10 comments

• 

  Duke

  10 months ago

  Did anybody check him for warrants while he was there? The guy's a thug. I wouldn't exactly be bragging about any of this. Bad form on the part of Andrews and his office, very bad form.
  reply
• 

  John_B

  10 months ago

  How nice! The main library is threatened and Cordozar Calvin Broadus Jr. (aka Snoop Dogg) is here to help. I have a ton of respect for Councilman Andrews as a person but really, Dee… Snoop Dogg?
  
  Really?
  
  The same guy that pled no contest to felony gun and drug charges in Pasadena as recently as last year? That guy?
  
  Really?
  
  The same guy who, in 2004, settled out of court rather than attempt to defend against allegations that he a offered a minor female ecstasy and marijuana to entice her to remove her top for his “Girls Gone Wild, Doggie Style” video? The same guy who, when interviewed by Newsweek on the matter, stated: "Somebody gotta make (porn videos). ... You can't blame a Negro for getting paid, can you?" The same guy who uttered this gem to the AP: "If you notice, there hasn't been no girls of (ethnicity) at all on none of those tapes, No black girls, no Spanish girls ... all white girls, and that ain't cool, because white girls ain't the only hos that get wild." (Source: People.com)
  
  Really, Council member Andrews? That guy?
  
  The same guy that’s been consistently either under arrest, in prison or completing court-mandated community service programs for most of the past two decades? That guy, Dee?
  
  Really?
  
  Yes, indeed, Broadus is so very devoted to helping our city and saving its main library that he was late for a meeting there because he couldn’t even *find* the place.
  
  “Yoobetcha, Dee, I’ll be happy to help…as long as my television crew can come along to properly archive my finely-honed sense of civic responsibility for all my ‘Father Hood’ fans on E! Entertainment Television”
  
  And here’s another surprise (aren’t we all just *stunned* by this revelation?) Broadus “also expressed an interest in possibly expanding the scope of his business presence locally…”
  
  Gee, ya think?
  
  Maybe in Broadus’ honor we can re-name whatever eventually replaces the main library. Sure! Let’s call it “The Snoop Dogg Main Library, Head Shop and Adult Video Store” Maybe we can add a customer service counter for those seeking pro-bono legal advice and the library’s new website can have links to local bail bondsmen.
  
  Fah-Shizzle!
  
  Our city seeking assistance…of any kind…from someone like Broadus is about as farcical as was Congresswoman Laura Richardson when, as a Council member in 2003; she once publicly introduced this thug as “Long Beach’s Number 1 Son”.
  
  Here’s an idea, Council member Andrews: If you want to attach some star quality to efforts to benefit our city and its main library, how about selecting someone who isn’t a convicted multiple felon, who isn’t currently on criminal probation (twice over) and who isn’t an admitted and unapologetic member of a violent criminal street gang?
  
  How about selecting someone who doesn’t make a habit of degrading and objectifying females, of all ages, in his lifestyle, his lyrics and his videos.
  
  As mentioned, I have a ton of respect for Council member Andrews as a person. I had a lot *more* respect for him as an elected official before this story broke.
  
  Long Beach can do much better than fawning over someone like Cordozar Calvin Broadus Jr., Council member Andrews…
  
  …and, Sir, so can you!
  reply
• 

  disgusted

  10 months ago

  A degenerate felon.Hopefully its apple falls far-far -far from the tree.
  If the degenerate felon truly wants to help this City-he should exit this
  City,State and Country-never again to set foot on its soil.
  reply
• 

  Mike Guardabascio

  10 months ago

  Jesus H. Christ, guys, calm the hell down. Yes, Snoop Dogg, whether you like it or not, one of the most famous Long Beach natives, wants to do something to help out his city. There was similar outraged snippery when Snoop had a basketball game fundraiser at Poly my senior year--people whined in the PT letters column about how he shouldn't be allowed on campus. I don't think the kids at PAAL and in the Business Academy minded the textbooks, but thanks anyway, outraged suburbia.
  
  Snoop, who I love/used to love as a musician and who I'm not particularly fond of as a person, has a small but meaningful history of giving back to his community, one that it seems he wants to improve on. He already sunk some cash into his own Pop Warner league, to which the Long Beach Browns belong--one of many area youth football teams doing their best to help give kids something positive to do with their after school time.
  
  Is he a perfect human being? Obviously not. Does that mean that his help should be scorned in the 6th District? If you think so, you're out of your mind, and I'd guess pretty out of touch with the needs of the westside, too--namely, attention, and money. Hey but seriously, posting a three hundred word rant piece about Snoop on the DIstrict totally counts as positive improvement, right?
  reply
• 

  John_B

  10 months ago

  Mike: First; Broadus isn’t “famous”, he’s “infamous”. The distinction may well be lost upon you but you might want to look it up anyway.
  
  Second; Broadus isn’t doing anything to “help out this city”. What he did was arrange for a photo op and some video footage for his television show so he could capitalize, financially, upon his appearance here. In short he used our city and some of its more ethically myopic (or perhaps simply ignorant) elected and appointed officials for his own personal gain and Councilmember Andrews’ office made it far too easy for him to do it.
  
  Third: The very well-deserved exception that many people are taking to this City Hall-enabled farce is not ‘snippery’, as you call it (although what you might have meant, I suspect, was ‘sniping’). It is, in fact, properly placed anger that some of those we have elected and appointed to represent us are reaching out to a convicted felon, an admitted member of a criminal street gang, for assistance with *any*thing. It is frustration that each of those city officials present at this meeting were collecting very good taxpayer-funded salaries to be there, all a’twitter and moonstruck over a person who apparently can only refer to and treat women as “hos”. If Councilmember Andrews and the other paid city officials present want to slobber all over such a person, then they need to do it on their own time, and not on ours!
  
  Fourth: Broadus is not interested in helping this city. What he’s interested in is precisely what he admitted to during the meeting: “…possibly expanding the scope of his business presence locally…” Since his “business” has to do with profiting from using, degrading and objectifying women and with glorifying gang membership, violence and drug abuse, I’m thinking our city should have nothing to do with assisting him in his stated goals.
  
  Fifth: I don’t expect Broadus to be perfect. There has been no perfect human being on this planet now for over 2 millennia (you actually mentioned Him at the beginning of your post, though His name was never intended to be the curse that you've made it). What I do expect, however, is that our elected and appointed officials abide by the ethical standards they set for themselves and refuse any contact with or assistance from convicted felons who are currently on criminal probation and who abuse minor women for profit.
  
  Last: You’ll note that my prior post offered constructive suggestions for the right…the ethical…way to go about seeking assistance from others in our community who happen to be blessed with celebrity. I don’t just identify challenges; I offer constructive solutions…something that a Broadus-apologist such as you seems incapable of. I happen to insist that my elected and appointed officials meet a higher standard of representation than that demonstrated in accepting, and attending, this meeting with Broadus.
  
  If that makes me somehow “out of my mind” then perhaps what we need in this city is a little more madness and a lot less ill-placed pandering.
  reply
• 

  Mike Guardabascio

  10 months ago

  John B--
  
  I appreciate the opening insult, but I'm relatively sure that selling a few million albums qualifies a guy as "famous." I don't really have the spare time you seem to devote to commenting on the District's site, but here's a few counterpoints.
  
  First, at no point did I apologize for Snoop's behavior or legal troubles, I'm simply saying that they shouldn't disqualify him from doing positive community work--work which, if you read my post before flipping into tizzy mode, you'll see that I witnessed first hand. There are parts of Long Beach that can't be as discriminating as you'd like in choosing who to receive help from. Rereading your post, I didn't see a single attempt at a constructive solution for those neighborhoods, just that you'd prefer another person besides Snoop step up. If you've got a guy with $20 mil in the bank and no criminal history who'd like to invest in Districts 6,7, and 8, I'm sure there are councilpeeps who'd love to take your call.
  
  Also, for the record: you say Snoop can "only refer to and treat women as 'ho's'", and I'm not sure that his wife of 15 years would agree with you. I agree with you that his overtures at charity likely have some self-interested involved, but Magic has done a pretty good job of improving communities while "extending the scope of his business presence." Is Snoop the man that Magic is? Not even close. But, in my mind, that doesn't disqualify him from helping the Westside--some of his flaws, such as former gang association (as I understand it Snoop sold for the Rollin' 20s but was never actually banged in), makes him able to help kids through more than a lot of well-intentioned volunteers could--among the other nonexistent charitable efforts Snoop has made, the one he's most famous (or is that infamous? I'm confused) for is his anti-gang work.
  
  For a guy who seems to be Christian, John, you throw an awful lot of stones. Before the next salvo, why don't you look up the difference between justifiable self-righteousness and histrionics?
  reply
• 

  John_B

  10 months ago

  Mike: If you feel insulted because I’ve allowed for the possibility that the distinction between one word and another may be lost upon you, then I suppose you can only look within yourself to find out why that might be. No one (least of all me) is responsible for your feelings but yourself.
  
  It is possible, I suppose, they you are omniscient and in that circumstance please permit me to extend my most profound and abject apologies.
  
  My time (spare and otherwise) is my own to spend, as is yours. I neither question, nor disparage, how you choose to spend your time yet you seem to be implying (in both of your postings) that the manner in which I choose to spend my time is wasteful or somehow less worthy.
  
  Were I as inclined to allow others to have power over my feelings as you seem to be, I might feel insulted by that…checking…checking…nope, I am not and I do not.
  
  Referring to you as a “Broadus-apologist” was, admittedly, entirely my characterization. But one I developed after reading and understanding the words of your first posting and the manner in which you wrote them. Now after having read and understood your second posting equally well I’m even more convinced of your inclination to excuse Broadus’ ‘behavior and legal troubles’ (I would say his ‘inappropriate behavior and his crimes’) or, at the very least, to be more inclined to minimize or dismiss them, simply because you believe he now has “20 mil in the bank” and claims to be wiling to “invest in Districts 6, 7 and 8”.
  
  Sorry, Mike, the ethical standards I would hold our government and our elected and appointed officials to are not quite so easily bought or so readily influenced.
  
  Nor did I ever claim or infer that Broadus’ past (and current) inappropriate behavior and crimes to any degree “disqualify him from doing positive community work”. I’m simply not as inclined to ascribe the same level of altruism to him that you appear to be.
  
  Among other things, Broadus is a businessman and as such I highly doubt that he would have contacted Councilmember Andrews’ office and then appeared for this meeting if he had not seen some personal gain and financial profit for him in doing so. Why else insist that the film crew have access? Why else say that he is considering “…expanding the scope of his business presence locally…”?
  
  Nor is there a single thing wrong with wanting to be successful in business. But his “business” happens to be about glorifying violence and gang lifestyles; about drug abuse and about insulting and demeaning women. There is clearly a market for such garbage…sadly.
  
  My position is that the City need not tacitly endorse his “business” or by any means legitimize him by meeting with or having anything to do with him.
  
  You know, Mike, if Broadus truly ‘just wants to help’ there are any number of charitable organizations operating in his areas of interest that he *could* have contacted and which would be more than happy to accept not only his volunteer time but any portion of the ‘20 mil’ you believe he has and that he might care to write a check for. Broadus is supposed to be a reasonably intelligent man, surely he also knows this. So why contact the City instead?
  
  I happen to think that this meeting was less about true altruism and more about self-aggrandizement and monetary gain.
  
  Regardless of which ultimately proves closer to the truth, my comments reflect my opinions, Mike, just as, I assume, your comments are reflective of yours. I believe I have very good reasons for my opinions, and you, no doubt, feel equally justified.
  
  My idea is that we maintain the highest ethical standards possible for our government and for those we elect and appoint to represent us. You, on the other hand, seem to have…a different idea.
  
  So be it.
  reply
• 

  Ryan_Z

  10 months ago

  Why don't we all just throw on "Doggystyle" and relax a 'lil bit...
  reply
• 

  John_B

  10 months ago

  Ryan: My apologies.
  
  I tend to get a little passionate about our government and the silly things those who represent us sometimes (often?) do when they think we might not be paying attention. I also tend to have little-to-no patience for people who seem inclined to overlook and/or minimize criminal, immoral or unethical behavior if the perpetrator happens to possess wealth, power, celebrity or some combination of all three.
  
  Maybe Broadus is not the criminal he once was (although his current probation status would tend to argue against this). Maybe he’s changed his M.O. from the days and nights when he helped a criminal street gang to terrorize and victimize the residents of Long Beach. But his actions, as recently as last year, seem to indicate otherwise.
  
  You know, another man also once invested in many legitimate business interests during his lifetime. He was the darling of many local elected and appointed officials who found him charming and ever-willing to apply his considerable wealth to various civic causes. Some in the community saw this man as a true humanitarian; he was among the first to open area soup kitchens for the poor after the stock market crashed in 1929 and he directed local merchants to give food and clothes to the needy at his expense. He too was a husband, father and family man. None of that, however, prevented Alphonsus “Al” Capone from also being one of the most violent and notorious criminals in the history of Chicago. Capone and his “outfit” spent decades terrorizing and victimizing the people of Chicago just as Broadus and the violent criminal street gang he "claims" (i.e. has associated himself with) have spent decades terrorizing and victimizing the people of Long Beach.
  
  Broadus would likely consider it a compliment to be compared with Capone and *that* is likely the most telling comment of all.
  
  So unless a person like Broadus can demonstrate that he has truly and completely reformed (and it seems quite evident that he has not), our elected and appointed officials should have nothing whatsoever to do with him. When they are on the clock, those officials represent *us*, not themselves.
  
  If they choose, in their personal lives, to fawn over someone like Broadus, they are certainly free to do so. But when we are compensating them they must be held then to a higher standard of conduct.
  
  It really is just that simple.
  reply
• 

  Still Digusted

  10 months ago

  Check the latest from down under:
  
  The degenerate felon is trying to get a visa for a tour down under.
  If the British Empire follows suit with its denial earlier in the year-
  he will once again be declared persona grata -as well he should be.
  
  His offer of blood money approaches something like Adolph
  Eichmann offering to donate money to the Museum of Tolerance.
  
  The only thing more sickening than the degenerate is Andrews and Harrison
  fawning over the slime for which both should be fired.
  
  There is no place in civilized society for the likes of the degenerate.
  reply