the World (Girls).

In the lyrics, the question is repeatedly asked: Who run the world? Who run this mother? And the answer every time is: Girls! Even more powerful than the lyrics is the music video where Beyonce´ is backed by a group of similarly attractive women clad in racy clothing, dancing and singing as they proclaim that girls run the world. The lyrics suggest that men love it how the female persuasion is “smart enough to make these millions, strong enough to bear the children, then get back to business.” These lyrics, although they might seem a bit feministic in nature, are powerful enough that they have mesmerized young girls and young women all over the world to the point where they believe that if Beyonce´ say’s girls run the world, then it must be true! Girls do run the world!

When asked what he thought of the song, a male friend clearly expressed that he felt the song is misleading young women and girls all over the world to believe something which is against the will of God and all of nature, and that the message, as small as it might seem to some, has the potential to evoke what could ultimately be a very damaging view by this generation against the design and strength of the traditional family unit.

I admire Beyonce´ as an artist, and I give her two thumbs up for the sound of the song and the dance moves performed in the music video. I’ll even go as far as to say that I do believe that what she’s saying is partly true. In recent years, women have begun playing more significant leading roles in their lives and households than ever before. Women have had to take the reins in many situations and “run” their worlds for whatever reason, so in nutshell, these lyrics do hold some truth. But, even with all that being the case, do the lyrics perpetuate or add to changes that are already taking place in the current generations that some of the world fears will be the fall of mankind?

Just how much weight does music carry and just how much influence do entertainers have on where we’re headed as a human race? As simple as lyrics to a pop song may seem, do you see the magnitude of the affect that they may have over time? How much does it matter to you? Is it a big enough issue that you would consider making such decisions as to not spend money to support certain artists, or to ban certain music from being played in your household, or do you just go with the flow and hope that what you’ve taught your children (if you have any) has taken root in their minds and will help steer them in the right direction when it comes to decision making?

I think that no matter what we teach our children, and no matter how they’re brought up in the home, they’re still strongly influenced by the outside world with generational changes in fashion, attitude, world views, etc. The question is, do we act upon the things that we see influencing our children each and every time, or do we gracefully allow time and evolution to have their way? What say you?

SD Denny

Award-Nominated Author

Titles: The Baker’s Dozen (2007) & HALF (2011)

www.sddenny.com

Dog Eat Dog world!!

After telling GQ magazine that he didn’t want to come to Philadelphia to be a third-string quarterback after his release from federal prison, Michael Vick clarified his remarks. Vick states he is glad he chose the Philadelphia Eagles, even if he had more attractive options. Vick resurrected his career with the Eagles. He had an amazing season last year, and started in the Pro Bowl. He said in the article that Commissioner Roger Goodell was among those who convinced him Philadelphia was the right destination. He initially said in the article “I think I can say this now, because it’s not going to hurt anybody’s feelings, and it’s the truth”. “I didn’t want to come to Philadelphia . Being the third-team quarterback is nothing to smile about. Cincinnati and Buffalo were better options.” Even though Philly ended up being a better situation for him, there are still times to keep your mouth shut and just not say anything. Stating the commissioner told him to play in Philly is basically collusion. That is neither here nor there right now anyway. That situation was not as bad as his next diarrhea of the mouth fiasco.

In the same GQ article when asked about the negative media perceptions of him Michael says

"They are writing as if everyone feels that way and have the same opinions they do. But when I go out in public, it's all positive, so that's obviously not true." The media, he implies, act as though he used to sneak into suburban yards, steal golden retrievers, and set them on fire. As if he were a lone actor, a single rampaging menace, a canine serial killer with no context, motivation, or back story. As if he is the only person in America associated with dogfighting.Now if there ever was a time to just shut up or keep your answer simple this was it.

On people not from his background understanding where he comes from

"Yeah, you got the family dog and the white picket fence, and you just think that's all there is. Some of us had to grow up in poverty-stricken urban neighborhoods, and we just had to adapt to our environment. I know that it's wrong. But people act like its some crazy thing they never heard of. They don't know.” see this is that ignorant ish that irks me. I was far from rich growing up so that is some nonsense. Honestly I have been to a few dogfights in my younger days, but I have never seen dogs electrocuted, drowned or strangled for losing. I understand that dog fighting is cultural, but we have to stop blaming everything on culture and upbringing. As long as the chains remain we are going to be shackled by our past and our inability to move beyond it.

Case in point, when the writer asked Vick if he felt people don't understand black culture, he stated "I think that's accurate.”I mean, I was just one of the ones who got exposed, and because of the position I was in, where I was in my life, it went mainstream. A lot of people got out of it after my situation, not because I went to prison but because it was sad for them to see me go through something that was so pointless, that could have been avoided.” I was one of those people that thought it was totally blown out of proportion. I did a blog a couple of years ago on the disparate sentences of NFL players. You have players who have killed people that did less time than Vick. I still feel because we are a dog loving country that he got a lot more time that he should have. I know he went to jail for running a criminal enterprise, but if you don't think killing those dogs had a major impact on his sentence, then you must believe the Tea Party is good for America and not racist. Michael Vick paid his dues and is now reaping the rewards of being an all star athlete. Now if he can learn to keep his mouth closed, the media and all his haters won't dog him out.

Privacy...I think not

The advent of computer-based telephone switches and the Internet has made it more difficult for the government to monitor the communications of criminals, spies and terrorists. Federal agencies want Internet companies to comply with the same wiretapping requirements that apply to telecommunications carriers. This proposal, though, may stifle Internet innovation. Furthermore, the new surveillance facilities might be misused by overzealous government officials or hijacked by terrorists or spies interested in monitoring U.S. communications.This was taken from a Scientific American article in 2008 .Now fast forward three years later. On July 27th 2011 The House Judiciary Committee approved a bipartisan bill called the “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act”. It now has to pass the Senate. Congress is trying to pass legislation that would make it easier for law enforcement to access online information about the activities of all Americans, regardless if they are criminals or not.




While we were fretting over the debt ceiling, thinking it was Armageddon. Our government is on the verge of passing a bill that requires all commercial Internet service providers to retain information about all people who use their service. In the event they are ever asked to hand it over to the authorities. here is the essence of the bill (Retention of Certain Records- A commercial provider of an electronic communication service shall retain for a period of at least one year a log of the temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a subscriber or customer of such service that enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c) (2) of this section.) According to Rep Zoë Lofgren of California. “That last phrase, Subsection © (2), is a reference to 18 U.S. Code 2703(c) (2), which says, ‘A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a Government entity the name, address, local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations, lengths of service, telephone or instrument number, means and source of payment for such service, including any credit card or bank account number.’” An amendment to limit the data that ISPs could collect to IP addresses only was rejected by a 7-16 vote.




Rep John Conyers the top ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee believes the bill is a sneak attempt at making it easier for the government to monitor citizens. “The bill is mislabeled,” he said. “This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.” The bills sponsor and the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith, admitted that the bill would be used more broadly than its title suggests. The data retention by ISPs would be used to “assist State and Federal law enforcement officials with child pornography and other Internet investigations.” I don't have to tell you that Rep. Lamar Smith is a Republican. They always say they want smaller government but then turn around and try to pass legislation for government intrusion into our privacy. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Mandatory data retention would force your Internet Service Provider to create vast and expensive new databases of sensitive information about you. That information would then be available to the government, in secret and without any court oversight, based on weak and outdated electronic privacy laws. That same data could become available to civil litigants in private lawsuits—whether it’s the RIAA trying to identify downloader’s, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry. These databases would also be a new and valuable target for black hat hackers, be they criminals trying to steal identities or foreign governments trying to unmask anonymous dissidents.) So watch what websites you visit or emails you send the wrong click of a mouse and those black helicopters may be on the way. To protest ,voice your opposition or make your voice heard go to https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=497

Ignorant Ish!!

If President Obama invokes the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling, he would "effectively be a dictator," Republican Presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann said in an interview with American Morning anchor Kiran Chetry. “Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes,” Bachmann said "its Congress that does the spending. The President is prohibited to do that. If he had the power to do that he would effectively be a dictator. There would be no reason for congress to even come into Washington DC . He would be making the spending decisions. He would be making the tax decisions. Clearly that's unconstitutional.” The problem with her logic is that it's in the Constitution, so clearly it isn't unconstitutional, granted it's the 14thAmendment, but still. She also said not too long ago that "Our founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery". What country is she talking about? Our founding fathers all owned slaves, some had children with slaves.

People make mistakes and have an occasional slip of the tongue, when running for the highest office in the land. She seems to have a free fall of misinformation. Now I'm not saying that you have to be a Rhodes Scholar, or a Constitutional law professor or a former head of the CIA to run for President. You do however need to be smarter than a fifth grader!! We also have Herman Cain, a nice strong named individual who is also running for the Presidency. Who has said among other things, the construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro TN is “an infringement and abuse of our freedom of religion. He also said his solution to illegal immigration along the Mexican border would be to build an electrified fence that would rise 20 feet high above a moat filled with alligators. Cain also wants lawmakers to stop passing bills that are over three pages long. "Don’t try to pass a 2,700-page bill," Cain said in speech in Iowa”You and I didn’t have time to read it. We’re too busy trying to live — send our kids to school. That’s why I am only going to allow small bills — three pages. You’ll have time to read that one over the dinner table," Cain said. Tea Party "This is with whom you want to place your faith?"

With the current debt ceiling issue that is going on right now neither of them would have a sensible solution to the matter. Just to be clear despite all the posturing and posing in Washington right now, a deal will get done. They can act like Chicken Little and scream the sky is falling, but understand it will get done. Republicans make it seem that Obama is trying to do something no other President has done. In fact every President since 1939 except Harry Truman has raised the debt ceiling. Ronald Reagan "The Gipper" raised it 18 times; even Baby Bush did it 7 times. I don't recall any doomsday proclamations. I also want to state for the record that Obama actually opposed one of those increases to the debt ceiling under George W. Bush. He also criticized Bush for a lack of leadership. I'm just saying. Now if a deal has not been done by the time you read this, you better believe it will be soon. Contrary to popular opinion though it won’t be Armageddon if we don't. We will be late on a few payments to seniors and maybe the unemployed. Not bad from a big picture standpoint, but it's gonna cost somebody next election.

Shoot to kill

San Francisco police are saying a man they thought was fatally shot by officers, actually killed himself.Police thought Kenneth Harding was shot by an officer Saturday while trying to run away from a ticket violation. Thursday, authorities said they found evidence that the fatal wound on Mr. Harding was self-inflicted, .Commander Mike Bie. revealed the new theory at a news conference at the city's medical examiner's office.Kenneth Harding died Saturday after a confrontation with undercover officers .Police say when he was approached by the officer who wanted to see his ticket, Harding ran and police pursued him. During the chase, a gunbattle started and Harding was fatally wounded,Initially, authorities believed that San Francisco police shot and killed Harding during the confrontation in the city' Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood.The shooting triggered angry protests by community members, who challenged the police version of what happened.Hmm a new version,new gun , new self inflicted wound.

The medical examiner stated."The bullet which was recovered from his head is not consistent with the service ammunition used by the San Francisco Police Department," Chief Medical Examiner Amy Hart told reporters.She demonstrated her point with a photo of the bullet removed from Harding's head.It was a .380-caliber and San Francisco Police are armed with .40-caliber ammunition, Hart said Medical examiner's staff also found a second, unfired cartridge (.380-caliber) in Harding's right jacket pocket. Harding was also wounded in the leg by a round apparently fired by pursuing officers....maybe he shot himself in the leg while running .I mean he did have bullets in his pockets, but no gun ? Maybe it was the shooter on the grassy knoll,or Professor Plum in the library?

The Police Department believes that the weapon used by Harding is missing along with a cell phone and casings.When the shooting occurred, a crowd gathered challenging officers. According to police "Based upon evidence known at this time including: officer and witness statements that Harding shot at the police officers, Shot Spotter data, video tape evidence that depicts a firearm at the scene that was subsequently taken and the location of gunshot residue on Harding's right hand, it appears that Mr. Harding's head wound was self-inflicted. It is unknown if Harding's injury was intentional or accidental." check the video below and tell me what you think. I said not too long ago we are Public Enemy#1! http://opinionated-dennis.blogspot.com/2011/03/public-enemy-1.html

Chedda Plax revisited!

From time to time I will be doing Blasts from the past,previous blogs dealing with issues that are still pertinent today. So with the NFL in a lockout and Plaxico Buress released from prison. I bring back one of my very first Blogs from 2009 "Chedda Plax".

Okay excuse me for wondering what the hell is going on in this world!!! My beloved Giants released their Super Bowl winning WR Cheddar Plaxico Burress, after he was indicted on weapons possession charges. Chedda Plax was subsequently sentenced to 2 years in prison. That’s right, 2 years for shooting himself in the leg with an unregistered handgun, and for attempting to conceal it in sweatpants... sweatpants... really? The point I’m trying to make is that there have been very disparate sentences in some of these cases. For instance Buffalo Bills RB Marshawn Lynch was sentenced to community service and probationhttp://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3955441 for misdemeanor gun possession after he was arrested on Feb. 11 after suburban Culver City , Calif. , police investigated a parked car without license plates and smelled marijuana when the driver rolled down the window. Lynch was in the car with another man. Officers searched the car and found a 9mm semiautomatic handgun inside a backpack in the trunk. Prosecutors said the backpack contained other items belonging to Lynch. Yet Lynch received probation.


So my question is why did Chedda Plax get the time he got, when he only hurt himself? I mean you look at Donte Stallworth http://www.miamiherald.com/news/top-stories/story/1131879.html who killed a man while driving drunk and high. Okay read that sentence again “He killed a man while driving drunk and high in his Bentley!!!!” He was sentenced to 30 days in jail…for killing someone!!!!! He must also perform 1,000 hours of community service and can never drive again. Okay when you drive a Bentley you can probably afford a driver, I’m just saying. My point is that justice can always be swayed, depending on who feels offended. Mayor Bloomberg came out after Chedda Plax’s arrest and said "It would be an outrage if we don't prosecute to the fullest extent of the law." Really… that’s how we are going to go after an athlete who never had a criminal record? I’m not saying Chedda Plax should not have been punished, by all means he should have been. Where do you draw the line? Is it really justice to sentence a man who shot himself to two years in prison, while sentencing another man to 30 days in jail for killing someone while driving drunk and high? I know laws and statues are different state to state but this disparity does not make any sense at all. Is it because the man Donte Stallworth killed was named Mario Reyes and could have been an immigrant? Now some say that Stallworth was being a stand up guy staying there and taking responsibility for his actions. That’s true, but the problem with this line of thinking is that, you are giving people credit for doing what they are supposed to do.


Chris Rock had a joke one time where he said “N*gga’s always want credit for things they are supposed to do” Like the guy who says I ain’t ever been to jail, you ain’t supposed to you low expectation having…” The point I’m trying to make, is that yeah Chedda Plax tried to hide the gun and acted like a complete fool the moment he shot himself and tried to cover the incident up and yeah Donte Stallworth called the police after he killed a man, and he cooperated with the police from the onset, as he should have. None of that negates the fact that he was driving while drunk and with weed in his system. Was he being a stand up guy then? Was he being responsible then? The answer is NO!! What we’ve learned from this incident, is Chedda Plax should have just gone clubbing in Miami with a dime bag and some Patron. He could have killed a Cuban immigrant been out of jail and catching passes from Eli in time for the playoffs

Justice or Just us?

OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony... two verdicts, two eras’, same outcome. These two trials captured our attention for obvious reasons. OJ was a sports icon who transcended race, an actor with a brilliant smile and an engaging personality. I was going to say movie star, but his most notable roles were Nordberg the accident prone cop in the Naked Gun movies and Kunta Kinte's father in Root's. Not exactly Oscar material. Casey Anthony is an attractive young white woman, who liked tattoos and partying. Two very different personalities, from different walks of life both charged with heinous crimes. OJ was tried on two counts of murder following the June, 1994 deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Casey Anthony was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of her daughter Caylee. Both trials resulted in the acquittal of the defendants on murder charges, while also having most of America believing they got away with murder.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.” Johnnie Cochran a legendary lawyer, whom if you don't do your home work would assume the OJ trial made him. You have to look deeper; Johnnie had been on the frontlines for a long time. He was one of Geronimo Pratt’s lawyers http://opinionated-dennis.blogspot.com/2011/06/revolution-will-not-be-televised.html he was known as a fiery orator and skilled attorney. On the other side of the spectrum is Jose Baez. He took eight years to convince the Florida Supreme Court to let him practice law, and he'd been trying cases for only three years when the Anthony case came along. People thought he was in over his head during the trial and even called him Bozo the clown. Now they are calling him "Juani Cochran." What happens now for Baez is anybody’s guess, book deals, TV appearances and a definite up tick in clients. It will definitely bring a lot of hate and criticism, from many outraged citizens. That's fine; people can be mad and disgusted. They can call the jury names. They can say with conviction what they would have done, but its conjecture. Johnnie Cochran and Jose Baez did what they were paid to do...WIN bottom line. The jury was entrusted with a job to do ,and they did it. They did it to the best of their abilities.

I am not going to sit here and say that I believe either of them was innocent. The justice system we have is not perfect, but it worked the way it was designed. The Prosecution was not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ and Casey Anthony were guilty. Think about this, the defense does not have to prove innocence, just reasonable doubt. You know, innocent until proven guilty. Don't get mad that Casey Anthony got acquitted, (I'm talking to my people now) you damn sure were not mad when OJ was found not guilty. People can try and rationalize all they want, murder is murder. You were not mad that two people were savagely killed in Brentwood . Nicole Brown was basically decapitated, and Ron Goldman was gutted like a fish. After that Not Guilty verdict, you were dancing and singing "we won, we won". Now Casey Anthony is acquitted and everybody is grumbling “man she was white, of course she got off". Stop the hypocrisy, her daughter is dead. Nobody knows what happened on both occasions. They will have to live with their actions for the rest of their lives. Can you live with your reactions?