George Clooney officially has the hottest girlfriend in Hollywood. His latest female partner is italian bombshell model and TV host Elisabetta Canalis. The two have been seen in public a lot together recently. They were seen biking around CLooney’s Lake Como home in Italy. The two were introduced by a mutual friend. They have been seen dining together an awful lot. Will this be the one for CLooney. Let’s wait and see. It seems old age isn’t making George Clooney any less hotter. The big question is when will he stop this game and settle down? We are all waiting to see who that one lucky woman would be.

A recent confession by Ex Idol contestant Ju’Not Joyner couls hyave opened a Pandora’s Box. He claimed for sure many things that could put the show to shame . In an interview for AI Now, he said it was a  rigged afair, that the contracts were not fair and that the shows lawyers made them blindly sign contracts. What was surprising was that he was the only who confessed that and the others didn’t. Or is it just he had a bad case thats all? Maybe there is more let’s see what Simon  has to say about all these allegations. Only time will tell.

There has been a birth in Hollywood  and no hungama. How can it be? Well, this time it’s Jude Law and an unidentified woman. The actor has said that she will be fully supported. He has clearly indicated that they two are not involved at this point in time. The actor already has three children with his ex wife Sadie Frost who were married from ‘97 through to 2003. The three children are Rafferty, Rudy & Iris. The actor has three movies coming up - The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Repossession Mambo and a Sherlock Holmes adaptation. Lets see how this story picks up in time to come.

It seems that infatuation with Megan Fox is good for self control. Men specific sites have banned her off their sites for a whole days on account of having too much of her. But really can you blame her? While it may be a commendable act, we can say for sure that they will be back at it again.  And maybe she does need the rest. It seems that she didn’t have top act but just be her own sexy self in the movie. Well. Megan some roles just come tailor made. This is not the first time that Megan Fox has turned eyes around so much ans we know that wit her reputation many more times will come.

We all knew that Kevin Federline was up to to no good. He was never more than the worst boy toy that Britney would ever  had and the one that made the best use of her. Well, it shows that the guy was wasted and intended on getting wasted. At an event recently he made a public appearance and had a paunch that is so unbelievably huge it is comparable to Jack Nicholson’s paunch when he is sun bathing with babes on the beach or with his boat. Man, Kevin is the worst Hollywoodite ever. Talk about a bad rep!!!

This is not going to his supposedly touted reality show with lover Victoia Prince.  Now would we want to watch him live his daily life?!!

Rowdyism in parliaments is not a uncommon sight. Japan, India, UK…they all have had their share of parliaments disrupted by lawmakers - the very people who have been given the duty to ensure that the country runs right. Am I the only one but does it make sense for lawmakers to protest or the government to protest? After all they themselves control the nation’s laws. Causing a ruckus in Parliament is not the solution. Moreover they are the wrong people to ask for rights. They should be ensuring that the people who elected get their rights. But in this democratic process, anything goes as long as its fair so does our law making processes?

It’s been a while since I’ve been here to spread my insights of great ponderence, but this made me take pause and write.  So, a potentially racist situation goes down that results in a man’s arrest and Barack Obama immediately comes to the defense of his friend…Yale Professor of African Studies, Henry Louis Gates in the midst of the frey.

It has been an unnecessary crap storm if you will, that Obama has backed himself into regarding this incident having not been availed of the proper facts.  I’ve heard it said that there were mostly egos involved that got out of hand.  It is more a case of ONE ego, that of Professor Gates.  As the police reports have stated, Gates became belligerent the moment the white officer (there was also a black and Hispanic officer on the scene, as well) began asking routine questions that one would ask on a B&E (breaking and entering) call (i.e. Is there anyone else in the house? May we look around?, etc.).  These are all standard procedure for a call of this nature.  However, the YALE professor felt it beneath him to be questioned in any manner regarding suspicion of any kind. The “educated” and I believe correct response would have been…”Thank you for coming to my home when called in regard to something this serious. Certainly, you may check around. I’m happy to do whatever I can to help rectify any misunderstanding by the neighbor as well as the police department. In fact, I probably should thank the neighbor for his conscientiousness, as well.”

Instead, he was most likely irritable when the officers arrived, having been absent minded enough to lock himself out of his home. That disgruntled attitude (coupled with a predisposition toward racism as an African Studies Prof.) then manifest itself in the form of indignant arrogance toward an innocent officer who was simply trying to do his job.  In order for this to be even remotely considered racial profiling, Gates would have to have been randomly stopped.  This was a B&E call, plain and simple.  When the officer asked for Gates’ ID, he went ballistic prior to complying with the officer’s request. Then the officer was satisfied and began to leave with the other officers and Gates continued to berate and malign the officer all the way to the front door with racial epithets. The officer warned him to let it go and asked him to stand down.  Gates refused and the officer took out his cuffs and warned him a last time.  Gates, was relentless and as a result was arrested.  The only reason that the charges were dropped, in my opinion, is because not only was race introduced (by Gates) but also, because he is a high profile individual. It’s bad press for the department any way you look at it and the higher ups don’t need Obama’s camp looking down at their fair city.  They had no choice, even though it would have been a simple misdemeanor.

Adding insult to injury, Obama proceeded to call the officer “stupid” without having read even so much as a newsclipping on the incident.  The educated and proper response here, in my opinion, should have been…”I have not read the police report on the incident so, I won’t speculate and will reserve my comments until such time.”  His arrogance wouldn’t let him do that.  Instead, he chose to get out ahead of the situation and make it about defense of a friend over defense of the facts.

In closing, what this said to me is that both Gates and his buddy Barack arrogantly overstated their cases.  It continues to be revealed that Obama has some pretty outspoken friends (Rev. Wright, communist party devotees, etc.).  Being outspoken is not a bad thing in and of itself, mind you.  However, the destructive words of an outspoken person who is not intent on speaking words that teach, heal or inform for the progression and edification of the whole over self…is quite dangerous.  This further indicates to me that birds of a feather flock together. These “friends” of Obama’s that continue to pop up can only cause one to think…Who is the real man beneath the spit and polished President?  Is there an outspoken radical buried someplace deep down in there who thinks that every irresponsible, harsh and divisive situation can be excused and brushed off by simply sitting down and sharing a beer together?  Great idea, until the beer starts talking…then what?  Seriously, though, Obama and other educated black men such as himself have a huge responsibility to speak intelligently to such issues as racism…not perpetuate its destructiveness themsevles by viewing every given incident from a racially-motivate point of view absent of the facts.      

That’s my take.

Benman out!

Munyah: Kimbeng, I am sure the issues of race and racial bias have not gone unnoticed by you. In my opinion, racial bias gives us an indication of how humans have evolved socially. Having looked at history and looking at the relative intolerance of the different colored human beings on the different corners of the earth, I couldn’t, but agree and come to the conclusion that discrimination based on race or racial preference is a measuring rod of human social evolution.

Kimbeng: That I think is an overstatement because it ignores more complicated elements like personal preference, greed and even slavery. Racial bias is only rooted in history because of slavery and countries that have been less accepting of other colors of people do so only because of the historical impact of slavery.

Munyah: That is not true Kimbeng. Although racial discrimination might have been worsened by slavery, before slavery, before everything else, there existed racial discrimination. Slavery only resulted from the primitive evolution that existed at the time. As the human race evolved socially, slavery was abolished, but the primitive culture continued to resist the social evolution that was transforming the world. That discrimination although declining now, was pervasive and today, younger generations suffer from those effects socially.

Kimbeng: I do not I agree with that assessment Munyah. Slavery only came into existence because a group of people having developed slightly more superior weapons felt they could overpower other regions, take ownership of their men, wives and children and then enslave them for personal enrichment. It was customary at the time to wage wars and plunder other nations. People did make slaves of others irrespective of their race or skin color. Countries enslaved neighboring countries and all these were based on human competitiveness and not race. Those who spent more time developing a stronger army and better weapons overcame those who spent their time just cultivating crops. With superior war weapons, history was bound to be on your side. Today, other countries do not want to be under the whims and caprices of other nations just because some other nation is in possession of powerful arms. So, countries now indulge in an arms race whenever they feel threatened. These are all past lessons in action.

Munyah: That was an erudite description although it contradicts your earlier statement that racial discrimination sprung from slavery. It also leaves unaddressed the well founded ideology that in the midst of all these wars, lay cases where people considered themselves superior to others only because of the barrel of their guns. The bigger the barrel of your gun to pillage others, the more superior you were and that superiority embraced whatever definition the parties involved could impose.

So, those who became greedy and wanted more wealth for themselves easily aligned themselves together based on some shared trait.

Kimbeng: I would like to address this differently. This seems more like a rambling listing of opinions which can not all be ruled as inaccurate. Do they address the very fundamental question of the attributes of racial bias? I think not.

Munyah: True, I think the opinion you have raised, although valid when looking at slavery in general might lack substantive evidence on racial discrimination in particular. There is evidence of racial bias and even significant and bizarre cultural discrimination in all continents. Because of mankind’s poorly socially evolving state of mind, he sometimes sees the benefits of a more racially and culturally inclusive society, but fails to jump to the occasion to seize and enrich his wellbeing with these vast and untapped human resources.

Kimbeng: Culture sounds like another concept different from the one we are addressing. If you extrapolate this to cultural evolution, then you are saying that there is discrimination on everything. In fact, you have men discriminating against women, girls discriminating against boys, and the list is endless.

Munyah: You are right Kimbeng, but the point I am trying to make is whether discrimination based on race or gender is an indication of man’s primitive way of life. Have these tendencies evolved over the years? Have there been significant changes and if they have what are they. Before, women were considered subordinates in some parts of the world, and are still considered subordinates in several domains. Other forms of dissipating discrimination still exist, but the unassailable fact is that these are all changing slowly. This change is what I call social evolution.

Kimbeng: Could you make the point in a way that lacks emotional appeal? All these links to slavery and female subordination at a time of strong advocacy for human rights and freedom, stokes more emotional appeal than it offers a rational perspective on racial discrimination.

Munyah: I do not take that as an attempt to evade scrutiny on the hot issue of racial discrimination.

Kimbeng: Well, I just want a more rational perspective and not an emotional appeal.

Munyah: Isn’t it true that objects do not discriminate against one another on the basis of color, shape or anything else?

Kimbeng: That is because they are inanimate things.

Munyah: Yes, it is because they are inanimate. Isn’t it true also that animate things like puppies do not discriminate against one another on the basis of color? A brown puppy does not discriminate against grey or black or white puppies because of their colors. Isn’t it also true that the only moment of discrimination is when the puppies are newly introduced to one another? After some days of acquaintance these puppies become friends.

Kimbeng: Puppies are animate, but they are not rational beings. They do not have the complex thinking ability humans possess. So, we can’t possibly be attributing inanimate and irrational things to humans.

Munyah: Then, isn’t it funny that even inanimate things do not discriminate based on color or anything else? Isn’t it funny that even animate, but irrational things do not discriminate based on these too? What is absurd is that humans considered animate and rational discriminate based on characteristics irrational beings would not discriminate on. It sounds more like reverse evolution where the characteristic we may very much want is possessed by irrational beings and even inanimate objects. These lovely characteristic have largely evaded mankind. Truly then, racial discrimination or precisely color discrimination is an indication that the human being having evolved scientifically and industrially still remains largely primitive socially.

Kimbeng: That is a convincing thought Munyah. Mankind may have to reconsider the assumption that man exemplifies rationality at its best in every domain. In the light of such pervasive ignorance, even Darwin would have loved to look back to find out if some desirable traits (and which ones) failed to make their way into the human society during the course of evolution. And it is probably no surprise that every new generation views some acts of the previous generation as primitive. Being primitive though socially unacceptable is and has always been an inevitable human trait.

http://www.dream-services.com/