RattlerGator Blog

Don Imus: Sticks and Stones?

I really didn't want to spend much time thinking about the controversy currently swirling around Don Imus for specifically disrespecting the black women who constitute the majority of the basketball team from Rutgers that made a surprise run to the championship game. So, I thought to myself (for the last few days anyway), I'm not going to. However, I realize now that I do have to comment on it because the story just won't leave my mind alone, if you know what I mean.

Rutgers, of course, is the largely-unclaimed "University of New Jersey" and not an athletic power in women's college basketball or most other collegiate sports. With its main campus located some 25 miles from New York City, they were a local story for the New York market that is the home of the Imus in the Morning radio show hosted on what is said to be the number one sports radio station in that market, WFAN. One would have thought a leading program on such a station would have recognized what this story was.

It was an historic run these women made.

Storybook stuff.

I suspect this is what angers me most about the riff the guys on that news-talk-sports program laid down about the looks of the women on the Rutgers Scarlet Knights team. Here these young women are accomplishing the improbable and damn near overcoming the odds and actually doing the impossible -- winning the title -- and these clowns use that special feat as a prop to crap all over the history these women made in what was probably a calculated and cynical attempt to create buzz.

Which, of course, it has. I'll grant you it may not have been calculated by Imus for this purpose but the gentleman who fed him the "hard core ho's" line? Yeah, he thought about that. He calculated the use of that line, I'm fairly certain. And he knew that Imus or someone else among the cast of characters would run with it. Briefly, I'm sure. But it would be good for a "drive-by laugh" and off they would go to the next bit.

This is our modern dilemma, or so it appears to me. Bad home training sells and counts on the maintenance of standards in a sufficient number of Americans capable of being shocked by intemperate or insensitive language so that a constituency (any constituency) can be reliably counted upon to be offended in some way, shape, or form by the likes of Imus and his posse.

I've never liked the guy and I've never quite understood his popularity with many people (especially in the northeast, especially among liberal white folks from a variety of different groups). That's not to say I don't appreciate the talent employed by the show. They have some very talented people who put together some very funny radio skits, impersonations, etc. But it's far too New York for me, full of false superiority and a conceit that I find unbecoming.

As I've said, bad home training.

I heard Mike Greenberg say recently that he loved listening to Imus' show while growing up and he also said his recollection was that Imus tended to go after the powerful and not (as in this instance) the powerless. I'm not sure about that, not sure at all. I think that's probably a convenient recollection now that Imus is caught up in a storm. I will acknowledge, though, that it could be right on the money and this does represent a departure for Imus. My bias, however, doesn't believe this is so.

Gwen Ifill has a good opinion piece up at the New York Times. John McWhorter has an equally good piece that serves, I think, as a good counterpoint. I have bounced all over the place in thinking through where I stand on this situation. The black women I know want his behind fired, and with a quickness! I have concluded that, emotionally, I want him fired. Although I have to admit that I want him fired, I don't exactly feel good about wanting him fired. For me, this means that (intellectually-speaking) I'd prefer he not be fired.

Why not?

I presume it's because I have a disdain for punk ass surrender monkeys, and this controversial demand that he be fired strikes me as punkish. Or, overly feminine. It seems to violate a long-learned rule from my childhood and no doubt that of most African Americans before this current rush toward "sensitivity" that is turning our men and women into apology-demanding and overly fragile dependents forever in need of the good white folks to come to our assistance against the bad white folks.

That rule? Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

In preparation for the outside world (and not simply a mean world but a grown-up world that is quite cold and has always been so), it seems to me that the "sticks and stones" rule has far greater utility than this whole "apologize and say you're sorry" mess we're now inundated with. As McWhorter said:

---

[T]he quest for an America where no one ever makes passing observations that are less than respectful of minority groups is futile. And why are so many of us so obsessed with chasing that rainbow anyway? The truth is that black people who go to pieces whenever anyone says a little something are revealing that they are not too sure about themselves.

---

Roger that. This McWhorter opinion explicitly addresses an insecurity we'd much prefer to overlook.

That said, the black response to the Imus controversy is also more complicated than simply a lack of collective or individual faith in ourselves as African Americans. Which is why I have vacillated on this issue. There's an element here that is fundamental and cuts to the core. It directly speaks to defending black womanhood and when I hear my wife or my sister address the issue, there can be no doubt about that. And Imus, perhaps unknowingly but nevertheless revealingly, most definitely dismissed these women as so much riff-raff. And in doing so, especially in this manner, he also dismissed my grandmother. And my mother, each and every sister, and also my wife. In fact, from an American perspective, he screwed with the yet unborn progeny of black people everywhere.

That's an ass-whuppin' offense, ladies and gentlemen. And I do, emotionally, want to beat his ass.

But more importantly, I don't think he should be fired. From what may be a right-wing fringe of American politics, I found a piece written by Don Krasner that does a good job of placing the controversy in what appears to me to be the proper context (and I have no doubt that many others have done the same):

---

Just where do you think Imus felt he had the license to utter those words---if they were indeed so repugnant and offensive? From his buddies in the white Aryan Brotherhood?! Or from liberals in the hip-hop culture, the recording industry, and Hollywood who get rich off the use of that language? Do Jews, Italians, or Latinos denigrate their women in the same manner, let alone permit such language and behavior to emerge as dominant in the culture? Shouldn't Sharpton and Jesse Jackson be spending as much time and effort in preventing the mainstreaming of this offensive language about their women, than in bashing white imitators trying---and failing---to be funny? Shouldn't they be boycotting the New York Times for printing glowing reviews of hip hop music that refers to other blacks as niggers?

The same liberals in the news media who looked the other way or otherwise enabled Imus, easily gave in to their white guilt and provided a forum for race hustler Al Sharpton to lay into Imus; demand his apology and dismissal; and condemn the wall-to-wall white NBC network. This from an individual who is responsible for a career in generating racial disharmony, and has had a lot to apologize for, yet never has. Especially for his "white interloper" and "bloodsucking Jews" comment that resulted in a racial murder of an innocent white merchant in Harlem. Hosts on MSNBC sought salvation from Sharpton, and instead received salvos. Enough to make conservatives giddy.

A couple of hours after NBC fired Imus, Keith Olbermann on Countdown sought salvation from Jesse Jackson. He told Jesse that he quietly counseled the top brass at NBC all week to fire Imus. And how he chose black interviewer Alison Stewart as one of the substitute hosts of Countdown. Unlike other NBC commentators, I suppose this proves that some of Olbermann's best friends are black!

---

Indeed.

I've heard that Jim Brown had some harsh words for Sharpton over this incident. Good. I doubt that Jim Brown sees things the way I do but that's not what is important about an icon like Jim Brown speaking out against the good Reverend. Al Sharpton is a New York hustler and in no way, shape or form represents or speaks for Black America in any meaningful way. That's not meant to denigrate the good that he has done. I give him all due credit for those efforts. But I'm also not oblivious to his egregious errors and I give him no pass for them, either. Just as the good that Don Imus has done does not automatically absolve him of criticism over this incident, so too for Al Sharpton. I also know that if close attention is paid to many, many black talk show hosts or black public figures who can often be incredibly loose with their language, we could find a multitude of outrages similar to the Imus rant currently the focus of so much discussion.

Sticks and stones may [tangibly] break our bones but words will [only superficially] hurt us. It's high time we not only re-learn that lesson but toughen up and internalize the time-honored wisdom contained within its' intent.

A Peek Into the Modern Black Male Conundrum

The leader of the Conservative Brotherhood, the one and only Cobb, has a nice post up commenting on a new HBO documentary, Bastards of the Party. I had not heard of it and I'm not familiar with the details of the L.A. gangbangin' scene but I think Cobb's piece is a serious peek into the modern black male conundrum.

If you take the time to read Cobb's post, make sure you read some of the comments. I love the perspective they provide. But one comment really grabbed me. Discussing black fathers who weren't there for their sons, one commenter said: "They were selfish cowards." That was far too harsh an assessment for me and I know it may just be semantics on my part (because I understand the sentiment) but that attitude is just as much a part of the problem, or so it seems to me.

When some of us, in ways large or small, make it through and achieve against the odds it is incumbent upon us to be the bigger men. Even with a negligent father.

We, as black men in America, do seem to have a curious "gimme me" outlook that is typically male but apparently more prevalent in us than white men (by the way, that's what makes it curious to me; it seems to me that it should be the other way around). That gimme me mindset fits beautifully into the freedom of America but is supremely susceptible to the fantastical illusions of America. And that often leaves our lovers or wives or sex partners with flesh-and-blood responsibilities that we force them to deal with. Because we have kingdoms to build in the here and now and, as a black man, we're already operating against the odds, don't you know?

That's a good part of the mindset, right?

So, again, I understand the selfish cowards comment. I just keep thinking of the father-son split (inevitable when one thinks of father as a selfish coward on such a fundamental responsibility) and where that inevitably leads. At some point don't we black men, presuming our self-awareness, have to [1] acknowledge the reality THOSE black men were confronting with very uneven success, [2] admit the complexity of the social, cultural and intellectual leadership they (for better or worse) followed, and [3] align ourselves with those earlier failures.

Claim ownership.

In other words, cut them some slack and continue working to build a better tomorrow for our progeny so that our community can continue to go get its piece of the American pie? I'm not sure we can do that while carrying around a frame of reference where so many are castigated as "selfish cowards." Personally, I have to forgive so many for so much when I peruse my history books that I'll be damned if I can't forgive black men for either independently veering off track or somehow being convinced to do so.

POLITICAL VIBRANCY VS. POLITICAL STASIS

From Within The Veil:

W.E.B. DuBois said the problem of the 20th Century would be the problem of the color line; solidly within the color line in the culture of the United States stands African Americans, obscured from view by something similar to a veil -- those within are visible behind that veil, but precisely how clearly? Those within obviously see beyond that veil, but again . . . exactly how clearly? I believe the challenge of the 21st Century will prove to be the same as the challenge of the 20th Century but with this distinct difference: the “special” burden presented by the challenge (and that which must be shouldered) will no longer be on those from without the veil. No, the special burden in the 21^st Century will be on those of us within the veil. As it should be.

May 23, 2006

May has been a month of transitions for me, and I'm quite behind in where I hoped to be as Memorial Day weekend approaches. With all of my travels and travails, I've apparently missed an interesting blogging breakup on the right side of the blogosphere at PoliPundit, a site that has over the last two years been a good place for me to see a variety of conservative viewpoints tossed around. Apparently, the illegal immigration issue became too divisive and has led to a parting of the ways. Ed Morrissey today noted one of the better contributors who has moved on:

Lorie Byrd has found a new home at Wizbang! She has her first welcome post up there now. I think they're both lucky to have each other, and Wizbang! looks more and more like the happening group blog these days ...

I enjoyed reading Lorie, too. There was a guy, however, who I particularly looked for when I visited that site and I believe his name is Alexander K. McClure. Here is his goodbye posted at PoliPundit:

Ever since July of 2004, I have tried to provide you with accurate analysis of political races in the United States, and even in Canada and Europe. Since then, my analysis has been quoted by Rush Limbaugh and printed in the New York Post. In 2004, almost alone among political handicappers, I predicted a four to five seat GOP gain in the Senate.

However, I have tried to go beyond mere analysis of political races and polls. I have tried to provide my perspective on where we stand today as a party and as a movement. The Republican Party is the majority governing party in America for the first time since the 1920’s. It is a vibrant, national organization that wins elections in every state. Conservatism is the dominant ideology in America today – it is no longer the stand-pat conservatism of the 1950’s which simply sought to turn back the clock. Instead, modern conservatism is a forward-looking, idealistic ideology that proclaims that freedom at home and abroad is the destiny of man and the gift of God.

I believe we have a duty, as the majority party, to act responsibility, to be worthy of the confidence of the American people. The secret of our success has been our openness, our willing to debate, our eagerness to confront issues, and to create solutions. Unlike our adversaries, we do not engage in the venomous politics of division and hate. Therefore, I believe we should not disparage our President nor distort what he says. As I said in one post several weeks ago, a party of freedom cannot be a party of fear.

Because of these beliefs, and because of the the immigration issue, I can no longer participate on this site in my former capacity. I want to thank all of you for your loyal support the past two years. I have accepted a tentative offer from Redstate to join their website; however, I will still be writing a round-up of political races here on a periodic basis.

Thanks for all your loyal support the past two years.

VIBRANCY

That goodbye speaks volumes, doesn't it? I have a feeling that the whole immigration issue marries up with the ridiculous national response to the Dubai ports deal non-story – except that immigration is a REAL story. I also think there's an interesting link to the outrageous treatment received by Harriet Miers from certain right-wing pundits; I just don't have enough time to sit down and try and think it through right now.

What I do know, however, is that the real “debate” going on in America is between the right and the center-right. The left-wing is still content to throw rocks and hope that is sufficient in these trying times. Sufficient,that is, to win back the control of some or all components of the federal government. Forget the national good or the War For Freedom, those guys are completely focused on control for the sake of control. Sadly, there is one dynamic political party in America right now and that's the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is static, static, static.

THINKING FORWARD VS. LOOKING BACKWARD

Here's a perfect example: a personal friend (Brendon Laster, Director of Development at the Howard University B-School) gets quoted on the front page of the New York Times (also published in the International Herald-Tribune) about the looming conflict between two minority interest groups, African Americans and Latin Americans (the former group operating under the illusion of an unfinished agenda while sufficient numbers of the latter group is completely focused on the traditional American mindset of thinking forward and not looking backward):

"All of this has made me start thinking, 'What's going to happen to African- Americans?'" said Brendon Laster, 32, a black fund-raiser at Howard University, who has been watching the immigrant marches. "What's going to happen to our unfinished agenda?"

Laster, a part-time professor and Democratic activist, said he has a wide circle of black, white and Hispanic friends. He said he marveled at first as the images of cheering, flag-waving immigrants flickered across his television screen. But as some demonstrators proclaimed a new civil rights movement, he said he became uncomfortable.

He contends that immigrant protesters who claim the legacy of King and Rosa Parks are going too far. And he said he worries about the impact the emerging immigrant activism could have on black Americans, many still facing poverty, high rates of unemployment and discrimination in the workplace.

"I think what they were able to do, the level of organization they were able to pull off, that was phenomenal," Laster said. "But I do think their struggle is, in fundamental ways, very different from ours. We didn't choose to come here; we came here as slaves. And we were denied, even though we were legal citizens, our basic rights."

"There are still a lot of unresolved issues from the civil rights era," he added. "Perhaps we're going to be pushed to the back burner."

The debate is bubbling up in church halls and classrooms, on call-in radio and at dinner tables. Some blacks prefer to discuss the issue privately for fear of alienating their Hispanic allies. But others are publicly airing misgivings, saying they are too worried to stay silent.

Now that's provocative and straight-up, in addition to being reflective of the tone and substance of a subject that is most definitely being discussed by black folks all across the country. But, what happened when good ole Brendon was given a national television forum to discuss this situation? Was he able to separate the interests of the black community from the interests of the Democratic Party? Hell no. Appearing on the May 4, 2006 Tucker Carlson Show on MSNBC, Carlson eventually got to the obvious contempt many immigrants have been encouraged to have for American law. How did my man Brendon respond? Here's how:

LASTER: Well, I would think that's an overstatement. I don't think they have contempt, by definition, for American law. I think they are, by and large, you know, individuals who are looking for a better way of life, just like all other immigrants who came here to this country.

CARLSON: Well, I don't know. All other immigrants—you live in Washington, for instance. A large number of Ethiopians and Eritreans in Washington, almost all of them legal. They waited in line at Addis Ababa, or whatever, at the consulate there for years in order to get their green cards to come here and work as cab drivers, OK? They played by the rules.

Many immigrants from Latin America, millions of them—more than 10 million of them—ignored the rules and just showed up, without waiting in line, thereby bypassing the rest of the immigrants who were dumb enough to abide by American law.

You don't think that the ones who played by the rules have cause for resentment?

LASTER: Well, I mean, just to keep it positive...

CARLSON: Let's tell the truth. No reason to keep it positive.

LASTER: Well, let's be positive and truthful. I think that, you know, they may have some cause of concern, and I can understand why they would be resentful. But I think, by and large, if you ask those Eritreans, or those Ethiopians, or those Somalians, I think they'd be very sympathetic to what the Latinos who are here in this country illegally, you know, what they are going through.

CARLSON: Here's my prediction: 50 years from now, when the demographics of this country have changed completely, the civil rights movement will be very dimly remembered, very dimly remembered by the people who control the government, right, because there will be no civil rights lobby to keep that memory alive because it will have been completely eclipsed by Latin immigrants, and so I think, you know, if you care about that, you should be concerned.

LASTER: Well, let's hope not. Let's hope that, you know, throughout the long, storied history of this country, let's hope that the struggle of the civil rights era is never forgotten. And I think that, by the immigrants—even though, you know, it does cause some concern—but by them invoking the spirit of the movement, let's hope that all Americans, not just African-Americans or Latinos, but let's hope all Americans, you know, work to keep the dreams and hopes and the memory of the civil rights movement alive.

CARLSON: Not going to happen. The children of immigrants who came here last year who snuck over from Mexico, 50 years from now, will not care one single bit about Bull Connor, or Rosa Parks, or Martin Luther King. They just won't. That's my prediction. I'm not saying they shouldn't, but I bet they won't.

Anyway, Mr. Laster, thanks for coming on.

LASTER: Thank you for having me, Tucker.

How quaint. “Let's hope.” That, unfortunately, is what passes for strategic thinking among the black leadership in the Democratic Party. Have you seen anything interesting or on-point coming out of the Congressional Black Caucus on this problem?

Hell no.

Let's hope? No, let's not; let's meet the issue head on and start the necessary process of (a) admitting the obvious completion of our old agenda, and (b) thinking seriously about how we meet the challenge of the 21^st century (hint: it won't be accomplished via bitching and moaning).

Obviously, Brendon had been given the proper talking points from the agenda masters (black, brown or white) that constitute the leadership of the Democratic Party. In receiving (and parroting) those talking points, he was confronted with a series of problems black folks in the Democratic Party have been refusing to publicly acknowledge for decades now – [1] black activism and party activism are very different things, [2] we do not have and we should not hope for a “black” political party; it's completely counterproductive, [3] further, the Democratic Party is not a “black” political party – it only perpetrates as one while it's in all actuality simply a political party that owns the black vote, and [4] the Democratic Party has not had to earn the black vote in decades.

Because I know Mr. Laster, I know he's passionate and genuine. I also know he wants to move forward in a fashion that helps African Americans as a whole and in so doing, advocates for changes that aid the country in our collective, national move forward on many fronts. But he blinked when he should not have, and he indirectly backed away from his earlier comments in the New York Times. By so doing, he sided with a political community far better positioned in the two primary American political parties than people of African descent are.

Sadly, none of the black people in leadership among Democrats, none of them, will take responsibility in the decades to come for getting played so easily, so cheaply, so completely! We keep insisting on playing checkers when chess is required.

* FWTV *

 

 

 

From Within The Veil:

BARRY BONDS:

THE BASEBALL MIRROR

W.E.B. DuBois said the problem of the 20th Century would be the problem of the color line; solidly within the color line in the culture of the United States stands African Americans, obscured from view by something similar to a veil -- those within are visible behind that veil, but precisely how clearly? Those within obviously see beyond that veil, but again . . . exactly how clearly? I believe the challenge of the 21st Century will prove to be the same as the challenge of the 20th Century but with this distinct difference: the “special” burden presented by the challenge (and that which must be shouldered) will no longer be on those from without the veil. No, the special burden in the 21^st Century will be on those of us within the veil. As it should be.

May 17, 2006

 

Uncomfortable though it may be, when you view what is happening with Barry Bonds these days you are looking at the historical essence of the game of baseball. I keep watching the Barry Bonds saga unfold (or not, he has been stuck on 713 home runs for days and days) and I'm always curious if baseball fans in America over the age of 40 are sure -- really sure -- that this anti-Bonds thing is about steroids and his (supposedly) defaming the game of baseball.

I don't think it is, and no amount of protestations from guys like Mike Greenberg of the Mike and Mike in the Morning program on ESPN is going to dissuade me. I also don't think it's about race. Nope. This is about an inherent “sickness” in the game of baseball that baseball-obsessed fans never, ever want to confront. If, however, confronted with this inherent sickness (a never-ending quest for an unfair advantage) they have a stock answer ready to go -- inculcated down through the decades of the game: that's baseball, they'll say.

That's baseball?

No, that's called cheating and no other American game comes close to tolerating it at the levels found in baseball (stealing of signs, spitballs, corked bats, etc.) Because of this, there's also no other American game that contains the tension between punk ass play (stealing of signs, spitballs, corked bats, etc.) and straight-up, manly play. This is perhaps an unexplored or under-explored part of what makes baseball a beautiful, complicated game. There's some trickeration involved.

That's also why I'm prompted to comment on Barry Bonds today. Did any of you happen to see that video from the charade that occurred last night in Houston? I watched it this morning and was struck by what it showed. More specifically, I was taken aback when I watched the video and instead of looking primarily at Barry and the pitcher, paying special attention to the Houston fans in the background.

There is, and I suspect always has been, a punk ass component particularly relevant to the game of baseball. A competitor hits a home run against you or your team, and you or your team is then expected to deliver some chin music to the next batter or the home-run-hitting batter his next time up. Or, and I've certainly seen this – throw at his head.

Flash back to that crowd in Houston. With every punk ass move by the pitcher (he threw behind Barry, at his chin, and at his head), they roared. When Bonds was finally hit with that projectile known as a baseball, they roared again.

Think about that for a minute.

Yet, we are supposed to think badly of Barry Bonds the Cheater? Not me, although I certainly don't condone the use of performance enhancers. It's just that the use of performance enhancers has a long history in baseball (and many other professional sports), as does cheating and that particularly punk ass concept of not pitching to talented hitters.

Sadly, it appears to me that when the average baseball fan attending major league games – the kind of fan who detests Barry Bonds – looks at the man about to pass Babe Ruth, he's looking at a mirror. And in that mirror, he doesn't see himself (in and of itself, a bit of a problem) but he does see what is and always has been the game of baseball on the players side of the aisle.

That's the problem.

It isn't about the steroids – that issue is a cloak, or so it seems to me. Mike Greenberg has gone on and on about Babe FREAKING Ruth, apparently still unaware that Babe Ruth is also one with an asterisk – playing his entire life against a diluted field while fantastic baseball players (ready, willing and able to play ball) languished in obscurity. Babe FREAKING Ruth? Give me a FREAKING break! Babe Ruth is so damn irrelevant, it isn't even funny. Mike Greenberg is so damn clueless about that fact, it actually is funny. He keeps using his wife, of all people, as some kind of measuring stick on this issue. Wrong, wrong, wrong because his wife is likely two decades too old to be relevant to this home run record discussion. Why? Because America, as a general rule, looks forward in most matters; the country really devotes very little time looking at history on even the most substantive issues. Baseball, to its detriment, has been very slow to come to terms with this fact because it cherishes its record book so much. Obsesses over it, in fact.

The country, however, does not. So there are fewer and fewer Mike Greenberg’s being churned out these days, meaning there are increasingly fewer casual wives who even know Babe Ruth ever existed.

The sooner baseball figures that out, the better. The earlier they make the change to award second base for any base-on-balls, the better. The quicker they put in a clock to speed up the game, the better. The less they continue to obsess over their precious records, the better. The faster they acknowledge that the country appreciates the old records but doesn't obsess about them, the better. The more they continue to stand still and rely on historical precedent, the further they fall behind as a national game that matters in the 21^st century.

Meanwhile, Greenberg and his cohorts at ESPN and other media outlets appear to have organized a lynch mob aimed at Barry Bonds. Because of his rocky history with the media and his unparalleled excellence in the modern era, Bonds (it has apparently been collectively decided) has to be tied to some symbolic stake this season and flogged – night after night.

Here's the deal: what we are witnessing with Bonds vs. Baseball is an ugly spectacle of angst very similar (in a pre-ESPN kind of way) to that infamous Chicago White Sox promotion – Disco Demolition Night – in July of 1979. Remember the six years or so that led up to that memorable night? Within that period we had the October 1973 Oil Crisis, the April 1975 end of the Vietnam War, the December 1978 Iranian Revolution, the March 1979 Three Mile Island incident, and another Oil Crisis in June 1979. Get the picture?

National angst.

Fast forward to today and the bitching over ticket prices, the cost of parking and concessions, player salaries, etc., and I certainly don't need to recount for you the last six years of national and international history as seen from American eyes. So, there's clearly some acting out by sports fans in the Bonds home run chase and just as clearly a lack of recognition from the ESPN folks, among others, of their role in that acting out.

Can you imagine what kind of coverage of Disco Demolition Night would have received if ESPN existed then as it does now?

I have a feeling some folks in major league baseball as well as some major media outlets may need to force a change in tone (or at least engage in a very open discussion that involves some serious self-reflection) with this situation or we may be staring at a very, very ugly incident in the near future.

Complicating this ugliness is the continuing slide of a game that used to be on top in America and now isn't even close to the top. It has become a game that has amazingly separated itself from its base (the average, everyday working American) and the game is destined to pay the price for that short-term thinking. Major league baseball should have been operating much more like the minor leagues are operating – that was its only hope of keeping its grip on America. Instead, it looks and acts like an anachronism. Obsessing in the mid-1970s about Babe Ruth (instead of Hank Aaron) and turning off an entire generation of black kids. Allowing, in the last couple of decades, the rise of major-market teams and the demise of small-market teams, and unnecessarily alienating its non-urban mass of fans. Obsessing now about Barry Bonds and continuing the disinterested slide of African Americans away from this game.

Barry Bonds isn't the problem, ladies and gentlemen; he is instead a perfect mirror of the game – for good and bad. His crime, apparently, has come from interacting with the underbelly of the game. In this he is not alone and far more in the mainstream than the game is willing to admit. It's high time for someone to say to the lynch mob, “Get the hell off of Barry Bonds' back!”

Baseball is a game in trouble; it's showing its age, its knees are aching like crazy, it can't do a damn thing about its beer belly, and it requires some drastic changes in the lifestyle it has always known yet it is resisting the necessary changes.

Yeah, hell, that describes me perfectly. But maybe that's why I recognize those same symptoms in the game of baseball so clearly.

* FWTV *

 

   

From   Within The Veil:

CRASS POLITICAL COMMERCIALISM

W.E.B. DuBois said the problem of the 20th Century would be the problem of the color line; solidly within the color line in the culture of the United States stands African Americans, obscured from view by something similar to a veil -- those within are visible behind that veil, but precisely how clearly? Those within obviously see beyond that veil, but again . . . exactly how clearly? I believe the challenge of the 21st Century will prove to be the same as the challenge of the 20th Century but with this distinct difference: the “special” burden presented by the challenge (and that which must be shouldered) will no longer be on those from without the veil. No, the special burden in the 21^st Century will be on those of us within the veil. As it should be.

 

May 4, 2006

There’s a curious trend that I’m taking note of that quite likely has been present for years and only now am I noticing it because of my still relatively recent political switch. The trend in question is the use of a national stage to inappropriately try and establish your left-wing credibility at the expense of protocol and – oh, by the way – Republicans. This is accomplished by defecating on commonly accepted social norms of decorum.

The latest example is Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central. Invited as a featured attraction at an event where the President is the guest of honor, Colbert decided to engage in the dance that passes as cutting edge in New York these days. A recent commenter at Lucianne framed the situation well:

Colbert’s intentions were not to provide entertainment last Saturday night nor to even be funny, per se. Colbert USED the [White House Correspondents Association] dinner last Saturday night to further establish his extreme Lefty creds with his fan base. Much as an ambitious gang member commits a big crime, even murder, to establish his loyalty and dedication to the gang, Colbert gutlessly put a disrespectful and mean-spirited in-person ‘‘hit’’ on our President to impress [his] Lefty Kool-Aid drinking fan base. He succeeded in that self-serving regard.

Yes, he did. In a very calculated fashion.

You know there has to be (I hope) a growing exasperation among the grown-up’s on the left wing with this juvenile stupidity and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post verifies just this in his most recent column:

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you’re at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert’s lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

Of course, Colbert could care less about being rude, inappropriate or even a complete asshole. This was a commercial decision made in the comfort of knowing there will be no real repercussions to his bank account. Instead, he might actually increase his economic standing.

For instance, take a look at this definition of crass commercialism:

[It] is a term referring to articles of culture which are based mostly on capitalist pursuits, while masquerading as being material of substance.

Add a political angle, focus on a statement or performance made, and you’ve got the concept of crass political commercialism. One of the dual hypocrisies of the left wing and Black America is bitching about profits and money while being in serious pursuit of that very same thing.

I wrote about this type of behavior on September 9, 2005 and it fits entirely within the point of this column. Here is what I wrote then, while the Hurricane Katrina hysteria was in full effect and Kanye West had made his ignorant statement that President Bush doesn’t care about black people during (of all things!) a live concert fundraiser on NBC for victims of Hurricane Katrina:

* * *

Although Kanye West may be clueless by strategic design (just my suspicion), not all black folks are similarly afflicted, of course. David Porter at the Orlando Sentinel, for one, and I’ve been negligent in not singing his praises earlier. After first clearly stating that “Kanye West is way off base,” Porter continued:

West certainly was not the only one to throw down the race card. Some other blacks also accused the federal government of neglecting New Orleans because it has a black majority and rampant poverty.

The racial friction is unwarranted and counterproductive.

I’m no fan of President George W. Bush, but here’s a fact that can’t be denied: He was not slow to prepare for last week’s disaster.

Bush declared a state of emergency for Louisiana on Aug. 27. That was two days before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. The declaration started the process to assemble federal resources.

The racial criticisms made by West and others are an insult to the heroics of U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Air Force rescuers I watched on the television news. These guys have been descending on cables from helicopters and carrying New Orleans residents out of flooded neighborhoods. The rescues started on Aug. 29, the same day the hurricane hit.

And here’s an interesting thing that I noticed in those rescues. All of the men I saw come down from the helicopters were white. The majority of the people plucked from the rooftops were black. Yet those white rescuers didn’t seem to care what the victims looked like. The rescuers were energetic and compassionate. In one incident, a white Coastguardsman and a black guy stranded on a rooftop embraced as though they were brothers. Tears filled my eyes. That scene made me extremely proud to be an American.

Me, too.

The unforgivable sin committed by far too many folks all too willing to pimp for the Democratic Party is to stare into the face of a nation magnificently responding to a natural disaster in a colorblind manner yet still see nothing but a racial context to the disaster. Truly stunning ignorance has been on display. Porter, who felt the obligatory need to proclaim his non-love for George Bush, nevertheless must be an old-school black man because his ability to THINK is still intact:

The nightmare conditions at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center, where tens of thousands fled for help, wasn’t the fault of the military or President Bush. That blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of New Orleans officials.

Does it bother me that most of the victims in New Orleans were black and poor?

Absolutely. There really needs to be a serious discussion about chronic black poverty in America. But considering the crisis that we’re up against right now, the race discussion can wait until next week.

Is there room to improve the federal response to large-scale disasters?

Absolutely. But that discussion can wait, too.

By the way, many of people afflicted in Mississippi and Alabama by the hurricane were white. On Sunday, many of them complained they still had not received federal help.

This is not a racial matter. The scope of this disaster is mind-boggling. It covers an area greater than the size of Great Britain. There could be 10,000 dead. Throwing down the race card doesn’t achieve anything.

It’s obvious that Kanye West doesn’t get it.

Yet it’s clear that easing the agony of our Gulf Coast neighbors will require Americans of all colors to work together.

The sad fact is that maybe Kanye West “does” get it, has methodically made his calculation, and decided that he just doesn’t give a damn about all that – what he gives a damn about is his career. [RattlerGator: crass political commercialism is used to advance one’s bank account]

Less than a month ago [August 2005], I was driving into Tampa to visit one of my sister’s and listening to a local black radio station. They were discussing the upcoming Video Music Awards in Miami and Kanye West was the subject of the discussion. The disc jockeys were giving West much props for confronting homophobia in the hip-hop community of artists. They played a fairly long soundbite where he lamented single-parent homes headed by females and the subtle ways that boys in such environments may pick up habits that peers then interpret as “gay.” Once tagged in this manner, many of these kids then go looking for group-acceptance that is, essentially, male-acceptance. The simplest, quickest expression available to them, in an attempt to “man-up,” is gay-bashing. At least that’s the way I interpreted what he was saying.

Of course, anyone who has heard even a little bit of rap music knows just how deep the anti-gay sentiment runs. Such a sentiment closely mirrors the feelings of the black community. But because of the likely perception that he is championing gay rights, I suspect that Kanye West has been “tagged,” so-to-speak, as soft (Jesus Walks is not a standard rap song) and maybe a little too brainy (or what passes for brainy in the rap world) and maybe a little too gay-friendly.

So, how do you shore up your bona fides and reassure the fan base while simultaneously locking down your spot as one of the “conscious” young rappers?

Bash President Bush in a highly public manner that will piss off as many white people as possible. Pipsqueak mission accomplished.

No, I don’t think Kanye West’s statement came from the heart. Instead, just like Janet Jackson’s tit at the Super Bowl, it was a crass marketing maneuver carefully planned in advance as only a “conscious” rapper could.

At a time of an historic natural disaster, how juvenile, how sad. More telling, though, is West’s minstrel-like mimicking of the juvenile need to seek group acceptance in the most narcissistic manner possible.

* * *

Now we have yet another example of this type of juvenile behavior at the expense of President Bush. Richard Cohen’s column is reassuring in the sense that this level of blatant stupidity is called out for what it is.

More grown-up’s on the left wing need to stand up to being used in this manner.