If he falls off this mountain, is the mountain now a racist?
'It's because I'm black!'
'Man, that's racist!'
'How can you do that, as a black man?'
'Don't you know that (supposedly racist act) originated in (racially-charged event)?'
The list could go on forever... Of all the things that irk me to no end, I think the one that has stood out lately is you, the prototypical racism whistle-blower. We all know about planking now, thanks to Twitter. The craze started out months ago in New Zealand as a twist on the 'lying down' game, and grew to notoriety when an unsuspecting planker died after tumbling down a mountain. Yet, in recent weeks the fad has grown to a fever pitch, conspicuously making its rounds in the mainstream media and the black community. As with many crazes, I was quick to dismiss it, simply because it is a case of major groupthink and the world has many other issues to deal with other than people lying face-down in random locations.
Yet you racism whistle-blowers had to take it to that level. People always get on blacks and other minorities for pulling out the race card at unscrupulous intervals... And predictably, we get mad, championing the sacrifices of our ancestors and claiming that we shouldn't be delving into certain things because of the racially-charged histories behind them. Planking has received the same treatment, with hoards of you whistle-blowers alluding to the triangular trade practice of stacking slaves on top of one another in slave ships to conserve space. Now, I understand why you would make this comparison. They look pretty darn similar. Hell, they might've even used the same term to describe it... But consider this: NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE RACIST!
Why is it that nothing can pass through the lens of a black 'radical' without having 'Bigot' branded on its forehead? Are we that desperate for talking points to continue the 'struggle', that something created purely in fun can't be left alone? I'll take a wild guess that when people began planking again, slave ships were the farthest thing from their minds. And by that token, I don't think that some 21st-century fad was on the mind of slave dealers when they were planking slaves. Trying to elicit an air of causation from either side is not only reaching, but silly. Yes, the link is there. But it doesn't mean the link is automatically valid or worth causing a kerfuffle about. Whistle-blowers, let me end on this: why not focus on racism that actually affects us like... I don't know... Tea partiers, or Clarence Thomas, or Michelle Bachman? Either that or go walk a plank... Seriously.
Remember that kid on the playground who could never win an argument? You know... The one who, when backed into a corner about the original amount of Pokemon (there were 151), would counter back with something to the effect of:
- 'but you have cooties!'
- 'I am rubber and you are glue.. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!'
- 'I'm telling Ms. (insert teacher) that you guys are cheating!'
- 'your momma!'
*rolls eyes* I can already feel the childhood urge to exclude him bubbling up. No one likes to be wrong. That said, the kid who can never be wrong no matter how idiotic his argument seems never dies. He grows up and either becomes an award-winning debater, a sufferer of dissociative identity disorder, or, best-case scenario, a (usually) conservative political pundit.
If there's one thing about conservative political pundits, it's that even when faced with situations that completely mirror those they vilify, they are always holier-than-thou. We could be talking anything from.. oh, I don't know... imperialism (#shoutout to Iraq and Afghanistan), personal liberties (word to the Patriot Act), or hell, even a rapper performing at the White House.
Enter Common. Now Common, in most educated circles, is about as safe a rapper as it gets. Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr's career originated in the chewstick era with his classic 'I Used to Love HER', an ode to a much more respectful and 'down to earth' time in hip-hop, devoid of the corporate influence that dominated the airwaves in 1994. He continued on in that same strain, collaborating with the likes of No-ID, Kanye West, Mos Def, The Last Poets and other hip-hop personalities who could be seen as 'conscious'. In hip-hop circles, if Eminem was is one side of the spectrum, the Common would be the other, speaking on issues affecting black people, political oppression and more or less being a voice of reason.
Conservative America doesn't see it that way however. The term 'rapper' doesn't have levels. It doesn't have shades. It doesn't have different strains. To the average conservative, the term 'rapper' is synonymous with rump-shaking, gunplay, drug-dealing, fatherless homes, and that bass-thumping monkey music that their daughters and sons play at all hours of night. Even if the song is talking about picking daisies and watching Barney with one's little sister, let there be a hard bass-line and a Kay Slay intro. I guarantee you, Bill O'Reilly and his conservative crew will find something to abhor about it. And this is regardless of whether they themselves are listening to what anyone else would consider 'offensive'. Yet, that is the tenet of conservative America: a self-serving bias towards anything that contradicts their strict view of how the world ought to be.
According to the average conservative, Bob Dylan runs the gamut in terms of protest music, Ronald Reagan's economic policies are the Ten Commandments, and a black man has little, if any place in the White House. That last idea continues to be swept under the rug as covert racism. Looking at everything from the Birther movement, to the Deather movement, to the continual dispute of Obama's educational background, it's clear that these controversies are arising not because there is a valid basis for them, but because the man is black. Point blank. Now that most of those arguments have fallen by the wayside, attacking anything coming from Obama that has a 'blackness' to it is the way to go.
When we speak about 'the Man', we speak of the kind of overt hypocrisy seen in the above O'Reilly interview, the posturing of falsehoods for the sake of personal gain, and the fear of anything remotely 'black' in politics. Anything resembling non-Patriotic extremism is seen as a threat to 'the Man's' peaceful existence as a dominant force. Hence why Common's appearance at the White House was such a bone of contention for conservatives. They would rather raise hell on a non-issue than see a rapper, a purveyor of that music they don't understand, perform poetry at the White House. It is the worst fear of conservative America to not be 'in' on something, and rather than try to reason or understand something, they fear and deride it. Rather than see the uplifting or beneficial aspects of something different, they hate it for its divergence from their beliefs. They compartmentalize the powerful rhetoric and wordplay that makes hip-hop great and turn it against us, as if Common joined NWA yesterday and made a song called 'Kill Cops, Stab Whitey and F*ck Reagan'.
It's sickening. As valiant as John Stewart's efforts were, it's clear they have no intention of losing an argument. It's clear Bill O'Reilly is content to fling mud in his dirthole instead of see the merits of open and fair discussion. He would rather pull out the ubiquitous 'Your momma' card and walk away knowing he didn't kow-tow than actually get something done. I'm not sure whether I'm more proud of this moment, or angered. What I do know, however, is that this discourse sheds light on the idiocy and pitiful fear that conservative America has. Chuck D and Public Enemy originated the term 'fear of a black planet'. Even though a black planet isn't what we seek in this day and age, until the kid on the playground will admit he's wrong, that fear will still exist.
Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men. So women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent, except for black women. As the following graph shows, black women are statistically no different from the "average" Add Health respondent, and far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.
... What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9.) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.
... The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race differences in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.
I've always been told beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or one man's trash is another man's treasure. That's just how the world works. Subjectivity is the reason rich people don't think they're rich. It's the reason for the difference between Islamic extremists and pacifists. It's the reason you either hate or love people like the Kardashians, Sarah Palin and Rihanna. Subjectivity is the basis of opinions, many of which simultaneously take their root in facts. Yet, one issue that never seems to have any factual basis, no matter who is examining it. That, my friends is attraction.
Attraction theorists, first of all let me ask you this: in the course of civilization, has there ever been one singular, solitary definition of what makes a person attractive? Yes, you can ask a sample of 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 people, but that will never account for the outliers. That will never be able to account for all the people who love black women (raises hand) or those that only like Asian midgets or those that can't stand any race.
How dare you guys compartmentalize black women like that? Since when has the attractiveness of black women been so low? You guys could not have been asking enough people of color, which I say with a grain of salt because people might not always identify with their color. Either way, there will always be people on either side of the fence - who either can't stand or can't resist black women physically. There are also going to be those who like one race a bit more than the next. It's not a question of who is more attractive, just what people like. Subjectivity reigns supreme in the question of attraction, and breaking it down so specifically is essentially pointless.
Second of all, why are you even studying something as trivial as this? This is another case of science trying to over-intellectualize things for the sake of 'knowing' them. You can have your graphs and surveys and numbers and samples. Attraction is probably the most rudimentary instinct that a human can have. Quantifying it does little for humanity other than give schmucks like you a job. There are so many more important breakthroughs that could have been accomplished in the time it took you and your cronies to figure out what gives everyone a woody. Additionally, what does this prove other than there is somewhat of a bias against black women? There's no groundbreaking legislation, medical breakthrough or amazing new revolution that came from this research. It's what we call 'shock science'; research for the sake of research, and you guys are at the top of the totem.
I understand it's only a research study. It probably won't hold any relevance after about a week. Yet research like this only serves to undermine black women even more. You guys hold their stereotypically strong demeanor and voluptuous figures against them as if those qualities are something to be ashamed of. Somewhere there's a black woman eyeing her curves with disdain or vowing to become more submissive just because of 'findings' like this. Why don't you guys put your (sadly worthless) psychology degrees to good use and figure out a basis for racism, or find the root of homosexuality, or decide what exactly constitutes insanity. That'd help society out a lot more than essentially deriding supposed characteristics of black women in the guise of 'science'.
Racism at Penn is usually subtle. It is a way of life, something that minorities come to accept. In class, it's usually sly comments about us. In the dining halls, it’s people talking really loud, complaining about us to their friends. I overhear it.
But this was the first time it was so blatant.
I don't know which experience was worse that night. Being called a “nigger” or being questioned about belonging here.
In retrospect, being called a “nigger” was the short-term sting. It made me more self-conscious about what white people think of me here — just some black guy who got here because of some affirmative action.
The idea of "belonging here" is the long-term wound. Ever since I came here, I have been self-conscious. You have to understand that Penn is extremely different from most schools, in that the vast majority comes from a much wealthier background. I grew up in the projects, surrounded by crime and drugs. I came from there to here without much help, and in May I will graduate cum laude.
Maybe I'm too much a cynic. Maybe I've seen so many instances like this, that it almost humors me at this point. Maybe because I went to a primarily white high school, I've been completely desensitized to such nonsense. Whatever the case, overt racism, like that alluded to in the above editorial really doesn't bother me anymore. There will always be instances where black people just get the short end of the stick in terms of what we would call 'racial sympathy'.
Whether it be uncouth and uninformed remarks during class, students deeming anything remotely related to blackness 'ghetto', or the commodification of 'blackness', black people have always been the butt of some joke at the hands of non-blacks. That such an incident was the impetus for the above editorial isn't the point of this post. No, no, no... I wouldn't dare open that can of worms and allow the masses to paint this blog as a 'hater' or as unsympathetic to the plight of my college-educated black brethren.
What I will touch upon, however, is why situations like this needn't be aggrandized in such a fashion. Black people in college, how many of you come from communities, municipalities or simply situations where being in college is NOT the norm? My guess is a good portion of you reading this raised your hands. That said, shouldn't being in college be a triumph in and of itself? As a young black male, the propensity for me to be in less-than-stellar arrangements is that much higher. Jail... Fatherhood... You name it, and there is a black guy my age, probably just as intelligent as I, who got caught up in it at the expense of gaining higher education.
So to you, shellshocked black college students, I say: be proud! You could be elsewhere. Rather than let the idiotic ramblings of some drunk white kids affect you, why not just keep it moving? Why let their clearly misinformed 'ghetto' jargon cause you to lose sleep at night? Clearly the last time they've been in intimate contact with a black person was when they flipped on 'Basketball Wives', so why validate their ignorance by acknowledging it?
Newsflash, Black college students: THIS WORLD ISN'T MADE FOR US! It never has been, and we (we, as in our generation) may not live to see the day when it is. Flip back to 2009, when Chanequa Campbell was kicked out of Harvard in connection to a murder she was in no way involved in. Flip back another 50 years to when blacks had to be escorted to school by the national guard. Flip back another 70 years to when we had to create our own schools because whites didn't believe free blacks had the propensity to read, much less learn. Come on, son... Our presence brings about adversity whether subtle like sly comments in class and bigotry in the workplace, or blatant like the situation above. You're going to be scrutinized more heavily than your non-Black peers every single day, whether you like it or not.
Sure there are folk out there that could give two craps about your skin color, and God bless their colorblindness. Yet even in 2011, racism is nowhere near dead, and that's a reality that we have to come to grips with. If you think Martin Luther King and Malcolm X would rise from the dead today and start toe-wopping because of some semblance of 'making it', you're wrong. They'd be happy to see us in a more advanced position, but still would loathe the position we as a people are in. They would laud those of us who have managed to pull ourselves up, but would see our progress for what is is: a drop in the bucket. No, I'm not saying to walk around on eggshells as if you have nothing to be proud of. Just be cognizant that this world still isn't nice. Don't be shellshocked when some idiot calls you out of your name. Just make sure you flash that diploma/alumni ring/other demarcation of your success in college, and laugh, because they will have given you all the motivation you need...
Yeah, we hear it too, Floyd.. It's your legacy going down the toilet.
I've only followed boxing for the past 3 years, but in my studies of the sweet science, I've noticed a disturbing trend: Boxing has no greats right now. By that, I mean there are no fighters that transcend the sport anymore. We don't have Ali's, who go against the grain by resisting the law of the land. We don't have Jack Johnson's, who break the color barrier in different facets of the sport. We don't even have George Foreman's who eschew the sport during retirement to start successful cooking appliance businesses. Instead, we have you: Floyd 'Money' Mayweather. Now, Floyd, I'll admit, I wasn't your biggest fan, nor will I ever be. Yet, up until now, I respected your work in the ring. You, to my chagrin, are a force to be reckoned with when you put the gloves on and step into the squared circle. No one can take that away from you. But Floyd, when you get out of the ring, I can honestly say that I can't stand you. Let's start with an issue I wish you would have resolved months ago: your Detox-esque fight with Manny Pacquiao.
Boxing is one of the biggest teases in the sports world. Fighters talk tough constantly, and sometimes never get into the ring to put fists behind their words. Floyd, you've basically set a new precedent for ducking a fight. First of all, you more or less tried to make Manny Pacquiao look like a juicer, which to my estimation, couldn't be further from the truth. From slander in the press to slick talk during your show (for a fight that should have been with Pacquiao), you ran your mouth faster than Bolt's 100-meter dash. You droned on and on about Pac's unwillingness to commit to your Olympic-style drug testing. Second of all, when Pacquiao finally bit the bullet, put the money up and agreed to your stipulations, you declined comment, and didn't even attempt to sign for the fight. After all of that jibber-jabber, in which you defamed the man as a steroid user, and after he agreed to your cockamamie testing, you In my eyes, that is easily the most cowardly move I've ever seen committed in boxing. Pac-Man was ready. He was ready to fight you and prove he was the best in the world, a claim that you vehemently give yourself, yet are now unwilling to defend. What does that say about you, Money, if you don't put your money where your mouth is?
Thirdly, Floyd, where in tarnation did you get off coming out with that racist, small-minded, inanely cocky rant about Manny Pacquiao? You sounded like a Grade A COON (I believe I'm well within my rights in saying that, given the situation) and pretty much made yourself out to be dumber than a rock with those 2nd grade insults. Pac isn't even Chinese, nor does he look like he can cook. That you felt it necessary to mock the man on his heritage (albeit in an ignorant, misinformed manner) is beyond detestable, Floyd. Either you were on the same cocaine Soulja Boy and KiD CuDi are on, or you seriously need a new PR man. Your staffing is neither here nor there, though. The point is, if you're going to be an arrogant prick out of the ring, at least prove your worth in the ring. Note that Pacquiao hasn't uttered a peep about you, much less about the fight between you. My guess is that he's biding his time, waiting for you to finally get in the ring with you. Though I might be alone in this opinion, I seriously believe he will wipe the canvas with your carcass, if you ever muster up the cojones to fight him.
Now on to different matters. Floyd, the recent news of your criminal charges for apparently roughing up your child's mother and former girlfriend, Josie Harris, made me sick. Though I'm never quick to believe gossip sites and the banter they broadcast daily, something about the words 'I'll beat your asses if you call 911 and/or leave the residence' sound very Mayweather-esque, don't you think? Now, I'm no legal counsel, but it would seem as if you've gotten yourself into a bit of a rough patch. Come on, Floyd... Eight criminal charges, four felonies and four misdemeanors? You easily broke Tyson's record of run-ins with the law, simply because you thought the woman was dating an NBA player. What were you thinking? No amount of money, championship belts or cameos in 50 Cent videos will ever be able to erase this from your board. It's because of incidents like that, that I believe boxing doesn't have any greats. If you're the best that American boxing has to offer, then I shudder to think who the worst are. It's not enough to gain success in the ring. You've got to perpetuate it outside of the ring in your manners, your affect and the way you carry yourself. Money can't buy class, and that goes for nicknames and wallets, Floyd...
Why is it that the justice system tends to work against those it was designed to protect? Or better yet, since when are a taser and a handgun so similar, that one can be mistaken for the other? These are both questions begging to be answered as we reel in the aftermath of the Oscar Grant murder trial. Grant was shot in the back during an altercation with your kind, brutal police, after being accosted for a fight on San Francisco's BART. Now, from the video, it would seem as if this incident didn't occur during the wee hours of the night. In fact, if it wasn't clearly at night, I'd be sure it was around 3 PM when kids were getting out of school. That said, wouldn't it be smarter to not engage in unwarranted police violence elsewhere? As a matter of fact, wouldn't it have been smarter to just accost the young men and make your way to the squad car, rather than play the scene out for much longer? #imjustsaying
You see, in this day and age, where everything except the cameras themselves have cameras, it's not smart to say or do anything that you don't want 500,000 Youtube hits for. Officer Mehserle seemed more like he was putting on a show than attempting an arrest. That's right... a TV show. A new episode of Police vs. N*ggers. Next week Mel Gibson might make an appearance. Jokes aside, Office Mehserle did what he did. He shot a young man in the back for a fact that we will never know. What we do know is that he was charged with involuntary manslaughter. How is that possible? Involuntary manslaughter means that that the killer acted without malicious intent, yet it's inherently impossible to uncover one's intent after the fact. Also, lack of intent isn't synonymous with lack of malice. Office Mehserle could have been intensely malicious in his act, without intending to kill Grant. Therein lies the problem with police today: for those who are supposed to be enforcing the law, too many times they're asked to be interpreters of the law and bastions of morality.
Neither of those titles should be apt when dealing with police. You guys are usually so muddled in the wrong things that when an opportunity to do right arises, you're too busy watching your colleague shoot a kid in the back. Just imagine, all of this could have been avoided had you trained Mehserle not to confuse his taser and handgun. BART Police, I'm not from the Bay Area, nor will I be, but I (along with any sentient being over 18) can tell when an act has gone too far. Officer Mehserle got off easy and you know it. Had the shots gone the other way, Lord knows Oscar Grant would be losing his life in prison rather than at the hands of a dumbfounded policeman...
A police officer involved in the 2006 shooting of Sean Bell, the Queens man who was killed in a barrage of police bullets hours before his wedding, is now suing Bell's estate. The Post reports, "Police Officer Michael Carey's lawsuit says Bell was boozed-up when he got behind the wheel of the car after his bachelor party on Nov. 25, 2006, and also claims the doomed groom failed to wear glasses or contact lenses despite having poor eyesight."
According to the suit, "[Officer Carey] suffered serious leg injury when [Bell] crashed into the vehicle he was riding in before Officer Carey ever drew his gun and fired a shot." The lawsuit is part of a federal counter-claim "in response to a wrongful-death lawsuit being pursued by Bell's fiancée, Nicole Paultre Bell, against him and the other four cops involved." (The cops were acquitted in 2008 bench trial.) Earlier this month, Carey's lawyer argued that his client should not be part of the wrongful-death lawsuit because Carey, who fired three bullets at one of Bell's friends, believed he and other police officers were in danger.
When one gets cleared of a crime, ala OJ Simpson in 1995 or Snoop Dogg in 1993, it's natural for them to lay low for a while; to keep their noses clean and not to make too much noise on the scene. The person basks in their newfound freedom and disappears, perhaps trying to piece their life back together after months, maybe years, of damage. Yet, for some people, getting off scot-free just isn't enough. I suppose that's your case, Officer Carey. You and two of your pigs comrades shot and killed a man (not even a black man, in case you want to call BS on the race card), and injured his friends, all of whom were unarmed. You claimed self-defense when he ran into your car with his while you were shooting him. Then, when put on trial, you get off on all cases without so much as a hiccup in the trial. To me, that would be a gift: to knowingly end another person's life and to not have to be accountable for it. I would just walk away and not even question what happened until I'd cleared my head.
You, on the other hand, aren't satisfied with just getting off on the murder wrap. You'd rather pour salt, lemon juice and 100-proof vodka into a gaping wound by essentially opening up the case again. Why are you now counter-suing for an injury you received 4 years ago? The man you were 'accosting' on November 25, 2006 is DEAD. He no longer lives. His family, friends and fiancée all live with the fact that you took his life from him, and took him from them. And now, you want their money too? Your leg is going to heal, if it hasn't already!! What about Sean Bell's life? You can patch up a leg. You can't breathe life back into someone. Officer Carey, I'm not sure if you're remotely remorseful about what you and those other cops did, but it sure doesn't look like it. For that, you ought to be ashamed. And the NYPD that you work for should be just as ashamed for harboring people like you. It's as if you don't want to put the case to rest, or better yet you can't. Whatever the case, let me take off my conspiracy theorist hat. We all know what you did was wrong. Apparently you didn't and think you should be compensated for taking a life. Way to protect and serve...
A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law. John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers. Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.
"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said. "While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."
I guess if the Deep South was the front line of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, then Arizona is set to become the front line of the illegal immigration debate of the 2010's (how do you say that, by the way? twenty-tens or tens?). You, as a state, never struck me as a bastion of conservative ideals until I figured out that John McCain was from there. Yet, lately, you've been about as far to the right as can be, at least when dealing with immigration. I've got a few bones to pick with you about this whole new issue, though. Here goes:
1) The whole issue of illegal immigration is completely subjective. The people who were essentially illegal immigrants in the 1800's when the state of Arizona (and it's surrounding areas) are now going after the 'illegal immigrants' of today. That doesn't sit well with me, Arizona. Your majority (soon to be minority, thanks to immigration) is like the Monopoly player everyone hates: they change the rules when it suits them to win. Why is it cool for the United States to shanghai another sovereign nation's land almost 200 years ago by just waltzing in, but when people come here looking for a better life, and actually help the economy, it's a problem? As a matter of fact, bump immigration out West. What happened to the first settlers in the US? The Pilgrims didn't have green cards or naturalization forms when they landed on Plymouth Rock and started scalping Injuns. The truth is, America was built upon the idea of expanding and sticking it's nose into locations and regions that it had no business in, all for the sake of a better standard of living. Why are you denying people that, now that America is in a position to provide that standard?
2) Since when does a state's legislation hold stronger than federal legislation that's been the standard since our nation's birth? The Civil War made it so that states ultimately have to kowtow to the federal government in matters of legislation. Why then, Arizona, do you think it's cool to just try and get around that? The Constitution states that anyone born on United States soil is automatically a United States citizen. Point. Blank. Period. And that's regardless of any affiliation that their parents have, or where their parents' legal jurisdiction lies. It's just the law, and there should be no way that you can get around that. Children, regardless of who their parents are shouldn't be turned away. Don't sit there and call them 'anchor children,' as if they crawled out of their mothers' wombs thinking: 'Hell yeah!! Now I can help my illegal immigrant parent stay in America, take up its resources and destroy its infrastructure!!' C'mon son... You're making the most innocent party, the children, into another villain, and it is SICK to say the least...
3) Last month it was a new racial profiling law that allowed police to question, arrest and detain anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrants (inherently racist). This month it's denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, even if they're born on US soil. Is it just me, or are you just trying to set up a Japanese internment camp-style system in Arizona? Because that's what it seems like. The next thing you know, anyone who looks like and illegal immigrant will have to have a number and a curfew. Before long, they'll be carted off to their own district, somewhere between Hell and a Tea Party Convention, where they'll be under military surveillance. And for what? Walking across an imaginary line protected for no reason. Of all rules to enforce, that seems to be one of the more arbitrary and less well-founded of all...
Look Arizona, I'm not saying illegal immigration is completely right. Sovereign nations have a right to protect their borders and the resources of their nation from being wasted. But when you have as many as 20 million illegal immigrants living in the US, some thriving, and many helping the economy with their labor (minus taxation), there's no reason to fight that. Rather than treat them as subhumans, you should find a way to legally integrate them. I mean, what is so hard about granting amnesty? Or better yet, what's really that special about a Green Card that it's so hard to allow immigrants to have one? My guess is that the 'red-blooded Americans' don't want to see an immigrant get a job over them. Yet, all other things being equal, if the immigrant is better, then that's just tough. Arizona, you need to stop letting your citizens and the state dictate what makes someone legal or not, because for as much trouble as you say illegal immigration is, it helps the nation just as much...
It's been a while since I've seen a debate both this funny and this indicative of the shift in the eyes of the man from outright 'I hate niggers, spics and Japs' racism, to 'we have to keep these people uninformed so they don't know their history' racism. Professor Dyson, you were up at odds against 'the Man' incarnate. From the moment this discussion on Arizona's decision to ban ethnic studies started, it was obvious that you were up against not just the Arizona school superintendent, but a mindset that seeks to keep children in line with the ideal image of America: the land of opportunity and dreams. Michael, you and I both know that the US of A is not as rosy and dreamy as Arizona would like us to believe. You and I both know of the struggle that all ethnic groups have trudged through for the past two centuries in this country. We know the ills of not knowing your history, not knowing the true legacy of a country and what happens when racism takes the form of 'liberal', yet ignorant whites.
The superintendent used this policy of stopping racial separation (not segregation) in schools, as if teaching children different cultures would cause rifts. He tried to use the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. to justify that cockamamie idea, saying that people should be judged by the content of their character. Professor Dyson, you made the greatest point though: you can't twist words to make them fit your agenda, no matter who says them. You made him sweat. You made him repeat the same phrase about 6 times over the course of the interview, stumbling over his words and feeling like the idiot he truly is. It's even crazier because the guy made the use of Che Guevara's likeness into a bad thing, saying that kids were inciting anarchy and promoting communism. Professor Dyson, you were alive during the latter parts of the Red Scare. This type of rhetoric is eerily similar, though now, it's kids being admonished because they take an active interest in the way that the government is run.
Professor Dyson, you brought the superintendent's (note, I still haven't called that twit by his names) plans of running for office to the light, also indicative of a government that is content with the ignorant status quo as long as they stay in office. If this wasn't 'the Man's' coming out party, then I don't know what is. As a matter of fact, I hope that every American can see this video to understand how bass-ackwards we are trying to teach our children at the expense of history that is relevant. I'm tired of seeing history taught from the perspectives of the oppressors. All that does is enforce an underlying air of inferiority, no matter how much Arizona schools want to push that the opposite espouses inferiority. If America is at the brink of racial and cultural upheaval, Arizona is at the forefront, and for good reason. If we had more minds like you, Mr. Dyson, I'm sure that the struggle for understanding will end sooner rather than later...
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Friday the most restrictive immigration bill in the country, setting the stage for a showdown with the Obama administration and reigniting a divisive national debate less than seven months before congressional midterm elections.
Brewer, a Republican facing a stiff primary challenge, said she had no choice but to act because Washington's failure to address the issue had effectively left border protection to the states. "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," she said, as hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside her Phoenix office. "But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."
Even before it was signed, President Obama criticized the Arizona law, which requires police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally. Obama called the effort "misguided" and directed the Justice Department to monitor its implementation, warning that it could violate citizens' civil rights. Immediate legal challenges were expected from outside groups.
There is a huge difference between protecting the interests of the many and protecting the ignorance and small-mindedness of the few. That said, in a lot of states below the Mason-Dixon line and under the influence of Republicans, the ignorance of the few seems to reign supreme. Governor Brewer, I always thought Arizona was towards the forefront of a cordial relationship with immigrants, particularly those from Mexico. However, with this new bill focused on immigration, I can see that you and your state are about as bass ackwards as Glenn Beck attending an NAACP meeting. You see, by throwing this piece of shit legislation out, you're more or less saying to every non-white immigrant 'You are not welcome,' regardless of whether they are legal or not. This new bill doesn't enforce anything other than your own insecurities that in another 20 years, whites will no longer be the majority in your state (or much of the Southwest US, for that matter). What's the matter? Afraid that the popular vote might not swing your way again? Well, with laws like these being enacted, your hold might be a lot shorter than you think.
I mean, really.. Do we have to take it back to Nazi Germany, where any person remotely varying from the German ideal was asked 'Where are your papers?' Is that what misunderstanding and ignorance about other cultures have driven you to? Unlawful searches and unwarranted stops? By enacting this law, you're essentially giving the police the green light to racially profile people. Not that racial profiling wasn't an institution already, but I suppose having it on paper makes it all the better for you guys. Civil rights and general parity in the reach of the law don't matter when you've got a bunch of day-laborers immigrants to keep from adding to our GDP bogging down our infrastructure. You tell those wetbacks to stay on their side! And if they try to go out without identification, you arrest them and hold them for unlawful reasons! I wonder how long until they legalize racial profiling up here...
Police in northern New Jersey say a 14-year-old girl grabbed a supermarket microphone and announced, "All blacks leave the store."
The case is nearly identical to what happened on two occasions at a southern New Jersey Walmart.
Edgewater police say the new case is being investigated as a possible "copycat" situation. They say they were called after the girl made the announcement over the Whole Foods Market's public-address system Saturday afternoon.
Greetings from some random town in New Jersey, where Whole Foods is quickly becoming the place where people let their racial tension out. Though I really thought that store carried a different crowd, it's obvious that Edgewater has crossed the cultural Mason-Dixon line. After one 16 year old boy did the same, another 14 year old girl decided to politely ask the African-Americans in the store to leave. Is that really how we feel nowadays? If it was up to me, I'd make that little girl stand in front of the store and get stared at menacingly by every black person in the store. For most sheltered, ignorant, racist people, that's punishment enough, though her parents probably had a little more to say...
If you haven't seen it by now, ESPN's 30 for 30 series is crack. The series brings filmmakers together with sports to chronicle the lesser known and more controversy-riddled stories in the history of sports. The last one was a riveting highlight of the intense rivalry between the Pacers and Knicks in the early 1990's. Coupled with hip-hop music and first-person narratives from those involved (Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing, Larry Brown, Pat Riley, John Starks, etc.), the movie showed younger fans what the NBA used to be like. Regardless, 30 for 30 is set to take on another basketball story tonight: that of Allen Iverson. Not too many people remember the trouble that plagued The Answer just 3 years before he took the NBA by storm. Filmmaker Steve James returned to his hometown of Hampton to document the bowling alley brawl that almost put Iverson behind bars, as well as the brawl's effect on the racial affairs of Hampton, and on Iverson himself. From the trailer, you can tell it's going to be a pretty heated affair. It's definitely going to spark some discussion and paint AI in a different light than many know him now...
Nothing worse than a commissioner with double standards...
Roger, let's tell a story called 'A Tale of Two Quarterbacks'. As you may have guessed, the story is about two quarterbacks. No names will be used for the story. Here goes:
Once upon a time, there was a quarterback. He was the highest paid QB in the league, had a $100 million contract with his team, and was widely considered the most electrifying player in the league. Then one day, that all came to an end. The quarterback's friends royally f*cked up and made the QB a national headline because of a dog-fighting ring. Before he could even go to trial, or even be convicted of a crime, the quarterback was nationally berated by animal rights groups, bored stay-at-home mothers and even his own team's fans. The quarterback ended up losing the $100 million contract, all of his endorsements and then getting put in jail, on top of being suspended by the big, bad NFL commissioner.
Three years later, there lived another quarterback. He was another very popular QB in the league, having won two Super Bowls. The QB wasn't the sharpest tack in the box, and had some off the field problems with drinking, as well as almost killing himself by riding a motorcycle with no helmet or motorcycle license. Later on, the quarterback would be implicated in a sexual assault against a 20-year-old college student in Georgia (what he was doing in GA, I have no clue). That same big, bad commissioner would go on to say that he would like to 'sit down and talk' to the QB, not ruin his life like he did the first QB. In fact, the commissioner has yet to take any action against the quarterback. THE END.
Now, Roger, I hope the characters in the story sounded a bit familiar to you. Why is that, you ask? Because the big, bad commissioner is you, and the two quarterbacks are Michael Vick and Ben Roethlisberger. Roger, your failure to administer more than a pre-emptive warning (that's what it is at this point) to Roethlisberger is detestable. You took away the career of Michael Vick (yeah, he's back, but we don't know how long that'll last) over some dogs that he probably had no hand in killing, BEFORE he even was tried or convicted. You suspended him when there were simply allegations, but when Ben Roethlisberger allegedly rapes a chick, he gets a slap on the wrist. Since when is the life of a dog more important than the livelihood of a human, Roger? As a matter of fact, since when has preemptive suspension been a protocol of the NFL?? It doesn't make sense, nor is it remotely fair. No, I won't go as far as to say that the disciplinary actions of the NFL are 'racist,' but you have to admit, Pac-Man Jones got a pretty raw deal too. It seems like you had the bias of all biases while dealing with Big Ben, and I for one see right through it. It's not enough to uphold double standards, and call yourself a fair commissioner. Seriously, Roger, you can't have your stars and eat them too. No player should be above the law, and you shouldn't need a fairy tale to show you that...
A new professional basketball league boasting rosters made up exclusively of white Americans has its eyes set on Augusta, but the team isn't receiving a warm welcome. The All-American Basketball Alliance announced in a news release Sunday evening that it intends to start its inaugural season in June and hopes Augusta will be one of 12 cities with a team. "Only players that are natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league," the statement said.
Don "Moose" Lewis, the commissioner of the AABA, said the reasoning behind the league's roster restrictions is not racism. Lewis said he wants to emphasize fundamental basketball instead of "street-ball" played by "people of color." He pointed out recent incidents in the NBA, including Gilbert Arenas' indefinite suspension after bringing guns into the Washington Wizards locker room, as examples of fans' dissatisfaction with the way current professional sports are run.
White Men Can't Jump is one of my favorite movies. Along with the regular aspects of sports movies, the Snipes & Harrelson masterpiece stirs up the everlasting dialogue of the changing (or already changed) racial dynamic in basketball. It's no secret that over the past 30 years, the NBA has been dominated by African-American players. There's no real reason for that other than the players in the NBA being better. It's not racial makeup or an inherent racial advantage. That said, AABA (All-American Basketball Alliance), what is the deal with starting a racially-exclusive basketball league?? Or better yet, since when has being black been the impetus for one's affinity for 'street-ball' (as you call it)? While it does stand to say that the NBA has had a few legal issues coming from black players, you're trying to highlight a different issue instead of just being honest.
You're saying that you want to emphasize the fundamental aspect of the game. Since when has the NBA not been fundamental?? It's not as if these players are coming from Rucker Park or the Cage and doing Hot Sauce crossovers while a man in an afro is screaming 'OOOOOHHHH BAYBEEEE!!'. It's not as if there are egregious travels and random stops in play. You're making a drastic generalization between the streetball that everyone watches in the summer, and the NBA, where the BEST players in the world play, regardless of race or nationality. Saying that you want to eradicate the NBA-esque play that isn't fundamental is an oxymoron. That's like going to Taco Bell and asking for, a low-calorie meal: IMPOSSIBLE. So to the AABA and your leader Don Lewis I'd say take a look at yourselves and figure out why it is you have such a hatred for the 'black' way of playing basketball. Maybe that's the reason you've been getting dunked on...
'And on the right, you'll see a drive-by at a corner store... And if you look to your left, check out the weed spot being heavily surveyed by the police!" What the hell? That doesn't sound like your a typical tour, until now. LA Gang Tours, you might be the most controversial business idea I've ever heard. Your premise is taking people from Bumblef*ck, Idaho to what they think is 'da hood', squeezing $65 out of them and then showing them the Cholos, Locs, Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings and whatever other Californian hood phenomenon that can fit in 3 hours. Something about that sounds wrong. You guys are more or less commercializing the sight of black and Hispanic people in a 'controlled environment'. So what if you guys are 'giving back' or donating whatever minuscule percentage of your profits to providing former gang members jobs? The fact of the matter is that you guys are making South Central into a zoo tour. And if you want to really help people by exposing their quality of life, why not go to Haiti, or Detroit, or Africa and do a documentary? Why be so conspicuously elitist and place it under the guise of charity? I mean damn, nobody does a tour of Bumblef*ck, Idaho and takes pictures of its white more affluent inhabitants, as if they were a lion in a cage. Why should South Central be any different???
Everyone remembers the letter. Most don't remember why you were in jail in the first place...
Writing letters to the dead... Clearly losing it. Regardless, here goes.
Dr. King, it's been over 40 years since the fateful day you were murdered. In 1986, Ronald Reagan (oh, the irony) signed the bill to make your namesake into a holiday, and since then we've had the 3rd Monday in January off. There are three issues that I have with your holiday, never to take anything away from you. The first is the fact that your holiday is watered-down. Everywhere I look, instead of reverence, thoughts of action and new levels of racial equality, I see commercials for McDonalds, jokes on Twitter, and vapid school assemblies about your name. The 'I Have a Dream' and 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' are played, posted and quoted everywhere. It's not that the attention isn't deserved, it's that the holiday is a misdirected attempt at respect that's ended up as a day off for most people. We supplement that day with ceremonial (more so than sincere) reverence so that people don't think we're 'anti-MLK' or the one kid in the class who never memorized your speeches.
The second issue with your holiday is that it more or less overshadows every other black person ever associated with any type of freedom-fighting or liberal agenda. Guys like John Lewis (#shoutout to Sojourn to the Past; no, seriously) Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. Du Bois, Medgar Evars, Stokely Carmichael and Huey Newton who all helped drive the Civil Rights movement that you are crowned king of, all get reduced to random names in a history book. Dr. King, with this holiday, your namesake has taken on a Messiah-like aura to it. You're seen as THE Civil Rights hero, rather than A Civil Rights hero. My forefathers will probably balk at this, but I don't think one person should be above a movement, especially when that movement is for an entire race. Is it your fault that you were assassinated and cast as a martyr? Probably not. That said, I don't think you'd be that hyped to have this day if you were still alive.
My last issue is the fact that literally minutes after MLK Day is over, we all pretty much just go back to living, rather than take any lessons from today. Your holiday feels like New Year's Eve all over again, with people coming up with aspirations they won't or can't hold up. Today, your name is to black people what Gasundheit is to a sneeze. For the minute, the saying and the feeling will suffice, but after the moment has passed, we don't remember the sentiment until the next time we sneeze. Dr. King, I linked the Boondocks video for the simple reason that before you died, you were telling everyone else the truth about racism. In that video, you're telling US the truth about our own race, which is ironic. Maybe it's that black people back then had enough KOS (knowledge of self) to know what was good for us. Nowadays it takes a holiday for us to remember. I can't wait till February when I get my yearly dose of Black History...
Gilbert Arenas was charged Thursday with a single count of carrying a pistol without a licence, a felony that carries a five-year sentence, but the Washington Wizards guard has reached a plea agreement that would result in much less or even no jail time, several sources close to the case said.
Arenas is scheduled to enter his plea on Friday afternoon before D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin. Even if prosecutors agree not to seek prison for Arenas, it will be up to Morin whether to sentence Arenas to probation, community service, a fine or some combination. The judge, a former defense attorney, also could send Arenas to jail.
Regardless of whether Arenas goes to jail, the star's future in the city that once embraced his jocular personality and his ability to hit clutch jump shots is in doubt. The 28-year-old former all star, whose birthday parties made the television news, has been suspended indefinitely by the NBA, and it is unclear whether a felony conviction would give the Wizards the right to void the remaining four years of his six-year, $111 million contract.
There are certain moments when the direction of the law makes absolutely no sense. It's a sad day when the justice system completely overshoots it's boundaries and makes a move to severe for it's own good. That said, Wizards, it's an even sadder day knowing that you threw your player under the bus for something that turned out to be a joke (by some accounts). Yes, Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton (who should be kissing Gilbert's ass for the rest of his life) were in the wrong for both having guns in a locker room, and for making light of it afterward. Gilbert is getting charged with an unlicensed pistol (funny, because Dick Cheney can ACTUALLY shoot some one, and not even be arrested), facing 5 years of a felony, and you guys decide to turn your back on him.
Not only is that foul ethically, but Gilbert has done soooo much more for the Wizards that Caron Butler or Antawn Jamison. Antawn is too scared to take the big shots, and Caron Butler has been playing terribly this year. In fact, the first player you should be cutting ties with is Caron. At least Gilbert is playing like a shell of himself. We could just blame it on the government's knack for knocking black athletes harder than anyone. At the end of the day, had you guys just stuck by Arenas, you might not have won a 'ship, but you wouldn't be poised to take a nosedive in the East. Too bad Javaris didn't get the long arm of the law.
I suppose cultural relativism would apply here, but as a black man, I can't help but feel a bit turned off by this. If you played this commercial in the United States, would it be a hit, or would Al Sharpton be protesting in seconds? Not that I'm some racist-sniffing do-gooder, but I wonder if the black community in Australia is at all offended. I suppose awkwardness is just skin deep down under...
Many of you guys have probably heard of, or read the book Black Like Me (step your citation game up), written in 1959 by John Howard Griffin, where the author ingests pigment-altering pills to change his skin from white to black. The author then takes a hitch-hiking trip through the deep South, chronicling his experiences in a journal along the way. Fast forward to 2009 in Germany, where famous undercover journalist Günter Wallraff does essentially the same experiment, this time with a hidden camera and a horrible curly wig. If you can look past how bad of a black man Wallraff looks like, you'll see the genius in the documentary. Wallraff does normal things like apply for an apartment, or just walk around a predominantly white neighborhood, and experiences casual racism every place he goes. For those of you that think racism stops in the U.S., think again. Check the videos out and keep it locked to Dear Whoever...
We all have our biases. Whether driven by experience or for no good reason at all, they subtly pervade our thought processes, if we want to admit it or not. Now, I'm no expert on race relations, but I've been in enough CVS's and Rite Aid's to know when my ethnicity is working against me. But that's neither here nor there. ABC did a service by conducting this experiment. Not only did they show that not all Americans are racist, Muslim-hating pigs, they exposed the falsehoods that you 'patriots' espouse as reasons for your hatred. Check the video...
