Tweet C*Notes!

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

John Travolta's New Gay Scandal


Time and time again, we see news stories with the words "John Travolta" and "gay" mentioned happily together. And the hits just keep on comin'! This time, courtesy of TMZ, who obtained the documents of a lawsuit brought about by a masseur who claims to have been groped, molested, and sexually assaulted by Mr. Travolta.



According to the $200/hour masseur "John Doe", he was picked up by Travolta in a black Lexus SUV, brought to Travolta's bungalow at a hotel in Beverly Hills, and after the first hour of the massage, was getting his "shaft" and "scrotum" touched and fondled by Travolta. Allegedly, JT was "semi-erect" at the beginning of the encounter. When the masseur turned away Johnny's advances, he was alleged to have said: "Come on dude, I'll jerk you off!!!"


 
Allegedly, Travolta was on the table masturbating with a "fully-erect" penis " roughly 8-inch in length" with "wirey and unkempt" pubic hair. The masseur also said that Travolta made the following statement:

"Hollywood is controlled by homosexual Jewish men who expect favors in return for sexual activity."
 John Doe still refused, claiming that he did not have sex with clients. Travolta then called him "selfish" and a "loser," doubled his hourly rate, and that was that. He also left John Doe with a little bit of advice; that he had to learn to "lick some ass", and he could make millions of dollars.


In addition (as if we needed to learn more), Mr. Travolta had claimed that he was not gay, and that the "taste of cum" makes him "gag"...but that he was smart enough to learn to enjoy it...and that the millions of dollars he made was well worth it.



Well, ladies and gentlemen...I can say this, especially about that last bit. I know plenty of women and gay men that don't like the "taste of cum" either. It's not really made for eating or drinking or whatever, so that's understandable. Besides that, I understand that diet is responsible for the taste-- but that's beside the point. The point is...HE'S GAY. At the VERY LEAST, he's bi-sexual. But he is most definitely NOT a straight, heterosexual man. And you know what? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!! The only thing that IS wrong is that he's fucking around on his wife, and that is not cool AT ALL. If he just got a divorce, he could have ALL THE C*CK he could ever want!!! He wouldn't have to sneak around with masseurs he trolls around for on the internet.

John Doe is suing for $2 million dollars. My guess is he'll settle for something is the high six figures.

Travolta's people deny this event, of course.  They made a statement on E! Online:

"This lawsuit is complete fiction and fabrication," it reads. "None of the events claimed in the suit ever occurred. The plaintiff, who refuses to give their name, knows that the suit is a baseless lie...On that date when plaintiff claims John met him, John was not in California and it can be proved that he was on the East Coast. Plaintiff's attorney has filed this suit to try and get his 15 minutes of fame. John intends to get this case thrown out and then he will sue the attorney and Plaintiff for malicious prosecution."

 Uh-huh. If this is a lie, then John Doe should be a screenwriter instead of a masseur.

And to Mrs. Kelly Preston, I say PLEASE do yourself and your family a favor...and GET A DIVORCE!!!!!!


Maurice Sendak Dead at 83



The author of one of my favorite childhood books is dead. Maurice Sendak gave us the ever-popular Where The Wild Things Are and In the Night Kitchen. He had been hospitalized since Friday after suffering from a stroke. He passed early this morning.

WTWTA was made into a disappointingly mediocre and boring movie a few years back (what the hell happened, Spike Jonze?!). Disney had also attempted an animated short based on the book-- it was to be one of their first forays into 3D animation:





According to the New York Times, his latest book called "My Brother's Book" will be released in February 2013.

He will be missed.

Friday, May 4, 2012

"Jay-Z and the New York Niggas", by Phil Mushnick

Sigh.

Look, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of writing about racial shit, too. But as long as there are people like this that continue to say stupid things...well, I think it needs to be brought to light.

Phil Mushnick has been a sports columnist with the NY Post for a long time. Recently, he went on a bit of a rant about Jay-Z's ownership of the New Jersey Nets-- more specifically, the fact that he is moving them to Brooklyn, and changing the color of the uniforms. Basically, Jay-Z is rebranding the team, and Phil doesn't like that idea.

So, I guess he was trying to be cute and satirical, and gave a few suggestions about other changes that Jay-Z could make to the team:

As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new ‘urban’ home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment? Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N***as? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B***hes or HoesTeam logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!
 Meh...I mean look-- I've made quite a few attempts at satire on this blog; I call them "Modest Proposals". The one thing that I try to do in those cases is make my rants a bit more tongue-in-cheek; I want people to laugh, not get pissed. Sure, I'm annoyed at the issues I try to lampoon, but I don't go about it with anger and venom. At least I don't THINK that I do. I can't say that his passage reads that way at all. It sounds like some pissed-off dude ranting and raving. The fact that he's using racial language, and the fact that he's an old white guy, don't really seem to be helpful.

Even in his defense of the article, as supplied by the Village Voice, he seems pissed off:
"...did you actually read what I wrote and what I've been writing for 30 years? I don't call black men niggas; my kids never heard the word until folks such as Jay-Z came along. I'd suggest you talk to him about it. What I wrote today was on Jay Z's artistry, and only the wishful and foolish would so badly misinterpret and mischaracterize it as you plan to do."
Not for nuthin'...but he just sounds like a dick. I mean sure, I can understand being annoyed by people misinterpreting your stuff...but a little perspective would prove to be helpful for Mushnick. The thing about satire is that it needs to be thoughtful and introspective. There needs to be an intellectual backbone behind it. If you're just spiting out vitriol, you sound like an asshole. In Mushnick's case, he sounds like a bigot. He's old enough to know what it looks like when old white men use the word "nigger", or in his case "niggas". He simply, as a writer, did not adequately prepare the reader for that language. He just threw it out there in the midst of his anger, and again...it just sounds bigoted.

Again, I've been accused by a few white folks of being a racist. Like Mushnick, I stand by what I've written. But at the same time, I go out of my way to articulate things as clearly and rationally as possible (typos and grammatical errors aside). I want to give people something to think about. I don't want them to just read some angry black guy bitching about white people. I am blunt, and direct, but I also provide a bit of perspective. This guy just took a piss and stormed away.

Is he a racist? My guess is no. Maybe satire is just not his thing. Maybe he should have written another draft, or showed the article to someone else for a bit of feedback before it went out into the world. Or maybe he was too pissed off to care. I honestly don't know anything about him, or his work, or his method of working. All I know is what other have perceived: he's some white sports writer that called Jay-Z a "nigga".

Sorry, Phil. That's what happens sometimes when you misread your audience; they end up misreading you.

MCA R.I.P.: Adam Yauch Dead at 47


Bummer news of the day, man...Adam Yauch, a/k/a MCA of the Beastie Boys, lost his battle with cancer today, at the age of 47. When I saw the first headline, I thought it was some stupid internet joke. But no joke, man...what a freaking loss. If you don't know (and why don't you), Adam was the gravely-voiced of the group...and like a lemon to a lime, a lime to a lemon, he sipped the def ale with all the fine women.

Like many in my generation, I grew up with the Beasties. They're one of the few rap acts that maintained credibility and relevancy over a career spanning 3 decades. They made 7 great albums, including License to Ill, Paul's Boutique, Hello Nasty, Ill Communication, and their latest Hot Sauce Committee Part Two. I mean it sincerely when I say that not a day goes by that I don't, for a brief second-- among the millions of other blips in my skull-- have a flash of a Beastie Boys song in my head.

One of the great things about the Beastie's is their videos. Here are some of my faves:












48fps = FAIL?


The backlash has been hard and heavy. 10 minutes of footage from Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" was shown at CinemaCon a week or two ago. The big deal, aside from being a preview of the next of the Middle Earth films, was that Peter Jackson shot the film at 48fps. If that means nothing to you, basically all of the films that you've seen your entire life (and before) are shot at 24fps. Television, in America anyway, is presented at 29.97 frames per second. This is one of the reasons why, for example, the news looks different than, say, Iron Man or The Notebook, or The Sopranos or whatever. If you ask the tech nerds, 24fps is antiquated and horrible-looking. There has been a movement for a while now to start shooting films at 48fps-- the argument being that it would be much more realistic, and get rid of things like motion blur and whatnot...things that annoy film technicians...but things that movie lovers don't really have an issue with.

So Mr. Jackson has taken the bold step of shooting The Hobbit entirely in this new 48fps process. The reaction, however, has not been very positive. Many viewers of the 10 minute CinemaCon preview complained that the scenes that they saw looked like a soap opera. They said it looked uncinematic, and that the sets themselves looked fake and ridiculous. Basically, they're saying that The Hobbit looks like this:




It's kinda difficult from a computer screen to convey the look of something shot on video in the 70s, but that's basically what people took away from this "new technology". I have to say that saw this coming from a mile away. Now, I haven't seen any of this footage, and therefore I don't have a real opinion about the look...but I could speculate based on my experiences with film and video that footage shot at 48fps would NOT at all look like 24fps footage. Asking people to forget everything that they have come to expect from the look of film is a lot to ask. I can imagine it will be an incredible distraction...at first. People may very well get swept up in the story enough to forget what it looks like. But I don't know. Considering how close minded people can be about things like this, I'm not sure if this will be success. One thing is certain-- when we go to see this film in December, it will NOT look like this:

Thursday, May 3, 2012

The 21st Century Racists Claim They Are Not Racists


Gone are the days when racist white folks proudly trumpeted their opinions, and owned up to them! Nowadays, the white racist denies his/her own racism! It's a nifty attempt at a trick that they've picked up from Republican politicians-- you see...all you have to do is deny the label someone has given you. You deny it, even if it's true-- especially in cases like this, when you couldn't possibly read their minds!

The most recent example of "the new racism" is from Patrick Lanzo, the owner of The Georgia Peach Oyster Bar. This gutless turd of a coward is brazen enough to plaster the word "nigger" on  the sign outside his bar-- and he's done this MANY times-- but when confronted about it, he pleads ignorance (which wouldn't be hard for someone like this).  Check out this news item from Fox News affiliate "My Fox" in Atlanta:




I'm just surprised that no one's just destroyed that thing. I'm sure now that it's been shown on television, someone will. Not that I agree with the destruction of someone's property. But he's right-- he had the right to put that sign up, regardless of how moronic he looks...and he DOES look moronic.

By the way, this is the home page of his website:


 I love how he misspells "original" not once, but TWICE (the red type in the top right corner moves around with the mouse). He clearly states that it's a "Klan" bar...and I'm actually surprised that he spelled THAT right! You've got to hand it to the racists...and when I say "it", I mean a diploma of some sort...because they're REALLY, really dumb.

You have to read this article about the bar from seven years ago. There's some GREAT STUFF to be found there, such as a quote from one of his waitresses:

[Theresa] Turner, an occasional waitress at the Georgia Peach, chirped, "We get the bikers and the Klan and the skinheads. They're different, not what you'd expect. The Klan guys, well, they're just ignorant. But the skinheads are very intellectual, which is a surprise at first. The bikers are the best. They tip a lot and they're fun."

"Intellectual" skin-heads, eh? You know, I knew a few skin heads in high school, and I can tell you..."intellectual" is NOT the word I would use to describe them. "Intelect-less"...THAT'S a good word (albeit made up...)! Then Lanzo makes a classic "non-racist" racist statement:
Lanzo contends he isn't racist. "If I am, then I'm racist against everybody, not just one group." He has supported gay rights -- while calling gays "queers," "fags" and "lickers."
Yeah-- gotta throw in the "fags", huh? Idiocracy, thy name is Patrick Lanzo.


Like the white folks in that video say, everyone has the right to their opinions. These are the same white folks that would absolutely cringe at some of the things that I've written on this and other blogs. That's the funny thing to me-- there are some white folks that complain about things that I write about. Some even call me a racist. I couldn't disagree more-- but not in the same way that this yokel would. The only thing that I do is point out the never-ending racial hypocrisy and inequality that exists in this country, and I speak of it in very blunt terms. And some cannot handle that...but they would look at this story, and say the same things that some of those folks in the video say..."It's a free country." "You can't do anything about what people think or believe." "You don't live there, so why do you care?"  It's all a helpless situation, until the microscope is put on you...THEN it's a problem.

Well, as long as it's a free country....I guess I'll be continuing to tell our stories. Like it or not...I just don't give a f*ck.

I'm just that kind of nigger.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Obama's Bin Laden Ad: What's the BFD?


I have heard complaint after complaint about this ad that the Obama campaign has been running regarding the death of Osama Bin Laden. I've heard the GOP whine. I've heard Arriana Huffington jeer. So I figured, if this ad is pissing everyone off so much, then it MUST BE something really hard core and inappropriate; I should watch it!



Really? That's it? This is what people have been bitching about? Talk about much ado about nothing-- this is REALLY nothing! I mean, it's SOMETHING. Barry O. did what presidents from Clinton to Bush could not-- he ordered the death of bin Laden, and got it. It was truly a 60-40 chance that the intelligence was wrong, that Seal Team 6 could have failed...the lost a helicopter during the raid, so that MUST have been horrifying in that moment. But they saw it through, they found bin Laden, and the President gave the order. Done deal. So, this is a bad thing to bring up...why?

I mean, look-- it's no "Mission Accomplished" banner, right?


It's no "swift boat" campaign, right?




I really don't understand why the Obama campaign wouldn't, or shouldn't, present this mission as a case for the president's re-election. The Romney campaign is very big on talking about how the President couldn't possibly run on his record-- which is bullshit. This mission to take out bin Laden IS part of his record. That talking point about how soft Democrats are on terrorism or foreign policy died in that villa in Pakistan, along with that murderous bastard.

You wanna try to tell me that if a Republican president had managed to have bin Laden killed on their watch that they wouldn't publicize it? Hell, they'd have hoist his body on a float and toured it around the country, with Ted Nugent performing whatever bullshit he performs. So please, people...enough with the whiney nonsense. The president was responsible for initiating a new mission to find bin Laden, and it was successful. Period. He SHOULD BE proud of that-- we ALL should be. Clinton had the chance, and he didn't take it.




Bush decided that he didn't care.



...so now people want to shit on President Obama for even MENTIONING that his administration was able to get the man that spearheaded the deaths of over 3,000 people? Fools. Hypocrites. Babies.

Joe Biden said it best: GM is alive, and bin Laden is dead. Those are two things that Mitt Romney didn't believe in. I'd say that's pretty fair to run on...