Return of the King

Unkle Ruckus
Originally uploaded by Phalanx.

Did y'all see The Boondocks episode where MLK survived his assassination, was in a coma and then woke up around the time of September 11th?

That was some damn hard core skewering of Black people. You gotta give McGruder some dap for putting Nigga Pop culture on BLAST! 'Cause it sure needs it.

Outside of the Eddie Murphy "Don't Bring Me Down Hymie Town" skit on SNL, I haven't seen the Southern Baptist speach cadence used to such comic effect and such flunking, as McGrudger's scripting of MLK speaking out about "all the ass-whippings" he got weren't worth the current wild'n out behavior that niggas kick all the time now.

When MLK claims BET is the worst thing he's ever seen, that's a complete FADE! and a truism. Considering that Reggie Hudlin is an Exec Producer on the show, pretty much cultivated McGrudger into Hollywood (or at least that's the rumor), but now that Reggie is head of BET, is that a case of biting that hand that feeds you?

I don't know if Reggie is still involved in The Boondocks, even though he receives an Executive Producer credit. But I do know that a certain number of the original writers having nothing good to say about McGrudger.

I don't know the nigga, but he's getting a good handle of what it means to crack on the slummin' nature of pop culture that's influenced by the so-called "urban nature" of American megapolises.

You gotta love that Unkle Ruckus is rejoicing Jim Crow in the flashbacks -- niggas, never know a good thing when they have it and they don't no a damn thing about their past. Modern Niggas that is.

Get It Right, Please!

Scarlett Johansson - damn!
Originally uploaded by Phalanx.

I’m looking at the TIME magazine from two weeks ago (Jan. 16, 2006), and in the “Movies” section there’s a overview of the so-called great performances of 2005. Heading up the list is everyone’s favorite nubile nyphm du jour Scarlett Johansson – the article starts off with “She’s blond, she’s curvaceously configured, and she has those remarkably proportioned lips.” I had to stop reading right fucking there – remarkably proportioned lips?

For a white girl!

Just like Angelina Jolie gets a lot of tabloid ink for having what would have been called in pre-1970s America “Nigger Lips” (just ask Michelle Pfeiffer). Take on-the-rise Black nyphm Megan Goode, for example –





What’s up with her lips? Aren’t they just as luscious as Johansson’s or Jolie’s? Oh, I forgot as a Black woman in Hollywood (or anyplace in the mainstream media) she’s not going to get any comments for having explosive Dick Sucking Lips (that’s what ever single article about Johansson and Jolie wants to say, and can’t). And when you want to talk about “body” – Megan is as bad as they cum.





I am by no way bashing or shitting on Johansson – in fact, I’m happy she was finally in a good role in Woody Allen's new flick. Up to now everything else she’s done – except for Ghost World – has been so-so, either in script or in her performance. I remember seeing her in Ghost World, and saying “magnetic…” But where are the roles? Sure she can be the Lolita that everyone wanted her to be between the ages of 17 and 21, but I could almost careless for her work in, say The Island or A Love Song For Bobby Fisher or American Rhapsody or The Perfect Score. There’s a lot of energy behind her eyes, and I don’t see it in the work. Maybe she just gets chump parts…

In Match Point, she plays the cloying bitch very well. But in her interviews since Lost In Translation, that doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch… I guess she’s filling the shoes that would have gone to Winona Ryder, if she hadn’t screwed her career.

Obviously Kiera Knightley and Natalie Portman are getting the juicest roles for that age range… and anything older Miss DSL herself Angelina is the hottest of the hot.

So when it comes to DSLs, and the way they’re worshiped in the media… the choice is yours.






Or







Truth be told… in the TIME article, the most underrated (and smallest photo) goes to the Number One Stunner – Gong Li.





Hope she doesn’t get treated like shit by Hollywood.

Academy Dumps The Nigga Host

Birth of Fade Nigga Nation
Originally uploaded by Phalanx.

So ho, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences chose Jon Stewart to host this years Oscar broadcast.

This is going to be fun, although probably not nearly as barbed and un-PC as Chris Rock's stint last year. I have to say, the Academy got what they expected and didn't expect with C-Rock. I figure the expected Rock to hand the Chump-in-Chief his ass -- which he did, but he also did something else -- put a foot in Hollywood's ass!

In an attempt to shake up their sagging rating C-Rock took the mic and did what America has always hated - having an intelligent Black Man in the middle of the media spotlight, who is smart, articulate and well-versed on the crimes perpetrated by the country and more specifically the industry he's in to have full reign to speak for more than a 20 second sound bite. I'll never forget the barbs C-Rock threw at Jude Law, ultimately claiming that he wasn't even a movie star, nor will I forget how he shoved a shiv in the movie studio execs who continually release shitty Black films with criminally inept titles like Barbershop, The Cook-Out, The Wash, Booty Call, Sprung, and My Baby's Mama. I never understand why nigga flicks have the most banal titles imaginable, do you? Are Black People not cogent enough to have a subtle or slick or inviting title, like Crash or The Constant Gardner or Brokeback Mountain?

Apparently, some Academy members found Mr. Rock, who took as many hard-ass jabs at the overly sanctimoniousness of the industry as he did at President Bush, was insufficiently respectful of the movie industry. My thing is why should Rock have been reverential to Hollywood? It's know for treating Blacks like craven dogs, who are forced to scavenge for meals from the scraps left by their owners.

Mr. Gil Cates, the producer of this year's Oscar broadcast said he wasn't worried that Mr. Stewart might cross the line of taste in matters of politics or Hollywood protocol. "He's hilarious, he's irreverent," said Mr. Cates. "He knows the difference between being irreverent and being over the top. I'm very excited about it."

Now that quote, if you decipher the subterfuge infected text, sounds like this me: "Who does that nigger Chris Rock tried to embarrass the (hairy, hidden) Hand that feeds him, think he is?!? Disparage niggers all you want on your HBO Specials, Chris, but don't you dare take a stanky shit on the high priests of the post-modern Church! When you're given a chance to speak at their pulpit Now we have to cut ya!" This is all said in the upper halls of power that are draped with repurposed white sheets. I'm not saying that Cates or the Academy is racist, that would be too easy -- and too wrong.

I wonder how Rock's script would have been this year -- if he was choosen -- and Aaron McGrudder of Boondocks fame was helping with the writing chores.

Anyway, I'll probably drop a bomb or two after this years Oscars. I'm actually looking forward to seeing Jon Stewart, as I rarely ever watch his show; it must be good though!

Home Theatre - Where Popcorn & Soda Are Cheap

Home Theatre - Where Popcorn & Soda Are Cheap
Originally uploaded by Phalanx.

Toshiba is lauching their HD-DVD format with a $500 machine in March, and then later this year the Sony Blu-Ray standard will get launched, initially in PS3, and then in home units.

This is interesting, because what I want to see is what HD standard do the computer companies install in their machines. I'd like to see the computer companies adopt Blu-Ray and the consumer for movies latch on to HD-DVD, simply because the BIGGEST mistake Hollywood made with DVDs is employing a technology that was also made available as a stotage medium for PCs. Hence the huge private market.

Xbox 360 doesn't use an optical disc that any other technology platform (or maybe it's only the encoding that is differen) uses, in an effort to cut down on bootleg games.

Hollywood, in its supreme, but expected and historical, shortsightedness on Profits Now, didn't think twice about rolling out all the libraries of films on DVD, not realizing that the hijacking of intellecutal property was on the way up and seen first hand with CDs.

Now Hollywood has a chance to reclaim lost revenue, which should bolster the balance sheet, by carefully watching what happens with the HD DVD market.

Although, I think the both system, much like DATs, won't penetrate the mainstream consumer market. Although that could change once HDTV is in just about every household in America. And when is that again?

Oh yeah, sometime after the end of the Mayan Calender. Just enough time for me to make enough money not to worry about it.

You Stupid Cow!

Paris Hilton - Cumdumpster
Originally uploaded by Phalanx.

Scandal Monger Paris Hilton is being sued for $10million for spreading “vicious lies” about a romantic rival in London.

This is TOO FUNNY! I mean, damn, it smacks like something out of a Truman Capote novella or that funny, bizarre time of young woman chat-fighting that characterized the '50s and '60s - remember those movies like A Letter To Three Wives or Indiscreet? Where lies about who's fucking who in so-called high society was all the rage. Making claims like, “I'm going to destroy you.” Who does she think she is? Hedda Hopper?


I'm chortling with glee that Paris is getting embarrassed and exposed as a snarky bitch (like that's a surpise!). As evidence by that tape that came out when she called these Black clothing designers stupid niggers.

Obviously, Paris is out of control. And she had to cool her smoking pussy and soften her hard tits when she sat down and to give a deposition in the Zeta Graff suit. Curiously coincidental, this promoter is seeking a restraining order against Paris - something to do with Paris near-slandering and issuing death threats! Death threats! Like she's Marie Antoinette or something! Maybe her fate should be the same?!

The $10 million hit (if Zeta Graff wins the suit) isn't going to sting Paris that much, her clothing line can pay that fine in a week, but the court of public opinion will be shellacking our favorite cumdumpster for sometime. Although not too long, unfortunately, as she is the Teflon heiress. Which is too bad, because with all her money that she uses to shape her public image, the unearned fame is showing that she's just another spoiled, bratty slut who feels that she can control the world, because in “her World” people bow to her (in awe 'cause of her money, and the potential chance to taste her pussy?). Sadly, if she wanted to have someone killed in a jealous rage or fit of fame/money insanity, she is rich and those muthafuckas can and do get away with just about anything.

Alternative Sex… It's the RAGE

Ever since Paris Hilton's fuck/dick suck tape came out and was mass marketed not to her detriment, but as means to boost her fame, pornography and sex has been shedding that media taboo - which is a good thing, but I've always suspected that there are a few styles of sexual exploration that will still cause a rancor, a nose wrinkle, a raised eyebrow. And one of those is BDSM.

I have a friend who is a Dominatrix, and I wanted her to be able to you tell what the lifestyle means, hopefully she's dispelled a lot of misconceptions about this so-called Alternative Lifestyle. I say “so-called” because everyone has their fetish, and a lot of people would enjoy sex with at least a blindfold on… let your other senses control the experience.

Anyway, here's the slim on the smacdown:

BDSM is an acronym of "B&D" (Bondage & Discipline), "D&S" (Dominance & Submission), and "S&M" (sadomasochism). "BDSM" refers to any or all of these things, and a lot of stuff besides.




Tying up your lover is BDSM; so is flogging that person, or bossing that person around, or any of a thousand other things. BDSM is highly erotic, usually (though not always) involves sex or sexual tension; and is highly psychologically charged. One person (the "submissive") agrees to submit to another person (the "dominant"); or, alternately, one person agrees to receive some sort of sensation, such as spanking, from another.

Some people like to be submissive all the time, some people like to be dominant all the time; some people like to switch, being submissive one day and dominant the next.

For the most part, people who are into this kind of thing are remarkably well-adjusted. People involved in BDSM generally are neither abusive nor come from backgrounds where they were abused, because people with that kind of backgrounds aren't likely to be sexually turned on by giving someone else power over them. That doesn't mean that no BDSM relationship is abusive--since people are what they are, no form of human interaction is immune to abuse. But it does mean that the people you'll find in the BDSM community are, for the most part, very stable. (In fact, if you're going to get involved in this kind of stuff, it helps to have a cast-iron ego and a strong sense of self, particularly if you're a submissive.)

Some people think anyone interested in BDSM is suffering from some kind of past abuse. I think that the "BDSM interest=past abuse" assertion is most frequently made by people who don't understand what BDSM is. They see someone being flogged, they say "Oh! People in a BDSM relationship get hit; people in an abusive relationship get hit; ergo, BDSM is like an abusive relationship. QED."

But the fact is, the psychology of a BDSM power exchange is vastly different from the psychology of abuse; and in a BDSM relationship, the psychology is frequently driven by the limitations of the submissive, not the dominant. Typically, it is the submissive who says "This far and no farther"--which is entirely contradictory to the psychology of abuse.

BDSM is not what it looks like from the outside. It's not just tying people up and having sex, and it's not just arbitrarily whipping people. That's very crude, and kind of boring. What it is is a sort of role-playing, where the people involved are acting out a fantasy that involves taking or giving up power. Sex is often involved, but not always.

The Ideal Person for this lifestyle is…
Uh-huh. Sure. The needs of the submissive. Right. The dominant is the one bossing the other person around; you'd have to be some kind of jerk to want to do that.

While that may seem like it makes sense on the surface, the truth is just the opposite. People who are good at dominating or inflicting pain are, in general, LESS likely than many other people to be jerks or assholes.

Why? Because in order to be good at doing it, you need to be highly in-tune with your submissive. People who are self-centered generally make poor dominants, because they lack the empathy required to be able to read and judge their partner's reactions, and bring their partner where that person wants to go. Assholes quickly find that nobody wants to play with them; and people who are empathetic tend not to be assholes. All of the real top-notch dominants I've ever met, without exception, are incredibly cool people.

In tune with your submissive? The dominant is the one calling the shots. What does the dominant care about the submissive?

Believe it or not, the dynamics of a BDSM relationship are often driven by the submissive, not by the dominant. The submissive sets the limits; the submissive decides what places can and can not be explored; the submissive has the ability to call a halt to the scene. The dominant, in many ways, is simply a facilitator. It's the dominant's job to create a setting where the people involved can explore the submissive's fantasies.

Dominating your partners does not mean that you don't want to please them. It is not always, or even usually, true that a dominant is interested in his own gratification rather than his submissive's. In fact, many dominants are driven as much by their desire to please their partner as by anything else; the psychology of a healthy BDSM relationship is driven by the submissive as well as by the dominant, and a dominant can take pleasure from gratifying the needs of the submissive just as easily as the submissive can take pleasure from gratifying the needs of the dominant. This kind of thing is not one-directional.

It's all for the submissive's benefit? Yeah, right. The submissive is the one being bossed around or spanked or whatever. How can you say that isn't abuse?

Simple. Two reasons:

In a BDSM relationship, the submissive sets the limits. A victim of abuse doesn't get a vote; the victim can't tell the abuser what to do, or how much to do it. A submissive sets all the limits--what kinds of things can be (and can't be!) done, how much, and for how long.

And while we're on the subject of limits, there is more than one kind of limit in a BDSM relationship. Everybody has "hard" limits--things that they absolutely will not do, and will not even consider. Some people, for example, like to be tied up but don't like the idea of being whipped; if they won't allow themselves to be whipped, ever, that's a hard limit.

There are also "soft" limits--things that someone won't do under ordinary circumstances, but will allow to be "forced" on him or her in the context of a particular scenario that's being acted out. Between soft limits and hard limits lies an interesting psychological territory to explore.

A submissive gets a way to opt out. This may be a code word, or a sign of some sort; if the submissive uses it, he or she has had enough and the scene is over. An abuse victim doesn't tell the abuser when to stop.


Okay, so that kind of explains the world, the expectations, and why it isn't really all that crazy.

My understanding in terms of the psychological viewpoint by the so-called general public is that physical punishment and giving sexual control (by men that is) is the antithesis of the American ethos…