Bill Clinton...dozes off during speech!

Oh my, didn't get enough winks, I guess...


During a speech about Martin Luther King, Jr., Bill Clinton slumped to one side in his chair and dozed off for a couple of minutes.

I guess, he was either bored with the speech or trying to "realize the dream".

DNA...verifies humans are not all equal?

New DNA research has raised a controversy.

It all started when scientists identified small changes in DNA that account for pale skin in Europeans, a tendency for Asians to sweat less, and a West African ability to resist disease.

DNA can also reveal what percentage of genes are from Asia, Africa, and Europe.

Because of established theories on tendencies towards afflictions based on genes, a heart drug (BiDil) was marketed for Afro-Americans who appeared to be predisposed to specific ailments of the organ.

Likewise, Jews were offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.

The studies worry some!

Social critics fear racial prejudices may arise as a result.

The idea that humans are no different from each other - except by skin tone - appears to be evaporating.

So, some say the idea of equality may disintegrate as well.

"We are living through an era of the ascendance of biology and have to be careful," noted - Henry Louis Gates Jr. - the Director of W.E.B. at Du Bois Institute for African and American Research at Harvard University.

There is a fine line between using the data constructively and abusing it, according to Gates.

Non-scientists investigating the issues speculate explosive conclusions are bound to follow on the heels of the historically charged subject of race and intelligence determined from the biological data.

One study, for instance, linked bits of DNA to High IQ.

And, to the disappointment of some, the traces were determined to reside in Europeans and Asians specifically.

However, scientists may be jumping the gun.

The researcher at Half Sigma Blog - who put forth the theories at an early stage of the game - has been accused of "rushing to an egalitarian stance that all races are equal is false."

No matter, in my estimation, co-factors - such as environment, child rearing and nurturing (or the lack thereof) - are important influences to consider as well.

Though a few bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behaviour traits, scientists allege that roughly ten percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races.

Studying the data is not only important, they say, but crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease.

Hold on, now!

Many geneticists, concerned about possible discrimination, are worried that openly discussing race could endanger support for their research.

Understandably, those individuals are afraid to discuss the social implications of the findings.

It's a delicate subject, many some scientists warn.

"There are clear differences between people of continental ancestries," said Marcus W. Feldman (Professor of Biological sciences at Standford University).

"It's not there yet for things like IQ, but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining the findings better," he added firmly.

For some, the path to take is obvious.

Renata McGriff - a fifty-two year old health care consultant who previously had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists - has changed her stance lately.

Until its clear that the science is not going to be used to validate prejudices, she is going to opt out of genetic research.

"I don't want the children in my family to be born thinking they are less than someone else based on their DNA," added Ms. McGriff.

So, do we hide our heads in the sand?

Speaking of sand, Dr. Clark (a retired neonatologist in Kansas) went on record about the issue.

"When was the last time a non-black sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters? To say that such differences aren't real," Dr. Clark noted in an interview, "is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah until the band marches by."

His point?

Maybe it's time we wore our genes with pride - stone-washed, tie-dyed - whatever!

Marlon Brando...Character Assassination

What was to be a celebratory occasion - the screening of the powerful feature (A Dry White Season) for a contingent of guests from the French Consulate - many conceded turned out to be a downer brought to the fore by a lack of sound judgment on the part of the Director, Euzhan Palcy.

Yes - as fate would have it - the "Question & Answer" session afterward was where the spotlight fell; exposing behind-the-scenes production tales brimming with intrigue, suspense, and stabs in the back.

Ms. Palcy started the evening off pleasantly enough.

There were vivid details about the more intriguing aspects of the filmmaking process for this particular venture; for example, insider info detailing how she managed to secure the rights to the book and a smattering of thoughts on her subsequent soul-searching and in-depth preparations for a production about apartheid in South Africa.

To her credit, early on in-the-game, she noted to the audience that she realized the need to uncover the truth first-hand beyond the well-written pages of the best-seller by Andre Brink. So, she proceeded to authenticate the facts by journeying to South Africa incognito.

A rapt audience sat on the edge of their seats as the director recalled a clandestine trip to South Africa to research material for the feature film to be financed and distributed initially by Warner Brothers.

First hand, the locals provided her with shocking testimony about the atrocities - torture, stabbings, the killing of young children in villages - for example.

On the heels of gut-wrenching testimony - she slipped the incriminating evidence out of the country by way of her silk panties - at the height of the conflicts.

Once the script was on paper, the director focused on casting the right talent.

About this time "CRY FREEDOM" was released, so Warner Brothers wanted to shelve the production slated with Palcy.

In spite of this, they were also reluctant to let the project out of their hands, either.

Allegedly, Jane Fonda, Sidney Poitier - and a handful of other actors - pressured the studio until they finally relented.

At this juncture, "A Dry White Season" moved over to MGM.

Immediately, the production team pushed for the casting of South African actors to lend authenticity to the film. Fortunately, studio brass - like Alan Ladd Jr. - were behind Palcy one-hundred-percent and gave the go-ahead.

For the part of pivotal role of the attorney, the young auteur pined for Marlon Brando. Luckily, she knew Jay Kantor, a former agent of the acting icon. Because of an overture Jay made on her behalf, Marlon agreed to sign on.

In one hillarous recall - she noted her concerns about approaching Marlon on the issue of salary - sure Brando would back out when the meager remuneration she was capable of paying was offered up.

He allegedly chastised her for raising the issue.

"You're talking to me about money?" he allegedly responded somewhat incredulously.

"This is a cameo role on an important project and a comeback for me. I'll do it for free. Don't talk about money."

She was elated.

At the packed screening, Ms. Palcy now focused the discussion on a jovial Brando, amusing hours on the set, and underscored how everyone was so enamored of the superstar.

She boasted that at the end of the production, both cast & crew lined up for autographs, herself included.

Then, for some inexplicable reason, she suddenly said,

"I have to tell you one bad thing about Marlon, though."

We sat up, all ears!

She noted that one scene called for Mr. Brando to be dragged out of the courtroom after the Judge presiding over the case becomes frustrated by the aggravating courtroom theatrics of Marlon's character.

The whole point of the scene, she asserted, was to underscore that corrupt "powers-that-be" thought they were above the law.

However, after two takes, Palcy and the producer were allegedly at their wits end.

The semantics of nabbing the footage in the can were so challenging - even with a consummate pro like Brando at the helm - that it was doubtful they would succeed at the enormous task.

In the struggle with the guards, for example, Brando's wardrobe fell open.

"His belly popped out," she noted in disgust.

There were many wild guffaws from moviegoers in the theater who found the whole episode remarkably funny.

According to her, though, the takes were appalling - so much so - that she claimed that the editors laughed in the cutting room during playback.

Determined to delete the scene from the final cut - she hatched the idea to send Brando two versions of the film - one with the lackluster scene and the other without it and trusted that he would wise up.

But, the megastar was not amused with her ploy.

An argument ensued between the two and he demanded the scene be left in the film.

"It's my dramatic exit," he lamented excitedly.

After consulting with producer Paula Weinstein, they both to put their foot down.

At this point in the tale the evening turned dark and ugly.

Instead of dropping the issue - Ms. Palcy continued and repeated "vile foul language" she alleged Marlon hurled her way on the telephone on several occasions during the duration of their on-going dispute - some of which I would never repeat here.

In fact, Palcy was quite adamant that he not only made bodily threats, but threatened that he'd ensure she never worked in Hollywood again.

She described Mr. Brando as a sort-of vulgar madman bent on her destruction if he did not get his own way.

She claims she tried to appeal to his senses by emphasizing,

"This is about apartheid in South Africa and not about you, Marlon."

Well, over the years I've been privy to many showbiz arguments.

Yes, producers, directors, and actors fight - but generally when it comes to the issue of discussion - most professionals find tactful diplomatic ways to explain the scenarios in a tasteful dignified way on talks shows, in the press, and in their memoirs.

What occurred that evening was not only uncalled for, but amounted to an outright character assassination.

The whole episode was particularly distressing and distasteful to me because - for one - Mr. Brando is deceased. Is it proper etiquette to speak so ill of the dead?

Notwithstanding, Mr. Brando was not there to defend himself.

More shocking, perhaps, was the comment she made after her twenty-minute assault.

With a slight sneer on her face she added as if to validate her position,

"Then, look what happened to his children after that."

Personally, I was shell-shocked by the remark.

Was she inferring that Mr. Brando was directly responsible for those tragedies?

In sum, I found her reprehensible behaviour at the screening inappropriate, immature, downright tacky and unprofessional.

I attended the screening to honor Caesar, not bury him.

Brando in "The Wild One"...