VAN LATHAN: FIRED BY TMZ RESURFACES AT REVOLT TELEVISION.

ICHEOKU says that TMZ should fire one of its jewel and over such a trifle matter as could pass for an office horsing around, is to say the least arbitrary. As always, they are very quick to act whenever a brother is involved and they will readily take away his meal ticket, without a care in the world as to how such brother is going to buy milk for his infant son or daughter. That is the only real power they have over back people, economic power and they wield it to the maximum. Their only real strength over black folks. 

Why would TMZ summarily terminate Van Lathan's job just because he jokingly said what he said to a colleague Michael Bobcock and for something as trifle as that. ICHEOKU says except he has been written up severally in the past for a job place harassment and Mr Bobcock felt really afraid for his life and Van Latham confirmed that he was really serious about carrying out his alleged threat, what he did did not rise to the level of hostile work environment for which he should be fired. Firing him over this is a very hash decision, especially for a jocularly jovial person as him, who is always joking around with everybody and who so many people actually tune in to TMZ to see what is roiling him again. It is definitely a case where the punishment exceeded the crime. 

The little midget who owns TMZ, Harvey Levin, is not a happy fella and it shows. ICHEOKU says despite all the pretensions to the contrary, his face, his demeanor, his forced smile, his grinning of teeth and the way he often erupts betrays his mask. He is uncomfortable in his tiny body and he appears easily intimidated by the gentle giant, a huge star who was suddenly eclipsing him and he had to find a reason to let him go. Why would he fire Van Latham just because of what he allegedly did, tell a co-worker that he will hear from him the next time he disrespected him and playfully placing his hand on his neck region for emphasis. Did Michael Babcock feel seriously threatened by the act or did he dismiss it as one of Van Lathan's many goofy moments. 

From his reaction, it was obvious that he never felt that his life was in danger or reasonably seriously feared for his life. So why take away this brother's means of livelihood because of this or is Harvey Levin practicing the usual liberal racism of either you know your place or your livelihood will be taken away. Such either you play dumb or you will be fired for not knowing your place is an experience which many black men could relate to, having suffered same in many American work places where you are not supposed to say a thing as your opinion does not matter nor count. Your presence needs only to be acknowledged, but you must never attract attention to yourself or offer an opinion and should speak only when spoken to. 

Why fire the brother because of such a harmless act following a passionate argument between two colleagues, whose work environment requires and somewhat encourages strong opinions in order to keep the ratings and viewership high. Everyone who watches TMZ can relate to Van Latham being a very passionate person, who strongly fights for his convictions and will go to the mat to ensure that you know where he stands on any issue, particularly race relations in America. The world saw him once take on Kanye West when Kanye made that statement of slavery being a choice. Unlike many others who would have cowered at the star power of Kanye West, Van Lance stood his ground and people who watched his performance were thrilled by his strong position. 

So, if TMZ did not fire him then, why fire him now for simply telling a co-worker not to mess with him again. Even if he gestured with his two hands on Mr Bobcock's neck simulating choking, but he never applied force to the neck. How can any rational person adjudge such gesticulation as so egregious and life threatening that his firing would be most appropriate response under the circumstance. ICHEOKU says have severally reviewed the video of what transpired and always arrived at the same conclusion that what happened was not an intolerable outrage that should warrant Van Lathan's firing. But now that TMZ has done their worse, pull his meal ticket, will it be ok for Mr Bobcock to sue TMZ for providing a hostile work environment. 

It was certainly an overkill. Van Lathan deserves much better treatment than taking his job away. If he was a white boy or Jewish, would Harvey Levin have so nonchalantly fired him? ICHEOKU says sometimes wonders if that little fella is on some drugs which makes him often jumpy and fidgety. A close observer also notices his constant sniffling and his watery squirrelly eyes which appears glassy. Many people, including ICHEOKU, watch TMZ mostly because of Van Latham, especially after he made a huge impressive statement with his confrontation of Kanye West. Many people actually saw the depth of his intellect, knowledgeability, fearlessness and the passion which he brings to the show on issues dear to him and which he cares about. ICHEOKU maintains that TMZ did themselves a bad number with this firing; it is also severe a punishment for what happened. 

ICHEOKU says it is about time Black Lives Matter included in their agenda, the protection of black men from being so cavalierly fired from their jobs in America's work places. Just like the Police Union protects even their bad officers, Black Lives Matter should start protecting black males from their employers and should demand that TMZ reinstates Van Latham or pay him some hefty severance. What he did is not such that should warrant his being fired. Van Lathan's black life matters and his having a means of livelihood to nourish his life is also very important. Black Lives Matter should take their protest to TMZ and demand that Van Lathan be allowed to continue to earn a living working at TMZ. It is sad that TMZ fired their rising star over something as trifle. 

ICHEOKU says is even more disgusted that dreadlocked Charles Latibeaudiere signed off on this and allowed a rising black voice, who passionately advocates and defends blackness, to be silenced just like that. So what if Van Lathan put his hand on Michael Babcock's neck, he did not compress it and Mr Babcock did not feel reasonably threatened nor was he deathly afraid for his life. "I will have problem with you if you do this again" is rather a harmless banter which many people would say when they are pissed off. But it is not a threat for which an alarm of SOS protection would go off. If the issue is that he put his hand on Michael Babcock's neck area, did Mr Babcock complain that he couldn't breath or seriously felt threatened and demanded that TMZ took action or he will sue them for a workplace harassment. Anyway, TMZ is the loser and they lost their biggest star.