Notorious Ph.D.

Protect Yourself At All Times

2011-09-18T15:11:00.000-07:00

In the environment that I grew up in the act of aggressive verbal wordplay otherwise known as "shit talkin," or alternately "talkin' shit," if you prefer, was about as commonplace as air and water. Young, old, male, female, articulate or inarticulate, it didn't matter, everyone it seemed had something slick to say. The ability to talk shit and talk shit well could be both a gift and a curse however. Such an ability could get you into or out of trouble, depending on the context. Ultimately I came to realize that the clever combination of sarcasm, mixed with braggadocio, and a healthy dash of hyperbole, was a time honored component of the oral tradition and when done well, an art form.

Yes indeed, shit talkin' is an art form when done properly. I should know. Both of my parents talked immense amounts of shit, even in their sleep it seemed. The apple don't fall far from the tree! In other words, shit talkin' is in my DNA. Then one day I added the intellectual pursuit of shit talkin' to my resume, once again creating a lethal combination of the formal and the vernacular that would come to define my life. These days however, I find myself constantly having to remind people that this verbal art form, like anything else, has rules. As B.I.G. once said, "Ive been in this game for years/it's made me an animal/it's rules to this shit/I wrote me a manual." The problem is some fools just don't want to follow the rules nowadays. Others seem not to even know the rules. Count Floyd Mayweather amongst both camps.

I was quite disappointed with the ending of the Mayweather/Victor Ortiz bout last night. Floyd "Money" Mayweather "sucka" punched Ortiz after a bizarre exchange that included a head butt, a kiss, and three apologies. Though "Money May" was clearly winning the fight, he had not really done much visible damage to Ortiz through the 4th round. Ortiz looked like he was beginning to come alive for the second time in the 4th round, after a strong Mayweather start, and then all of a sudden, with Floyd on the ropes, Ortiz jumps up and headbutts him for no apparent reason. Ortiz looked to be overly amped up and perhaps forgot for a second that he was fighting a real fight, as opposed to a sparring session. He quickly realized his error and walked over to embrace Floyd and apologize. As the fighters separated, Ortiz extended his glove again in a gesture of apology, with Floyd responding in kind. Ortiz would offer a third apology, and then with the referee Joe Cortez distracted while communicating with someone at ringside, and Ortiz not yet ready to resume, Floyd quickly sucka punched Ortiz, who turned to look in the direction of a slow to respond Cortez, only to be sucka punched a second time. By now, Ortiz was on his ass, looking dazed and confused. Just like that, the fight was over.

The first rule of boxing, as the commentators said repeatedly last night, is to protect yourself at all times. Ortiz did not do so and he lost because of this error. What Floyd did was legal, but for a fighter who talks as much shit as Floyd does, the real question is, were Floyd's actions necessary? Some will say that Ortiz started it by headbutting Floyd and that boxing is an eye-for-an-eye sport. Following this logic, Ortiz got what he deserved. Yet if one follows the rules of shit talkin', then Floyd comes up looking a bit suspect.

If you are going to use cash stacks as a make believe telephone and buy another Rolls Royce on HBO's 24/7, as Floyd did, among other grandiose acts of self indulgence not unlike those found in numerous '90s rap videos, then you shouldn't have to resort to "stealin on" someone to win a fight. No matter how legal it may have been, Floyd's actions were particularly questionable at that moment. Just because you can do something, doesn't always mean that you should do it. All things lawful are not necessarily expedient. Floyd took advantage of a situation, but if he were really the best ever, as he consistently claims to be, he would have more respect for the sport than that which he demonstrated on Saturday night.

While I understand that all is fair in love and war, there is still a big difference between a boxing match and a street fight. For those of us who grew up watching the sport of boxing in much more competitive times such distinctions are especially sacred. The Marquis of Queensbury rules attest to this fact. Boxing is a sport of skill, the sweet science of pugilism. What Floyd did was not in keeping with the best of the boxing tradition. Instead it was the sort of thing that someone might do just before robbing another individual. What Floyd did was certainly not in keeping with the codes of shit talkin' either where the intensity of the challenge to be about what you talk about rises exponentially with each word spit. Floyd's sucka punches were a telling sign of desperation from a fighter who claims to be on top of the world. To say that these punches were classless would be to assume that suggestions of having class even belong in a conversation about Floyd Mayweather in the the first place.

Floyd would eventually fake an argument with commentator Larry Merchant during the post fight interview. This all seemed calculated to avoid having to answer any questions about a heavily anticipated potential fight with Manny Pacquiao in the future. Merchant, an 80 year old man, laughingly responded to Floyd by saying that if he were 50 years younger that he would kick Floyd's ass. Yet Floyd's avoidance of all things Pacquiao makes these sucka punches and his post fight actions look that much more questionable.

Say what you will, until Floyd steps into the ring with Pacquiao, he will continue to look like a shook one in the eyes of many. Other than Pac Man, Floyd has no competition and honestly boxing has no appeal. Money May has been able to get away with talkin' trash without having much real competition, other than his own ego, yet his words and now his gestures ring hollow. Dude looks like a straight clown. He will need to step into the ring with Pacquiao and win impressively in order to remove this clown suit. If Floyd does this, then he can talk all the shit he wants without apology, because as Muhammad Ali was fond of saying, "if you can back it up, it ain't braggin." But until this happens, Floyd remains the embodiment of James Brown's famous axiom, "talkin' loud and sayin' nothing!"

Blaxploitation, 40 Years Later

2011-04-23T11:29:00.000-07:00

The Mack (1973)

The Good Dr. on the history of Blaxploitation @ The Root.com.

Human Sexuality 101

2011-03-06T16:09:00.000-08:00

News spread recently that Brigham Young University had suspended Brandon Davies from its basketball team for violating the school's so-called honor code. Davies' infraction, having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend, is the type of thing that is generally regarded as a rite of passage on most college campuses. But not at BYU. Many upon hearing the news quickly jumped to defend the Mormon university for choosing to uphold its principals over potential wins on the basketball court.

Davies was considered the second best player on a team that is having a great season. Jimmer Fredette, the team's star is enjoying an all star campaign and the Cougars are gunning for a potential number one seed in the upcoming NCAA tournament. So dropping Davies was perceived as an act that upheld the school's standards, while seriously appearing to jeopardize the team's possibilities for a deep tournament run. The team quickly lost its first game after the Davies' suspension. In a culture where college sports teams constantly come under scrutiny for displaying a "win-at-all-costs-mentality," many read BYU's decision as one where principal trumped the bottom line.

BYU, it appears, was embracing honor over potential wins, along with the prestige and money that tends to follows such wins in the marketplace of college athletics. As the thinking goes, students who attend BYU know what they are getting into when they sign up. These students know that they must follow the school's honor code or face repercussions, be they elite athletes or just regular co-eds. Thus Davies got little sympathy from the masses when his suspension was revealed, even though many counted among these masses are not members of the Mormon church.

Yet for all the self-righteous co-signing of BYU's decision, few questioned the impact of such a decision, particularly as it pertains to Davies' overall development and well being. Davies, a sophomore, engaged in sex with his girlfriend. Considering that sexuality is an integral part of one's personal development, and that college is often the time when this development takes off in earnest, Davies is guilty of nothing more than being a human being. The repression of one's sexuality at such an age cannot be a good thing, in spite of whatever religious beliefs one may ultimately identify with. Further, the public humiliation that goes with being kicked off the team and possibly expelled from school serves no educational purpose and does nothing to help Davies in his development as a young adult.

We live in a country that loves to see certain people be punished and taught a lesson as a way of proving a larger point. This zero tolerance policy has helped to create a prison nation in America, where the nation's prison-industrial complex now warehouses countless young black and Latino males. While Davies isn't being sent to jail for his actions, the sentiment that co-signs BYU's draconian act is the same sentiment that has made prisons such a profitable venture in this country since the 1980s.

But what point is ultimately being served here? None, other than the narcissistic satisfaction that comes from upholding such a morally self-serving philosophy in the first place. Davies' personal and intellectual development has a bigger chance of being stunted than elevated by such a harsh decision.

One wonders if Davies is the only BYU Cougar to violate the honor code? Would the university have acted the same way if its star Fredette had been guilty of violating the code? To what extent does Davies' suspension serve to make an example out of the rare black student athlete who dares to wear the Cougars' uniform? Does the fact that Davies' girlfriend, Danica Mendivil, is white play a role in the suspension?

While there is thus far no evidence that the university would have acted differently were it Fredette or another white player, or that race played a role in this at all, the questions are appropriate nonetheless. No one would mistake BYU for being a diverse campus, nor would anyone confuse the Mormon's Church with being even remotely progressive, having only admitted blacks to the priesthood in 1978. On a extremely conservative campus and in the racially charged climate of America post Obama's 2008 election, one can never really know what thinking transpired in the decision to suspend Davies.

Interestingly enough, the Davies' suspension came during the same week when another college-related sex story broke out at Northwestern University. Psychology professor J. Micheal Bailey came under intense criticism for staging the demonstration of a live sex act involving an engaged couple and a "fuck saw" in an optional section of his Human Sexuality course. Though Bailey advised that the demonstration was graphic beforehand and the students in the course had the option not to attend the extra session, many still complained that this particular representation of sex went too far.

Yet Bailey's optional demonstration is precisely the type of event that colleges and universities should be providing for their students. Such is par for the course at an educational university. One of the reasons people should go to college is to learn that there is a bigger world out there, above and beyond the one that they grew up in. It is the job of a university to educate its students, not indoctrinate them. I, of course, realize that BYU is a private religious school and that Northwestern is a private school with no religious affiliation. That notwithstanding, education, not ignorance, is what should define both school's mission. On this note, BYU receives an especially failing grade.

Unlike others, I am not going to co-sign BYU's decision, because I don't believe in their honor code. Such a ridiculous social contract does nothing to educate college students who need to be learning about their sexuality, both in class and out, during this pivotal time in their lives. BYU's decision is about power and control, not intellectual and emotional development though. And this is why so many people both consciously and unconsciously agree with the decision. More than anything else it plays to a climate of punishment in regards to black athletes that many feel is necessary in order to keep the these perceived black bucks from potentially running amok.

BYU should not be applauded, instead they should be given the serious side eye treatment. While it is their right to create and enforce their own code of conduct, it should be noted that there is nothing honorable about the decision to kick a kid off the team and potentially expel him from school for having sex. Were we living in the Middle Ages such a position might make sense, but in 2011 this decision reflects some very misguided principals on the part of BYU and those who co-sign their counterproductive act of sexual repression.

Dumb It Down

2010-11-23T14:30:00.000-08:00

What do Tyler Perry and Sarah Palin have in common? While many would not automatically think of these two as having any overt connection, there are several ties that do indeed bind them together as though they were Sonny and Cher. Perhaps the most obvious shared trait is a rampant disdain for anything remotely intelligent. That's right, when you're dealing with TP and Sista Sarah intelligence be damned!

Richard Hofstader dropped his classic text Anti-Intellectualism in American Life in 1963. The inherent ideas of this book still ring true today, though far beyond anything that Hofstader could have ever imagined back in the days of the Cold War. While President Obama's studied timidness hasn't done anything to sway such lingering feelings, the looming presence of this anti-intellectual fervor now threatens to consume the nation in ways that cannot be good for anyone involved.

Tyler Perry has made a career out of his contempt for educated African Americans, exploiting an audience of simple-minded religious dupes and others who simply refuse to think for themselves. Perry's work appeals to those who are comforted, as opposed to being appalled by stereotypes of over-the-top darkies.

His rise in Hollywood seemed to coincidentally take place during the days of Bush 43's faith-based evangelical madness, yet this was no mere coincidence, as TP and Four Trey are both well known abusers of that blue magic for the masses otherwise known as organized religion. Four Trey had ushered in an environment of abject foolishness when he famously cited "Jesus Christ" as his favorite philosopher in a 1999 Republican debate. Though The Decider was famous for trusting his "gut," the reality is, for all his compassionate bullshit, Four Trey still holds degrees from both Yale and Harvard. Notice I said that he "holds" these degrees. I will leave it to you to decide whether he actually possesses the knowledge that such degrees imply.

My point is that in spite of all the jokes about 43's intelligence, or lack thereof, he does actually have degrees from two of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the world. Four Trey managed to convince people that he was a good ole boy from the Lone Star State, in spite of his family's storied blue blood American pedigree. Dude wasn't as dumb as he looked. Like a suburban nerd transformed into a hard core gangsta rapper, Four Trey leaned heavily on that Texas twang and gunslinger swag in his efforts to convince people that he was not the son of privilege that he most certainly was. He used his performed and exaggerated ignorance as a stealth tool of manipulation. This tactic lowered expectations, which in turn allowed him to appear successful simply by not self-destructing in public. If you don't believe me, just ask Al Gore. While Gore came across as somewhat immobilized by the environmental stick that seemed permanently lodged in his ass during their debates back in 2000, Bush, the frat boy-in-chief, had some people literally clamoring to have a beer with him.

Sista Sarah is now one-upping The Decider. Four Trey once donned a flight suit and walked the deck of an aircraft carrier as though he were in a rap video. The fact that he couldn't seem to show up when he had real responsibilities in the Air National Guard back in the day seemed not to matter.

The ever elusive Sista Sarah has taken it to the next level though. She now stomps around Alaska like she owns it. Climbing mountains in full makeup, slaughtering animals and the English language, while otherwise making a mockery of American political life, Sista Sarah is on a mission to kill whatever lingering sense of intelligence still exists.

Her Mama Grizzly appeal is based almost entirely on embracing ignorance as a defense mechanism against the substantive reality of our present moment. Like Lupe Fiasco her efforts to "dumb it down" strike a cord with the multitude of working class underachievers who can no longer comfort themselves with cozy thoughts of white supremacy, now that the reality of an African American President has burst their lil' dish washing liquid bubble. The more ignorant Sarah acts, the more she endears herself to those who hold the most contempt for the educated among us. Somewhere along the line, her display of ignorance came to be read as authenticity.

Herein lies the rub: Tyler Perry won the battle simply by staying in the game long enough. His relative longevity has now encouraged many of his former critics to reconsider his work. He has exploited the low bar of expectations placed in front of him. Perry's For Colored Girls, a much more erudite work than he has previously been associated with, which isn't saying much, is causing many of his former detractors to pause if for no other reason than the fact that he actually got the movie up on the screen. If one really pays attention to the varied comments about this film, most have been of the "it was better than I thought it would be" variety. Far from a ringing endorsement, but more than enough to keep this wayward vessel afloat.

Again, Perry's previous work was of such horrendous quality that he is receiving the benefit of the doubt now for simply not completely destroying this new film. Having fully manipulated the low expectations that surround his very existence, Perry wins here by not losing. Though he continues to represent the absolute worst of black culture, he is now being discussed as a possible Oscar nominee. Such a nomination would not surprise me either. Not because it is deserved, far from it, but because Hollywood is so image conscious that they recognize the need to look diverse on Oscar night. TP can serve as a nice diversity prop in this regard.

The indelible hack Tyler Perry has been on the national scene longer than Sista Sarah, but in both cases, the longer they stay around the more people take them seriously. Sista Sarah poses a bigger long term threat though. The more seriously she is regarded, the more dangerous she becomes. You should know that there was a time when people thought Ronald Reagan's political career to be a joke also. Why wouldn't they? The man's biggest role was playing second to a monkey.

And his career was a joke, until he got elected to the governorship of California and eventually to the top job in the land. Then the joke was on the American people. Same with Arnold Schwarzenegger. One minute he's playing a robot, the next minute he's the man in charge of the world's sixth largest economy.

In the age of reality television, Sista Sarah need not waste her time in Hollywood movies. She came on the scene ready made for contemporary stardom. In an age when one's multiple "profiles" are often more important than one's real self, Sista Sarah--thanks to her hype man John McCain, the fool who gave her the mic in the first place--has been able to go straight to the public with her message of down home ignorance. Thus far, her Mama Grizzly steez has proven intimidating to her detractors, many of whom seem perplexed as to how to actually challenge her. Sista Sarah, for her part, has seen this gaping hole of uncertainty and run through it as though she were Cam Newton. Until someone has the nerve to challenge her straight up, she will continue to run untouched through the porous line of American anti-intellectualism.

When did being stupid become cool? The idea that being uneducated is somehow representative of authenticity is a dangerous thread running through our contemporary culture. TP has ridden this destructive impulse all the way to the bank. Sista Sarah is dead on his heels too. But she wants more than Oscar statues, she craves power at the highest level. If someone doesn't put her in check, and soon, we could all be in more serious trouble than even that wrought during the Four Trey era. Such a thought is a very scary proposition. Until America gets its collective mind right, such a possibility might one day soon be akin to that proverbial smoking gun which could indeed become a mushroom cloud.

120 Days

2010-11-16T11:51:00.000-08:00

(Bruce Lee and Kareem Abdul Jabber, The Game of Death, 1974)

"At one point Boyd, in straight Wu fashion, compared life to The Game of Death-with its various challenges and adversities."

Read the rundown on my recent appearance at Nike's "120 Days: High School Hoops Madness" in Chicago: http://www.slamonline.com/online/kicks/2010/11/120-days/

To Be Or Not To Be?

2010-10-31T15:17:00.000-07:00

"What should I do?" This is the question posed by none other than the ringless king himself, LeBron James, in his new Nike commercial, simply entitled Rise.

Having quickly glanced at the commercial when it was first released, I was immediately struck by how incredibly unoriginal it was. (Not to mention, I would have opted for Rico Tubbs over Sonny Crockett, but you'd have to find him first!)

The Wieden+Kennedy Nike ads are legendary at this point. Considering that I've seen all of the Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and Kobe Bryant introspective voice/over spots for all these years, I found LeBron's new joint to be just a tad cliched at this point. Besides, LeBron has never done anything to signal that he was necessarily deep and introspective to begin with. But that for another time.

The fact that the same people who wrote the previous MJ, Tiger, and Kobe commercials are the same ones orchestrating LeBron's image in this one means that Rise registers as something less than a personal declaration of the ringless king's independence. Instead it came across to me as akin to wearing the hand-me-downs of an older sibling; LeBron's young image dressed in Micheal's old, ill-fitting clothes. Whereas the commercials with the multiple "LeBrons" and even those silly puppet commercials with Kobe came across as fresh relative to LeBron's youthful image, Rise seemed predictable as opposed to being noteworthy for its creativity.

I saw the commercial and quickly forgot about it. Yet as my week progressed everyone wanted to know what I thought about it. Not much, I said, over and over again, but the people wanted more. Every time I get out they pull me right back in!

My relative indifference to LeBron's commercial is perhaps indicative of a larger issue currently defining my life; age! I'm a man! I'm 40 (plus)! LeBron's narcissistic display of immaturity this summer caused me to shift my position on him. He is undoubtedly a superstar, but whether or not he is a champion remains to be seen. Call me when he starts winning rings. All else is bosh at this point, and I don't mean Chris!

What does age have to do with this, you ask? Well as I talked to various people over the last week, I noticed an interesting trend. When talking to people of my generation, to a person, there was a consistent snicker at LeBron's opening night loss to the Celtics. A snicker that I shared in, I must admit. The snicker spoke volumes. Holding one hour television specials to announce something that took all of five seconds is a lot easier than winning basketball games. Though it was only one game, the self-indulgent ringless royal received a dose of reality in Boston that night which prompted all the OGs to clap in unison to the key of "I-told-you-so."

On the other hand, the new jacks with whom I spoke about LBJ were all engaging the rhetorical question posed in his commercial. They wondered aloud what LeBron was really trying to say. They took turns providing their own interpretation. They appreciated his jabs at Sir Charles and MJ. They found meaning in his words.

What I concluded from all of this was that sports stars are generational. Our embrace of various figures tells us as much about ourselves as it does about the sports stars in question. What I mean is that Michael Jordan will always be the star of my generation. Having seen the game both before and after his arrival, I can't imagine a player who will ever match his feats of accomplishment as a baller and as a cultural icon. But in many ways what I'm saying is that my generation was and will forever be better. Now this sort of thinking made he bristle every time I heard someone refer to the World War II generation as "the greatest generation," in times past, but here I am in essence saying the same thing about my generation relative to ball. It's inevitable though, because if I accept that my generation's greatest player is no longer the greatest than I'm also saying that by default my generation is no longer as relevant either.

Such is the same for my younger counterparts, who identify with LeBron, but who can only learn about someone like Jordan from a distance. LeBron belongs to them, while Jordan belongs to us; I must add that Kobe belongs to another generation equally invested in his success and their own identity also.

A lot of people have suggested that I dislike new school ballers. They've turned this into a generational war, where I hadn't noticed that one yet existed. But stepping back from it all, this suggestion starts to make some sense, or at least the perception makes sense. I do not dislike new school ballers though. Not at all. I do however dislike uninformed talk about issues in general, so when someone only has a grasp of current events while I'm looking at a much longer and broader history, such uninformed talk can be especially annoying.

For some it seems that it's as though LeBron is already on Jordan's level because he has generated so much media attention this summer, in spite of the fact that he lacks the comparable accomplishments of Jordan. His dig at Jordan in the commercial about selling shoes is as obvious an example of "biting the hand that feeds you" as one could image considered that the shoes MJ sold are the same shoes that afforded LeBron his Nike contract in the first place. In other words, there would have been no "decision" this summer if Jordan hadn't made the world friendly for the Nike brand and so many other endorsed products in the first place.

LeBron's commercial is on the "been there, done that" shelf as far as I'm concerned. But for others, it's on the "what's happenin' now" shelf. His contemporary relevancy is irrelevant to me, but quite relevant to his followers, for whom Jordan's relevancy is so last decade. The generational war is on. The legacy of the game verses this present narcissistic moment. History verses his story.

LeBron's commercial didn't move me. Perhaps I'm just resisting out of spite? Maybe I'm just a hater? Could it be that I have a bias against the new school as they suggest? Or is it that once you've seen the greatest, the knock off just doesn't have same impact?

Since 1995 we've had to watch boys develop into men on NBA courts. As many went from high school straight to the league, we've been forced to watch the at times painful maturation process of millionaires coming to terms with their finances and their new station in life, while appearing on an especially big stage. We who watch grow up and old as well. Eventually there's a gulf the size of the BP oil spill separating generations from each other.

Jordan's a year older than me, so I've often marked significant moments in my own life relative to his career accomplishments. LeBron on the other hand is twenty years younger than me. In other words, it's hard to relate, as I'm sure it's equally hard for my young disciples to connect with a legacy as old as Jordan. Alas, for me LeBron's Rise is insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. For others though, the commercial represents the epitome of LeBron's significance, and their own generational significance as well.

"What should I do," LeBron asks? As far as I'm concerned, you can start by winning a title. And then a second one. On and on til' the break of dawn!

"What should I do," LeBron asks? As far as his young colleagues are concerned, he's already done it!

Namesake

2010-08-18T13:55:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Times profiles The Good Dr. (8/18/10)

Mad Men, Miles Davis, and the Aesthetics of Cool

2010-08-02T12:43:00.000-07:00

My latest article on Miles Davis and Mad Men @ The Root.com.

American Gangsta

2010-07-23T16:09:00.000-07:00

There are few things more annoying than listening to some self righteous dilettante wax less than poetically on the current state of hip hop culture. Yet the misguided and uninformed are out in full force these days, following the recent release of Rick Ross' fourth solo joint, Teflon Don. Many consider Ross to be emblematic of what is wrong with hip hop. While the heat from Ricky Rozay's newest burns holes through iPod ear buds everywhere, the haters are crying foul. These haters see Ross as a fraud and struggle to understand why others are rewarding him with what they consider undeserved accolades.

You see a few years ago Rick Ross was revealed to have at one time been a corrections officer. Photos emerged of the rapper in uniform and his mad baby's mom co-signed the discovery. Rick Ross, the bearded rapper who constantly plugged his elite Miami cocaine credentials on all his records, was in reality a former "officer of the goddamn law." WTF?! Say it ain't so, Rick!

Hip hop is a world where authenticity is celebrated, while cops are despised. So Ross broke two rules when he was caught lying about his law enforcement past. Not only was he exposed, but he was exposed as a former cop in a culture where Fuck Tha Police still serves as an anthem.   As Big might say, "case closed, suitcase filled with clothes." Not quite.

Ross eventually admitted to his his past with the po-po and kept it moving. Like one Kobe Bean Bryant who plowed full speed ahead in spite of his troubles in Eagle Colorado, Ross just kept on making music as though none of this ever mattered, as though his credibility was never in question. The result, the stellar Teflon Don, a muscular ode to hip hop's decade long celebration of 90s dope money and the platinum lifestyle that went along with it.   Perhaps the best example of this throwback to the 90s vibe lies in Ross' clever joint MC Hammer, a track that uses the original big balla of hip hop, Stanley Burrell, as a metaphor for livin' lavish in 2010.

By now the haters are chomping at the bit.

The exposure of Rick Ross' past is perhaps one of the greatest things to ever happen in hip hop. Why, you ask? Because for far too long people have been confused about what constitutes realness in hip hop. While Ross may represent counterfeit to his detractors, it is the detractors misinformed understanding of what's real that is the issue here. In other words, it is very dangerous to go searching for reality in a place that produces fiction.

Hip hop is a culture that has long embraced fiction. This is why so few rappers have used their "government names" when performing. Rappers come into the game as characters. For a long time music videos helped to foreground these characters in what were basically short films. Eventually people came to embrace these familiar characters as though they were real. Yet in reality, these rappers were always characters no different than the ones played by people like Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino in film. Not only were they characters, but they were characters in an ever expanding gangsta genre where the role of hyperbole as it functions in the black oral tradition came to create larger and larger narratives centered around the celebrated themes of "money, clothes, and hoes."

Though hip hop may have indulged the style of realism, the music was always more melodrama than documentary.   The process of producing an artist for a record company trying to turn a profit means that the rapper in question must be packaged to be sold. This was no less the case with the brilliant Public Enemy than it is for the horrible Gucci Mane today.

Hip hop records are a commodity. Though this commodity might make for some compelling stories or infectious beats, it is still a commodity for sale that must adhere to the dictates of the marketplace more so that the demands of authenticity. Some rappers are obviously better than others, the same way some actors are better than others. Some rappers can convince you of their sincerity, others not so much. Regardless, the rules of capitalism don't take a back seat to illusions about reality. The same record industry that has sold some of your more famous so-called conscious rappers has also sold some of your more famous so-called commercial or pop rappers. The idea of a pure underground culture free of commercialism is a delusional fantasy in a market economy. Don't believe the hype.

Some will point to a figure like Tupac as the epitome of a "real" rapper. Nothing could be further from the truth. I remember once seeing the diminutive rapper at the famed Roscoe's House of Chicken and Waffles back in the day. Though his two strapped bodyguards were menacing, there was nothing remotely threatening about 'Pac. The twinkle in his eye suggested a man quite different than the ogre the media had created. Trust me, the man who stood before me that afternoon looked much more like the jovial little kid performing with his high school classmate Jada Pinkett in that infamous homemade video that went viral long before there was a such thing as YouTube, than he did a thug.

'Pac had the potential to be a great actor. His method acting style approach to playing Bishop in Juice (1992) had seemed to take over his persona going forward. If he had not died tragically I think his biggest contributions would have been as an actor. But 'Pac was so good at playing his persona that he had people believing he was the epitome of real. This blurring of the lines between fact and fiction most certainly played a role in his unfortunate death as well. This should have been the point when people dropped all that foolishness about the real. Trying to be real had cost a man his life, with others to follow. Hip hop never should have been something to die for!

When I think about all of this relative to Rick Ross, I see a man clearly telling the world that he is a character, but no one wants to listen. I mean, first of all, his name is Rick Ross. This name, of course, belongs to the man who was once labeled the "Johnny Appleseed of crack," Los Angeles' own Freeway Ricky Ross.

The real Ross has even attempted to sue the rapper for appropriating his name.

On the album, the rapper Ross also identifies with other real life criminal figures like Atlanta's celebrated Big Meech and Chicago's Larry Hoover.

It's as though all the cinematic gangsters have been used up, so Ross decides to cut to the quick and name check real criminals instead. Yet, thanks to a program like BET's American Gangster, black criminal super heroes like Ross and Hoover, have been afforded the Hollywood treatment as well.

To top it off, the title of the album is Teflon Don a direct reference to another '90s throwback, the late Italian-American gangster John Gotti,

a man whose downfall was closely tied to his narcissistic attempts to be more cinematic don than real one.

Considering that crooked cops like Rafael Perez of LA's Rampart scandal in the 90s do indeed exist, Ross' transition from cop to gangsta rapper can be seen as another example of cinematic-style adaptation.

Looking at it this way, Ross evokes Denzel's corrupt cop character Alonzo from Training Day.

The Miami rapper has dropped an album that plays like a star-studded gangsta flick, with cameos by some of the biggest names in the game. His over the top tales of drug game excess are very funny to me; something akin to a lyrical gangsta comic book featuring the legendary super heroes of the street. Considering that cats have been imitating gangsters since the days of Al Capone and Edward G. Robinson as Little Caesar (1931), what Rick Ross is doing is almost like a time honored tradition by now. Ross is not the first nor the last person to use the gangster as a fictional device to represent his take on the American Dream.

Hip hop, at its core, has always been about the art of talkin' shit over beats and rhymes. The black oral tradition with its use of hyperbole, embellishment, metaphors, similes, and all other manner of creative verbal signifying is the foundation of hip hop's lyrical flow. It is imaginative wordplay, not something to be taken literally. Those who have mastered this spoken art have dominated the craft. Gangsters make for some of the best shit talkers. And as one of the greatest shit talkers in history myself, I know of what I speak.

The bottom line is this, hip hop is fiction and rappers are characters. Don't get it twisted! And this, of course, is real talk!

LeBron (The Mandingo Remix)

2010-07-12T19:51:00.000-07:00

I was hoping that I could deal with everything relating to Court Jester James one time and be done with it, but then The Right Reverend Jesse Jackson had to open his damn mouth! Every time I get out, they pull me right back in! Time to slay another antiquated dragon.

In response to Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert's tirade following LeBron's announcement that he would be "taking his talents to South Beach," Jackson stated that Gilbert "speaks as an owner of LeBron and not the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers. His feelings of betrayal personify a slave master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship -- between business partners -- and LeBron honored his contract."

See what you did, LeBron. By turning this whole thing into a media clown show, you left the door wide open for one of the biggest clowns in history. The Right Reverend might be a senior citizen clown at this point, but evidently his clown suit still fits. He's gotten to be feisty in his old age too! I'm surprised he didn't threaten to "cut" Gilbert's "nuts off" like he proclaimed he wanted to do to Obama back in '08. Of course, a short time after he said that about Obama, he was crying Chris Brown-style crocodile tears while the President-Elect made his acceptance speech, so it's hard to really know what obtuse angle he might be coming from.

Let's get this straight. Black athletes are not slaves! Slaves couldn't "take their talents to South Beach," nor engage in any other act of free will. Is this not obvious? LeBron has it so good that he can afford to walk away from millions in Cleveland, sign with Miami, and still come out "Richie like Lionel." I don't need to tell you that slavery wasn't quite so lucrative.

LeBron has teams willingly building their practice facilities closer to his house just so that he can cut down on his commute. He has some of these organizations actually putting his unqualified friends on their payroll, just to keep him happy. That doesn't sound like slavery to me. It sounds like LeBron is gettin' his Special Ed on in a major way; "I got it made!"

Where's the comparable slave example for all this? "Yo Master, I want you to put the cotton field closer to my slave quarters, so I don't have to walk so far on these bad feet I got. And while you're at it, if you want me to keep pickin' cotton on your plantation, you gon' have to enslave some of my triflin'-ass friends too!"    To compare LeBron's multi-million dollar situation to that of a slave is a disgrace and it belittles the plight of all those nameless, faceless, powerless slaves who had to suffer under this brutally evil yoke of oppression.

As I said previously, Dan Gilbert was wrong for his outburst. He was wrong because what he said was in bad taste. To throw someone under the bus like that after all that LeBron had done for the franchise, in spite of him leaving now, is just not how it should be done. Gilbert is primarily wrong because he doesn't admit his own culpability in all of this. He is wrong for being a hypocrite too, because if LeBron had re-signed with Cleveland, Gilbert would have been singing a much different tune. He is wrong for not accepting responsibility for losing LeBron to Miami, though his Cavs had a better chance than any other team did to re-sign him. Gilbert is wrong for kissing LeBron's ass and then getting mad when the entitled player still decided to bounce to another team.

Gilbert lost the LeBron sweepstakes and it's clear that he is a sore loser. This is business Dan, never personal. The value of Gilbert's franchise dropped precipitously the second LeBron made his announcement. Now none of this justifies Gilbert's outburst, but it also doesn't make the situation a scene from Mandingo either.

Beyond Gilbert's hypocrisy, the charge of LeBron being disloyal, and Gilbert's general classlessness, much of what he said about LeBron was actually correct.   LeBron did come across as extremly "narcissistic" throughout this whole free agency process. He apparently does want to go to heaven, but doesn't want to die, which is why he sought out his friends to help him win a title, instead of remaining the man on his own team, where he would have to take responsibility for being the leader. To stage the decision on national television and not recognize how publicly humiliating this would be for Gilbert and the city of Cleveland was both "heartless" and "callous."   So while I can condemn the inappropriateness and lack of sincerity regarding Gilbert's outburst, it's not as though LeBron's hands are exactly clean here.

The NBA is an institution in our society where an overwhelming number of the employees are black, while all the team owners, except Michael Jordan, are white. (Think what Gilbert said was bad? I can only imagine what choice words Jordan would have used if the circumstances were equal and LeBron was bolting his Bobcats for another team. The only difference is, Jordan wouldn't have said it publicly, he would have said to LeBron's face!) Clearly the notion of "ownership" carries with it all sorts of connotations relative to this nation's history and the culture of slavery upon which the nation was built. Contemporary athletes make a lot of money. Even the league minimum is much more than a middle class person can expect to make. So to call these athletes "slaves" is to say that they have no power at all. It is to say that they are forced to work against their will, with no compensation, to provide profits for others.

LeBron just exercised his power to sign a new deal in excess of one hundred million dollars and move to another city. Nothing Dan Gilbert can say or do will bring him back to Cleveland. There are no slave catchers on their way down to South Beach right now. Slaves don't give their masters the middle finger on national television and live to tell about it.

I was hoping that The Right Reverend would be silenced for good after his comment about Obama's genitalia was exposed, but my hopes have clearly not been realized. When is this black victimization going to stop? We are off the plantation now Rev., did you not get the memo?   To bring slavery into the picture is, as Mike Tyson might say, "ludicrous."

Look, I can think of several funny Dave Chappelle-like skits or other humorous anecdotes about race in this context, but I recognize it for what it is, humor. In spite of such humorous potential however, this is not about slavery. It is about a immature young man and an out of control owner, neither of whom is willing to take responsibility for their failings. It is about a highly capitalized sports culture where billionaire owners and millionaire players battle it out in the court of public opinion. It is about a 24/7 news cycle that needs spectacles like the one LeBron has provided the last few weeks in order to feed a devouring media beast with tapeworm in its belly.

Sure, whenever you deal with issues of ownership involving black and white in this nation, race informs the situation at some level, but to automatically jump back to slavery as a way of explaining a bad case of sour grapes in a dispute between billionaires and millionaires is just utterly ridiculous. For someone to offer such an explanation, which ultimately absolves LeBron of any responsibility in this, is to encourage LeBron's arrested state of intellectual and emotional development. I'm sorry, this is not about slavery. As Melle Mel might say, "it's all about money, ain't a damn thing funny." Or better yet, "cash rules everything around me." That's what it's about.

Let's leave the slaves on the plantation, and deal with what's real here. Anyone who has made as much money as LeBron James has over the last seven years, and who stands to make even more over the next seven years is no one's slave. To suggest that he is, is to drastically exploit a situation were race is, at best, a relatively minor factor. When making the kinds of accusations that The Right Reverend made in this case is to express a total ignorance of how sports works. Such ideas are dated and ultimately counter productive and only serve to feed the narcissism of a man who was engaging in the act of media prostitution long before LeBron was even born.

All Eyes on Me

2010-07-10T10:44:00.000-07:00

LeBron...where to begin? I would say "now that the dust has settled," but it hasn't settled yet. So I guess I'll be forced to write from a dusty perspective then. In the midst of the dust, what do I see? I see a man whose knees buckled as he tried to carry a team, a city, and a blighted industrial region on his back. I see a man who would rather blend in the mix, than be the main ingredient. I see an overgrown man child who felt compelled to leave the promised land of his birth, who loves the attention of the masses, but who doesn't want the responsibility that goes with it. I see a former elite superstar who has now become the game's most celebrated role player.

On one hand, I want to congratulate the ring-less King for his own self-awareness. He realizes his limitations, and this is a good thing. As indicated in the documentary More Than a Game, LeBron likes to hide behind his friends. With this in mind, this recent free agency decision allows him to now play sidekick to D Wade, in Wade's city. The presence of Chris Bosh, the man Shaq once called, "the RuPaul of big men," helps to provide cover as well. The three of them have now turned the NBA into the AAU. Throw in the looming presence of Pat Riley, who is sure to be back on the sideline before this is all said and done, and you have a situation fit for a ring-less King.

LBJ was the biggest thing in the state of Ohio. That's a lot of weight to carry, if you're not prepared to do so. Evidently the effort wore him out. Now, he can kick back in South Beach, work on his "brand," and let someone else have to worry about all that extra curricular activity.

I have no problem with LeBron leaving Cleveland. He owes the city absolutely nothing. For sevens years he helped bring massive attention to "The Mistake by the Lake." He's not obligated to stay if he doesn't want to. It is a cliche, but it is also true that this is a business, and LeBron made a business decision. Though he left 30M on the table, it's not like he's hurting. If he feels that he will be in a better frame of mind in Miami and will a have a better opportunity to win a title then he has earned the right to make the move. He was loyal for seven years. Again, he owes Cleveland nothing.

He also owes Cav's owner Dan Gilbert nothing. Gilbert went on a what read like a drunken tirade Thursday night, making all sorts of incendiary accusations in the wake of LeBron's departure. LeBron had done a pretty good job making an ass of himself through this whole process, but Gilbert's letter out-assed LeBron by leaps and bounds. What would Gilbert have said if 'Bron had decided to stay in Cleveland? Would 'Bron have still been "narcissistic" and "cowardly" then? If he quit on the team so often in the past, why would Gilbert want him back anyway? Gilbert is responsible for helping to create the beast, and then he gets mad when the now larger-than-life beast no longer obeys his orders? Gilbert's response suggests that maybe 'Bron was right to shake the scene. Such a classless outburst signals that Gilbert may not be the ideal owner to play for, particularly if it means living in a city as depressing as Cleveland.

LeBron is far from innocent in this, however. To stage the announcement of his decision on ESPN was one of the most self-aggrandizing stunts in the history of American culture. Based on the embarrassing way that he went out against the Celtics in the playoffs this year, you would think he might be just a lil' humble, but no. It's as though all this free agency hoopla is supposed to erase the fact that you won more regular season games than anyone else the last two seasons, along with two MVP awards, but you have zero Finals appearances to show for it.

Court Jester James, the lack of championship rings and this media charade have badly damaged your so-called "brand." Maybe someone should point out to you and those geniuses who handle your business that there was nothing to market here. Your play on the court gives you the opportunity to market, but after seven years and no rings marketing opportunities start to slowly dry up. Yes, all eyes were on you during this recent ego feast, but you should know that the criticism will be relentless now. Practically every time you lose a game you will be asked what's wrong, why can't the three of you play together, etc? Don't get annoyed when the doubters and the haters come at you. Seeing your jersey burned on national television will be the least of it. You staged this clown show on ESPN, so don't get all bent out of shape when the same media that you dragged through all this starts clowning you in return.

I now hear that they are calling this new Miami trio, "The Three Kings." D Wade even said that the three are perhaps the best trio to ever play together at the Friday press conference, more like a WWE event, announcing the signings. That's a lot of talk for three guys who thus far have accomplished absolutely nothing as a team. But in this era of "talk about it, don't be about it" I guess we should crown them press conference champs?

The digital era that we live in has exposed us to the concept of virtual reality. This sense of the virtual helps explain LeBron's situation. He is a virtual king, without a crown, now playing for a virtual championship team, without a ring. Back in the real world though, where flesh and blood take the place of pixels, LeBron is an immature young adult in his mid 20s, who appears reluctant to accept the responsibilities that go along with all the accolades that have been thrust upon him. When faced with frustration, disappointment, and an increasingly difficult challenge, LeBron decided to walk away and hide behind two of his friends.

In spite of how composed LeBron might sound, though he wasn't at all composed when making this announcement, he is a young man who has done nothing in his life but play basketball. Until his level of maturity equals his skill level as a basketball player, he will continue to come up short in the game of life. Yes, life skills are the area of your game that needs the most work now. To this end, I'm sure there are some good therapists in Miami. And if you and your "team" are having trouble finding one, just holla at Ron Artest and he can give you the number to his.

Leaders of the New School?

2010-06-29T15:06:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday night marked the 10th anniversary broadcast of the BET Awards. Much has changed since the cable network broadcast their first award's show from Las Vegas back in 2000. Since that time the broadcast has moved to Hollywood, spending several years in the same Kodak theater that hosts the Academy Awards. Now the annual awards show resides in the venerable Shrine Auditorium. There was no Facebook or Twitter back in 2000 where people could openly voice their opinions about the program like they do these days. Black popular culture seemed so much more relevant back then too.

Watching Sunday night's show left me underwhelmed. I realize that Alicia Keyes and Swizz Beatz are no substitute for Jay and Beyonce, Jada without Will is kinda like cornflakes without the milk, and Kanye just ain't the same unless there's some white folks around for him to piss off, but still. Yet, unlike so many others, I don't blame BET for this lack of energy. Don't get me wrong, BET is far from what it could be, but you can't blame the cable network for the rather apathetic nature of contemporary black popular culture at the moment.

BET has long suffered from the unrealistic expectations that dog a community of people who were so blatantly misrepresented by the mainstream media for so long. Though BET has seldom set the world on fire with its programming, it has always been unrealistic to expect that one network would appease the tastes of an entire race of people who are differentiated by issues of gender, class, age, sexual orientation, and location, among other factors. The network's founder Robert Johnson decided to make monetary decisions as opposed to social ones during his tenure at the helm and such decisions have come to define BET's image in the public mind, though its been years since Johnson sold the network to Viacom.

It's not BET's fault that contemporary black culture has given them so little to showcase. It's not BET's fault that mediocrity has come to define the world of black entertainment as of late. You can't blame BET for the empty, derivative, drivel passing itself off as black music in 2010. In some ways this reminds me of that famous line from Sunset Boulevard (1950) when Norma Desmond declares that her star remains large, it's the movies that have gotten smaller. In the case of the BET Awards, it's the culture that has seemingly gone small on us.

As far as awards shows go, the BET Awards is a big budget professional affair. On a network that has often been criticized for failing to spend appropriate amounts of money on their productions, this is not the case when it comes to the awards show. The production values are in keeping with other such shows of an awards nature. In others words, unlike a lot of what appears on BET, this program does not look cheap. I would be more concerned if I felt that the BET Awards looked like a swap meet version of an awards show, but it does not. However, it is an awards show, and awards shows are pretty vapid in general. Such shows are often popularity contests that say more about the current cultural politics of the moment than they do about any real artistic accomplishments on the part of the performers. The awards themselves are as subjective as the network broadcasting the awards show.

What struck me while watching this year's broadcast was how uninteresting the so-called stars themselves are these days. Perhaps "stars" is the wrong word even? There is nothing star-like about Trey Songz, a non-singin' fool if ever there was one. Nicki Minaj is like a knock-off of a knock-off in a jive-ass wig, or as MC Lyte might say, "paper thin." And Chris Breezy's crocodile tears were so unconvincing that had he done the same at an acting audition, he would have been kicked out of the room. Brown's tears make T.O.'s "that's my quarterback" tears seem Oscar-worthy by contrast.

My point, this new generation of black pop stars leaves a lot to be desired. All I see now are imitators and biters. Usher made his name as a MJ knock-off, and now Chris Brown is knocking off Usher? You can only cut dope so much before you have more cut than dope! I mean, let's face it, it's not like Usher was ever all that in the first place. Nicki Minaj puts on a colored wig, adds some ass pads, and then proceeds to act like it's not obvious who she's bitin'? There was a time when imitating someone else was considered a high crime of culture. During this time, Nicki Minaj would have been arrested for impersonating a rapper.

I am from a generation that would run a thousand miles in the other direction to avoid ever being accused of copying someone else. What happened? Is there no pride in being original anymore?

Maybe this is just the rant of an OG hip hop head who's getting old? I was in 8th grade the first time I heard Prince's debut single "Soft and Wet" back in '78. Seeing him receive a Lifetime Achievement Award ages one pretty quickly. So I admit that maybe this current crop of stars is not intended to appeal to my generation. But still, talent supersedes age. I was annoyed that one of the few younger artists who actually sounds like he's got some real potential, J. Cole, was only afforded an abbreviated performance window before the show cut to a commercial.

Here's the deal. I am part of the generation that created hip hop, the most influential musical form to come along in many, many years. A second generation came along and perfected what was started, while making it profitable along the way. At some point in this evolution hip hop came to have a bigger influence on R & B than the black church and this would change the nature of rhythm and blues going forward.

It's time for this new generation to create something that doesn't already exist. It's now time for these youngsters to create their own version of great works like, It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, Amerikkka's Most Wanted, Ready to Die, My Life, Brown Sugar, and The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. It's time to do that which has not been done before. In others words, it's time to get creative! After watching many of these so-called stars the other night I came away quite depressed at the possibilities in this regard however.

The music industry itself is weak right now, so it stands to reason that shows awarding musical performance would also be weak. I understand that. But true creativity tends to transcend all such distractions. If hip hop itself could emerge out of the cloud of crack smoke that defined much of the 80s and 90s, then certainly contemporary culture can create something meaningful too? Or perhaps that's it, without a prolonged crisis like that of the crack cocaine era, creativity takes a vacation?

I would hate to think that we need another epidemic like crack to spur the creative juices. Maybe though, when the man occupying the White House checks the same box on his census form that the letter "B" in BET represents it means that as a creative people we are no longer hungry? Perhaps that tape worm was eradicated the night Lester Young defeated John McCain for the White House back in 2008? Could be? Who knows? We've never been here before. I hope this is not the case, but it may indeed be? If it is, I welcome the evolution to the seat of power, I just hope that the cost of this is not losing our creativity and individuality as a result.

Extensions of a Man

2010-06-14T13:39:00.000-07:00

When I began watching the game of basketball Gerald Ford was the President of the United States, people listened to music on cassette tapes, and Kobe Bryant's father, Jellybean, was still in college. Kobe was yet to be born. I remember watching Kareem play the Pistons, when Kareem still played for the Milwaukee Bucks and the Pistons still played their home games at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit.   Mind you, I was a very young kid myself at the time. My love for the game was immediate though and has now evolved over a lengthy period of time. In other words, I've seen a lot of basketball!

Long before I had ever taken a graduate school class, I was a scholar of the game. Once I added the rigors of a doctorate in Critical Studies to my repertoire, I had a whole new language to talk about this game and all that it entails. My passion developed over years and years, coupled with a knowledge base that now helped me express my thoughts in completely original ways.

The game for me has always been deeper than what we see on the court. I have often celebrated the game of basketball as a unique window through which one might come to understand the nuances of American life. Baseball writers have for years articulated such profound thoughts as it pertains to their favorite sport, but in basketball, more often than not, we are burdened with the tedious, insignificant fan boy ramblings of someone like Bill Simmons. On the other hand, I must say big ups to the man I like to call "Lester Young," President Barack Obama, for using his office to give basketball a bigger and more substantive profile in the culture at large.

I am writing here as the Celtics lead the Lakers three games to two in the NBA Finals, with the Lakers trying to stay alive, needing a win in Game 6 on their home floor to avoid getting defeated by the Celtics for the second time since 2008.    The challenge set before Kobe and the Lakers is a daunting challenge indeed. They must win two games in a row, something that they have not done against Boston in the 2008 series, nor during this year's Finals. How will Kobe and his team respond to the challenge?

Can Kobe climb the mountain of greatness set before him? Will he be able to "move on up a lil' higher" as Mahalia Jackson might say?

I find this challenge to be particularly appropriate for Kobe. If he can lead his team to victory in this series it will demonstrate that he is not only an extremely talented player, but also a true leader and one of the game's all time elite figures. Some say he has already demonstrated that he belongs in conversations with the game's best. I disagree. Kobe has had a lot handed to him and he has accomplished a lot as well. But he has never shown the ability to lead his squad through what appeared to be insurmountable circumstances like these he now faces. Not to mention, he has also quit on several occasions, most notably Game 7 against Phoenix in 2007.

One of the main reasons that I've always been so hard on Kobe is because I think people conferred greatness upon him before he had really earned it.   Kobe seemed to expect that others should just accept his greatness as a given and this has usually been the case throughout his career. Well now he has a real chance to show and prove, as they say. Bringing a team back from the brink of elimination in the NBA Finals is the kind of thing that he needs on his resume, if he wants the accolades that go with being considered among the elite in the game's history.

When you get to this stage in the Finals it's about more than just basketball skills. It's about mental comportment, it's about basketball IQ, it's about who wants it more. It's about desire. It's like my man Branford Marsalis says in Ken Burns' Jazz documentary when discussing Elvin Jone's approach to playing with John Coltrane, "you gotta be willing to die with a muthafucka!" Yeah, that's what it's all about, the willingness to figuratively die with and for your solders in order to accomplish a higher goal.

Is Kobe willing to go there? Is he even made that way? Or is he such a smugly, entitled prima donna that he feels like he should never have to exert that much aggressive human emotion and force of will to reach his desired destiny? Does he feel as though he has to earn it or does he feel like it should be bestowed upon him by fiat? Having watched him his entire NBA career, it's clear that he's never been willing to "die" for his team, but it is this type of sacrifice that he will have to perform if he wants another championship ring.

While watching Kobe go off last night in the third quarter of Game 5, it was quite apparent that he still has not figured out how to have a game as a high volume scorer and keep his teammates involved with the stakes being what they are. This is what leaders do, they inspire others, often to play beyond their own perceived abilities. Leaders don't get to blow off their defeats by complaining that they are not getting any help. Kobe's only been playing in the league, what fourteen years now?! Statue of limitations is up on the no help excuse by this point.

Which brings me to this point. As great as Kobe has been as a pro, he would be that much better if he had gone to college for a few years. There are moments when it's clear that as talented as Kobe is, he is still lacking when it comes to certain aspects of his approach to the game. Sure, he can act and sound like Jordan all he wants, but Jordan always stepped up for his. Kobe, on the other hand, is a good actor.

If Kobe had ever been properly coached in his developmental years, if he had learned a few things about retaining his individuality within the team context, if he had learned that sometimes being the best player on the floor still doesn't mean that your team will win, his overall game would be even that much more refined. I'm sorry, but there are too many moments when he still looks like that kid shooting all those air balls in Utah back in '97.

I could certainly say the same about thing LeBron too. At least Kobe does have rings. But if Kobe and his supporters want him to be talked about with the game's greats, then do what all the great ones do. Overcome some difficult obstacles, snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, not in some meaningless regular season game, in the Finals, where it counts.

There was a moment in last night's game when they were comparing Kobe's performance to that of Isiah Thomas in 1988. Isiah, perhaps the game's most underrated player in it's history, hobbled on one leg while torching Michael Cooper and the Lakers for 42. The Pistons got robbed when the infamous "phantom foul" was called on Bill Laimbeer, who clearly did not come close to touching Kareem. Isiah and the Pistons went down swinging, only to lose by a point. They lost the final game by three points, when the referee failed to maintain order as fans rushed the floor with a second left on the clock, even though Magic fouled Isiah; a foul that was never called. A year later Isiah and the Pistons swept the Lakers to win their first NBA title. Isiah is one of the realest players in NBA history. Kobe doesn't come close to matching Zeke's grit and toughness.

Yeah, Kobe beat the Magic last year, but how hard was that? When your starting center wants to argue with another grown men over who the real Superman is and is so soft that Jordan Farmar can snatch the ball of his hands, in spite of a huge size advantage, that tells you that you are playing an inferior squad.

If Kobe is on Jordan's level, then now is the time to show it. Jordan never lost in the Finals. As I've aid before, we live in a society now where people often become great simply be declaring that they're great. But greatness, true greatness, must be earned. Kobe is a great individual player. That is without question. But he and his supporters want to say he's transcendent, that he's the greatest of all time. For that, he will need to show more heart, more leadership, and prove that he can excel when his back is completely up against the wall.

To whom much is given, much is required. It's time to separate the platinum from the white gold now. Man up, Kobe! It's times like this when true champions emerge and show the world what they're really made of. At this point the series has come down to who is willing to lay it all on the line. Is that you, Kobe? Are you a leader of men or just a glorified human highlight package on Sports Center? We'll see....

They Reminisce Over You

2010-06-09T14:57:00.000-07:00

The pomp and circumstance that surrounds the passing of public figures has become a time honored ritual in our heavily mediated society. The routine is pretty straight forward at this point. A legendary figure dies, their supporters reminisce and mourn, while the media goes about laying out a narrative that surveys the public figure's life and career. Some deaths, like that of Ronald Reagan or Michael Jackson, command global audiences, while others like that of the recently deceased former UCLA coach John Wooden, reverberate throughout the larger basketball world. This public mourning and reminiscence has taken on added meaning in the digital age, particularly in that ever consuming space otherwise known as social media.

Recently, upon the announcement of Coach Wooden's death, perhaps the greatest coach the college game has ever seen, I posted some comments about the man previously known as "The Wizard of Westwood" on Twitter. One of the comments I posted had to do with a long conversation I had many years ago with one of Coach Wooden's most celebrated players, Walt Hazzard, who played on Wooden's first championship team at UCLA and later coached the Bruins in the mid 80s.

Hazzard told me that once back in the 60s he, like a lot of other people, was reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X. He said Wooden snatched the book out of his hands and told him that he shouldn't be reading what the coach considered to be inflammatory material. Now such a response from Wooden shouldn't surprise people because of all the attention that Wooden's stoic Midwestern conservatism had received when he was coaching Bill Walton, a popular 70s free spirit who openly participated in the counter culture of that time as a college student and star player. No one ever said John Wooden was a leftist, so it stands to reason that he would have certainly been concerned about Hazzard's reading choices back in the 60s as well.

My point is this, Wooden liked to see himself as an educator, more so than a coach. I think that it was irresponsible for an educator to tell a college student what they should and shouldn't be reading, simply because the book disagreed with Wooden's own principals. It would have been better to encourage the fact that Hazzard was indeed reading, as opposed to trying to dictate what he read. What Wooden did is not being an educator, it's called control. Wooden might have been concerned that Hazzard would be able to draw his own conclusions after having read the book and if those conclusions went against Wooden's teaching then that would signal one less area of control for the coach.

This was only part of it though. The other thing that I mentioned about Wooden had to do with the presence of an individual named Sam Gilbert. Gilbert, who was often referred to as "Papa Sam" was a UCLA booster, a term that used to circulate readily throughout college sports. Gilbert was accused of providing UCLA players with everything they could possibly want, from money to cars, even abortions for player's girlfriends, some assert. Every great college program had boosters like Gilbert back then. Things work somewhat differently now in college sports, as agents and other interested parties have come to occupy some of the same underground roles previously held by boosters. The boosters still exist, they're just not the only one's in the mix now. UCLA would eventually be put on NCAA probation because of Gilbert, but this was long after Wooden had retired.

Wooden always claimed that he knew nothing about what Gilbert was doing. Some suggest he had to know, while others assume that he consciously turned a blind eye to what was going on. But then there are those who feel that Wooden would never be involved in something so shady, as these accusations went against the honest, Sunday school-teaching, all-around good man image that Wooden had come to cultivate. Yes, Wooden was held up as a force for all that was right with the world. He was celebrated for his morality and his integrity. I'm not saying that any of this was untrue either. What I am saying is that he was a more complicated a figure than the sweet, lovable grandfather that people made him out to be.

Ronald Reagan was another figure held up as grandfatherly, and he of course used this image to his advantage. During the Iran/Contra scandal of the 1980s, a scandal that directly influenced the rise and spread of crack cocaine throughout the nation at the time, Reagan claimed senility. He didn't know what was going on. Others took advantage of his advanced age he would imply. Though Reagan's popularity took a dip momentarily, it quickly improved, and by the time of his death he was being celebrated as one of the nation's all-time heroes.

In some ways this is like what we might the "the godfather syndrome." Marlon Brando's role as Don Coreleone was so captivating and grandfatherly that people often forget that he is a mob boss. Wooden cultivated an image and played to it. I'm not saying it was false, but I am saying that it was an image created in a particular historical time. Whenever I see pictures of John Wooden from back in the 60s and 70s, I'm reminded of figures like Barry Goldwater. Again, I'm not saying it was a false image, but the image did serve a purpose. Some people have a hard time linking that image with the facts of who Wooden really was.

Ok, so after posting my comments about Wooden, being especially careful to acknowledge and commend his accomplishments, I start to get a slew of responses in return. Some responses were of the "thanks, I didn't know that" variety, while others were much more hostile. Now when you're The Notorious Ph.D. hostile comments are part of package, but I thought I would use these most recent hostile comments as an opportunity to make a larger point.

In the age of social media, we can all declare our intentions out loud. When famous people die, we can shout them out on our FaceBook status updates, we can post their picture in our profiles, we can write loving tributes explaining what these people meant to us and our lives and send this out over Tweeter. Such activities allow us to feel connected, while participating in a form of digital public mourning.

Yet, it is important to also point out that these are public figures that I'm talking about. And public figures deserve to be discussed publicly. If you're someone like myself, then you make a living commenting on people, places, and things in the media. For me this is work. And one of the things that has always been at the forefront of my mission in life is to keep it intellectually real. I don't agree that John Wooden or any other public figure deserves to be feted as a saint, when he was a human being who accomplished great things, but also made mistakes and sometimes engaged in affairs that were not as morally upright as people would like to believe.

Now, I wouldn't go to Wooden's funeral and tell the Hazzard story or bring up Sam Gilbert, but I'm not going to be invited to Wooden's funeral. I never met Wooden and other than signing a copy of my book Young Black Rich and Famous--my book on basketball and hip hop, which I'm sure Wooden hated, if he ever got around to reading it--that someone asked me to sign so as to give to him, I had no direct dealings with John Wooden. My reactions are in relationship to the public figure, because I didn't know the private man.

Last summer, when Micheal Jackson died, this idea that the numerous controversies that had defined the so-called King of Pop's life should be held at bay while his supporters mourned was rampant. If Micheal's life wasn't public, nothing is. Public figure don't get a pass. There is no statue of limitations when it comes to how much time must tick off the clock before someone can say something critical about a deceased public figure.

That sense of social etiquette that your mama taught you about not saying something bad about someone who has just passed away doesn't apply here. It's not in bad taste to offer critical comments at the death of a public figure. This is not a funeral, it is the public domain. And in the public domain, it's real in the field! This sense of social etiquette isn't always followed either. It changes depending on the public figure. Not all receive this specialized treatment.

It is a person's whole life that determines their ultimate legacy. A public figure like John Wooden can be celebrated for all that he has accomplished, while also having the controversies that arose during his lifetime discussed as well. In the end, I think John Wooden was an incredible coach. He modernized the college game. But he was also a conservative man of a certain era who was able to hide behind his squeaky clean image. People tell stories about how Wooden never cursed, for instance, but many wished that he would have because the things he could say without using curse words was perhaps even more abusive than if he had cursed like a sailor.

As a public figure, in the digital public domain, Wooden, and any other public figure for that matter, can be celebrated, but his entire legacy must be held accountable as well. Like my man Curtis Mayfield once said, "not trying to offend anyone, just basically tellin' it like it is."

Uneasy Lies the Head That Wears a Crown

2010-05-17T15:56:00.000-07:00

There is no player in NBA history who has come into the league with as many expectations placed upon him as LeBron James. And up until very recently the man anointed "King" from the time he first put on a Cavaliers' uniform had lived up to these expectations. Truth be told, 'Bron had actually exceeded the lofty expectations placed upon his shoulders. It was only a matter of time, we all assumed, before he sealed the deal by putting the first of what was expected to be many championship rings on his nimble fingers. Yet, in the aftermath of LeBron's unceremonious defeat at the hands of the Boston Celtics in the NBA conference semifinals, it appears that LeBron is now a king without a throne. Many years ago, the late Coleman Young, Detroit's iconic mayor from 1973-1993, said that Jesse Jackson was a preacher who never lead a church and a politician who never held office. Can we now say that LeBron is a king who doesn't own a crown?

For the second time in two years, LeBron has been named the league's MVP, with his team winning sixty plus regular season games in the process, only to be stopped short of winning the ultimate prize. With all the speculation about where LeBron might play next season dominating the conversation, it seems that both LeBron and his fans forgot about the business at hand. People had been so quick to place LeBron in that elite category that they forgot he was missing one major piece of the puzzle.   To be included in the conversation with greats like Jordan, Magic, and Jabber, the so-called King needs titles. Without these titles, he remains on the outside looking in. Even Kobe Bryant has more claim to the VIP lounge than 'Bron does at this point.

Some have noted that the level of criticism directed towards LeBron's failure to win a title is wrongheaded and misguided. These people say that he's still young and is still a tremendous player with a huge upside. They suggest that he still has the opportunity to win multiple titles and rewrite the record books before it's all said and done. This is all true, however his failure to win a title thus far is still a mark against his name. Why, you ask, because this was the dreaded seven year mark. It took the greatest player in the history of the game seven seasons to win his first title in Chicago. LeBron just completed his seventh season, yet he'll have to watch this year's Finals as an observer, not as a participant.

Jordan's Bulls were like LeBron's Cavs when he arrived in 1984; one of the laughingstocks of the league. Early in his career, Jordan began campaigning for the Bulls to sign Walter Davis, a former Tar Heel who had preceded Jordan at North Carolina.   The trade never happened. The Bulls front office went on drafting and trading for the players they wanted with little regard for Jordan's wishes, even trading Jordan's BFF and enforcer at the time Charles Oakley at one point. By the late 80s Jordan was getting clowned by the Bad Boys in the playoffs on a regular basis. Eventually all the blood, sweat, and tears paid off though. Beginning in 1991 Jordan and the Bulls started winning titles and didn't look back.

The point here is this, Jordan played ball, while people like general manager Jerry "Crumbs" Krause and owner Jerry Reinsdorf ran the club. Though the Bulls certainly catered to Jordan in their own way, it was always clear who was in charge. Jerry Krause was famous for saying that organizations won championships, much to Jordan's chagrin. I'm not praising Crumbs or Reinsdorf here, as neither one of them came across as the type of guy you would want to have a beer with. However, the differences between players and the front office was evident. The hierarchy in place allowed for there to be order, and this order helped propel them towards the six championships that they won during the Jordan era.

The Cavs, on the other hand, seem to have tried to accommodate LeBron's every wish. Hiring his friends, bringing in player after player for the purpose of pleasing LeBron, couched under the guise of trying to compete for a title.   In the interest of keeping LeBron in Cleveland the Cavs couldn't see the forest for the trees. Instead of making decisions that would make the Cavs a better franchise, incompetent General Manager Danny Ferry has assembled a group of players that don't even begin to fit together. Now that they stand a real chance of losing LeBron, we'll see just how raggedy that roster is if and when he decides to bolt. At this point the Cavs will have lost LeBron and they won't have any titles to show for their efforts either.

One of the biggest differences between the culture of football and the culture of basketball has to do with the size of the teams. Because of the sheer number of players on a football team, one player is only going to mean so much.   Sure, quarterbacks and star players of any ilk enjoy privileges not to be expected of everyone, but successful football franchises don't revolve around one player. You can have a great hall of fame quarterback, with no line and no receivers. Eventually that QB will have been sacked so many times that he'll be lucky if he can still walk. So as much deference as a star player might be shown it is all within context as the high injury rate for football players and the number of men needed to play the game tends to lessen the importance of one guy.

In basketball one man can make all the difference in the world. LeBron demonstrated this back in 2007 when he lead a weak Cavaliers team to the NBA Finals damn near all by himself. Before Mo Williams, Shaq, and Jamison, LeBron took the court with journeymen like Larry Hughes and Donyell Marshall, alongside "where are they now-type" players like Sasha Pavlovic. The real surprise of the Cavs series against the Pistons that year was rookie Daniel Gibson, a player who generally only saw playing time this season when the game was already decided. LeBron took this bunch of scrubs all the way to the Finals based almost exclusively on his own unique abilities. As LeBron demonstrated one man can make all the difference in the world in a basketball game. But one man can't win a title all by himself.

This one man theory opens itself up to the sort of savior complex that has dominated basketball every since Jordan came into the league and lead the Bulls from nowhere to elite status. When LeBron was still in high school they began calling him "The Chosen One." Soon enough people in Cleveland would begin wearing tee shirts that simply said "Witness." The overly religious connotations of words like these helped contribute to the monster being created right under our noses. Yet everything looked to be going according to plan. LeBron and his team tended to get better each year and everything looked to be on track. It would only be a matter of time before King James could ascend to his throne. Once this had happened, one assumed that he could win multiple titles going forward, thus making the possibility of him leaving Cleveland seem more and more remote.

Well, I guess we jumped the gun? NBA championships are won, not given away. LeBron is at such a high level that anything short of a title is a disappointment now. To whom much is given, much is required.

Is LeBron really that guy or have we placed him on a pedestal that he is not yet qualified to sit on? He is obviously an extremely gifted player, but is he a champion? Might he be so entitled already and enthralled by the trappings of his own celebrity that such distractions seem more important than raising a championship banner? Does he even care about winning titles? Or is he more concerned with things like hanging out with Jay-Z, throwing powder up in the air and clowning his way through pre-game warm ups by taking faux pictures of his teammates? Is he simply a glorified AAU player who goes from team to team displaying his extraordinary skill set without every really accomplishing anything significant at a team level? In other words, is he more "Prince" James, than King? (When one considers all the buck dancing and other such buffoonery at times displayed on the court perhaps "Court Jester" is a more appropriate moniker?) Only time will tell, but the fact that we're still asking questions like these at this point in his career is a criticism in and of itself.

LeBron has had his ass kissed every since he came into the league. Now he must be held accountable. At this point, I don't care where he ends up, the lack of a title is a glaring omission on an otherwise extremely impressive resume. Until he can claim his first title and then win multiple titles after that, he will be relegated to business class. Now granted, business class is far better than coach, but it's still not quite first class. LeBron is going to have to upgrade his championship focus if he wants to fly first class. Right now, he's not there yet. And though he still seemingly has plenty of time to rectify this, his failure to compete for a title the last two years should be classified as a major disappointment, relative to the standards demanded of truly elite players.

Rewind: Barry Bonds and Race

2010-05-13T12:12:00.000-07:00

With the recent announcement that Ken Burns' is directing "Tenth Inning," a follow up to his critically acclaimed documentary series "Baseball," I decided to pull one out of the archives. "Tenth Inning," which airs on PBS later this year, will document baseball's history from 1990 to the present, a time period that many refer to the sport's "steroid era." Well, the biggest story during this era was none other than Barry Bonds' and his contested pursuit of Hank Aaron's home run record. So here is my piece on the racial implications of Bonds' record chase written as he was closing in on the record back in 2007.

Why August Wilson Was No Tyler Perry

2010-04-27T10:19:00.000-07:00

August Wilson (1945-2005)

Notorious Ph.D. on "Why August Wilson Was No Tyler Perry" (@The Root)

Paid in Full

2010-02-15T13:38:00.000-08:00

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shaking hands with NFL Players Association President DeMaurice Smith

Cash rules everything around me. A sentiment that is never far from the surface in capitalist America, and most certainly a scenario that underlies many of our conversations about sports even when such a sentiment is not overtly expressed. Lately though the don't-nothing-move-but-the-money ethos has come to the surface as both the NBA and the NFL march towards what could be an unprecedented situation come 2011; a nation without professional basketball or football. What? Are we in the last days or sumthin'? No b-ball and no gridiron, are your serious? Well, this is what could transpire if both sports and their respective unions don't come to some suitable financial agreement before the leagues impose a dreaded lockout, an outcome that many assume is almost inevitable. Say it ain't so, Joe!

I can't imagine a world without the NBA and the NFL. To imagine a time when both sports might be locked out is like imaging a world without General Motors. And considering that a world without GM seemed a likely possibility before the government bailout and before Toyota's recent fate, it appears that nothing is sacred anymore.

If President Obama really wanted to immediately ratchet up his approval rating all he would need to do is state publicly that NBA and NFL players make too much money. Point the finger of scorn at these athletes and practically all else would be forgiven. Fashion a speech that says it was not those Wall Street corporate thugs who brought down the nation's economy, but overpaid athletes, and many of those instant teabaggers would immediately drop their protest and fall in line. Publicly vilify these rich athletes as nothing more than glorified bank robbers and there might be no need to even run for reelection; simply wait to be anointed. Obviously I'm being facetious here, as the instant teabaggers probably think that Obama is an overpaid athlete who brought the presidency with his ill gotten gains, but the point remains the same. If only the people of this nation were as mad at those high stakes gamblers sitting at the Wall Street poker table as they have long been at the perception of wealthy professional athletes then the fate of this nation's economy might very well be quite different.

Some cry that in this new economy, everyone has to cut back, so why should athletes be any different? Well to answer that simply go back and look at what happened in 1998, the last time the NBA locked out its players. At that time the nation's economy was doing great, but the players were still perceived as making too much money, so much so that many assumed that the lockout was actually a strike. The loose perception was that wealthy NBA players were so entitled that they went on strike to extract even more money from their struggling, victimized owners. This perception was so broad that the NBA Players Association had to run full page ads altering people that they were not on strike, but instead denied the opportunity to work because the league had locked them out. So, even in good economic times, professional athletes have been the scapegoat of public class envy.

As I have said on many occasions, everyone knows what the players make, but few know what the owners make. In order to employ someone, you need to make more than you owe them, that's called a profit. So every NBA owner has to make more money than that they owe their players or else they are out of the game. Players provide the talent, owners provide the money.

If Jerry Buss could play as well as Kobe Bryant then there would be no need for Kobe Bryant. But people, like that woman at the All Star game in Dallas who came up and told Kobe "I paid 8,000 for this ticket, why aren't you playing?", spend their money to see the stars, not the owners. So why is it that players are thought to make too much money, but no one even knows how much money an owner makes? Part of this is explained by embedded class perceptions that always favor owners over workers, the kind of perception that wanted to place blame on the UAW for GM's failures, for example. And of course another part of it is race. The combination of the two is lethal.

Say what you will, but with the exception of the quarterback position, football and basketball are sports generally perceived to be "black." That you have a collection of black male bodies, a critical mass, means that the sports are thought of as an almost exclusively racial world, where black men perform for white owners and by extension the white masses. It is generally understood that these black men are being "tolerated," that they are "allowed" to play these sports and make this money. Seldom are the athletes in question thought of as having earned anything. It as though they all went to the respective owners, put a gun to their respective heads, and demanded that the owners pay them exorbitant amounts of money for playing a kid's game.

Of course it doesn't work this way. Athletes like actors, singers, or any other performers offer their unique talents to the masses in exchange for capital provided by those who look to make a profit off these performances. Athletes come and go. They are expendable. They are labor. Often highly paid labor, but labor nonetheless. Owners are capitalists. They make the investment, they take the financial risk, they reap the benefits. Their careers are not subject to the fate of turning an ankle or sustaining multiple concussions that lead to permanent brain damage. Their careers are generally not over by their 30s.

So yes the owners do take financial risk, but not physical risk. And if you are one to want to take financial risk in the interest of making a profit then so be it, but when those risks don't pan out the way you wanted them to, don't turn around and use the current economic climate as an excuse for your failures. If a player can't perform, his career is soon over. If owners can't perform then they cry that they can't make a profit because they're paying their athletes too much? It's simple, like Mike Jordan once told the late Abe Pollin, recently deceased owner of the Washington Wizards, if you can't afford the team then maybe you should consider selling it.

NBA Players Association President Billy Hunter and NBA Commissioner David Stern

Some will chafe at the notion of these coming labor negotiations in both the NBA and NFL being defined by race. Yet when you consider that with the exception of the Charlotte Bobcats' Bob Johnson, all of the owners in both sports are white, as well as both commissioners, David Stern and Roger Goodell. Johnson himself probably won't be an owner much longer as Stern recently said that the Bobcats will be sold within the next two months. The players in both sports are predominantly black and the leaders of the respective labor unions are black also. Whatever the reality, the situation cannot help but be informed by race, in terms of image if nothing else. What do they say in politics, perception is reality? However you ultimately choose to break it down though, images of race and money will for sure make this an interesting series of negotiations in both cases. These circumstances have already made for some intriguing headlines.

In regards to the coming negotiations, an anonymous NBA executive recently stated that "if they don't like the new max contracts, LeBron can play football, where he will make less than the new max. Wade can be a fashion model or whatever. They won't make squat and no one will remember who they are in a few years." You can literally hear the resentment dripping from the digital page as he speaks.

Couple this kind of resentment with reports that the NBA will also want to modify all existing playing contracts to fit the extremely reduced collective bargaining agreement that they will seek and it demonstrates the hostility even further. Current contracts signed in good faith under what were the existing circumstances of the time when they were signed will be modified to fit new more favorable terms for the owners? What is this, sharecropping? The owners' harvest didn't come in as good as he thought it would so now the people who worked the land must suffer because the owner negotiated a deal that he understood to be conditional all along? WTF?

I understand that many things have changed in our present society and that financial shifts are some of the most profound of these changes. I also understand that belt tightening is the order of the day. Yet, I do know that any and everyone who can use these current economic circumstances as an excuse for cutting back will do so without hesitation. David Stern claims the current collective barging agreement is costing them tons of money. Sounds like you negotiated a bad deal to me then. That's on you.

People will inevitably support the owners as these negotiations go forward. This I already know. I have no illusions that there is an outpouring of support for rich athletes waiting to erupt. But for the legion of sports fans out there who will inevitably say that reducing the player's compensation is a good thing, just know that the underlying issues of race and class are informing societal perceptions here. This is both a labor issue and a racial one and these are two issues that have historically bent towards the left, but often get trounced on by the right.

Stereotypes of a black male misunderstood, indeed!

Black Oscar

2010-02-03T21:32:00.000-08:00

Sidney Poitier, winner of the 1964 Academy Award for "Best Actor," with Anne Bancroft, who presented the award.

Notorious Ph.D. has been on hiatus. Have no fear, the return of The Mack is imminent! In the meantime, you can check out "The Troubled (Black) History of the Oscars,"my article on the history of African Americans and the Academy Awards for The Root. Stay up!

Peace,
The Good Dr.

Area Codes

2009-12-08T18:16:00.000-08:00

Whenever I think of Tiger Woods, I think of that Public Enemy line about Elvis. Tiger was a hero to most...y'all know the rest. Tiger, except for his historic win at the Master's in '97, has never really meant much to me. As a matter of fact, Tiger is one of the most boring public figures in recent memory. Say it loud, I am Tiger Woods, devoid of funk!

Well, at least he was boring. Once the news hit the fan that Tiger, like Luda, has a gang of 'em "in different area codes," it seems that the fun just won't stop. Tiger Woods is what my Dad would call a "hoemonger." This would all be his own business were it not for the fact that he has willingly played the role of the good guy all the way to the bank. Mr. Squeaky Clean has been gettin' his dirty freak on something fierce it seems. Tiger Tiger Woods y'all!

Again, I have no love for Tiger. He dominated his sport, for sure. He has made a mockery of that sport's racially restrictive past, no doubt. But what else has he done other than make boatloads of money endorsing products? Not a damn thing! When will people stop thinking that just because someone excels at a sport and can speak in complete sentences that they are somehow above reproach? I guess Kobe's Eagle, Colorado problems weren't proof enough for ya?

Every since American sports started becoming more and more racially diverse, the issue of image has become more pronounced. Much of the sports media and many of the sport's loving public has clamored for non-threatening figures who comfort their own sense of identity. In perhaps the most extreme case, OJ Simpson, a hustler if ever there was one, sensed this back in the 70s and literally ran with it. OJ was always thug life personified, but like most hustlers, he could shape shift and conform to whatever the situation called for. Naive, simple-minded fools believed OJ's hype and the next thing you know the man who proudly said "I'm not black, I'm OJ" had become Willie Horton, literally.

Michael Jordan once stated that "Republicans buy Nikes too," yet when he gave his HOF acceptance speech earlier this year, the true Michael Jordan showed up and no one wanted to hear what he had to say. The truth was too hard to reconcile. For a long time, Michael played his role to perfection, but now that other younger figures like LBJ and Tiger have come to fill his shoes, he probably felt tired of wearing that costume. Once you put that costume on though, people don't want you to take it off.

Tiger has been wearing this costume for most of his celebrated career. The self-proclaimed "Cablanasian" had the Midas touch for a long time. Now he is paying the price for perpetrating a fraud of immense proportions. Yet I feel that the public played a role in all of this. If people didn't want an unrealistic image from their sports celebrities there would be no need for public figures to cater to such an expectation.

Just because Tiger is a "curly-head" Cablanasian who can hit a golf ball doesn't mean that he's perfect or even decent, for that matter. It just means that he can hit a golf ball. Just because he had the benefit of a good education and has the ability to speak in an articulate manner doesn't mean that he's a saint, it just means that he's had a good education and can speak in an articulate manner.

Let me clear, I could care less how many women Tiger has on the side. That's his business. Well it was his business, now it's the world's business. The problem here is that the media and the public often elevate people beyond where they should be and then when these elevated people demonstrate that they are indeed human, the negative response is unrelenting.

Tiger was never a saint. Most men in his position have more woman than they can fully account for, while many other men who aren't in that position, wish that they were. The spouses and partners of these uber athletes often know about their exploits too, and they implicitly accept this as part of the deal. Yes infidelity is generally what it means to be married to someone so rich and so famous. It's like these other women are an occupational hazard, but a hazard to be tolerated relative to the financial incentives to be had. It's when squares like Tiger behave in such a raggedy, irresponsible fashion, exposing themselves and embarrassing their significant other that drama starts to arise.

Tiger is now in a prison of his own making. If there is a crime here, it is the fact that Tiger would be so square as to leave his name on home girl's voicemail. Square as a pool table and twice as green! It's probably redundant for me to say that ain't pimpin', but it most certainly ain't.

Tiger, if you're gonna do dirt, step your game up Dog. Leave them underachievers alone. Please. Nothing good can come of it. And while you're at it, stop trying to be something that you're not. At least now you've might have a sliver of street cred. Don't spend it all in one place.

And to all those out there who want their heroes to be perfect, stick to the holy books. Because as long as you seek perfection in others, you deny the reality within yourself.

The Buddy Flick

2009-11-24T12:41:00.000-08:00

Americans have had a long lasting love affair with stories involving the black and white "buddy" scenario. From Huck Finn and Nigger Jim to Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis in The Defiant Ones or Sidney Poitier and Rod Stieger from In the Heat of the Night, take your pick. From Jack Benny and Rochester to Sonny Crockett and Rico Tubbs, this buddy narrative cuts across decades. Why Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney even went so far as to pen the black-white buddy national anthem. Yes indeed, ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony, just like the keys on a piano, or so we're told.

The buddy story, as it were, has served to simplify incredibly complex race relations by reducing everything to a series of cultural misunderstandings. Of course once the two seeming opposites spend enough time with each other, they both realize that they have more in common than was previously known. By the end, the two are usually so close that they're practically finishing each others sentences.

Well the most recent version of this tired old story revolves around Erving "Magic" Johnson and Larry Bird, two former rivals on the basketball court, who never seem to go away. Between repeated broadcasts of their legendary battles from times past on cable networks like ESPN Classic and NBA TV, and their new book, When The Game Was Ours, its almost like the 80s never ended. We have reached a point where you cannot call Magic's name without Bird's name lurking somewhere in the vicinity. It's more like Magic and Bird, or, Bird and Magic, if you prefer, than it is either Magic or Bird. Like old vaudeville, they have become an act, a performance team. You can't have one without the other anymore.

But just like all those other faulty pairings already listed, the Magic/Bird connection doesn't past the smell test, at least not for me. Sure, some people love such a pairing as it speaks to a fictional racial harmony that has never really existed. Such a fairy tale is certainly much easier to digest than the historical reality of racial conflict that not even our current President is free to discuss.

Let's look at the facts. Magic and Bird faced each other four times with a championship on the line; once in the famed 1979 NCAA Championship Game and three times in the NBA Finals, 1984, '85, and '87. Magic was victorious three of those times in convincing fashion. The NCAA Championship was a blow out win for Magic and his Michigan State Spartans, while the Lakers beat the Celtics in six games in both '85 and '87. With the exception of the Celtics seven game series victory in '84, Bird came up short every time he went against Magic in championship competition.

So, where is the rivalry, I ask? Generally true rivals are much closer than a 4 to 1 margin of victory would suggest. Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier fought each other 3 times, with Ali winning 2 of the 3. Joe Frazier is clearly seen as the lesser of the two men, necessary only to the extent that the Ali narrative needs a consistent opponent in order to make the story work properly. In other words, Ali/Frazier is really more about Ali, with Frazier serving as his literary foil.

Magic and the Lakers faced Dr. J and the Philadelphia 76ers 3 times in the Finals as well. The Lakers won 2 championships to the 76ers 1, but no on talks about the Magic/Dr. J rivalry. The Lakers/Celtics produced the same results as the Lakers/76ers, but this LA/Philly rivalry gets next to no attention by contrast.

I understand that the '79 NCAA championship game is one of the most celebrated basketball games in history. I also realize how a college rivalry that developed into a professional rivalry makes the story that much more intriguing. And I do know that the history of the Celtics/Lakers rivalry even before Magic/Bird factored into this as well. However, my point is that when one looks closer at all the facts, as opposed to simply rolling with all the hype, things start to look a bit different than perception might lead us to believe.

The truth of the matter is that based on the outcome of their competition, Magic/Bird should really be more a movie about Magic, with Bird playing the sidekick role, as opposed to the equal billing Bird has always received. The way in which this story has been revised is similar to the Sugar Ray Robinson/Jake LaMotta rivalry. Sugar Ray Robinson beat Jake LaMotta 5 out of 6 times, yet LaMotta is the one who gets immortalized in Raging Bull, leaving the impression that the two fighters were far more equal, if indeed LaMotta is not made superior in the public mind by this cinematic gesture.

Bird may have won 2 other titles in the '80s, both times playing against Houston, but no one talks about the fact that Joe Frazier beat Jimmy Ellis when discussing Frazier's rivalry with Ali. By the way, the Houston team that Boston beat in 1981 finished the regular season with a losing 40-42 record. I recognize that its Boston's job to beat whoever they play against, in spite of their record, but it is important to point out that when compared to Magic, Bird comes up short repeatedly.

During the so-called rivalry, Bird was named MVP three straight years, 1984-86. Magic would himself have three MVP awards when all was said and done, winning those awards later on in 1987, '89, and '90. As the legendary Kareem Abdul Jabber--a player whose career accomplishments clearly trump Bird's--was slowing easing out of the league, Magic could now step fully into his role as "The Man," without stepping on any toes, so that his leadership and excellence could now be fully recognized.

This should all lay to rest the idea that Magic and Bird are equals among competitors. They are not and never have been. So, you ask, if they are not, nor have they ever been real equals, why does Bird keep getting billed as a co-star when the reality is that he is truly a supporting actor?

To answer this question, one needs to go back to the days when this questionable rivalry was developed in the first place. In 1979 when Magic and Bird first met up as competitors, basketball was undergoing a racial revolution. The game was becoming blacker by the day, though great white American players like Bird were still very much a reality in the game. By the time Magic and Bird started playing each other in the NBA Finals, it was clear that, with the exception of the Celtics, the league was pretty much a black league, at least in terms of the players.

Where things were not so black was in the broadcast booth and in the newsrooms of the nation's newspapers. The discourse surrounding the game was a conversation controlled almost exclusively by white men in a sport where the presence of white men was decreasing rapidly on the court. The media conversation about NBA basketball was not an inclusive conversation the way it is now. This was before Sir Charles and Kenny Smith had a spot on TNT, before NBA TV existed to hire so many former black players to comment on the game. This was before ESPN had a Page 2 or a host of black basketball analysts to give the game a broader perspective. The 80s was a time when black voices tended to be confined to the margins.

So much of what was said in the '80s has influenced the way we think about things now. Yet if the conversation at that time had been more inclusive then things might come across differently today. Instead, because many people are so intellectually lazy they accept whatever they've already been told, no one questions the way in which this narrative about Magic and Bird has been constructed to favor Bird, in spite of the historical circumstances that certainly suggest something different.

What makes this even more troubling is the fact that Magic has willing signed on to this revisionist history. Magic has willingly allowed Bird to take part of his own shine, so that he can remain in the good graces of mainstream America. This reminds me of actor Ving Rhames during the 1998 Golden Globe Awards, when he, with tears streaming down his face, called "Mr. Jack Lemon" up on stage so that he could give "Mr. Lemon" the award that Rhames himself had just received. The only thing missing was for Rhames to say "Yesssir, Boss."

Well, Magic, always a grinning fool, even back in the day, has been doing his own version of the Ving Rhames. Part of this involves recently throwing Isiah Thomas under the bus, as Magic does in the new book and has been doing in recent interviews. Isiah is an easy target though, who is being slighted by Magic so as to curry more favor with his adoring white public.

Every since Isiah openly agreed with Dennis Rodman's 1987 comment that Bird was receiving favorable commentary because he was white, Isiah has been on the black list, no pun intended. Isiah will never be able to live down that '87 incident. But what did he say that was so wrong? What he said was that a predominantly white media had elevated one of their own to a place beyond that of his basketball peers for purely racial reasons.

Isiah was simply adding to the conversation that started way back in 1908 when powerful white Americans sought a "great white hope" to bring down that black menace otherwise known as Jack Johnson. Bird, like Jim Jeffries, the fictional character Rocky, and most recently rapper Marshall Mathers, was simply another in a long line of "white hopes." As the NBA's population demographics changed, Bird was seen as the last remaining white player capable of truly competing on the same stage as the new black majority.

It's not surprising that there would be this need to overcompensate for the increasing lack of white American players by elevating the last great white basketball hope beyond his actual status. The desire for a great white hope lives on to this day in other areas as well, most recently though, in the age of Obama, this desire is circulating around Sarah Palin.

If the newspapers and airwaves in the 80s were as inclusive as they are now, then it wouldn't have been a surprise to so many people that what Isiah said was a major topic of conversation among many black people, it's just that those black people didn't have a way to have their concerns heard in public due to this lack of access at the time. Trust me, Isiah wasn't the only black person who thought Bird was overrated, Isiah was just one of the few famous enough to be able to have what he said played out in public.

This is not to diminish Bird, as he was undoubtedly a great player, but it is to say that he was constantly being celebrated in ways that had more to do with this larger racial and political agenda than simply with his basketball skills.

Magic has fallen under scrutiny lately for his business associations with casinos and the kind of rip-off rental furniture companies that exploit poor minorities like those that he insists he's helping. For a man who has confused the ability to sell his own name for profit with actually running successful businesses we shouldn't be surprised. Magic has always been an opportunist, trying to grin his way into the hearts of those who will always have more love for Larry Bird anyway.

Tyler Perry, Drug Dealer

2009-10-26T14:39:00.000-07:00

Tyler Perry is a drug dealer. That's right, I said it! Dude's been slangin' dope every since he got started. How you think he built that studio? Drug profits, plain and simple. Meet me in the trap, it's goin' down!

Now, let me be clear, before TP and his unruly fans get their hackles up. I'm not saying Tyler is selling narcotics, at least not those of the chemical variety. What I am saying is that the movies he makes are the cultural equivalent of dope, and I don't mean 'dope' in the hip hop sense either. I mean mind numbing, mood altering, life destroying, dope. Bad dope, at that. Shake, swag, stress. Dude's pushin' some straight bullshit. Ain't no blue magic where Tyler is concerned. TP's dope has been cut so many times, that it might not even be fair to call it dope anymore. Maybe we should just call it cut?

There are chemical drugs that alter the mind and and then there are drugs like those ignorant-ass, handkerchief head movies and television programs that TP releases under his banner. Movies and television shows that paint black people as a bunch of overly religious, jive-talkin' clowns, in bad clothes.

Yet, in spite of the demeaning stereotypes and utter disregard for black humanity, TP's dope has some people reluctant to criticize him. Many point to TP's money and success and in turn use this to justify their support of his nefarious enterprise. No one is crazy enough to actually try and defend the garbage that he puts out, so praising his business success allows them to shift the focus away from the amateurish flicks that he makes.

Yes, TP has made a lot of money, and so have a lot of real dope dealers too. Yet when these real dope dealers started making money and rapping about their lives, attempts to silence their voices were non-stop. Cries about gangsta rappers and their lyrics destroying the community have been going on for 20 years now. TP makes an empire by reviving some of the same stereotypes that were once used to justify the subjugation of black people and his fans act like he invented the wheel.

The bottom line is, some people like seeing themselves represented as a bunch of buffoons. They like seeing black men wear dresses and be emasculated before the whole world. They like seeing black women portrayed as sassy, cantankerous Sapphires, who sleep with their fists balled up and who can't wait to 'cuss' somebody out.

Oh that's right, Precious, the film Perry and Oprah have now latched themselves onto, was written by someone named Sapphire. Well, the Sapphire I'm talking about is the one from Amos and Andy; though anything written by someone named Sapphire is something I KNOW I don't need to see. Not to go off on a tangent here, but Lee Daniels, the director of Precious, was the producer of that Klansman's wet dream disguised as a movie called Monster's Ball. TP and Daniels are a match made in pork chop heaven.

Anyway, back to the lecture at hand. TP embraces the fact that he has worked the chitlin' circuit for his riches, like many of the legendary black performers of the past. The difference is that those old school black performers had no choice. It's not like Broadway was beating down their door. The old school performers were forced to exist in segregated conditions. TP chooses to create culture in a fashion reminiscent of the chitlin' circuit. He purposely foregrounds images of black people from times gone by, not to critique these images, but to embrace their lack of dignity.

Tyler Perry is a drug dealer. His work alters people's sense of reality, it distorts their perception, it eats away at their mind. This is your brain on Tyler Perry, or should I say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I don't care how much money he makes. Dude is exploiting his own people. Not only is he subjecting his workers to exploitative conditions, but he is also exploiting his church-lovin' audience, and in turn he is exploiting black culture. I thought there was supposed to be a war on drugs? Well, you missed one!

TP, let me pull your coat. Wipe the grease paint off your face, stop buggin' your eyes, take off the dress, stop scratching when you don't itch, put away the jazz hands, and get your mind right. Oh yeah, save your money too, Dog. That gravy train of yours is running out of gas. I know some of you are saying that he's made too much money to ever be broke again, that he's too big to fail. That's what Antonie Walker thought too. Look at him now.

One day soon people will rise up and say no more, TP. No more jeffin', no more coonin', no more bojanglin'. No mas, baby!

Where is the Drop Squad when you need 'em?

Peace

2009-10-12T10:33:00.000-07:00

Like everyone else, when I first heard the announcement that President Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize I too was surprised. I immediately began to wonder what thinking went into awarding such a distinction so early in his presidency? But as I began hearing and reading more and more about the history of the panel's various selections for the award over time, Barack Obama's name started to make more sense. If nothing else, and this is no small thing, he is perceived on the world stage as the anti-Bush. Considering all the dirt that Four-Trey and his boy Dark Side did while in office, awarding the person who signaled regime change, that being Obama, was both symbolic and substantive.

Those who award the Nobel Prize use the prize as a way of making a political statement; their own political statement. The award reflects the views of those on the selection committee and the historical time period during which they make their selection. The prize is awarded based on their own subjective criteria. There are no hard and fast rules really; no objective set of clearly defined standards. The selections are at the whim of those sitting on the committee at the time and their choices reflect their thoughts. Thus, if the Nobel committee decides to give out their award to the person they select then all else is really just conjecture. In other words, this is not Olympic figure skating.

If the Nobel committee feels as though Barack Obama is reflective of their value system, in spite of his relatively short tenure as President at this time, then so be it. It's their award and they can do what they want to. Once again, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but his vast legion of haters are acting like he blocked the phone lines, cut off the internet, rigged the votes, and stole the top spot on American Idol.

My point in all of this is ultimately that it's not about "earning" anything. But this is where everything gets twisted. Obama's critics have always felt that he has been given everything and earned nothing. The current criticism of the Nobel award is but an extension of an argument that goes back to the days of the 2008 campaign as far as Obama is concerned, and further back than that when you get down to what is really going on here.

It was the Hilary Clinton campaign where these charges originated. Clinton ran on a platform of experience and inevitability. She campaigned as though the Democratic Presidential nomination process was her coronation, but when it turned out that more voters favored Obama, Clinton and her camp began suggesting that Obama was somehow receiving votes that he didn't really deserve. In Clinton's mind it was clear, she was the one with all the experience and political gravitas, so why was Obama getting what were supposed to be her votes? Therein lies the rub.

By the time Obama had dominated the much more experienced and entitled Clinton, he found himself facing John McCain. McCain's campaign team had watched Obama defeat the heavily favored Clinton and they were well aware of his popular appeal by this point, so they attempted to turn Obama's positive popularity into a negative. Yes, of course, Obama is popular, but so is Paris Hilton. Let us not confuse popularity with ability here, so the line of argumentation went. Obama is famous for being famous, while McCain was a POW who befriended Joe the Plumber. Case closed, suitcase filled with clothes!

Why even have an election, let's just give the presidency to McCain and be done with it. Yeah, the majority of the voters want Obama, but they don't know what's good for them. They're just caught up in his celebrity. He doesn't deserve all this love. What has he done to earn it? And then the next thing you know, Obama's rockin' Grant Park with his victory speech, while McCain is left hoping that Sarah Palin doesn't pull a Kanye and grab the mic during his own concession speech.

In the minds of his critics Obama has never earned a damn thing, other than their derision and disdain. This is the affirmative action argument at work once again. For years the haters have argued that affirmative action rewarded undeserving minorities at the expense of more deserving white men. We heard this again as recently as this summer during Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. But Alan Bakke put the phrase "reverse discrimination" on the map all the way back in 1977. Over time, this perverted way of thinking came to equate any potential minority gain with a subsequent white loss. As Mos Def once said, "if you start doin' it well it's success/if I start doin' it well it's suspect." With this racist logic having now become unquestioned gospel, it would be impossible for any minority to achieve anything going forward without the taint of preferential treatment clouding their success.

The criticism of Obama's Nobel Prize comes straight out of this same play book. If Obama doesn't realize it by now, he should. He is continually subjected to a different set of rules, which can be changed at any given time, on a whim. The goalposts will be moved at the referee's discretion. The patriotic triumph that should have accompanied the Nobel announcement is for Barack Obama an albatross around his neck.

In other words, a black man will never be said to truly "earn" anything. All one need do is consider that in spite of the fact that the slaves did all the work, their white masters, who were ones sitting on their asses, still managed to stereotype black people as lazy and shiftless.

Some say that Obama is in a no-win situation. His critics would rather run through hell in gasoline draws than give him his due. They're still pissed that he won the election. But the other thing is this, no matter how much the haters try to shit on Obama's Nobel Prize, not one of them had a vote. It's not their committee and it's not their award to give out or take away.

They can hate all they want to, but no amount of hatin' can change the fact that Barack Obama is not only the President of the Unites States, but now he's a Nobel Prize recipient as well. Obama's reach is global, while his critics remain small town local.

Get over it already, haters. In a few weeks it will have been a year since you've lost. Tuck your tail, drop your head, bite your tongue, now go sit down somewhere. Jeezy told you a year ago that the president was black, so this simple truth deserves repeating, Obama's the man and you ain't! Deal with it, while he prepares his Nobel acceptance speech.

A Weekend We Won't Soon Forget

2009-09-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

After a rather uneventful summer, the multiple incidents of this past weekend suggest that the fall could potentially be off the chain. On Friday night the greatest basketball player of all time, Michael Jordan, gave a Hall of Fame induction speech that sounded more like a rapper going through a list of all his personal beefs with other rappers than a typical induction speech. Then on Saturday Serena Williams got her Suge Knight on, threatening to stuff a tennis ball down the throat of a line judge. Not to be outdone, Kanye West decided to channel the late Old Dirty Bastard and upstage a VMA award recipient by declaring that someone else truly deserved the award.

Many have expressed disgust at the way that Jordan used his speech to settle old scores as opposed to giving the customary acceptance speech, full of platitudes, inspirational thank yous, and the obligatory tears. But people should not have been surprised. Not at all. Jordan was always praised for being so competitive as a player. So what did you think, that he would turn it off once he was no longer on the court?

The media long ago created a monster with Jordan and that monster came back to bite them the other night. Jordan willingly embraced that monster for so long that he was eventually consumed by it himself as well.

The person you heard speaking at the HOF induction ceremony was the real Jordan. The media-created, Nike-fueled machine had been replaced by an aging former player who seemed reluctant to give up his throne. The real Jordan was too much for those who have gotten accustomed to the corporate Jordan, a man who always tended to say and do the right thing.

Some people don't want to see what is directly in front of their faces. They would rather project some diluted fantasy onto the target in question than see the real for what it is. Jordan was compensated handsomely for his services, but now that he is no longer playing his former role has become a burden. He basically shed that burden on Friday night. I could appreciate the realness myself.

Now that Jordan is retired, people can't wait to crown LeBron. He needs to win some titles before that happens, but, trust me, the crown has already be fitted for his head. What this means is that Jordan's legacy, which was tied almost exclusively to his excellence as a basketball player and endorser of products, is no longer that viable considering that he is no longer playing. This is unlike Muhammad Ali whose conflicted legacy is often misunderstood, but nonetheless continually significant because his legacy did transcend his sport.

Perhaps, given the chance, Jordan might reconsider his refusal to endorse Harvey Gantt as the former mayor of Charlotte tried unsuccessfully to defeat the arch conservative Jesse Helms during the 1990 senatorial contest in Jordan's home state of North Carolina? If Gantt had been victorious, Jordan would be able to say that he helped kick a racist senator out of office and his legacy today might not be confined to basketball. However when your greatness is limited to your athletic endeavors and you only use it to otherwise sell products it is inevitable that once you can no longer play that your image will suffer. It is the reality of all this that informed Jordan's less than gracious remarks the other night. Again, I found the real Jordan refreshing and only wish that he had visited with us sooner.

As for Serena, let's just say that you can take the girl out of Compton...

One of the reasons that Serena and her sister Venus have enjoyed so much success on the tennis court is because their father taught them to play tennis the same way that dudes play basketball in the 'hood. That edge works both ways though. There are times when this edge wins tennis matches and then there are other times when this edge can lead to frustration and angry displays of emotion.

Serena flipped, lost the match because of it and also has to reach in her ample pockets to pay for her verbal transgressions. Like Jordan, her desire to compete got the best of her, at least for one night. And if the world is fair maybe she'll get the opportunity to cash in on her angry antics like John McEnroe has been able to do. Don't hold your breath for that one though.

Finally I arrive at the actions of Mr. West. Kanye has been doing this sort of thing every since he's been in the spotlight so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised anymore. Besides, it's an awards show, the MTV Video Music Awards at that, not tea and crumpets with the Queen. The reason people watch shows like this is to see something outrageous, because the VMAs are certainly not something to be taken seriously. Yet there seems to be a backlash against Kanye this time that threatens to eclipse the reaction to his infamous "George Bush don't like black people" comment after Hurricane Katrina.

Some, like Ann Powers, music critic for the Los Angeles Times, have attempted to make links across these recent events. Powers' states "it's been a banner week for widely broadcast outbursts, from Congressman Joe Wilson hectoring Obama during his healthcare speech to Serena Williams seriously losing her cool at the U.S. Open to this latest kerfuffle, and in every case, racial conflict has been an undercurrent." Powers goes on to speculate on whether Kanye's diss of the young, white Taylor Swift might have been racially motivated.

Let's get this straight. The rules that govern a presidential speech in the halls of congress are quite different than the rules that apply to tennis matches and music video awards shows. While pop culture has certainly invaded all aspects of our lives, the Joe Wilson situation has nothing to do with pop culture. It has everything to do with a old school southerner who refuses to accept a black man in a position of power. Joe Wilson must answer for Joe Wilson. To try and link Wilson's outburst with the especially minor actions of Serena and Kanye is to dismiss the utterly disrespectful and contemptuous act of a man who has a long history of racially questionable associations and actions to begin with.

Enough with the sleight of hand here. We've seen this before. Don Imus uses racist and sexist language to describe young black women basketball players and the next thing I know we're talking about hip hop and before you can blink Imus is back on the air. Say what you will about Serena and Kanye, but whatever you say, recognize that their actions should not be used as subterfuge to let Joe Wilson and the rest of those yelling yahoos off the hook. The three incidents should not even be conflated, as what has happened is most certainly not a tit for tat exchange. Besides, the line judge who Serena yelled at was an Asian American woman, so I'm not sure how this fits into Powers neat lil' package of racial conflict anyway?

Let's compare apples to apples here. And for Joe Wilson's actions, there are no comparable apples. Serena lost her temper, lost the match, and lost some cheese. Justice served. Kanye was booted from the VMAs for his actions. Joe Wilson, on the other hand, refuses to issue any more apologies and has already been cashing in, drawing large donations from supporters who regard him as a hero. Powers is right to suggest that there are real racial tensions in the country right now, but these tensions have absolutely nothing to do with Serena or Kanye.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

2009-09-11T11:31:00.000-07:00

Joe "You Lie" Wilson (R-South Cackalacky)

Respect. A novel concept these days, at least as it pertains to the President. Or perhaps lack of respect would be more appropriate. When South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson--a former staffer for the late senator and Dixiecrat Presidential candidate Strom Thurmond and a man who voted to continue flying the Confederate flag in his home state--uttered his disrespectful outburst during President Obama's recent address it was but the latest in a series of acts purposely designed to undermine every aspect of authority that comes with the highest political office in the land.

We should not be surprised though. The momentum has been building up for this all summer. I'm certain that there is more to come. Yes indeed, the haters all got the same memo. It's on! Disrespect the President at every turn. In spite of his authority, in spite of showing class or exhibiting decorum, it's on. Act like he's not the President, even though he is. Come up with every possible diss that you can think of. Question his citizenship, his political affiliation, his motives, his true religion, and his very being. Call him a hater of white people, even though he was raised by white people. Call him a socialist even though he is bending over backwards to show you that he is really just a remixed Reagan Democrat. That's right, do everything possible to ignore the fact that the majority of voters last November elected him to the office of President. And in all your efforts don't forget what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney said during the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, that a black person has "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Again there is nothing necessarily surprising about this. When the grass is cut the snakes will show. As population and demographic changes point to a new day in America, rest assured that the old guard won't go away without a fight. The haters are emboldened. And now they smell blood. That's right, to paraphrase Jay-Z, the haters wanna test you when your gun goes warm!

That being said, respect is something that one must demand, not assume or expect. If people think they can disrespect you and get away with it, they will. I have grown real tired now of waiting for the President to respond in kind to his many disrespectful critics. At this point his overly conciliatory response to such disrespect is becoming as frustrating as the disrespect itself.

What kind of leader allows someone to call him a "lie" and then turns around and thanks the offending party for offering a forced, insincere apology? Sir, you are disrespecting yourself with this naive, nice guy act. There is a time for bipartisanship and a time to stand up for yourself on "GP," as they say. We elected Barack Obama to the presidency on a platform of hope and change, yet it's starting to look like we elected Rodney King and the "can't we all get along" campaign.

I have tried to give this man the benefit of the doubt, but the grace period is over. I cannot stand to watch these people diss the President and then watch him repeatedly absolve them of their crimes, however egregious. What next, is Joe Wilson going to get an invitation to the White House to have a beer?

If a Democratic congressman from an urban city--as opposed to a Republican congressman from the rural south--had yelled out that GWB was lying during a joint session of congress, though the urban congressman would have been telling the truth, he might have been charged with treason, sent to Gitmo, been waterboarded, and eventually forgotten about. There would be no acceptance of an apology because Dude would have been cuffed before the words were out of his mouth. He would have never had a chance to apologize.

The tactics that the haters have used to disrespect the President are deplorable. Post-racial my ass! But until Mr. President stands up for himself and his party by directly confronting this vile rhetoric then it will only continue to gain steam. At this point, it's fair game on Obama. As Charles Dutton famously said in Menace II Society, "the hunt is on and the black man is the prey!" While Obama's election has served to expose some of the latent racism still vibrant in this country, his lack of a proper response is serving to enable its malicious spread.

Yes, we know you're a nice guy by now. We know that you don't like partisan bickering. We know that you favor a level headed approach to problem solving. But there comes a time when it is necessary to put people in check. There is a time when in spite of the political argument of the day that one must demand respect. That time is now. And that's not partisan, that's real!

Hollywood Squares

2009-09-04T16:59:00.000-07:00

I recently had a wonderful experience that I'd like to share. Such an experience used to be commonplace in my life, but as of late this type of thing has been quite rare. Hold on now, the experience that I'm referring to isn't explicit or illegal, and not necessarily that interesting really. It is however quite telling. Ok, here it is, I went to see a film and actually enjoyed it. What?! That's my rare experience; seeing a good flick.

As someone whose place of business just so happens to be the #1 film school in the world, you would think that seeing good flicks is a regular part of my professional routine. And it is, it's just that the good flicks seem to have already been made; many years ago, in most cases.

I was thoroughly captivated by the German film The Baader-Meinhof Complex.

This is a film about historical subject matter rendered in captivating detail. Baader-Meinhof takes up some serious issues and gives the issues at hand the best cinematic treatment, making the events themselves seem larger than life, as they were for the Germans living through this era in the 1970s. Yes indeed, what for one person might be considered left wing terrorists are for another person considered to be revolutionaries. The activities of the Baader-Meinhof group in the 1970s might be thought of as one of the early examples of what would come to be known as terrorism in the West. So watching this film in a post 9/11 world adds another layer to the film's significance.

This was not a film based on a comic book or an old television show. Nor was it based on aliens or robots. It was not fantasy, nor was it an animated morality tale. The film was not meant to be seen by "the whole family." It was an adult film about real people and real events, done in an intelligent and highly cinematic way. The Baader-Meinhof Complex is the kind of film that I was raised on in the 70s; political, artistic, and most importantly, relevant. It is cinema; a film, as opposed to simply being a movie. And there is a difference.

Hollywood has most recently being selling its soul to the devil of trendiness. As the economics of the industry have changed, the suits have been green-lighting child's fare and expecting adults to go along for the ride. I refuse.

Such an issue is confounded by the Academy's recent decision to expand the field of Best Picture nominees to 10, from its previous limit of 5. Such a decision is based on the sagging rating numbers of the yearly Oscar broadcast. It seems a bit curious that the Academy would rely on television rating numbers to determine how they decide what constitutes the best film offerings of the year. It's not like there were always 5 reliable choices up for Best Picture anyway. Now that the field has been expanded to 10, you can expect an even more diluted competition, with even less worthy contenders than ever before.

As we all go through the changes rocking our individual and collective worlds lately, Hollywood should take stock of itself. Old habits die hard, but the days of everyone watching the Oscars simply because it was pretty much the only thing on have longed passed. As box office numbers decline, so too do television ratings as it pertains to the Hollywood product. Don't panic and throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. This is not the answer. The answer is not to expand the Best Picture offerings. The answer is fairly simple actually, make better pictures!

I know I'm fighting a losing battle. The forces of mediocrity have long dominated the world of Hollywood. At least in the past though, you could count on something good coming out between Thanksgiving and the end of the year. Not any more. You have to take the good ones when you can get them. That being said, I'll wait for the occasional substantive offering from Hollywood, but won't hold my breath. I'll be on the lookout for other foreign gems like Baader-Meinhof while keeping my Netflix queue stocked with classics and engaging documentaries. In the meantime, I'll leave the cartoons, aliens, superheros, and the robots to the kids, 'cause I'm a grown-ass man!

Now That We've Come to the End of the Road...

2009-08-09T12:34:00.000-07:00

I have long thought that the rise and fall of a professional baller's life can be particularly cruel. Those athletes who are good enough and fortunate enough get the opportunity early in their lives to play their favorite sport for a living. Individuals are often cited as being at the "top of their game" when they are still in their 20s, a time when most people are still struggling to get their shit together. Yet by the time these ballers have reached their 30s, they are often said to be on the downside of their career, a time when many other successful non-athletes are just starting to find their groove in life.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule. Some players have a short career, while others stretch their athletic longevity well beyond what many assume is physically possible. What is constant though is the fact that what goes up must come down. No matter how great a player might have been at the height of his career, the come down is often a painful one.

As a kid I remember hearing so much about Willie Mays, only to see him struggle mightily as an old timer in the 1973 World Series as he closed out his career. Watching Karl Malone, an iron man if ever there was one, look like a broken down horse as he limped through the first few games of 2004 NBA Finals before having to put on street clothes is but another example of how humiliating the end of one's career can be. No matter how great they once were, it always seems difficult to see the inevitable come to pass.

I mention all of this as I think about the end of Allen Iverson's career. There have been few players in NBA history more exciting to watch, yet AI is now without a team. All sorts of rumors have circulated about where he will end up but so far he hasn't ended up anywhere. Even if he does find a team soon, one wonders how much he has left in his tank?

Watching him play for my Detroit Pistons last year was very hard for me. I was such a strong advocate for AI's game for much of his career. He played the game the way it is played on the playground, yet he dominated on NBA hardwood. His skills and his swag embodies the street ethos that is at the core of the game. AI was The Answer in no uncertain terms. I often found myself defending him to the haters who said he wasn't a team player, those who said he was a bad influence, and those who called him a thug. Whereas some were offended by his now infamous tirade about "practice," I found this to be quite funny.

I once wrote a book about the connection between 'ball and hip hop. Well, AI was the human face of that connection. So you can imagine how excited I was last year when AI became a Detroit Piston. Little did I know that the AI who went to Detroit was not the same AI who had once crossed Jordan over so viciously, who once dropped a 3 on the Lakers in a Finals game and then stepped over Tyronn Lue's head on his way back up court. Little did I know that The Answer was by this point in his career begging the question.

When AI got to Detroit his flaws were all too obvious. He didn't finish at the basket. He would often drive baseline and then when there was nothing there, hurl the ball back across court resulting in numerous turnovers. There were many times when he would jump up in the air with no one to pass the ball to, resulting in more turnovers. His defense was most certainly not the answer. If he didn't get a steal he was toast. Earlier in his career, his quickness and ability to get anywhere he wanted to go on the floor at any time covered up a lot of flaws, but age can be unforgiving and so by last season as his speed advantage had diminished, these flaws were now readily evident. Without being able to pound the basketball and probe the defense for the majority of the shot clock, AI was now just another average player.

Worst still was his attitude. I know, I know, all the haters are licking their chops right now, saying I told you so. I still don't want to have to concede the haters their point, but the reality is getting harder and harder to dispute. Allen didn't want to come off the bench even though his skills were not those of a starter last season. One suspects that his unwillingness to come off the bench is the reason no team has yet signed him this off season.

AI has not dealt well with the aging process. His pride and ego are obscuring his vision. It would be a shame for no one to sign him. It would be a bigger shame if he decided to retire this year because he didn't want to come off the bench. Even going to play in Greece or some other foreign country wouldn't seem right, not for AI. If AI doesn't sign with an NBA team it will be a sad final chapter to what will most certainly still be a Hall of Fame career. Even if someone does sign him, it will be for a relatively small amount of money, considering his superstar legacy. No team is going to feature Allen Iveson now. No team is going to declare that he is their go-to guy. Those days have long passed. Either AI will accept the reality of his diminished skill set and the NBA's current financial circumstances and sign a deal or he might just disappear into post NBA oblivion too soon.

AI was too great a player to go out like this, but the reality is that the fall from greatness to being average is only a short stop before you're out of the league. Better to bow out gracefully than to be forced out on terms other than your own. Sure, in time, all we'll remember are the glory days, but for now, this is not a good look for one of the greatest ever. Just because one was once great does not mean that one will remain great forever. Age does not discriminate.

All those hard falls and what Jay-Z calls the "party life" seem to have caught up with AI. Time now to get your mind right and begin the process of leaving the game with your basketball dignity still in tact. Don't give the haters any more ammunition. Watching the aging athlete can be hard, but it need not be humiliating. Hopefully Allen realizes this and soon, or else his less than ceremonial departure from the league will be a bitter ending that didn't have come down to this.

Off The Wall

2009-07-12T11:59:00.000-07:00

"Michael Jackson and Bubbles" Jeff Koons

Now that the King of Pop has been laid to rest it's time to come correct about much of the incredible hyperbole regarding his legacy that has emerged since his death. Let me say first off that in spite of my own misgivings about Michael Jackson, I do think both the type of attention and amount of attention directed his way in the aftermath of his passing was indeed justified, though perhaps for reasons you might not suspect.

As news of the new and improved post-bankruptcy General Motors circulates around us, one is reminded that as the industrial in America began to decline in importance, starting in the 70s, it was the production of popular culture that came to stand in as a significant component of American identity. To this end, Michael was in the right place at the right time, in the early 80s, as the full force of this pop cultural might began to reshape our society. Though many people continue to think of popular culture as insignificant compared to "real" news, the amount of money that surrounds the production and dissemination of culture renders such uninformed thinking obsolete. To the extent that Michael was the King of Pop, his departure most certainly deserved the extended memorial celebration that it received due to the immense relevance that culture plays in our society.

That being said, the revisionist history and excessive overdap that has arisen in response to Michael's passing needs to be put in check. While watching the otherwise tasteful memorial service--Magic's unfortunate Kentucky Fried Chicken comment notwithstanding--I sat wondering who exactly Rev. Al was talking about when he said, "Every time he got knocked down, he got back up. Every time you counted him out, he came back in. Michael never stopped. Michael never stopped. Michael never stopped." Mike Tyson, perhaps? Michael Jordan? Mike Jones? He certainly wasn't referring to Michael Jackson.

The Michael Jackson that I remember made it to the top at an especially early age. Only in his early 20s when he reached his apex releasing Thriller and performing at the Motown 25 celebration, Michael seemed to spend the rest of his life falling further and further into the black hole of fame, fortune, narcissism, debauchery, and excess. Since the early 90s, Michael generated more news about his own ever unraveling personal life than he did about his music.

Miles Davis, for instance, made the direct connection from be bop to hip hop in a career spanning five decades. He was playing with the great Charlie Parker in the 1940s. Over the next three decades Miles would be at the forefront of the profound shifts taking place in modern music. Some of his last work in the early 90s was with the hip hop producer Easy Mo Bee. Mo Bee is the producer whose work was quite instrumental on Biggie Smalls' classic debut album Ready to Die. Michael's reign, as a solo performer, by contrast, is limited to a relatively short time span and locked into one genre of music.

Michael's body of work can't begin to touch that of Stevie Wonder. To date, there is perhaps no artist who has ever had the consecutive run of classic albums like the run Stevie had from 1972-76; Music of My Mind (1972), Talking Book (1972), Innervisions (1973), Fulfillingness' First Finale (1975) and his magnum opus Songs in the Key of Life (1976). While Stevie used his lyrical sophistication to write and sing about the day's most pressing topics--life, love, spirituality, blackness, racism, and politics, among other poignant issues--Michael was singing to rats and dropping empty lines like "gonna dance on the floor in the round."

Did Michael ever say anything of substance in his music? If he did, I didn't hear it. When he talked about looking at the man in the mirror, he obviously had not done so himself and if on the off chance that he did take a look, he clearly didn't like what he saw in that mirror.

The problem here is this, people are confusing popularity with substantive musical artistry.

The other segment of Sharpton's comments that served as pure fallacy was all the talk about Michael as a racial pioneer. Though it is true that Michael's videos were initially refused by the fledgling MTV network, once the videos from Thriller were put into rotation, contrary to popular belief, they did not spawn opportunities for a slew of other black videos to be played on the network. The early days of MTV featured Michael, Tina Turner, and Price as pretty much the only black performers whose videos were accorded prominent placement. Michael's music had become so pop that people didn't even think of it as black music anymore, so how could his music in turn open doors for other forms of music that were still deemed "black" by both the record industry and MTV?

It wasn't until Run DMC dropped Walk This Way with Arrowsmith that MTV started giving more attention to black music videos, but this was hip hop, a musical genre that Michael could lay no claim too. While there was scant R & B on MTV in the early days, it was hip hop music that broke down those racial barriers that so many people want to give Michael credit for now. The debut of Yo! MTV Raps in 1988 had more to do with knocking down previously existing boundaries around race and culture than anything Michael did, because hip hop didn't come packaged for mass appeal and mainstream acceptance, though over time the mainstream would indeed come to hip hop.

Michael by this time was looking whiter and whiter, giving credence to the type of racial self hatred which had long dictated that black physical features were inferior. It took Biggie to slay such ignorant thinking when he famously said "heartthrob never/black and ugly as ever/HOWEVER/I stay Coogi down to the socks/rings and watch filled with rocks." Biggie was saying, I could care less what you think about my extreme racial features, I'm gonna do me, regardless! Such a strong statement of racial pride and confidence exposes Michael's counterproductive self-hatred in no uncertain terms.

Coming up in the aftermath of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, Michael was of an age when many of the racial barriers in America had already starting falling down anyway. He was a beneficiary of this more so than a pioneer. It was people like Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Sammy Davis Jr., Nat King Cole, and Sidney Poitier, who lead this march through the racial cotton fields of popular culture to the place of mass acceptance that Michael would later be able to exalt in. This journey from the ruins of a segregated society to the ultimate seat of power in the White House that Sharpton mentioned stretches long and wide, and while Michael's success may have a place in this long journey, he did not walk the journey alone, by no means.

One could even argue that Michael's physical transformation from a handsome little black boy to an adult figure who became a racial and gender ambiguity, nullified his potential place on this list of cultural pioneers. The fans who Michael made "comfortable," whom Sharpton spoke about, did not see Michael as a black man, so again it's hard to argue that their comfort with someone who they didn't even regard as black could somehow influence the election of the nation's first black President.

When Sharpton uttered that there wasn't anything "strange" about Michael Jackson, he was, as Mom Dukes might say, telling a "damn lie." Strange is perhaps not even a strong enough word.

One cannot discount Michael's popularity, but all these platitudes about the greatest entertainer ever and all these superlatives about his genius need to stop. Michael was no doubt the most popular entertainer ever, he made people want to dance, he produced pure spectacle at the highest level, but to confuse this with artistic excellence and racial uplift is even more misguided than the idiotic words that come out of Sarah Palin's mouth these days.

Uneasy Lies the Head That Wear a Crown

2009-06-30T19:03:00.000-07:00

I have been biting my tongue on this whole Michael Jackson postmortem for so long now that I am starting to taste blood. It was my intention to give Michael's numerous followers the chance to grieve a bit before stepping into the arena. My good friend and co-editor Ken Shropshire asked me to be cool and so I have been trying to follow his wishes. But enough is enough, I can't take it anymore. I've gotta represent.

Michael Jackson was at one point an incredibly talented transitional phenomena. He was the King of Pop, in no uncertain terms. Though some have objected to the fact that Michael bestowed this title on himself, it was a most appropriate title however he came about acquiring it. It should be pointed out however, "uneasy lies the head that wears a crown" as Shakespeare once noted.

Michael's time on top was eons ago now. He has not made a significant album since George Bush 41 was the President. In all, Michael did his damage over four solo albums that spanned the years 1979-1991, not counting his early career as a incredible child performer with his brothers in the Jackson Five. Off the Wall, his best work, was the jump off in his unmatched solo career, Thriller transformed the whole culture, Bad got over off the fumes of Thriller, but by Dangerous, homie was clearly starting to run out of gas. By this point he was in the news as much for his outrageous lifestyle as he was for his music. Dangerous is also the album that featured the dreaded single Black or White. How could a black man in his right mind ever utter the line "it don't matter if you're black or white"? I mean, seriously? If it "don't matter" why did he go about changing his own skin color then? Whatever!

Anyway, the insanity started years earlier though. Here's a cat who once took Brooke Shields to the Grammy Awards, but who was more interested in playing with monkeys and Emanuel Lewis. At that point I had seen enough. Between the nose jobs, skin peels, elephant man's bones, hyperbaric chamber, and all the other nonsense, it was clear to me that Dude was the living embodiment of one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

If someone not as famous and wealthy as Michael had done all the outlandish things that he did, this person would have been committed to an insane asylum or sent to the penitentiary long ago. But with Michael, he was so famous that his fans began to apologize and make justifications for this behavior. These same apologies and justifications have typified the conversation since his death.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating his music and his legacy, but to ignore that Michael was a deeply sick person is to engage in the worst, most destructive kind of denial that could ever be imagined. If you looked at Michael Jackson's ever evolving skin color and accepted that vitiligo story, then you are perhaps as crazy as he was. If you think that a grown man's home should double as an amusement park and zoo, then you should be sentenced to hard labor and forced to clean up after those animals he kept in that zoo. If you thought that he actually sired those children, I've got news for you, spit don't make no babies!

I noticed that a number of people have turned this into anti-media crusade, suggesting that the media is somehow being disrespectful to Michael's legacy in their coverage. What is all this media bashing about? Why are some people so mad at the media for reporting all the things that Michael himself did? There is no media bias here. Michael's triumphs are as much fair game as his tragedies.

And let me set this straight before I go any further. All this crying and gnashing of teeth over Michael "not having a childhood" begs for a clarification. It is obvious that Joe Jackson was much less than an ideal father. I do believe that he abused his children, while, in essence, putting them on the hoe stroll as well. This notwithstanding, it must also be pointed out that Michael did get paid. Not that this justifies the abuse and exploitation, not at all, but Michael did make a ton of money off of his talent.

There are a lot of kids in this country who "don't have a childhood," children who get abused, molested, and treated as though they are less than human. Most of these people don't get the chance to make millions and millions of dollars singing and dancing, most of these people don't get to travel the world or be greeted by adoring fans. Most of these kids don't go on to become global icons. Most of them simply have to live with the physical and emotional scars that they have accumulated. Many of them are in the pen, or homeless, or suffering some other unspeakable fate. Many of them cannot afford psychiatrists whose skills might help them at least cope somewhat with the unfortunate hand that life has dealt them. Most of them don't have dope dealers with doctor's credentials, who can write whatever prescription they want so as to keep them high on their own supply. I can go on, but you get the point.

Michael lived a life of luxury. Like many who become rich and famous, Michael had leagues of people surrounding him who were there to cater to his every need. He was indulged and pampered and coddled beyond belief, all because he was rich and famous. None of us control the hand life deals us in the beginning, but Michael made it out of Gary Indiana, he made it beyond his abusive father, he had the chance to change his life, but instead he choose to get intoxicated off the drug of fame to the point that he became a pathetic dope fiend.

Michael represented the best and worst of this nation. He rose to the top of the heap, shocked the world and changed the game, yet not long after his rise, he quickly fell into a bottomless pit of dysfunction, all aided and abetted by his fame and fortune. Though he died on June 25, he had been walking dead for a long time.

Let me say again, Michael's fans have every right to celebrate his music. I understand that he served as the soundtrack to your childhood. I recognize that his music made you happy and made you want to dance, shout, and shake your body down to the ground. I recognize that you appreciate his eccentricities. Yes, though I don't share your admiration, I do feel you on all of this. We should all have the right to pick our heroes. Most of the figures that I have love for were deeply flawed people too. But to act like Michael Jackson was a fully functioning member of sane society whose many demented flaws shouldn't be mentioned is just ridiculous.

When will people accept that their heroes are human beings too? Michael was no one's saint. He was a very disturbed individual who may finally have found peace in the land from which no traveler returns. I was not a fan, but I can respect his accomplishments and more importantly what he meant to others. What I can't respect is this attitude of denial about who he really was though.

Michael Jackson is a figure who we won't soon stop talking about. But I just hope that as time passes, people stop acting like he was a deity. Wake up from the denial, move away from the lies, and start recognizing the real. Michael Jackson was a great artist and a especially troubled and tragic man, all at the same time.

The Downside of Digital

2009-06-08T11:22:00.000-07:00

How does one define "old school"? I suspect that the true meaning of such a phrase is best understood as one starts to get older. Of course, what constitutes "old" is always relative to your own age.

I have always been old school. Growing up with a father, who always kept at least one foot in the street, meant that I was watching Super Fly when I was a mere 8 years old. Most kids my age were watching cartoons then. Me, I was memorizing lines from The Mack. While those in my age group were listening to The Jackson Five, I was all caught up with Curtis Mayfield's lyrics like those on his underrated track Kung Fu, "My momma born me in the ghetto/there was no mattress for my head/but though she couldn't name me Jesus (Jesus)/I wasn't white enough she said."

Having recently reached what I call the "half 90 mark," old school has come to take on an entirely different meaning these days. Not only I am old school, I'm now officially old, or at least older. I ain't trippin' tho. It's all good. Classic, vintage, distinguished, retro, seasoned, OG, it all applies. As RZA once said, "it takes years for this." My game simply gets better with age.

Which brings me to the feeling of confirmation that I experienced when recently hearing Jay-Z's new joint D.O.A. (Death of Auto-Tune) for the first time. Confirmation in the sense of "Yeah!" "Damn right!" "4 sho!" It's about time someone spoke up about the mass proliferation of the dreaded auto correction software that seemingly every other fool in the game has been od'ing on for the last two or so years. But not just anyone is saying this though, it is Jay-Z in particular after all, the man whose voice still rings like a bell throughout circles hip hop and otherwise. Jay has the credibility, the record sales, and the cultural significance to say what others can only mumble. Hopefully his words will have the same impact that they had some six years ago when Jigga put a stop to all that jersey-wearing nonsense with one line, "and I don't wear jerseys/I'm 30 plus." Maybe this time around the next rap fool chasing a hit might decide to be a little more original and not rely on the annoying crutch that auto-tune has become. Maybe? Just maybe?

Which brings me back to the old school. A lot of these lil' young hip hop heads regard Jay-Z as an old man now. Like the late Frank Ward said in The Mack, "you know how these lil' young macks are, don't have their shit in order." These are the ones who keep trying to say that Lil' Wayne is the best ever. Yes, these are the ones who have no knowledge of hip hop history or any history beyond what happened last week it seems. Because only a limited knowledge of history would cause one to say something so baseless as to prematurely elevate Lil' Wayne or anyone else for that matter, before their time.

Unlike a lot of my old school friends, I ain't mad at Wayne. Dude is cool, the same way that Chris Paul is cool. But as cool as CP3 might be right now, he ain't Isiah, ya dig. Don't get it twisted. We live in an era now when people simply proclaim their greatness without necessarily having the evidence to back up their claim. I come from the era of "show and prove," where you needed concrete proof or else you would get clowned for talkin' loud, but sayin' nothing. In these times we live in now, where iPods, iTunes, iPhones, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and ring tones rule, if you say something enough times people start to believe it.

Weezy told everyone he was the best rapper alive so many times in so many different formats that eventually other people began saying it for him. It's like group think in the information age or better yet digital brainwashing. But again, even though I like Tha Carter II much better than I do Tha Carter III, this is not about hatin' on Wayne. Weezy F. Baby is the first rapper to really figure out how to connect with an audience young enough that they perhaps have never purchased music in any format besides an iTunes download. In an era when people aren't even buying records--see how old school I am, I still call 'em records--Wayne figured out a way to sell ice in the winter. Yet, to go from that to the claim of the best rapper alive is to take a leap wider than the expanse of the Grand Canyon.

This celebration of contemporary figures at the expense of history is also taking place in the game of basketball as we speak. A lot of these youngsters are trying to claim that Kobe Bryant, aka Wack Mamba, is better than the best to ever do it, Michael Jordan. Again, you can't just claim that someone is the best of all time without evidence. When it was all said and done, MJ had 6 rings, 5 MVP awards, and 10 scoring titles among countless other accomplishments. Kobe is the beneficiary of the culture that Michael helped to create. But because people have such a limited historical range they often accept whatever is right in front of their face as authentic. Not to mention that people tend to quickly forget about you once you are not in their face every 5 minutes anymore.

To say that Kobe is better than Jordan or that Wayne is better than Jay-Z is as ridiculous as saying that Nick Cannon is better than Sidney Poitier. I mean, be serious, people shouldn't even be having such a silly conversation in the first place.

I guess at the core of all this for me is the metaphorical and cultural shift that we as a society have experienced in moving from analog to digital. I am one of those people who has never really enjoyed watching Kobe play. Why, because to me, his game is digital. It is computerized. Dude learned to play ball by studying video of the game, not by living it. He didn't grow up perfecting his craft on the rugged blacktop, which is where the game is created and nurtured. There is nothing remotely organic or soulful about his steez.

Now in the age of digital reproduction, Kobe's game is stealth, it is precise and it is efficient. But for me, it lacks and has always lacked flava. I like my basketball a bit grimy, with the smell and feel of the streets all over it. I like it edgy and 'hood. When you can take all this and make it work in the formal confines of an NBA game, then you are really doin' something. This is why watching the Finals last year was so cool, because Boston, in spite of its own history, had KG, P2, and Brotha Ray, reppin' that old school b-ball flair for modern times. It was the energy of street ball perfected on the professional hardwood. It was like Jay-Z bringing the suburbs to the 'hood. All in all, it looked and felt real.

Watching Kobe's game is like listening to one of those digital creations where a musical artist from one era magically sings on the same track with a contemporary figure. His game and his steez is karaoke. It is auto-tuned. If you don't believe me, notice how Kobe's and Pau Gasol's finger point, followed by hand slap, after a made basket late in Game 2 of the Finals is straight off of the oft played NBA highlight reel where Magic Johnson does the exact same thing with former Lakers bench warmer Mike McGee. It is only recently that Kobe stopped sounding like Jordan when doing media interviews. Now for the people who don't know or have never experienced any of this history then the contemporary version probably looks real good, but if you're an OG, it is as transparent as the draws that the Lil' Kim character was wearing in that performance scene from Notorious.

Auto-tune is not real and ring tones are wack. While I would be the first to trumpet the merits of the digital age--this is a blog after all--I never lose sight of the fact that though the digital has made our lives a lot easier in many cases, the flava still resides in the analog. And that's never gonna change.

King James, Here Come The Judge, and Terrorism on Our Own Soil

2009-06-03T16:13:00.000-07:00

It's hard for me to congratulate somebody after you just lose to them. I mean, I'm a winner. That's not being a poor sport or anything like that. Somebody beat you up, you're not going to congratulate them on beating you up. I'm a competitor. That's what I do. It don't make sense to me to go up and shake somebody's hand.

LeBron James after losing to the Orlando Magic

Why are people making so much out of the fact that LeBron James walked off the court without shaking hands and left the arena without speaking to the media after losing to Orlando? Why is David Stern reaching out to LeBron to even discuss this? I don't get it? Who came up with this idea that shaking someone's hand after losing to them demonstrates good sportsmanship?

LeBron is human and his reaction to losing the series was a perfectly understandable human response. After winning the MVP award, leading his team to the best record in the league, blowing through the first two rounds of the playoffs, and being one of the featured subjects in those ubiquitously cool Nike puppet commercials, I suspect that King James was embarrassed more than anything else. He was also probably angry that his teammates left him hangin'. The last thing you want to do is go up and shake someone's hand while the basketball's world is watching after you and your team just went out the way that they did. If he had gone up to shake hands it would have been as fake as a 3 dollar bill. But many people it seems would have preferred that kind of fake behavior over the real deal.

For me shaking your opponents hand after a lose like that is the basketball equivalent of turning the other cheek. It's like congratulating someone for kickin' your ass. This makes no sense whatsoever. That's not sportsmanship, that's stupidity. The soul of basketball lies in the streets and LBJ's response was a street response. Perhaps because people want to see LBJ as a saint and not as a real person they were surprised at his response, but it's really the only response if being real is anywhere on your agenda.

It's one thing to teach children to be "good sports" but we are talking about grown men whose livelihood depends on their performance. It's real in the field. If you're not mad after losing in such a high stakes environment then you probably shouldn't be in the NBA. I feel the same way about this so-called good sportsmanship as I do about the idea that athletes are role models. This is all some bogus attempt at controlling people and making them act in ways that are not real. I appreciate the real. If you beat me, don't expect a handshake. And if you lose to me I won't be expecting your handshake either.

A few more thoughts...

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is being vilified for her honesty about the fact that race and gender have an influence on her decisions. Samuel Alito said the same thing during his confirmation hearings in speaking about his empathy for immigrants as someone from an immigrant background himself. Why it is ok for "Scalito" to say that, but Judge Sotomayor says it and she gets compared to David Duke? Can you say double standard?

Judge Sotomayor has more judicial experience now than any of those currently sitting on the court had when they were nominated. She has impeccable credentials, but the haters are still trying to dismiss her as simply a recipient of affirmative action. It's funny, some people are still hung up on this idea of preferential treatment and what they mistakenly call reverse discrimination. Real "affirmative action" is something like a recovered alcohol who blows off most his life prior to age 40, yet this recovered alcoholic has a grandfather who was a rich congressman and a father who was also a rich congressman, along with being an ambassador, head of the CIA, Vice President, and President. Though the recovered alcoholic has failed at virtually everything he attempted to do beforehand, he can use his family name to get elected governor of a large state and then in turn get appointed to the presidency by the Supreme Court. You want to talk about affirmative action, that's real affirmative action for you right there.

The Judge has had to work for everything that she has received. She is the epitome of the American Dream. People need to stop hatin'. It's not a good look. Besides, for once, the haters don't have the numbers to block her anyway.

And finally...

The late Dr. George Tiller

What kind of lowlife sociopath walks into a church and murders someone while claiming that they are in favor of protecting life? For all those people who mistakenly thought that 9/11 was the first time that we experienced "terrorism of our own soil," do your homework. This nation was founded on the type of acts that if anyone else had engaged in them would most certainly be classified as terrorism. The murder of Dr. George Tiller was a terrorist act, make no mistake about it. Yet the "war on terror" will not be employed to go after the anti-government militia and pro-life movements in this country. No, those terrorists will be dismissed as lone gunmen or other such nonsense, as opposed to being pursued like the real threats to society that they are. I am hopeful that the Obama administration will help the public to understand that not all terrorists live in caves, wear long beards, and pray five times a day as the media and the previous administration would have you think. There are terrorists in our midst. And no, they don't all read the Holy Koran and engage in jihad, many of them prefer reading the Holy Bible and watching Fox News.

Crime, Punishment, and Mike Vick

2009-05-22T12:41:00.000-07:00

The recent release from prison of NFL quarterback Michael Vick has prompted a firestorm of moralizing that is starting to border on the absurd. Should he be allowed to play in the NFL again? Has he paid his debt to society? Is he reformed and contrite? Is he, as Keith Olbermann might say, "the worst person in the world"?

Well, if you didn't know it already, Mike Vick has come to stand for something much larger than the crimes with which he has been charged and sentenced for. Mike Vick represents one of the most beloved and hated figures in American society over the last 30 years, that of the wealthy black athlete--or perhaps formerly wealthy--whose very presence prompts some of the most aggressive jock ridin' and/or playa hatin' known to man.

On one side there are those who defend any black athlete regardless of what they've done or been accused of doing, because they see everything as a conspiracy. On the other side there are those who are so resentful of the fact that a young black man can be paid lavishly for his skill set that they can't wait to see him fail. It's hard to find middle ground on such a charged issue.

Here's the thing though, Mike Vick was popped for lying about his involvement in a despicable dog fighting ring. He did his time in a federal pen and will now serve out the last two months of his sentence in home confinement. He is, for all intents and purposes, broke. Yet, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell still insists that he's not sure if Vick will be reinstated. He wants to be sure that Vick is contrite and has learned from his past errors.

One of the things that drives me crazy is the type of moral judgment being passed by Goodell, though he is far from the only one. I'm sorry Roger, but such decisions are above your pay grade. You have no grounds to pass moral judgment on Mike Vick or anyone else for that matter. While I understand that it is your responsibility to do what is best for the league, you are in no position to judge another man in this regard. Vick made some dumb decisions and paid a substantial price for his decisions. If you don't want him in the NFL then be real about it, but stop with this superior sense of morality, please. It's not as though the NFL is a league full of Buddhist monks, yourself included. Though the Last Poets might suggest that you have a "god complex," you ain't God, Dog; no pun intended.

I am not a dog person. Not at all. Yet many of my friends are dog people and I respect them and their choices. However I find people who want to compare a dog's life to that of a human being a lil' scary. If Mike Vick was staging a battle royal to the death involving humans in his backyard, like those seen in Mandingo (1975), and if he was killing those humans who didn't make the cut then I could understand this public outcry. But he was not killing people, he was killing dogs, and I will never accept that my life and that of a dog is even close to being equal. I'm sorry.

This doesn't mean that I condone dog fighting. Not at all. I can't for the life of me understand how someone could find thrilling the act of watching dogs fight each other? Of course, I can't understand why people hunt other animals for sport either. I also can't understand why some people eat pig feet, but they do. The laws against dog fighting, watching a dogfight, and owning dogs for the purpose of dog fighting, vary from state to state; with the punishment ranging from felonies to misdemeanors. Certain activities are even legal in some states. My point is, there is not a consensus on dog fighting in this country. Had Vick staged his fights in the home state of the most recent former vice president he might have suffered an entirely different fate, for instance.

Dog fighting is thought of as uncivilized and I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment either. Yet because dogs are accepted as pets in our society people seem to have different rules for this animal than they do for others. Fair enough, but I still won't accept that killing dogs should mean that your life is ruined forever as though you murdered another human being. I also won't accept that killing dogs is worst than waterboarding a human being.

I wish we lived in a society where people were as outraged at the activities of war criminals like Bush 43 and Dick "Dark Side" Cheney as they were with the relatively minor-by-comparison illegalities of Mike Vick. Four Trey and Dark Side preemptively invaded a sovereign nation based on a lie, authorized torture, rendition, and illegal wire taps, among so many other unlawful and unethical things, yet Cheney feels so entitled and sure of himself that he's still talkin' greasy with impunity, though he is nothing more than a private citizen now.

This outrage against Vick is misplaced. He served his time and lost his fortune. While I think it was all excessive, nonetheless he has paid his debt to society. Mike Vick is just another distraction to keep your mind off what's real though. Let the man go back to work now and in the meantime let us start holding people accountable who commit crimes of the magnitude that the aforementioned war criminals and their cronies have committed.

Colored People Talkin' Greasy While Dancing For Fried Chicken

2009-05-12T12:57:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles Clippers' owner Donald Sterling

Colored People...

I have long known that the NAACP was a useless organization, but the recent news that this outdated collection of Bojanglin' handkerchief heads is now honoring LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling with a lifetime achievement award is a low that even I, in all my infinite cynicism, could not have predicted. That's right, Sunday's LA Times featured several large, eye-catching ads promoting the NAACP's Roy Wilkins Freedom Fund Awards Gala on May 14th, with Sterling's award heading a longer list of honorees and sponsors, which include Sterling's wife, Shelley.

I originally wrote about Sterling back in February, when the news broke that former Clippers GM Elgin Baylor was suing Sterling for racial discrimination. Sterling is also the target of a Justice Department law suit regarding housing discrimination. And FYI, this is a law suit that began with the politicized Bush Justice Department, so no one can argue about a liberal bias here. Sterling has long been a questionable character in regards to discriminatory housing, but no one, including NBA commissioner David Stern, seems to care very much. I mean, who gets charged with housing discrimination these days anyway? That's so 1960s.

From the look of the ads for the NAACP event in the Sunday LA Times, which by the way bare a striking resemblance to the ads that Sterling regularly runs to advertise his properties, it would be reasonable to conclude that Sterling has purchased this award as a way to bolster his defenses against repeated charges of racism. While Sterling's motivation seems obvious, what is on the NAACP's mind here? How could this organization, with all its rich history of fighting the good fight, sell itself to such a questionable source? How could the NAACP allow itself to be used in this way? I mean, this is not even subtle.

As I said at the beginning though, I am not surprised. The NAACP is an organization that still identifies itself as an organization for "colored people." How wack is that? That title and the actions to support such a dubious character as Sterling speaks to the organization's plantation era sense of racial politics. Such an organization should be ashamed of itself. More importantly, such an organization should be extinct by now.

Talkin' Greasy...

And while I'm on NBA owners who need to be put in check, how about Mark Cuban's actions on Saturday night after his Mavericks lost a close game to the Denver Nuggets?

Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban

Cuban spotted the mother of Nugget's player Kenyon Martin and went about berating K. Mart to her face. Not only was this move classless on Cuban's part, but it also deserves appropriate action. If K. Mart had seen Cuban's mom in the stands and starting talkin' greasy to her, he would most certainly be suspended or disciplined in some fashion for his remarks. Cuban's apology is so defensive that it is basically meaningless. NBA players get popped for any and everything it seems, but the owners live by a different set of rules.

Dancing for Fried Chicken...

Finally, what is up with so-called celebrity chef G. Garvin doing ads for KFC? Just what we need, another black man dancing for fried chicken! (Ok, I know, the ad is for the new KFC grilled chicken, but you get my point.) Yo G, you have been downgraded my brotha. You're a cook, not a chef! There is a big difference, you know....

All Money Ain't Good Money

2009-04-26T18:53:00.001-07:00

Brandon "It Could Be Worst" Jennings

Ignorance seems to be spreading like the swine flu these days. First there was basketball player Brandon Jennings who decided to bypass playing college ball last season so as to play for a professional team in Rome, while awaiting the NBA draft this year. Jennings made an ass of himself when he declared to Bryant Gumbel on a recent Real Sports episode that in spite of his struggles as a professional basketball player in Rome this year that it could indeed be worst. According to Jennings worst translated to "I could be in college...I could be in class right now." If that wasn't bad enough, the news that former San Diego high school player Jeremy Tyler is dropping out of school to play in Europe next year demonstrates that the blind is leading the blind in this disturbing trend.

Had Brandon Jennings been able to pass the SAT in 2008 perhaps he would have been one of the stars of this year's NCAA tournament? Perhaps he wouldn't be suffering a death of insignificance over in Rome right now? While some have mistakenly labeled Jennings' move to Europe as "revolutionary" it is important to point out that Jennings was prompted to go and play in Europe only after his failure to achieve a satisfactory score on the SAT. How revolutionary is that? Maybe saving face might be a better way to describe what Jennings has done?

I realize that Jennings is making a nice seven figure salary playing for Lottomatica Virtus Roma right now. I also understand that Jennings is being touted as a potential lottery pick in this June's NBA draft. Nonetheless, I still think that Jennings decision is short-sighted and potentially a dangerous precedent should other young players like Tyler continue to follow this lead.

Of course the debate over young basketball players and the choices they make in route to a potential NBA career is a debate that has been going on for some time now. When Kevin Garnett decided to make the jump from high school directly to the NBA in 1995, he was the first high school player to do so since guys like Moses Malone, Chocolate Thunder, and Bill Willoughby had pursued this path back in the 1970s. The year after KG made the jump, Kobe Bryant followed his footsteps and before you knew it a slew of high schoolers were increasingly doing the same thing in subsequent years. Though KG and Kobe were quite successful--with last year's NBA Finals between their respective teams demonstrating the apex of what we might call the NBA's "high school era"--the league was eventually overrun with so many immature players that there came a need for a rule change. Beginning with the 2007 draft, players had to be 19 years old and a year out of high school before making the move to the NBA. It is this rule that players like Jennings and Tyler are now attempting to circumvent.

Some see this as a money issue and argue that players should be able to ply their trade in spite of their age if someone is willing to pay them to do so. Others add race to the equation and suggest that the age limit is really a racially motivated ploy to deny young black men, who make up the majority of the NBA, an opportunity to begin accumulating their potential riches. Still others sense a conspiracy on the part of the NCAA and their lucrative March Madness tournament which, the critics say, make tons of money off of the talents of the college players, who in turn, get none of the spoils. Yet, all of these arguments are seriously lacking in terms of both substance and foresight.

The point being missed here is that someone needs to concentrate on developing the person, as well as the player, as opposed to simply developing a kid's basketball skills. Not only do these young players need to perfect their jump shots and learn how to better defend the pick and roll, but what they often need, more than anything, is a sense of maturity. You don't make someone mature simply by putting a lot of money in their pockets. Maturity comes with age and life experience, and this is something that you cannot accelerate. In other words, you can't put 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound bag.

I know, better than most, that a large percentage of these players aren't ever going to excel in college. I also know that a year of college is better than none. College ain't never hurt nobody. In an ideal world all these players would be seriously pursuing their degrees, but that's not realistic. Exceptional athletes are often pulled out of the normal scholastic environment at an early age. They are socialized to be athletes, not students, so when its time to be a student they often struggle because they've never been taught how to be one in the same way that they have been socialized to be an athlete. This is a result of the system that exists, though most people simply blame the players.

I don't expect a talented kid to fully understand the way that adults are manipulating him for their own gains. I do however hold the system itself responsible; including the player's family members in many instances. Often it's the families, who see these athletes as their own meal ticket, deserving of blame. I know that it has become a cliche to hear an athlete talk about the house that they are going to buy for Mom Dukes when they get rich, but I have news for you, it's not the kid's job to buy a house for the parent. That's the parent's responsibility. If family members and other invested parties would stop forcing these kids to "walk the track," as they say in the pimp game, then a lot of this rush to cash in would stop.

All I'm saying is this, if we started focusing more on developing these ball players holistically, helping them grow into mature adults, as opposed to only developing them to play ball then maybe the ones who do make it to the league and make some money can actually keep what they make. This is a long term project than goes against the short term allure of trying to cash in as though you were at a casino. This all starts at home though, long before any of the shoe companies, street agents, AAU coaches or any of the other elements of the system itself even come into the equation.

As ignorant as Brandon Jennings might sound, his decision and that of Jason Tyler are more reflective of the way that they were raised and the people who raised them. If your parents and those who are supposed to don't give you any guidance where are you supposed to get it from? So in the absence of any real guidance one is left to pursue the dollar like a dope fiend pursues another hit. In the long run, this can't be good. Slow down, pump your breaks, if the player is good enough, the money will be there. Don't chase the money, let the money chase you! Otherwise, though there will always be exceptions, the reality is that an immature fool and his money will soon depart.

Cheap Thrills

2009-04-13T12:57:00.000-07:00

The new HBO Sports documentary Thrilla in Manila would on the surface seem to be something akin to bringing a HoneyBaked ham sandwich to a banquet. The title, of course, refers to the last of the three epic boxing matches between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier in 1975. Considering that Ali himself has been the subject of over 300 books along with numerous feature films and documentaries, one wonders what else there is to say that hasn't already been said?

Well, you can put those concerns to rest because Thrilla in Manila not only adds to the burgeoning list of material about Ali, but the film gives us another angle with which to observe Ali's reign. It just so happens that the new angle is the privileging of Frazier's point of view this time around. Like Mary J. some years back, if you could look in Frazier's life and see what he sees, it would understandably look quite different than the view afforded from Ali's vantage point. This shift in point of view gives us a new lenses through which to view Frazier, Ali, the fight, and that time period in American history.

To say that Muhammad Ali is an American hero these days is like saying that water is wet. Since his renaissance lighting the torch at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, the former Cassius Clay has experienced an unparalleled love fest with the American public. The excellent documentary, When We Were Kings (1996) won an Academy Award, Will Smith starred in the Michael Mann biopic Ali (2001), and over time America began to reconsider the legacy of a man who was once one of the most hated men in the country for his refusal to enter the Vietnam draft. Ali went from one of the most hated to one of the most loved though. The fact that Parkinson's disease has robbed him of his ability to use his tongue in a critique of American racism is gone, along with the charisma and utterly engaging personality, yet many people have come to view Ali almost like he were a god. I think it is fair to say that Ali is one of the America's greatest living heroes now.

Yet, in spite of the contemporary love affair with the "Greatest of All Time," Thrilla in Manila demonstrates that there were many chinks in Ali's armor. Ali used Frazier as his verbal punching bag outside the ring, engaging in the worst kind of racial abuse, questioning Frazier's blackness and otherwise clowning him as an Uncle Tom. Ali always had the advantage of charisma to go along with his impeccable boxing skills. He used this charisma to promote himself and his fights quite well. Frazier, inarticulate on a good day, never had the ability to match Ali's telegenic presence and suffered immensely in this regard. Ali was the articulate one who exploited Frazier's inability to respond in kind. Normally this would not be an issue. Boxing is as much psychological warfare as it is physical, so the ability to psyche someone out is like a good left jab, another weapon in the arsenal. This along with the role that the verbal dexterity of signifying plays in the oral tradition itself and Ali comes out on top every time.

Yet it was the nature of Ali's taunts that made this exchange with Frazier so disturbing. Ali, who represented himself as the ultimate black man through his links with the Nation of Islam, criticized Frazier as someone who was simply not black enough. Further he said that Frazier was an Uncle Tom and in reality a pawn of the proverbial "white man." This is the equivalent of citing someone for racial treason. All this in the interest of selling a fight.

Thrilla in Manila is good because it allows us to see and hear Frazier. His lingering bitterness makes that much more sense now. The outgoing message on Frazier's cell phone voice mail where he mocks Ali's illness and claims to be the reason for Ali incurring this illness says it all. Frazier feels that Ali is now paying the price for all those years of verbal abuse.

This all helps to paint a very different picture of Ali than the one we have become accustomed to seeing. In the end this is a good thing. I love Ali as much as the next person and I always have. But much of the commentary about him lately borders on hagiography. Ali was no saint. No one is a saint, for that matter. Yet Americans like their heroes to be perfect, superhuman, without flaw. It's hard for a lot of people to reconcile Ali's charisma, his boxing superiority, and his defiant refusal to go fight a corrupt war in spite of the punishment, with his more human qualities. There's a cruelty that comes across in Ali's disdain for Frazier. This is the kind of cruelty that stands out even more as one becomes aware of just how unkind Ali was to Frazier in his remarks. Like 'Pac on "Hit 'Em Up" Ali went far outside the lines of acceptable trash talking in his many racially tinged comments about Frazier, especially his mocking of Frazier's more extreme features, like the shape of his nose, for instance. Racists had long said that black people were descendants of apes and here was Ali calling Frazier a gorilla, while playing with a toy gorilla for the cameras.

Frazier now seems like a man content with his lot in life. He lives in the back of a funky boxing gym in Philly and seems to have little other than his spirit left. Yet he does seems at peace with himself. The subject of Ali gets him wound up, but this all seems justified to me. Some, who embrace a more religious perspective, might feel as though Frazier is suffering because of his bitterness and that he needs to let all of this go in order to be truly happy. I disagree. The fact that Ali's name, as Biggie might say, "taste like ass," when Frazier speaks it is real. I'm sure that thoughts of Ali suffering really feel good to Frazier at some level. You can be judgmental about this if you choose, but such feelings are more real than a lot of people want to admit. Frazier comes across as though, in spite of Ali's 2 to 1 advantage in their fights, that he got the last laugh. I think it's sometimes unrealistic to forgive and forget, though I can understand how this ideal is appealing to people. Frazier was wronged and in light of his own religious beliefs he feels strongly that Ali is reaping what he sowed.

Issues such as these gives Ali's overall story a much more well rounded dimension than simply praising him all the time. Ali is a human being with flaws and warts just like everyone else. Everything he did wasn't cool, just because he did it. His treatment of Frazier, in spite of the fact that Frazier had helped him out financially when he was out of boxing, as well as supporting his reinstatement to the sport, was beyond reprehensible. It's time we get beyond treating people as though they were superhuman. We need to see historical figures for who they are, not who we want them to be.

The contradictions that defined Thomas Jefferson, who while authoring the Declaration of Independence could own slaves and father several children with one of those slaves, Sally Hemmings, are the same type of human contradictions that recognize Martin Luther King Jr's immense contributions to humanity without denying the fact that he loved to get his freak as though he were a NBA player on a road trip. Ali could be an anti-Vietnam War protester, a conscious black man, along with being charismatic and a great fighter, while being an asshole towards Frazier, engaging in some of the same racial politics that he himself was criticizing others for. Ali was an exploitative hypocrite, a race-baiting manipulator, and an incredible human presence, all at the same time.

I'm not making Frazier a saint by default either. I realize that Frazier was easier for mainstream America to digest at the time. A poor, uneducated southerner from the depths of South Carolina, Frazier was about as non-threatening as one could be in an era when militant groups like Ali's Nation of Islam and the Black Panther Party reigned in urban black communities. Yet those in mainstream America who embraced Frazier were using him too. These people didn't care about Frazier as much as they hated Ali. Frazier just happened to be the pawn who allowed them to couch their hatred of Ali in a convenient, yet ultimately disposable figure. It's like Frazier was everyone's whupping boy and he didn't have the ability to defend himself; at least not until you stepped into the ring with him.

One of the many interesting points made in Thrilla in Manila involves the drama in both fighter's corners before the 15th and final round of the fight. It seems like if Eddie Futch, Frazier's legendary trainer, had waited just a bit longer, Ali's corner might have thrown in the towel themselves due to the fighter's exhaustion. Imagine that. How different would history have been if Frazier had won the closely contested rubber match between the two fighters? Would Ali's legacy still be treated as we treat it today or would Frazier be remembered as the superior of the two? Who knows really, but like most history, the slightest alteration of facts often creates an entirely different historical record.

Regardless, I came away from this documentary gaining more respect for Frazier, while losing some measure of respect for Ali. It's hard not to like Ali. I mean the man is in a class by himself. But as we add more and more perspectives to our historical understanding of his legacy we come closer to a more thorough three-dimensional representation than the limited hagiography that has been masquerading as the real deal for too long now. That being said, you can't talk about Ali without talking about Frazier and so it's about time the other man in the ring that Manila morning finally gets his props too. Ali is still The Man, no doubt, but thanks to Thrilla in Manila and other broader representations of the record to come, we can at least say that though Frazier may not be The Man, he is indeed The Man sitting next to The Man.

Freedom of Speech...Just Watch What You Say!

2009-04-03T17:58:00.000-07:00

Embattled professor Ward Churchill recently won a wrongful termination suit against his former employer the University of Colorado. The jury verdict confirmed that Churchill had been fired over his controversial political beliefs stemming from an essay he wrote that went against the grain in critiquing American complicity in the attacks of September 11, 2001. While the verdict is a victory for free speech and academic freedom the jury only awarded Churchill $1 in damages. The verdict sends the message that while the jury agreed that Churchill's freedom of speech had been violated, the lack of any real amount being awarded for damages suggests that the jury was imposing its own punishment for Churchill's controversial political statements. I guess this is better than finding that the termination was not wrongful, but in the end it's certainly not something to get excited about. The powers that be still held serve.

The days post Sept. 11, 2001 are far behind us now and as time has passed many may have forgotten just how frightening things had become in this country. Not because of Bin Laden mind you, but because of all of the flag waving, overly patriotic, gung ho sentiments of uber nationalism that had surged throughout the country. Those in power used the events of 9/11 as an excuse to justify all sorts of infringements on civil liberties and free expression. Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's admonition at the time that "all Americans" need to "watch what they say, watch what they do" sums up this stifling climate perfectly.

I remember being a guest on Politically Incorrect during this time immediately after Fleischer's wrath had been directed at host Bill Maher for some comments that he had made that were thought to be unpatriotic. People on the set of the show were shook. Everyone was walking on eggshells. You could cut the tension with a knife.

This political sentiment of repression trickled down from the corridors of power. The same sweep of reckless right wing emotion that outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent and prompted the draconian Patriot Act into existence also lead to Churchill being booted from his tenured post at Colorado. Samuel Johnson's famous quote that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" is most certainly appropriate here.

While a university committee found inconsistencies in Churchill's research, the investigation itself was launched in response to the political outcries, both inside and outside the university, over his politics. The process was clearly tainted from the beginning. If there was a problem with Churchill's scholarship then the university should have uncovered this when he went up for tenure review. To uncover questions regarding Churchill's scholarship after the fact and under such a looming political cloud says that the university had not done their due diligence initially. It also speaks to the inadequacy of their tenure process.

Churchill has been accused of fabricating sources and other acts of intellectual fraudulence. If this is true it is most certainly not cool, but again, a thorough tenure review process should have turned up at least some hint of these discrepancies beforehand. To arrive at these accusations only after the political fallout from Churchill's non-PC statements about 9/11 is to sully the University of Colorado's academic integrity.

I am not naive. I have been a professor for the last 18 years of my life and a tenured professor for the last 12. I am not stupid enough to think that freedom of speech is a rock solid defense if you happen to say what might be considered the wrong thing at the wrong time. Freedom of expression sounds good in theory, but the reality is always a bit more complicated. Churchill wrote a controversial essay, saying the "wrong thing" at the "wrong time" and he was punished for his beliefs. Though the court verdict affirms the right to free expression in one sense the fact that this case actually ever made it to court in the first place is a strong indication of just how reactionary this country had become during the dreaded Bush years of our recent past. This sentiment is best summed up in a quote from a recent piece by Scott Horton in Harper's.

We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it.

The specious case against Churchill fits neatly into Horton's claim that we were for all intents and purposes living under in a dictatorship in post 9/11 America. It is during times of conflict that free expression is most important. If we are only free to speak as we choose in times of relative calm then the concept of free expression is really not free at all.

Let me be clear. Churchill is not a hero to me. The fact that such a case got this far speaks to the fact that Churchill didn't necessarily have his "shit together," as it were. If you are going to be someone who goes against the grain on purpose you need to be prepared for the aftermath. Churchill left himself exposed and he got popped accordingly. Nevertheless, the troubling political environment of post 9/11 America is the real crime here. Those who helped create this environment of utter repression are the ones who should be brought to trial.

That Ole Black Magic

2009-03-24T13:04:00.000-07:00

NBA icon and celebrated entrepreneur Earvin "Magic" Johnson has been the poster child for how to successfully transition from being a professional athlete into a meaningful and lucrative post-athletic life. During his playing days for the Los Angeles Lakers Magic stood atop the league, winning five titles in the 1980s, and helping to transform the game from a boutique urban sport into a global phenomena in the process. In my book, were it not for a cat named Michael Jordan, Magic would be the best to ever play the game. His place in the sport's annals is unquestioned. Magic was THE MAN on the court in no uncertain terms.

More recently, Magic has gained a reputation as a very successful businessman. His association with companies like Starbucks, AMC Theaters, and T.G.I. Friday's has helped to create recognizable brand name establishments in the minority communities of several cities throughout the country. Through all of this, Magic has come to be highly regarded in media circles for his business acumen, so much so that he recently released a book, 32 Ways to Be a Champion in Business. While the book's title obviously plays off of his Lakers' jersey number, 32, and his many championship rings, it also describes Magic as both an "entrepreneur" and "community leader."

Through the years, Magic has also become quite visible in political circles, though on this front he has committed some turnovers. Magic endorsed Jim Hahn in the 2001 Los Angeles mayorial race over strong challenger Antonio Villaraigosa. Hahn won the race, aided by a racially provocative drug commercial used against his challenger, but quickly fell out of favor and was soundly defeated by Villaraigosa in the 2005 rematch. By this time, Magic--like Don King, who once walked into the ring with Joe Frazier and left with the victor George Foreman--was now on Villaraigosa's side.

Last year though Magic was a visible supporter of Hillary Clinton in her bid for the White House. I don't have to tell you how that one turned out. As one of the most well known African Americans in the country, Magic, along with a number of other visible African American Clinton supporters, like that cultural slumlord Bob Johnson, was ass-out when it became clear that the nation had decided to go in a different direction and elect its first black president. This was not a good look on Magic's part and not because I think that every black person should automatically support all black candidates just because of their race; quite the contrary. But when you build your name as a celebrity entrepreneur and "community leader" then it would seem to suggest that your political support might fall to a historic African American candidate who himself was formerly a community activist. Yet Magic apparently owed debts of political gratitude to the Clintons that had to be repaid. Such indebtedness left Magic and these other supporters with fried egg on their face when it was clear that Obama would be the victor.

Magic Johnson Enterprises has the motto of "We Are the Communities We Serve." Yet some recent business decisions are starting to generate pointed questions about Magic's real relationship to "the community." This attention is starting to bring some criticisms that are quite different than the seemingly universal public praise he has tended to enjoy on the business front. Recent professional affiliations find Magic in bed with companies like Rent-A-Center, the rent to own furniture stores and Jackson Hewitt, the tax preparers. Rent-A-Center has long been criticized for price gouging, charging their poor, credit challenged customers excessively inflated prices for their goods under a dubious scheme know as "rent to own." Likewise Jackson Hewitt has come under scrutiny for their "Money Now Loan," a excessively high interest tax refund loan that, again, has been criticized for preying on low income minority residents. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that both Rent-A-Center and Jackson Hewitt are operating in a similar manner to those dreadful sub prime mortgage lenders, albeit on a much smaller scale.

In an country where black entrepreneurs have long been stymied by the inequalities of the system, Magic's success is to be lauded. He is undoubtedly a very successful black businessman now. This success is underscored by numerous stories about black professional athletes who have squandered their finances in a variety of ways, both extravagant and frivolous. Further, Magic has succeeded by bringing businesses to minority communities that are especially under served. All in all this appears to be a win win situation for everyone involved, Magic, the community, and the corporate partners. In this case you have both financial success along with social and civic responsibility. What more could you want, right?

Perhaps we can ponder the nature of the businesses that Magic is now endorsing though? Are you really doing anything for "the community" if the corporate interests that you are in business with exploit the poor minorities that populate your customer base? If you are the community that you serve then wouldn't you be more sensitive to such potentially exploitative relationships? In other words, Magic ain't shoppin' at Rent-A-Center, trust me! I doubt seriously if he's getting his taxes prepared by Jackson Hewitt either. Are you serving these people or are you servin' them like the dope dealers who say they are servin' their customers?

I wouldn't be saying all of this if there wasn't this overriding theme of racial empowerment being used to promote Magic's business success. If you say you just want to make money, by all means. But if you promote yourself as a "community leader" then I have expectations that you are actually doing something for the community in question besides ripping them off like everyone else before you has done. The fact that the jackin' is being done now in black face makes it that much more egregious.

I have long felt the same way about media charlatan Tavis Smiley, who was foamin' at the mouth while asking Magic about his mother's peach cobbler--or what it pound cake?--during a recent interview to discuss Magic's book. Tavis has for some years now walked the track for one of the biggest macks in the game, none other than that magnificent pimp known as Walmart. Yet, like Magic, Smiley also promotes himself as a community leader, along with regularly touting his success in business. It could be argued that both Magic and Tavis are leading their communities alright, leading them to be further exploited or better yet, leading them straight to the choppin' block.

What Magic Johnson has done is use his name and the celebrity he developed playing the game of basketball to become a very successful figure in his post NBA life. Considering again that this is the exception and far from the rule, he should be applauded vigorously. I would much rather read about Magic's business success than Latrell Sprewell's boat getting repossessed or Mike Tyson having blown all of his many millions. Yet it is important to be evenhanded in assessing such success. I am less impressed by Magic's overall business acumen. Has he really created anything or has he simply taken advantage of a spectacular NBA career in parlaying his name as a brand, using "the community" as willing dupes while he fattens his own pockets at their expense?

According to Tavis, one must be "accountable" right? Well it's time that we start holding this recent cycle of poverty pimpin' to higher standards. I get leery anytime I hear someone start talking about what they are doing for "the community." That's such a easy hook. As Magic himself likes to say, "don't talk about it, be about it." If you say that you are working for the community than many people give you the benefit of the doubt and unquestionably support you. Yet the history of racism and class manipulation in this society is such that the line between serving and exploiting the community is a very thin line indeed.

Just because the face of the potential exploiters is black doesn't mean that the act of exploitation is any more forgivable. Beware of community entrepreneurs in sheep's clothing. The Willie Dynamites of the world may have dropped their full length fur coats, glass heels, and "Diamond in the Back" Eldorodos from times past, but the re-mixed version can be just as lethal now with the "I'm down for the community" rhetorical hustle if left unchecked.

The Cool Presidency and The Dumbest Guys in the Room

2009-03-20T14:57:00.000-07:00

President Obama's historic appearance on Jay Leno last night was another prominent gesture that indicated once again just how different Obama's presidency is from his predecessors. The ease which with Obama interacts with pop culture is one of the many things that helps to make him our first "cool" president.

I realize that Slick Willie Clinton helped make a name for himself back in the day by appearing on Arsenio Hall, wearing his dark Ray Bans, while playing his axe, not to mention his love of all things Hollywood while in office, but I still think that Obama's relationship to pop culture operates differently. Clinton always seemed to be seeking Hollywood's approval to me. I didn't get the impression that he ever watched Arsenio Hall, though he did recognize that appearing on the show at the time was good for votes. He was not cool as much as he wanted to use his relationship with Hollywood to make himself seem cool by association. If anything Clinton seemed fascinated that his power allowed him to mingle with those of the Hollywood elite. Forgive me, but it's hard to associate cool with someone who originally hails from Hope Arkansas.

On the other hand, Obama is so cool that he can go on Leno and make fun of all the seemingly unnecessary traps of power that now accompany his every move since becoming president. The joke about "life in the bubble" and the fact that the Secret Service wouldn't let him walk 750 yards to check out the venue he was scheduled to speak in was hilarious; especially the part about the doctor walking behind him with the defibrillator. Obama's laughter here seemed to indicate how absurd he thought all of this pomp and circumstance really is.

Perhaps the best indication of how cool Obama is involves his recent appearance sitting courtside, drinking a brew, while watching his Chicago Bulls stink up the joint against the Washington Wizards a few weeks ago.

I remember Slick Willie sitting in a luxury box above the action while watching his home state University of Arkansas Razorbacks win the NCAA basketball title back in 1994. Obama is a real b-ball fan who knows that the action looks a lot better from a floor seat than it does from a box.

Yes, a real b-ball fan can comfortably fill out his Final Four brackets on television, not worrying about who might be offended by his selections. In case you missed it, Duke's Coach K seemed to be annoyed in his comments regarding Obama's selection of K's arch rival the North Carolina Tar Heels as eventual NCAA champs. Obama knows that by picking any team to win it might be read as showing favoritism, but he's real enough to know that acting like he supports every team just because he is supposed to looks fake. He's a fan, so he is able to remain a fan, without compromising his day job. Slick Willie, a man so calculated and political that he smoked weed but managed not to inhale and once famously asked what the meaning of "is" is, would never have been so confident as to allow himself the space to demonstrate his true love for the game of b-ball without consulting his pollsters first. (By the way, Coach K, stay in your lane! You weren't going to win the title anyway.)

While the Leno appearance and filling out the Final Four brackets has demanded a great deal of attention this week, it is the bonuses being paid to AIG executives that has dominated the news. I would be remiss if I didn't deal with this here also.

To me, a big part of the problem with the arrogance and greed of corporate America lies in often uttered phrases like "the smartest guys in the room" as it pertains to the so-called financial wizards of Wall Street. I'm sorry but if these Wall Street casino capitalists were actually smart then the economy wouldn't be in the shape that it is in now. The system in place let these idiots run amok, so much so that they ruined everything in sight. They had the green light and they took it, even when the light had turned red. Since the dawn of the Reagan counter revolution the casino capitalists have had free reign to do what they wanted to do. They were never really that smart, though they might have been slick. Now that the world's economy is the hot mess that it is, the smartest guys in the room look like the dumbest clowns on earth.

The first time I remember hearing the phrase in question was in relationship to Enron executives like George W. Bush's now conveniently deceased homie Kenny Boy, Kenneth Lay, and Jeffrey Skilling. They were so smart that they built a Fortune 500 company on sleight of hand, not unlike Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. The current global economic crisis came about for the same reasons that both Enron and Madoff were eventually exposed, devious crooks with a license to steal bluffed so much that it became evident after a while that they weren't even playing with cards anymore. All of this reminds me of that old Wayans Brothers' Homeboys Shopping Network skit where Damon's claims of mo' money, mo' money, where laughable because his nonsense was so transparent. The difference is, we knew that Damon was clowin', but the casino capitalists could hide behind this smartest guys in the room foolishness until it was almost too late.

Much of what passes for business on Wall Street is nothing more than the equivalent of legal crack dealing. The only difference is, if they catch you with a small amount of crack they send to jail and throw away the key, if you damn near bankrupt the globe, they give you a bonus. Again, it's not about being smart, it's about being slick. These are two different things. If people wouldn't accord these crooks so much deference then maybe we could see clearly that what they are doing is nothing more than what a gambler does at a crap table, play a game of chance where sometimes you do indeed get lucky. Maybe if we raise our standards for what qualifies as smart then we'll avoid investing so much power in the hands of casino capitalists who mistake greed for intelligence.

The Goon Hand

2009-03-09T15:24:00.000-07:00

The story involving pop stars Chris Brown, Rihanna, and allegations of domestic violence has gotten a lot of attention ever since it was first reported the night of The Grammys. Two young successful stars, both with "clean cut" images, who were in a relationship, had a nasty encounter on the night before they were set to perform on the music industry's biggest stage. Such a scenario was most certainly going to generate endless conversation.

Had the people involved been two hard core rappers, for instance, there might have been conversation, for sure, but people wouldn't be experiencing the shock and awe that has accompanied the Chris Brown and Rihanna story. My point is, Brown and Rihanna are supposedly "clean cut" and for this reason it seems that some people bought into the hype of a loving, young, Hollywood couple, so the revelation of truth as it pertains to domestic friction seemed to defy this constructed image.

There has been much said about the incident from a variety of people and perspectives. Recently I ran across an article in the Detroit Free Press by columnist Rochelle Riley. Riley's point, to the extent that there is one, has to do with insisting that Chris Brown be treated like a criminal if he is found guilty of assaulting his girlfriend. The undercurrent of the piece is that Brown may indeed get off easy because of his celebrity.

Did I miss something? When did young black men ever find themselves getting favorable treatment in the court of law? Is there a precedent for this? If so, I need proof, because the last I checked there was a disproportionate number of young black men filling up this nation's ever profitable penitentiaries. I have news for the columnist, if Chris Brown is found guilty you have nothing to worry about, he will be treated like all other young black men charged of such crimes. If Brown does manage to shake free it will be because he has the money to work the court system, not because of his race. Trust me.

Honestly, I have tried to stay out of this. But of course, every time I get out they pull me right back in! I hate what passes for R & B these days. I don't listen to either Chris Brown or Rihanna, which helps explain my general indifference. Further, these celebrity spats are always more than meets the eye, particularly when such shenanigans involve couples. There are so many orchestrated relationships in Hollywood, along with other co-dependent relationships in general these days that it ain't even funny. Not to mention, what really goes on? Rumors suggest all sort of things. Who knows, really, other than CB and his boo?

I am not defending CB for using his goon hand, but I am not immediately making her into a saint either. That old notion about a man should never hit a woman is ultimately rooted in a system of patriarchy which assumes women to be inherently weaker than men. Yet women are not inherently weaker than men and these days many women are indeed quite a bit stronger; physically, financially, emotionally, and otherwise. To automatically default into this type of thinking, where women are perpetual victims, is to recycle old ideas about essential masculinity and femininity without examining the larger issues at work here.

Domestic abuse is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator is. Yet if pictures of Chris Brown had come back looking like those infamous photos of a battered Rihanna, people would be laughing at him for getting his ass beat by a young woman. There would be no sympathy, no mournful cries of utter sadness as it pertains to domestic violence, no, there would be rampant laughter and Saturday Night Live skits. Stand up comedians would have a field day. Brown would never be able to live this down. If you don't believe me, go ask Lionel Richie. The name Brenda Richie still prompts laughter to this day, though it was many years ago that she beat down both Lionel and the proverbial other woman.

Which brings me to this story about Geno Hayes of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Hayes was stabbed twice by his girlfriend recently. She stabbed him once in the head with a pair of scissors and then after Hayes managed to wrest the scissors from her hands, she picked up a knife and stabbed him in the neck.

I doubt seriously if Hayes generates the type of coverage that CB and Rihanna have generated. Of course Hayes is not popular and his girlfriend is not a celebrity either, in spite of this, Hayes is going to be a pretty visible target and the source for much clowin' once he gets back to the locker room or stares across the field at an opposing player who wants to talk trash. There will be no sympathy for Geno Hayes. None. Why, because most people are not going to feel sympathetic for a 6'1 226 pound NFL player getting stabbed by a 19 year old woman. In the end, many will probably assume that he deserved it.

Let me be clear, because I already know that some people are going to try to make this out to be something other that what it is. I am not condoning domestic violence against women, nor am I making it out to be less than what it is. If CB is found guilty of attacking Rihanna he will be dealt with accordingly. I know that for many Rihanna represents abused women everywhere and again I understand and can appreciate the sentiments. But I am also saying that domestic violence against women won't stop until we rethink our whole approach to the issue.

To put hands on anyone is problematic in my book, be it parents using corporeal punishment on their children or men abusing their wives. In a perfect world, one wouldn't need violence, but in an imperfect world like the one we live in, violence is a reality, an unfortunate one, but a reality nonetheless.

Violent actions often occur in the heat of an emotional moment. Chris Brown shouldn't be using his girlfriend as a punching bag and Geno Hayes' girlfriend shouldn't be stabbing him either. Yet situations like this happen all the time, it's just that the people involved are not always celebrities or professional athletes so it doesn't always make the news.

Violence is learned behavior. The only way to stop it is to unlearn it. Yet until we figure out how to move away from old ideas about gender roles and start to rethink the way that violence factors into our personal and familial lives nothing will ever change on this front.

Tokens and Tears

2009-02-26T17:55:00.000-08:00

30 Rock's Kenneth the Page as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

First there was Sarah P., then Michael "The Animal" Steele, and now we have none other than Governor Bobby Jindal. Things are so bad for the Republican Party these days that pretty soon they'll be reaching out to Mike Tyson to be the new face of the GOP. (Considering that Tyson was once married to Steele's sister, this might not be as far fetched as it seems.)

In Republican land, one need not be necessarily qualified or for that matter even conscious of the fact that the disaster of Hurricane Katrina happened on the watch of an especially indifferent GOP administration. No, in Republican land all that really matters is that you are a token. Beyond that, it's all relative.

Ever since Sarah P stepped on stage in Minneapolis last summer, we have seen the desperation of the Republican Party on full display. In a lame attempt to try and challenge Obama in the manner that Hilary Clinton had done during the hard fought Democratic primaries, the GOP thought, wrongly, that Sarah P. just by virtue of being a woman, would be enough to offset the juggernaut known as Obama. In their mind one woman is just as good as another, so why not. Experience and qualifications be damned!

Then, when the reality of President Obama set in, they thought that all they needed was simply another black man to run their party. Steele has looked nothing less than foolish in the short time that he has been in his new position, especially in his comments that "jobs" created by the government really weren't "jobs" after all.

And of course this week, we were treated to Bobby Jindal, another lame attempt at tokenism by selecting a person of color from an immigrant family to try and appeal to people on the same terms that Obama has so successfully done. Jindal would have a hard time qualifying for the post of Obama's "body man"--a post now held by the increasingly popular Reggie Love--much less have the skills to counter such a strong orator. Trying to actually go toe to toe with Obama exposed Jindal as especially out of his lane and over his head. Don't you know Bobby, it takes years for this, you cat-n-the-hat-ass-governor! Perhaps the Republicans thought that some of the success of Slumdog Millionaire at the Oscars would rub off on Jindal during his speech? I mean, what else are we left to assume considering that all of these choices reek of obvious tokenism?

Some tried to suggest during the election last year that Obama's success was somehow due to affirmative action. In that vein there remain some in the Republican Party who appear to think that Obama's race is the only reason that he was victorious in November. Otherwise, why would they go to these weak challengers to try and counteract him? One reason would be because their party lacks any real diversity so they have to use what they got to get what they need. Trying to substitute any woman, African American, or person of color, simply based on their race or gender, is an expression of how truly disingenuous the Republicans really are. Such insultingly tokenistic efforts will only lead to continued failure.

Which brings me to Alexandra Pelosi's current HBO documentary Right America: Feeling Wronged. I don't know that I've ever had so much fun before, watching a bunch of scarred far right conservatives moan, groan, and literally cry over the fact that Barack Obama is our 44th President. Yes, I find glee in their misfortune and I look forward to seeing the doc. again. Trust me, this will be in regular rotation.

(Check out the comments of this especially intelligent citizen from Right America)

I have news for the GOP. Tokenism, scarred feelings, and crocodile tears are not a good look. It is a proven fact that what goes around comes around and so for all of us who have had to endure the previous eight years of a regime that we considered illegitimate, this is a new day.

Jonah Goldberg of the LA Times accused me of "gloating" last year in a piece that I wrote about the redemption of John Carlos and Tommie Smith upon the occasion of their being honored at the ESPY's for their politicized efforts at the '68 Olympics. Goldberg was hatin' and did not mean what he said about me as a compliment, but I took it as one nonetheless. So in that same spirit, I am again gloating over the repeated stumbles of the GOP and I am especially delighted to see Right America, as it were, put in it's proper place. In other words, if dissin' you is wrong, I don't wanna be right!

Massa Sterling and Uncle Elgin Go to Court

2009-02-24T12:59:00.000-08:00

Elgin Baylor

I find it hard to feel sorry for Elgin Baylor. It's not that I'm heartless, but my lifelong investment in realness forces me to keep sentimentality at bay when thinking about a situation that should have never reached this point.

What I am referring to is the racial discrimination lawsuit recently filed by former NBA great Elgin Baylor against his previous employer Donald Sterling, owner of the perpetually miserable Los Angeles Clippers. Baylor was the General Manager of the Clippers for 22 years, before being fired by the organization last year. In his lawsuit he is alleging that Sterling created a "southern plantation-type structure" in the Clipper organization, accusing the owner of a "pervasive and ongoing racist attitude." What is this, Mandingo?

Ken Norton in Mandingo (1975)

It's not that Baylor's claims don't have weight. They most certainly do. Donald Sterling has been sued twice in the last six years for housing discrimination in connection with the many apartment buildings he owns throughout Los Angeles. That's right, housing discrimination! That's so last century. Sterling was sued once by the nonprofit Housing Rights Center and more recently by the United States Justice Department. And let me be clear, it was not the newly installed Obama Justice Department that sued Sterling, but the politicized Justice Department of George W. Bush, run by his ole "do boy," as they say down in the dirty, Alberto Gonzales. It is not as though the Bush Justice Department was known for its aggressive approach towards pursuing discrimination, quite the contrary, so Sterling's offenses must have been ridiculously obvious. A trial date is set for 2010.

Donald Sterling "sizing up" former Clipper Elton Brand?

What has long been most disturbing about Sterling's record with discrimination charges is the fact that very few people even know about it. In an NBA where the least little infraction on a player's part is headline news, an owner can be charged twice with advocating the kind of discriminatory practices that would have kept the African American players on his team from living in his buildings, and no one really even knows about it. Can you say double standard?

If an NBA player engages in flatulence, someone in the media and the league office will have pronounced judgment on the foul smell before the lord gets the news, but all you get when you bring up the allegations of Sterling's discriminatory practices is a shrug of indifference?! People's perceptions of the inherent criminality relative to NBA players is so extreme that if a player gets robbed at gun point it is automatically assumed that the player himself is somehow responsible. Yet Donald Sterling can act like he's a modern day Lester Maddox and it's all good?! C'mon now...

Donald Sterling should have been suspended by the league a long time ago, until his trial is completed, and if he is found guilty he should be forced to sell the team immediately. Though he settled in the first lawsuit, with the results sealed, the fact that he has been charged twice in a three year span with the same thing says to me where there's smoke there's fire. For the NBA not to have acted on this is negligent at best. At worst, it is an unspoken endorsement of such acts by virtue of allowing Sterling to remain a valued member of the NBA ownership fraternity in good standing. David Stern and Sterling's fellow owners are all complicit in this for not making it a bigger issue.

All this is to say that I have no trouble accepting the accusations made by Baylor against Sterling. Again, it is a known fact that smoke often signals fire and Sterling's smoke signals are so thick that it's hard to breathe. That being said, I still can't feel sorry for Elgin.

Why would you stay on a job for 22 years under such conditions? Elgin, through his lawyers, says that he suffered the indignity of racism because there were so few African Americans in executive positions in the NBA that he felt that he should endure this so that others would have a better opportunity. Ok, Jackie Robinson, if you say so. While the NBA is far from perfect, the league has more African Americans in visible positions of power than any other professional sports league. This has been the case for a long time now. Both the executive ranks and the ranks of coaching are filled with African Americans. Baylor is no one's martyr and to say so is disingenuous. This is all on him.

As one of the game's early superstars, Baylor had other options. He accepted the criminally low pay that the Clippers offered him. He allowed himself to remain in such an environment for 22 long years. This was by choice, not by force. To have willingly stayed on under such circumstances and then to turn around and charge racial discrimination is not only cowardly, but it is the type of response that makes people question legitimate claims of racial bias when they arise. I guess no one ever told Elgin that Jim Crow ended a long time ago and that he didn't have to accept this unfair treatment?

I'm sorry, but the reason I never had love for Anita Hill was because she followed Clarence Thomas from gig to gig, in spite of the fact that she says she was a victim of sexual harassment. I'm not defending Thomas, by no means, but at some point, one's actions, or lack thereof, make them complicit. This doesn't excuse the offending party, but it does compromise the claim in my book. The same is true with Elgin Baylor. As jive as Donald Sterling might have been, Baylor didn't have to work for the Clippers, certainly not for 22 years.

Unfortunately there are no winners in this one. It's not surprising. The Clippers are one of the worst franchise in professional sports, so the concept of winning is not something normally associated with this club. It appears now that the losing atmosphere is indeed the result of having a real loser as an owner. Donald Sterling is a disgrace to the game of basketball. But Elgin Baylor is a loser as well, not only in regards to his terrible record as GM, but also for letting himself be punked in this manner. Baylor was complicit in allowing Sterling to treat him like a second class citizen, when other options were available to him. Elgin Baylor demonstrated an amazing lack of pride and dignity here.

If it is true that Donald Sterling wanted to create a modern day plantation on the basketball court, Elgin Baylor most certainly served as his willing house slave through all of this.

Gorillaz in the Mist

2009-02-20T15:47:00.000-08:00

So the New York Post has got jokes it seems. Their cartoon this week featuring two cops shooting down a monkey with a reference to the recent stimulus bill has riled the feathers of many New Yorkers and others from around the country. Is The Post calling our 44th President a monkey? Some feel as though the image of the monkey is a bit too close for comfort, considering the longstanding racist practice of linking African Americans with primates. I'm assuming that Gorilla Zoe and G(orilla) Unit didn't get this memo?

Anyway, as this non-story evolves into a story, I find myself unmoved, if not cynically smiling. We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that since Obama has become the President that racism will just stop automatically. There will be utterances of racism as long as we have racially insensitive people among us. Yet with a black President calling the shots, such racist examples, particularly those that defame the Commander-in-Chief directly, can't go without being checked anymore.

I regard the Post's cartoon as exposure. To Rupert Murdoch and The Post, it's simple, you played yourself! This is perhaps the first act of many that will try to make some sort of veiled or not so veiled reference to race that will be quickly challenged by virtue of the fact that you can't go around dissing the shot caller without being put in check. Such instances are really racial teaching moments waiting to happen.

People can march and protest all they want. It doesn't matter. The NY Post and all others who choose to engage in the game of race baiting will be swiftly made to answer for their sins. Just watch. This situation has already gotten more traction than would normally be the case and not because of that signifyin' monkey Al Sharpton either. It has nothing to do with Sharpton, actually. It has everything to do with the power of the Presidency though; power, both visible and invisible.

Now that he has cut his hair and doesn't have to go in for a touch up as often, Al Sharpton has time on his hands and needs something to do, so he sits around waiting for racial controversies to exploit. He's a racial ambulance chaser, that's all. But Al, I got news for ya Bruh. The President don't need your protests. Actually there's nothing you can do for the man, other than get out of the way. You have no juice and you are not needed. If anything, you make matters worst because your lack of credibility sullies the waters so much so that your presence actually takes away from legitimate claims. You could really do us all a big favor if you simply went somewhere and sat ur ass down. Please! When perms come back in, we'll holla, but until then, as Mom Dukes might say, make yourself scarce.

Is this not 2009? Protest marches accomplish nothing. When are people going to get out of that old school 60s mindset? While I realize that many people like feeling as though they are perpetual victims, the time for being a victim has long passed. Barack Obama is the President. Not the President of the NAACP, mind you, but the President of the Unites States. Those who get on Mr. President's bad side will have to pay, just like Woltz in The Godfather and Senator Geery in Godfather II. That's the beauty of it all to me. A lot of things that people use to be able to get away with in terms of race and racial discourse will now be scrutinized much more thoroughly and the offenders will find themselves having to answer for their misdeeds. That's what it means to be in power.

Though there will undoubtedly be others who are foul and ignorant in regards to their racial utterances, the power of the Presidency will now force the offenders to quickly come correct. So get your head out of the 60s and back into the present. Stop marching. It looks real corny now. I realize that Tyler Perry's new movie opened today, but I was hoping that we could keep the coonin' confined to the theaters. Wishful thinking, I guess?

By the way, speaking of monkeys, you ever notice that "they" always show Planet of the Apes during Black History Month? What's up with that?

Not Worthy (And I Don't Mean James)

2009-02-16T18:56:00.000-08:00

NY Times Magazine Cover Subject Shane Battier of the Houston Rockets

Sunday's New York Times Magazine featured a cover story, "The No-Stats All-Star," on the Houston Rocket's forward Shane Battier written by well regarded scribe Michael Lewis. The article discusses the way that the use of scientific statistics to evaluate players has now made its way into basketball, after initially taking hold in Major League Baseball back in the 1990s. Baseball writer Bill James is the figure most associated with the practice known as sabermetrics, which is a highly scientific way of evaluating even the most mundane statistical data for the purpose of finding especially productive players. Houston Rocket's General Manager Daryl Morey is highly influenced by the use of statistics and is credited in the Lewis article with bringing this approach into basketball. Shane Battier is emblematic of the type of player the sabermetrics approach focuses on, one who is not a superstar or even regarded as especially athletic, but who makes his team better whenever he is on the court, while the team appears to suffer when he sits on the bench.

The problem with this article, and there are several, starts with the exclusive focus on Battier. Not that Battier isn't a important piece for the Houston Rockets, he is, but his overall value to his team and by extension to basketball is quite a bit overstated. Secondly, one doesn't need statistics to know that an NBA game often comes down to individual players taking over in crunch time. Nor does one need sabermetrics to know that NBA basketball has long featured what are called "role players", which is what Battier most certainly is. A role player or "glue guy" as they are often described in the colloquial parlance of the contemporary NBA, is not a superstar, but one who does the little things, the dirty work, and all other tasks deemed to be in the interest of helping the team--taking charges, diving for loose balls, etc.--so that the superstar can flourish. Think of a good supporting actor, as opposed to a movie star.

The article talks about Battier's time with the Memphis Grizzles and the Rockets, yet neither team has made it out of the first round of the playoffs during Battier's tenure. Perhaps a better subject for the article would have been James Posey, now of the New Orleans Hornets. Posey, a role player who is known for his defensive skills and his three point shooting ability, like Battier, has been an important member of two of the last three NBA champions; the Miami Heat and the Boston Celtics. Posey's defense on Kobe Bryant in last year's finals was significant in denying Kobe the opportunity to take over games and the unorthodox-looking 3s that Posey hit with regularity were always timely. Some have argued that Posey's absence from the Celtics bench this year might be the difference that keeps them from repeat as champions. Yet Posey's name doesn't even come up in Lewis' article. Lewis goes on and on about Battier's defense on Bryant during the regular season last year, as though Wack Mamba has never been contained before. The difference is, Posey did it in the Finals while helping his team win a championship. Of course every team that wins a title has one or more contributing role players as these players are an important component of any championship squad.

James Posey, celebrating the Celtics' championship (June, 2008)

So why the focus on a rather unspectacular player who has had limited success? Well it seems that in the age of Obama, Battier's biracial birth rite is what Lewis really wants to talk about. Battier, who starred in college at Duke, has a white mother and a black father. He is idealized in the article partly because he seems to have defied the expectation of some of the African American players on the AAU circuit who thought that he was soft back when he was in high school. Lewis spends a lot of time in the article describing Battier's struggles to fit in as a youth because of his biracial heritage and the fact that other NBA players don't really like him, the implication being that they don't like him because he's considered a suburban guy with a Duke pedigree in a league dominated by street players.

If you want to write an article about the struggles of biracial people to fit into society, so be it. By all means. But this particular article high jacks basketball in order to tell this story, using the sabermetrics angle as a ruse. Lewis doesn't demonstrate that the investment in statistics has spread beyond the Houston Rockets. Neither Battier or Daryl Morey deserve this type of basketball attention because they have yet to win anything of significance. The sabermetrics theory is a non theory as far as basketball goes. The sport is played on the court, not computers. NBA basketball is a game that still revolves around improvisation and creativity, something no computer in the world can measure. Save the sabermetrics for baseball. The culture of basketball is firmly rooted in the streets and though Shane Battier is a good player, his NBA career to this point has been nothing but incidental.

The Lincoln OD

2009-02-13T14:56:00.000-08:00

Ok, I am officially tired of hearing about Abraham Lincoln. No more, please. I'm "Lincolned" out.

Barack Obama started something when he boldly embraced the image of Lincoln on his own historic run to the presidency. He rekindled an ongoing interest in one of America's most storied political figures when he wrapped himself in Lincoln. Since Obama's victory Lincoln has been reborn it seems.

We've heard talk about Lincoln's "team of rivals" concept, an issue discussed at length in Doris Kearns Goodwin's book of the same title. Obama, of course, has been busy trying to implement this concept in his own cabinet, though some Republicans--most recently Senator Judd Gregg who withdrew his name from consideration for Secretary of Commerce due to what he stated were political differences with the President and his desire to continue to be "his own man"--seem to be less enthusiastic about being part of such a team.

While the idea of putting Republicans like Robert Gates and Ray LaHood in his cabinet does demonstrate Obama's eager desire to be bi-partisan, it appears as though many of the Republicans are more interested in blocking and playa hatin' than they are in true bipartisanship as evidenced by the recent shenanigans in Congress over the latest stimulus bill. Since it's impossible to be reasonable with unreasonable people, maybe it's time to drop the bi-partisan experiment and let the dissenting class know who's really in charge? You have extended your hand, Mr. President, and a majority of the Republicans, in turn, have given you their collective asses to kiss. Big ups to Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, as well as Arlen Specter, for acting as though they have some sense. The rest of you can be as obstinate as you want, your party is not in power and your influence wanes with each passing day.

Back to Honest Abe. This week there were two PBS documentaries on the President known as "The Great Emancipator." American Experience aired The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and there was also the Henry Louis Gates' doc Looking for Lincoln.

Looking for Lincoln shows, among other things, Skip Gates getting out a chauffeured Lincoln Town Car as he walks up to Doris Kearns Goodwin's door, along with another scene which depicts the Harvard professor with his shoes off and his feet propped up, while he lounges on a sofa reading some rare Lincoln document. He looked so comfortable, I thought for a minute that he was going to start clipping his toenails. Add to this several sycophantic scenes of Skip jockin' former presidents Slick Willie and Bush 43, while asking their opinion of good ole Abe. For a film supposedly about Lincoln I was starting to wonder why Skip himself was "all in the video" so much? Perhaps a better title might have been Looking for Self-Aggrandizement? Just a thought.

When Skip wasn't gassin' himself up or indulging war criminals, he was droning on and on about what he considers to be the real Lincoln, not the Lincoln of myth, fable, or hagiography, as though everyone else really cared as much about this topic as he clearly does.

Let me say this, I, for one, have no real love for Lincoln. The only Lincoln I like is the old school Continental with the suicide doors! Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the slaves was driven more by economic concerns than racial ones. This, along with the efforts to reintegrate the south back into the union after the end of the Civil War was considered of utmost importance. What to do with the 4 million black people who were no longer slaves was an afterthought. While Lincoln doesn't bare the weight of all this alone, the overall circumstances surrounding slavery, reconstruction, and the legacy of race in this country make it hard for me to see Lincoln as even remotely heroic. Lincoln was perhaps the lesser of evils, but still far from heroic and full of all kinds of racial contradictions, to boot. Like Malcolm X once said, "You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you are making progress."

Slavery was wrong and should have never happened, so it makes no sense to me to give someone credit for stopping something that shouldn't have been started in the first place. It's like that Chris Rock joke about niggaz wanting credit for things that they are supposed to do, with the stated example being "I take care of my kids." Chris' response, "what do you want, a cookie?" seems an apt way to respond to all the praise being bestowed upon Lincoln lately.

To Gates' credit his doc did touch on a wide range of opinions on Lincoln, including the assertion by some that Lincoln was himself a racist. Yet, the overall tone of the piece was too obsequious for my taste. I could very easily substitute Lincoln's name for Elvis in that famous Public Enemy lyric that begins with "Elvis was a hero to most...".

Enough already. Let's put Lincoln to rest now. And while we're at it, maybe somebody can tell Skip to play his position, "stay out the video," and let the subject matter speak for itself next time.

Tainted

2009-02-09T12:22:00.000-08:00

Wow, what a past couple of days. Alex "A Fraud" Rodriguez is identified as having failed a previous drug test for steroids and later admits to using performance enhancing drugs, Chris Brown decides to use his goon hand, and now we learn that Sir Charles will be back on the scene at TNT after the All Star Game. And even though The Grammys were as expected, wack, seeing The "Rap Pack" perform--Jay-Z, Kanye, T.I., and Weezy-- with a pregnant M.I.A. was the highlight of the evening. In spite of the fact that hip hop is at a lull right now, seeing all that star power on stage reminds us that hip hop has left an indelible signature on the landscape of global culture that will never be erased.

But I want to talk about A Fraud for a minute. Who didn't know that homie was using? Raise your hand, please. The game has been full of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) for years now. No, the usage was not confined to a few bad apples, it was widespread and pervasive. When will people stop acting all innocent about this?

It's like the widespread sexual abuse scandal amongst Catholic priests from a few years back. When a scandal touches that many people, it's clearly not just a few deviants, but instead it is a culture at work within a larger institution. The use of PEDs in baseball is part of a culture that goes back to the 1980s. A Rod, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Raphael Palmario, are some of the best baseball players of the last 20 years, and they've all been implicated. That tells me that the usage had become part of the player's overall fitness routine, not some underground cult where a handful of players indulged anonymously. The fact that baseball only started testing in 2003 says to me that they knew all along what was up.

The thing is, baseball was so eager to bust their most hated member, Barry Bonds, that they exposed people like Clemens and A Rod in the process. If they didn't have such a vendetta against Bonds none of this may have ever come out.

Baseball made a deal with the steroid devil after canceling their season in 1994 and collectively looked the other way as the player's astronomical statistics started bringing attention back to the sport in subsequent seasons. The game was on the rebound, chicks loved the long ball, and they were making money hand over fist, so why interfere with a good thing? Once again, had it not been for the animosity surrounding Bonds and his pursuit of Aaron's record, none of this may have ever reached the light of day. But thanks to the overzealous attempts to bust Bonds and make him the scapegoat, the scrutiny over his activities lead to revelations of a culture that extend far beyond Barry Bonds.

As I've said before, it's clear that baseball had a problem. Not the players alone, but the sport itself. Stop pissing in people's faces and telling them that it's raining. Come on out and say that the sport is dirty and has been for a long time now. Acknowledge this and keep it moving. Anyone caught going forward can be punished accordingly, but let's drop this faux sense of shock every time another player's name get implicated in the scandal.

Of course, I think that the use of PEDs is consistent with the times. Science offers the opportunity for people to grow hair, remove wrinkles, prolong sexual activity, and give birth to octuplets, among other things. Why are we surprised when multi-million dollar athletes who work for billion dollar organizations uses science to enhance their performances? Like Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five said many years ago, "it's all about money/ain't a damn thing funny/you gotta have a con/in this land of milk and honey."

No, it's not cheating, it's the reality of the world we live in where people will do whatever it takes to gain an edge in their appearance or in their performance. That's not cheating, that's America!

Don't Start None, Won't Be None

2009-02-06T14:44:00.000-08:00

There should be a dress code of respect. I wish that he would wear a suit coat and tie. The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President. I don't criticize Obama for his appearance, I do expect him to send the message that people who are going to be in the Oval Office should treat the office with the respect that it has earned over history.

Andrew Card, Former Chief of Staff for George Bush 43

Andy Card, I know you ain't talkin' greasy?! Not you?!

But indeed he is. Andrew Card recently had a Mr. Blackwell moment when he suddenly turned into a fashion critic, choosing to criticize President Barack Obama for the new casual dress code that has now been instituted in the White House. As the quote indicates, Card strongly suggests that President Obama is disrespecting the office of the Presidency with the more relaxed sartorial stipulations that he has recently put in place.

First of all, Andy Gump, have you been asleep for the last month? Barack Obama is the President of the Unites States and you're not. With that office comes the authority to decide how people should move through the office. If he decides that a more casual dress code is appropriate, then it is a done deal. Your opinion is worthless. You are the one disrespecting the office by choosing to get all in the man's BI, when you yourself are in no position to offer any advice, suggestion, or critique. The inauguration for the new President was January 20, did you miss that? Your old boss is out of a gig now, so stay in your lane.

Secondly, Obama represents change in so many ways, one of which involves eliminating that old, stogy, uptight idea that everyone should be suited and booted at all times. Have you not heard of casual Fridays? There is no direct link between one's appearance and their ability to get the job done.

Trust me, I've been as clean as a cooked chitlin' since I was 15, and I, more than most, can certainly appreciate people being up to par in terms of the gear that they wear. But I'm also smart enough to know that everything ain't for everybody. Just because my dress code is impeccable doesn't mean that everyone else should be held up to such a high standard. I can respect people's right to do their own thing and as long as they do their work, it's all good.

Bush 43 had a dress code from the 1950s and yet it didn't stop him from being the President with the lowest approval ratings or from having shoes thrown at him. Your former boss' dress code didn't stop him from being considered the worst President ever. If you want to talk about dress code let's talk about that infamous flight suit your man wore on the deck of that aircraft carrier. Where did he think he was going, to a Halloween party?

Finally Mr. Gump, how could you fix your mouth to criticize Obama's dress code when you are known affectionately as "Cheeseburger Boy"? Yessir, according to Ron Suskind in The Price of Loyalty this is the same Andy Card who Bush 43 once sent for so that Card could fetch him some cheeseburgers. That's right, cheeseburgers! What is this, John Belusi's old "Billy Goat" routine from SNL, "cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger...no Coke, Pepsi"? Or as Vincent Vega might say, a "royale with cheese". I didn't realize that the Chief of Staff had such daunting duties. Go get me a cheeseburger boy, and have 'em hold the mayo!

But this brings up another thought, is eating a cheeseburger in the White House respecting the office of the Presidency?

When 61 Equals 0

2009-02-03T12:07:00.000-08:00

Many across the country, and especially in LA, are all misty-eyed today following Kobe Bryant's 61 point effort against the New York Knicks in Madison Square Garden last night. How many times can one listen to the stat about the most points ever scored in MSG without dying a slow death of indifference?

Not only is Kobe the most overrated player since Larry Bird retired, but the cultural significance of MSG, relative to basketball, is also exaggerated beyond the boundaries of one's most vivid imagination.

Kobe is clearly a first ballot Hall-of-Famer and one of the greats in the game's history. Even I can't dispute that. Kobe was in the passenger seat while Shaq drove the Lakers to 3 straight titles from 2000-2002. After helping force the trade of Shaq following the dismantling administered by the Pistons in 2004, Kobe jumped to the top of the scoring charts in subsequent seasons, scoring as many as 81 points in a game back in 2006, while regularly putting up exceptional numbers, night in, night out. No one ever said that Wack Mamba couldn't score the basketball. He eventually made it back to the Finals last summer, only be to run off the court again, this time by the Boston Celtics. Let us not forget that Kobe's last two trips to the NBA Finals have ended in resounding defeat.

What I am reacting to here is the rather short memory or overall lack of knowledge that many fans who watch the NBA bring to their viewing experience. It's the fools who are saying that Kobe is on Jordan's level that irk me. Jordan won 6 NBA titles and at no point during any of those 6 titles was he ever the second scoring option on offense. When it was all said and done, Jordan had 10 scoring titles to go along with those 6 rings, not to mention countless other accolades and accomplishments. Those 10 scoring titles and 6 rings were all won consecutively also. This means that Jordan had a sustained dominance, without a drop off over an extended period of time. Kobe so far as 2 scoring titles and 3 rings as as the second fiddle. Case closed, suitcase filled with clothes!

Kobe scored 61 points in a regular season game against a team that has been in the draft lottery more so than the playoffs lately. It's like the year he scored those 81 points against Toronto, the Raptors ended up with the first pick in the draft they were so bad. 61 points against the lowly Knicks is nothing special for a player who has already put up the type of numbers that Kobe has. This is to be expected. He set such a high mark for himself, now he must live up to it.

When Kobe scores 61 points in a Finals game and goes on to win a title without Shaq then I'll give it up. Until then, those 61 points are empty for me. Do it when it counts. Do it in June, not February, then we have someone to talk about.

As for the so-called "Mecca of Basketball," this is nothing but more New York hype. It's the same hype that made the "LeBron is coming to the Knicks in 2010" non-story into a story earlier this season. Considering that the last time the Knicks won a title Richard Nixon was the President, as opposed to being a character in an Oscar-nominated movie, and that the last great NYC player, Stephon "Starbury," he of the $15 sneakers, is an absolute bust, maybe we need to accept the fact that the Mecca of Basketball has been relocated.

Group think is not a good look. Neither Kobe nor Madison Square Garden deserve the attention that comes from a herd mentality which is both uninformed and out to lunch. You can't just declare someone or something great and just assume that it is that way. At the end of the day it is about a body of work and though Kobe has an impressive one, to mention him in the same breath with Jordan is an insult to the greatest of all times.

"I Don't Smoke the Weed if it ain't Purple or Blue"

2009-02-02T13:10:00.000-08:00

The second that I came across the photo showing Olympic superstar Michael Phelps taking a bong hit I knew that we were in for an extended round of passing judgment, excessive moralizing, and a level of overall hypocrisy that would threaten to make me nauseous. There are few things in the world more annoying than a scandal involving an athlete and their indulgence of certain substances. Considering Phelps immense level of success, both as a swimmer and now as an advertising force, I knew that this event would prompt a national conversation that would once again be misguided and uninformed. I dread moments like this. Not because I think it's a shame that a grown man decided to blaze it up, but because of the inevitable responses that would come from various sectors of this square-ass nation that we continue to live in.

In a country as economically and culturally shell shocked as our own is right now, there are much more important things going on than the sight of a 23 year old smoking weed. Yet because many still subscribe to this silly notion of athletes as role models, the response to such an event is about as predictable as Terrell Owens criticizing the quarterback for not throwing enough footballs in his direction.

What Sir Charles said back in the day still holds true, athletes should not be thought of as role models. His recent arrest in Arizona on drunk driving charges suggests that Sir Charles still believes strongly in what he said many years ago.

Athletes are trained to be superior in their respective sports. One doesn't get to be as good as Phelps just by watching swimming competitions on television. Phelps has been groomed to be the man in the pool since he was a boy. And as Malcolm Gladwell points out in his latest sensation Outliers, all the hours that superstars like Phelps put into pursuing their craft as a youth has a direct connection to their uber success as adults. Phelps is the greatest swimmer of all time and one of the top Olympians ever. Yet for all those hours spent in the pool, there were other aspects of Phelps' life that went unattended. There's only so many hours in a day. Phelps is an incredible swimmer, but those hours in the pool don't automatically translate into him knowing how to be a "model citizen."

Phelps is evidently a young man who likes to get his party on. Perhaps all that discipline that he has exhibited while in training stops when it comes to his personal life? The man might just need a release. He's not a robot. So he exhibits a lack of discipline out of the pool that rivals his dedication in the pool. His strength is perhaps his weakness. This all says to me that he is human, not a poor role model.

When did we start investing athletes with all these superhuman characteristics anyway? I enjoy watching great athletes because they are great at what they do. If I want to be impressed by someone for the moral standard that they set, I'll go and read about Gandhi.

The act of smoking of weed continues to rile the feathers of many uninformed people in our society. When are we going to get off this prohibition era reefer madness attitude that surfaces every time the subject of marijuana comes up? The man was photographed smoking a bong, not sticking a "hairon" spike in his arm. This country is so backwards on this weed issue that it ain't even funny.

I could do without Phelps fake apology too; as if he is going to stop gettin' his swerve on now! The words of apology are to appease the advertisers and their customers; a pure PR move. Yet such a move has become part of the political theater that always accompanies an event like this. It's empty rhetoric, that's all.

Dude got popped for drunk driving before and now this. He brags about listening to Jeezy before going out to dominate his sport. This all tells me that he likes to indulge. I ain't mad. When his out of the pool activities start to impact his swimming then I can hear the arguments about keeping priorities straight, but beyond that, as long as you ain't hurting nobody, do you. As Method Man once so famously said, "roll that shit, lite that shit, smoke it!"

When will all the hypocrisy stop? When will people be more incensed about truly detrimental activities like the "alleged" war crimes of the previous presidential administration? When will we stop holding human beings to unrealistic standards of behavior? When we will stop expecting athletes and other public figures to be saints? When we will drop all these ancient attitudes about weed?

I guess the answer to all these questions is when the society stops with all the hyperbole and gets hip to the real deal. I don't have any illusions that this is going to happen any time soon though, if ever.

Meanwhile, I wonder if he was burning kush in that bong? Considering that he was in South Carolina, I doubt it. Smoking a bong full of stress, now that's a crime!

Black Steele in the Hour of Chaos

2009-01-31T12:57:00.000-08:00

Though a defeated party, the GOP still won't quite go away. First there were the comments made by the man Keith Olbermann calls "The Comedian," none other than Rush Limbaugh, who stated this week that he hopes President Barack Obama "fails," only to be followed by the news Friday that the Grand Old Party has selected an African American, Michael Steele, to lead the Republican National Committee. All of this was taking place during a week when the Republicans on Capital Hill were chugging down gallons of haterade as they try to stop Obama's economic stimulus plans, in spite of his noble attempts to bridge the so-called partisan divide. For a vanquished party, the Republicans are still making a lot of noise; at least for the time being.

First of all, Limbaugh, in saying that he hopes that Obama fails, is really saying that he hopes that the nation fails, right? Because logic would suggest that if the President fails, at this especially volatile time, then the nation would be worst off for it. For some reason though, I've missed the tear and feathers, and accusations of Limbaugh being "anti-American." I guess the anti-American tag only applies to Democrats?

Obama would probably do well not to call Limbaugh's name, because every time he does, it's a scenario not unlike the one Jay-Z described when he said "if I shot you I'm brainless/if you shot me you're famous." Limbaugh, who by the way is a radio jock, not a politician, lest anyone forget, stands to benefit every time he gets acknowledged by the President. Don't feed the animals. A preferred method of dealing with him would be to invoke the Tony Soprano "he's dead to me" mantra and let the idiot die a death of irrelevancy like that of the defeated political party that he stomps so hard for on the radio everyday.

As for Michael Steele, it appears that the Republicans have either a) suddenly discovered the word "diversity" in the dictionary or b) think that only another African American should run their party now that Obama is in office? What is this, tit for tat? Quid pro quo, Dr. Lecter? Can you say "tokenism"?

Michael Steele, I've got news for you Playboy, you are no Barack Obama. So all that talk about running over those who try to obstruct your party needs to be squashed. Win an election and then you can talk, otherwise just fall back. Maybe if the Republicans had gotten the diversity memo 2 years ago, it might have made a difference, but at this point Michael Steele is just a black face running a party reduced to watching the action from the sidelines. Too little, too late. Turn off the lights, the party's over; the Republican party, that is!

The Takeover and other Post-Inaugural Thoughts

2009-01-23T14:04:00.001-08:00

Ok, now that a few days have passed since the inaugural, I'm on my stream of consciousness flow today as the rain drops fall in Southern Cali.

I just finished doing an interview with a journalist from the Chicago Tribune. The interview was about, for lack of a better description, the hip hop presence at the inauguration. This reporter seemed surprised by several things from Tuesday's inaugural festivities, including, for instance, Beyonce's singing, Obama gettin' his two-step on, and other visible examples of what she considered "hip hop." The reporter also commented on how others that she has talked to of a certain age felt equally surprised at what they saw. At one point she said something about a majority of the country not fully realizing what was going on. While I agree that a majority of this country doesn't know what's going on, I suspect that my reasons are quite different than those of the reporter.

First of all there was nothing necessarily "hip hop" about anything that happened on Tuesday. While it was cool to see mainstream acts like Beyonce and Kanye in the mix, hip hop itself has been at the center of American popular culture so long that this was far from being a surprise. It was to be expected. I'm not saying that hip hop is mainstream as much as I'm saying the mainstream is hip hop.

What I want to key in on here is the rise of a new generation coming to power though. Obama is 3 years older than me and for all the other reasons that I predicted his victory way back in 2006, I am perhaps happiest about my generation coming up in the game. I am also pleased to see the older WW II, Baby Boom, and Civil Rights generations recede into the ether of irrelevancy. For me the so-called "Greatest Generation" was never that great, the Baby Boomers were getting long in the tooth, and don't let me get started on the Civil Rights generation; I called them out in The New H.N.I.C. which dropped all the way back in 2002.

Yes, the dawn of the Obama age is a new day in more ways than one. It's actually more like a takeover. We won and with victory comes the right to talk shit, the way I see it.

And let me just add a few more thoughts about all things inaugural and post. I am happy to hear that the President managed to keep his Blackberry. While I rep the iPhone, Obama's beloved Blackberry demonstrates his need for connectivity which is something very much borne of this age. As for the inaugural itself, let me begin by saying that the very presence of Rick Warren was insulting. John Robert's flubbed his lines yet it seems that both he and Obama are being blamed for this. Joseph Lowery bought back some words that I hadn't heard since I was a little kid. The only part he left out was "if you're black get back!" And the yet the low point of it all was Elizabeth Alexander's overly enunciated poetry. Elizabeth is source of one of my most prized possessions, the vinyl of Iceberg Slim's album Reflections, but I gotta be real about it, she was wack! Sorry.

For me though, the most entertaining moment of it all was watching Jimmy Carter walk right pass Bill Clinton without even looking in his direction. The two former presidents, both southern Democrats, have been beefin' for a while now. It was most recently evident in the photo that all the living presidents took at the White House a few weeks back. Notice the distance between the two men. It's like Carter is taking his own picture. I think this is all quite funny, two former presidents beefin' as though they were rappers. What's the world coming to? "What's beef?/beef is when I see you/guaranteed to be in ICU."

And, of course, last but not least, my homie The Queen, Ms. Aretha Franklin, put on for our city, Detroit, as only she can do. This inauguration marks the departure of a real "chain of fools" from office, paving the way for Aretha to rock the house with her voice and with her hat game; both of which were equally off tha chain. You know how we do!

That's Ghetto

2009-01-18T15:36:00.000-08:00

A few years ago a debate erupted in one of my classes. This debate began when a white male student described something in particular as "ghetto." An African American woman took offense and vocalized her displeasure with his use of this term; a term that she considered an inappropriate utterance. She stated that, to her, the use of the word was racist. In response, the male student said that because he lived in the area surrounding USC, an area appropriately described as a "ghetto," that he felt as though he was justified in using the term. Others jumped in and soon the sparks began to fly. Like the good provocateur that I am, I let them all argue it out for a few minutes before I jumped in to maximize this especially teachable moment.

I was reminded of this argument the other day when I read about Kathleen Leavey the top lawyer for my city, Detroit, who resigned when a controversy evolved after she described the city's 36th District Court as "ghetto." Leavey, a white attorney in the nation's blackest city, made a comment that many considered offensive. Interim Detroit mayor Ken Cockrel called the remark "unacceptable."

Is "ghetto" the new n-word? The term itself supposedly dates back to 14th century Venice, Italy and was used to describe the walled off and gated section of the city where Jews where forced to live. The evolution of this term in America, certainly in the last 40 years, often implies an area defined by black poverty.

For someone to assume that ghetto is a racist term is to assume that poverty is endemic to blackness. In spite of countless hip hop songs and videos that have turned the "ghetto" into something to be envied over the last 20 years, what this African American student unconsciously assumed in her statement was that blackness is synonymous with being poor. While I know what people mean when they call something "ghetto" the term is a class specific term more so than it is racial. Yet in a climate where some right wing idiots call minimal government incursion into the financial markets "socialism" it is obvious that we as a society don't even begin to know to how to discuss issues of class.

On the other hand, someone living in the "ghetto" that surrounds the university while they are a student is certainly not the same thing as having been born and raised in the ghetto because that's the best that your family could afford. This student lived in the ghetto by choice because it was convenient to the university, not because his parents were poor and confined to live in squalor due to their lack of funds.

Debates about the appropriate use of the n-word have abounded for a long time now. I recently turned down a very persistent producer from Dr. Phil who wanted me to be on an episode of their show to debate the word. Though I have weighed in on the topic several times over the years, I am tired of talking about it by now. Honestly, it's not a big deal to me. I try to stay M.O.B. as it were and being engaging in such a dated conversation has nothing to do with gettin' money, so I now avoid this conversation like the plague. I really could care less. Though I do recognize that this term is still a very sensitive subject for many, it is not for me. As I have said time and again, I love the word "nigga"! It is my favorite word in the English language because no other word conjures up so much confusion, animosity, hand wringing, weeping, or gnashing of teeth. It's not the word, it's what the word represents that's the issue, but people are fixated on symbols, often times at the expense of substance.

While "nigga" doesn't offend me in the abstract, I do understand why many remain offended by it's usage, in spite of my liberal views on the topic. "Ghetto" is a different story altogether though. To call someone or something ghetto is to say raggedy, trifling, or less than up to par. Anyone who assumes that only black people are "ghetto" is a damn fool. The word is about lower class sensibilities, be it black, white, Latino, etc. People tend to use the metaphor of the "trailer park" when referring to whiteness and poverty, but regardless of the term in question, it is the class component that drives these words and metaphors; though I am not naive enough to think that the word "ghetto" hasn't been racialized.

I am not a language cop and I have no need to tell people what to say. But I think we need to recognize that simply because something is not necessarily wrong, it doesn't mean that you need to say it. What often gets lost in conversations like these is the point that the usage of certain words in a particular context may indeed be insensitive. The lack of sensitivity to the particular concerns of the environment that you are speaking in is often where the offense begins. The 36th District Court in Detroit is "ghetto" as is Detroit itself. That's not a diss, that's being real. I can stay this because I put on for my city and can feel Detroit in every ounce of my being; good, bad, and ugly. But my point here is that someone like Kathleen Leavey should think twice before uttering such a word in a predominately black city where the racial tensions are always an integral part of the overall fabric. I don't think her comment was racist, but it was certainly not intelligent either.

When controversies like this over the appropriate use of certain words come up, people often turn it into a debate about free speech. To suggest that someone cannot use a particular word is to imply a certain censorship in this context. Such an argument denies the role that context plays in the words that are spoken. I mean, I believe in the right to free speech as much as the next person, but I'm not going to go into a redneck bar and start yelling "cracker" at the top of my lungs just because I am free to do so.

Perhaps we shouldn't look at this as a free speech issue, but instead we should think about it as an issue of civility and decorum. There is something to be said for being considerate, respectful, and appropriate. All things lawful are not always expedient. In other words, think before you speak or else risk putting your foot in your mouth and then having to pay the consequences.

All this talk about the ghetto made me think of the late great Donny Hathaway's ruminations on the topic. Dig it...

And, of course, I would be remiss if I didn't reach back for that Oaktown pimp Too Short's flip of Hathaway's original joint with his own version of The Ghetto from 1990.

Not Easily Watchable

2009-01-13T14:43:00.001-08:00

I Feel Sanctified

Someone sent me a text the other day saying that they were just leaving "Bishop Jake's film." That phrase sounded weird to me. First of all, the reverence with which Jakes was accorded in title and secondly, the fact that his name and the word "film" would be used in the same sentence. The "Bishop Jakes" in question is none other than Bishop Thomas Dexter "TD" Jakes, to be precise. Jakes is the influential modern day preacher who presides over the Dallas mega church The Potter's House. His film is the recently released Not Easily Broken.

I am a big proponent of a) advocating that people stay in their lane and b) bashing organized religion in all its many guises. Preacher's shouldn't make movies and filmmakers shouldn't preach. It is a sad day in Hollywood when the few black films that get made are increasingly those made by chitlin' circuit entrepreneurs like Jakes and Tyler Perry. These two have become the modern day versions of people like Oscar Micheaux and Spencer Williams. Unlike those early black film pioneers whose cinematic shortcomings are a bit more understandable considering their times, Jakes and Perry have no excuse for the contemporary coonishness that their films perpetrate. Further, the overt religiousness of their films are but another demonstration of the way that the evangelical movement is seeping into places where it need not be. Just another lasting legacy of the soon-to-be-departed 43, I guess?

Spencer Williams

Now some will ask, have you seen Not Easily Broken? And my answer is, absolutely not! And I don't plan on it either. When you are The Notorious Ph.D. and you watch film and have been watching movies for a living for the last 20 years, you don't need to see something to know whether or not it's bull defecation; the smell alone is a dead giveaway.

Green for the Money and Gold for the Honey!

People complain about rappers becoming actors all the time. Well, what about preachers and charlatans becoming filmmakers? That is a much bigger issue of concern for me. TD Jakes needs to stick with his regular hustle and stay out of the theaters with that overly moralistic, retread, "All God's Chill'un Got Wings" sentiment. What we might laugh at now when seeing say Green Pastures from 1936 is no longer funny in 2009. Frankly, it's quite sad. Besides as far as "Bishops" go, I much prefer listening to Arch Bishop Don "Magic" Juan anyway. Better yet, if Nina Mae McKinney, I'm sorry, Taraji P. Henson, ain't singin' "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" then don't even call me.

Nina Mae McKinney

Tim Tebow's Ice is Colder

2009-01-13T12:48:00.000-08:00

Some people tend to have very short memories. In reading and listening to all the recent talk about University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow, one would come to assume that Tebow has actually done something that has never been done before. Tebow's skills as a runner and a passer are being lauded as though no college quarterback ever possessed such a combination. Is Tebow the first college quarterback who can hurt you with his arm as well as his feet? Hell no! You ever heard of Vince Young? Oh, I'm sorry, VY is yesterday's news. It was only 3 years ago that VY set the Rose Bowl field on fire with perhaps the greatest college bowl game performance ever. His 467 total yards, including the game winning touchdown with 19 seconds left, lead his Texas Longhorns to an upset of the USC Trojans, who themselves were closing in on a historic 3peat as college football's national champions. Tebow's 341 total yards, while admittedly an impressive performance, pale in comparison.

My point here is not to praise VY--trust me, it was my Trojans that VY ran over and around that January night back in 2006!--so much as it is to point out the blatant bias that has accompanied Tebow's success. VY is but one person to contrast Tebow against. VY's opponent that night Matt Leinart had won his own Heisman back in 2004 and was 19 seconds away from winning a third national title in a row. Leinart lost a whooping 2 games in his entire career as a starter, and one of those was the Texas Rose Bowl lose. Tebow has already lost 5 games since becoming the Gators starting QB.

Tebow, the son of evangelical missionaries, and a "jack leg" preacher himself, was home schooled, though allowed to participate in high school football due to a Florida law that allows this. I have never been a fan of home schooling. The racial and cultural undertones of such a practice is quite appalling, really. If you don't want to go to the public school, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in it's sports program. Participating in the sports program of a local school is a right and a privilege for those who attend the school, not those who choose to avoid attending it. Yet this conservative, evangelical, crew cut-wearing QB is now the toast of a university which represents the state that delivered GB 43 to the White House in that infamous "jacked" election back in 2000. Why I am I not surprised?!

At one point in the BCS game Tebow did that ridiculous Gator chomp, clearly taunting his opponent, and what did the sycophantic announcer say? Something like this might be the first mistake that he's ever made? Nothing about poor sportsmanship or thuggish behavior, no, other people's character flaws are treated as leadership strengths for Tebow.

There is nothing new about Tebow's ability to run and pass other than the fact that the people who did it before him, people like VY and Michael Vick, are black and Tebow is white. What did Mos Def say, "If white boys doin' it/well/it's success/When I start doin' it/well/it's suspect." Tebow's style, politics, and his race make him a hero for some people. Alas, enough with all this jock ridin', please! I'm not saying he isn't a good player, but his skills are nowhere near the hype that he has generated. I guess it stands to reason though in a sport where black head coaches are next to non-existent that the desire for another great white hope trumps the need for a more equitable and diverse workplace.

(By the way, can we please retire all further Superman references that have nothing to do with the fictional Superman character?!)

You Played Yourself

2009-01-06T18:01:00.000-08:00

Uncle Roland Burris and Mr. R. Blag

What is up with Roland Burris? It's one thing for embattled Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to engage in this grand act of political theater by nominating Burris, but why would Burris go along with this stunt? In other words, getting played is bad, playin' yourself is worst. Burris is clearly a pawn in R. Blag's game, a cynical game of racial politics used to stir up confusion, while homie awaits his federal indictment. It seems that R. Blag's assumes that if he can stir up enough animus with this nomination that maybe he can detract attention away from what appears to be his own impending doom. But even if Burris is finally seated, as all indications suggest that his appointment is legal, he will have no credibility. He is destined to be a comic footnote.

I'm sorry--or maybe I'm not--but there seems to be something a bit coonish about Burris' eager participation in all of this. He appears quite "happy to be there," as it were. Burris is playing Rochester to R. Blag's Jack Benny.

Eddie "Rochester" Anderson and Jack Benny

I had hoped that the shufflin', grinnin', compliant sycophant was now a thing of the past, but not so quick. Between Burris' old soft shoe routine and New York congressman Charlie Rangel's mounting troubles, it seems that not everyone has turned in their clown suits just yet. Stephin' Fetchit is still in the building. Roland Burris is nothing more than a political mascot right now. This would really be painful to watch if it wasn't so subversively funny. Roland Burris is a joke and I refuse to stop laughing until he puts his tap shoes away.

Real Recognize Real 2.0

2008-12-25T22:31:00.000-08:00

Miles Davis' original liner notes for A Tribute to Jack Johnson (1971)

Real Recognize Real

2008-12-25T13:23:00.001-08:00

Trevor von Eeden's graphic novel, The Original Johnson, renders the great boxing champion and original "nigga you love to hate," Jack Johnson in vivid illustrated detail. Johnson, the prototype for the modern black athlete, was a figure who was so far ahead of his time that we're just now starting to catch up. Jack Johnson was a pugilistic superstar who kicked white men's asses, openly dated white women, drove elaborate cars, was clean as the board of health, and talked "cash shit" while doing of all this. He was such a threat to the rule of white supremacy that Congress banned the screening of his fight films. Johnson's rebellious "don't give a fuck" demeanor stands out as especially brazen during a time period when the lynching of black people was at an all time high. Talk about a rebel without a pause. The opening line of van Eeden's graphic novel says it best, "The First psychologically Free blackman in AmericanHistory."

Jack Johnson has been the subject of the stage play and film The Great White Hope, both starring James Earl Jones, as well as the classic Miles Davis album A Tribute to Jack Johnson. Johnson was also the inspiration for the Ken Burns documentary Unforgivable Blackness. Von Eeden's graphic novel adds to this most important of legacies with The Original Johnson.

Jack Johnson was real long before fools were talking about keeping it real. He was his own man at a time when being your own black man was a crime of the highest order. His defiant spirit and larger-than-life swag lives with us to this day.

College Football's Race Problem

2008-12-15T17:48:00.000-08:00

Buffalo's Turner Gill just got dissed!

The NCAA has long dragged their feet on the issue of diversifying the head coaching ranks in college football. In light of Auburn University's recent hire of former Iowa State coach Gene Chizik, the injustice inherent to the appallingly low number of African American head coaches in the sport is that much more pronounced. Chizik won a whopping total of 5 games in two seasons at Iowa State. That's right, 5 games. He lost 19 during this same span, yet he lands one of the top jobs in college football? Even if there was no obvious racial inequity in this hire, it still does not make much sense to hire someone with such a terrible record. But when you consider that Buffalo's Turner Gill was one of the people competing for the same job, and that Gill just defeated previously unbeaten Ball State to win the MAC conference title, this adds insult to injury.

There are only 4 African American head coaches in D1 college football now. This is a shame. The NCAA should be embarrassed. Considering the role that colleges and universities are supposed to play in promoting diversity in this society, such a statistic is quite troubling; not to mention that the NCAA always seems to find time to come up with another arcane rule for some insignificant infraction on the part of a young player. The hypocrisy here is ridiculous. What's really important, making sure that the member institutions are proactive in promoting diversity or penalizing some kid for the relative crumbs that may fall his way due to a corrupt system that he didn't create in the first place?

Charles Barkely is right. Gill was denied the job due to his race and because he is married to a white woman, something that still troubles the good old boys at Auburn it seems. This is another example like that of Ty Willingham from a few years ago, who was fired after three years at Notre Dame, while the so-called genius Charlie Weis remains on the job in spite of his obvious failings. Not that I'm a Willingham fan, but fair is fair.

The NCAA needs to step up and do something about the racism in their ranks. Though the NFL had to be threatened with litigation before taking action, the implementation of the Rooney Rule has clearly made a difference in the number of black coaches who now hold head coaching jobs. The NCAA needs their own version of this rule or else college football will continue to look like the old boys network that it is! This was never cool, but in the age of Obama, it is especially problematic!

It's Gotta Be the Shoes!

2008-12-14T12:43:00.000-08:00

And now the award for being the first President to have not one, but two shoes thrown at him by an Iraqi reporter goes to none other than the departing Mr. Four-Trey! (Please ignore the audio commentary)

The Jesse Jackson Jr. Pop Quiz

2008-12-12T10:08:00.000-08:00

Jesse Jackson Jr. has denied allegations involving a "pay-to-play" scandal as asserted by disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich over the Senate seat vacated when Barack Obama won the presidency.

After viewing this, I thought that a pop quiz would be in order.

Question:

Which of the quotes below best describes Jesse Jackson's Jr.'s performance at this recent press conference?

a)"thou doth protest too much"
b)"the apple don't fall far from the tree"
c)"stuntin' like my Daddy"
d)"the bitch set me up"
e) all of the above

Of the Times

2008-12-10T13:05:00.000-08:00

While the jury is still out on Common's new joint Universal Mind Control, his recent point about hip hop changing now that Obama is President-elect is indeed an interesting thought. How will the new Commander-in-Chief influence the direction of a genre that most everyone agrees is not at it's most creative moment right now?

For all the complaints about hip hop's commercialism, hedonism, and any other negative 'ism that people might want to attach to the culture, let us not forget that hip hop's celebration of all things material coincided with the prosperous economic times and stock market explosion of the 1990s. Rappers were not the only ones poppin' bottles and buying corporate jets in the 90s, it's just that those Wall Street rappers didn't celebrate their excesses in music videos for the world to see. My point is that hip hop is only a reflection of what's going on in the world around it.

As America flexed its economic muscle in the 90s, so did hip hop. When the stock market and the tech boom crashed, the Wall Street casino capitalists moved on to the housing market. This allowed them to prolong the inevitable, the same "inevitable" disaster that we are now living through.

When 43 came to power he trumpeted an "ownership society" and flexed a type of military muscle that was in keeping with the best of the hardcore gangsta rap tradition. The only thing is Four Trey wasn't rapping. No, George Bush had an army, better yet a navy, and he wasn't afraid to use them either. I always found it interesting that 50 Cent took over the charts in early 2003, around the same time that 43 was staging a preemptive war against a sovereign nation based on false pretense. For me Bush's arrival on the aircraft carrier wearing the flight suit, with the "Mission Accomplished" banner was not that different in tone and sentiment to Curtis Jackson's album cover for Get Rich or Die Tryin', where a bloated, steroid-induced sense of self seemed to define both figures. Thankfully neither 43 nor Curtis are relevant any more.

What I'm saying is that hip hop is no better or worst than the times. Songs and videos about excess, wealth and a general indifference to any and all is about as outdated as Cheney and Rumsfeld now. Obama promises a new day and if this new day does come to pass then rappers will in turn be forced to change with the times. Those who don't get the memo will be ass out, just like 43 in a little over a month from now.

Ruckus' Revenge

2008-12-08T12:30:00.000-08:00

I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution.

Barack Obama

I see now that I will be spending a fair amount of my time in these coming years pointing out all the presidential playa hatin' that will be transpiring as the haters among us come to terms with the reality of the coming Obama administration. While it doesn't surprise me that there are still those with all sort of ill feelings towards the President-Elect, as evidenced by the actions of one Leo Donofrio, the hater who with nothing better to do it seems, pursued a court case arguing that Barack Obama is unqualified to be President of the Unites States because his Kenyan father was classified as a "British subject" at the time of Obama's birth in Hawaii. It does annoy me however that even after Supreme Court Justice David Souter and several lower courts rejected the case, that Justice Clarence Thomas, aka "Uncle Ruckus," decided to give the case a hearing. In spite of Thomas' support, the court again decided against hearing the case earlier today.

One would assume that Thomas is still pissed that the President-Elect said, without hesitation, that he would never have nominated Thomas to the court when asked about it at that unnecessary forum held at Rick Warren's Southern California mega-church during the campaign. Thomas' motivations are very transparent here. This is the Supreme Court of the United States, Sir, not Judge Mathis, or the court of petty, personal grudges, for that matter. Besides, even though you are the poster child for the unqualified minority who benefited from the affirmative action that you denied so many deserving others during your time running the EEOC for Reagan, Obama was right!

Stop hatin' Ruckus, such behavior is not becoming of a Supreme Court justice, however unqualified you might be for such a lofty perch even after all these years.

Convict

2008-12-05T10:50:00.001-08:00

"Shoe program nigga! 23 hour lock down!"

Denzel Washington as Alonzo Harris in Training Day (2001)

Well the inevitable has finally come to pass. It was apparent not long after O.J. Simpson's infamous acquittal in 1995 that he was not going to be satisfied until he ended up back in the joint. He has finally come full circle. In what has to be one of the most frustratingly surreal chapters in American social and cultural history, the saga of one Orenthal James Simpson has now culminated in a felony conviction.

First Plaxico gets popped for shooting himself and now O.J. gets convicted for forcefully retrieving his own shit. What a week. Someone once told me that "the lord looks after babies and fools." Who looked after these two fools then? And here I thought that Damon Stoudamire was stupid for trying to go through an airport metal detector carrying weed wrapped in aluminum foil.

All I can say for O.J. is that this couldn't have happened to a more deserving person!

NY State of Mind 2.0

2008-11-28T14:27:00.000-08:00

Sir Charles Barkley on LBJ:

"If I was LeBron James, I would shut the hell up. I'm a big LeBron fan. He's a stud. You gotta give him his props. I'm getting so annoyed he's talking about what he's going to do in two years. I think it's disrespectful to the game. I think it's disrespectful to the Cavaliers."

Medea Gets a Union Card

2008-11-27T13:44:00.000-08:00

It appears as though modern day chitlin' circuit proprietor and resident handkerchief head Tyler Perry--the creative force behind such high end cinematic fare as Sapphire's Family Reunion and Meet the Clowns--has decided to boldly move into the 20th century by agreeing to allow the writers who work on his film and television productions to unionize. How generous of you, Mr. Perry. You are such a kind man and forward thinker. I'm sure your idol, Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry, aka Stephin' Fetchit, would be so proud of you. Keep up the good work, Mr Perry. Who knows, maybe one day your writers might even get their very own sharpeners for those number 2 pencils that they've been writing with? Anything is possible, right? Well, on second thought, maybe we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves.

NY State of Mind

2008-11-25T19:04:00.000-08:00

"New York/New York/big city of dreams/but everything in New York ain't always what it seems."

Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five, New York, New York

Am I the only one annoyed by the incessant talk about the possibility of LeBron James signing with the New York Knicks or the New Jersey Nets in two years when he is a free agent? Why are we talking about this two years out? Why, because New York has a way of creating it's own hype, however unnecessary.

In the modern age, where with a cell phone and a computer you can be practically anywhere and still get love, where the media will find you no matter how much you try to hide out, what's the big deal about going to NY? I mean, don't get me wrong, I dig NY, but the days of needing to be in a major media market like NY to maximize one's marketing potential has long passed. Not to mention that this whole "mecca of basketball" idea, as it pertains to NY, is severely outdated. The woeful Knicks organization and the NY media market broke Isiah and Larry Brown recently, not to mention, the Knicks haven't won a title since the 70s. As for King James and his friendship with Jay-Z, great, but let's stop there for now. If LeBron chooses to go to the Nets because of his friendship with Jay, that's not about business, that's about friendship.

We are only in the first month of this season and then we have a full season after this before the outstanding free agent class of 2010 will be able to parlay. To talk about 2010 now ignores the reality of this season and the next. It makes it seem like LeBron is just biding his time. What about winning now, in Cleveland? Does that even matter?

All this NY talk is premature. LBJ is fortunate to be able to put on for his city, that being, of course, the aforementioned "Mistake by the Lake," Cleveland. It's rare that you get the chance to rep your hometown in the NBA. King James needs to keep his mind focused on what Flip Wilson in Uptown Saturday Night called the "church of what's happenin' now."

Drive slow, homie and deal with 2010 in 2010. I really don't want to hear about all this speculation for the next two years, but I'm sure this will only get worst.

Rolle Model

2008-11-25T13:27:00.000-08:00

One of the most inspiring sports stories to come out in some time involves Florida State defensive back Myron Rolle recently being awarded the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship. Rolle missed the first quarter of Florida State's game against Maryland on Saturday, while interviewing for the scholarship. He would arrive in Maryland later via private plane, eventually making a dramatic entrance during the second quarter. Rolle, who will graduate from FSU early and is interested in becoming a neurosurgeon one day, might delay his entrance into the NFL to study at Oxford next year.

How cool it is to read a story about a true scholar-athlete. Normally news out of the Florida State football offices has to do with an athlete having encountered some form of trouble; thus the moniker, the "Criminoles." But this time the news is about a promising young man who excels in the classroom and on the field. In an age where some people find a way to mistakenly praise basketball player Brandon Jennings--who decided to go to Italy to play ball because he couldn't pass the SAT--for subverting NCAA hegemony, Rolle demonstrates that the terms "student" and "athlete" are not mutually exclusive.

Big ups to Myron Rolle! As the diabolical Biz Markie would say, "damn it feels good to see people up on it!"

Doin' Too Much

2008-11-20T20:15:00.000-08:00

In all the continuing hoopla surrounding Obama's election victory, I knew that there would come a time when we went from the sublime to the ridiculous, but I had hoped that it might take a while before things got out of hand. But no, the shenanigans have started already.

Erin Aubrey Kaplan's recent Salon piece "First Lady Got Back" is just the type of unnecessary rhetorical nonsense we don't need.

I'm sorry Erin, but the fact that you feel a connection to Michelle Obama because of the size of her ass is a personal matter, not something worthy of public discussion. This is not only an inappropriate topic of conversation, but it is especially silly to boot. You are doin' way too much!

Save conversations like this for lunch with your girlfriends, please. Or at least publish it in Essence so this way I won't be in danger of accidentally running across the article while searching for something more meaningful to read.

I know people are all excited about the election and rightly so, but this ain't Real Housewives of Atlanta! So let's try and avoid the dumb "shiznit" going forward, if at all possibly.

Cuban Linx 2.0

2008-11-20T19:31:00.000-08:00

There now seems to be much more to the story of Mark Cuban being charged with insider trading than was initially suspected. A lawyer for the SEC, Jeffrey Norris, located in Fort Worth, Texas, had an ongoing email exchange last year with Cuban where he is especially critical of Cuban's financial support of the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change. Cuban's company, Magnolia, ended up not distributing the film. Norris defends Bush 43 and calls Cuban unpatriotic, amongst other things, in this series of seemingly threatening emails.

Could the insider trading charge be related to Cuban's one time support for a film which suggests that the U.S. government was involved in 9/11?

Cuban Linx

2008-11-17T18:28:00.000-08:00

Well, it seems that colorful Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban has been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of insider trading. The SEC has filed a civil lawsuit against Cuban for allegedly using insider information on a stock sale.

So, where's all the condemnation that normally accompanies the announcement of some infraction, however minor, by an NBA player? I'm not saying that Cuban is guilty, not at all. How would I know? I guess we'll find out if he's guilty, but it never seems to matter whether due process has been carried out when it comes to players. They are often thought to be guilty even after they have been proven innocent. Hell, many of them are assumed guilty before they have ever been accused of anything. Players can be victims of armed robbery and many believe that somehow the robbery was their own fault.

But I'm sure Cuban will get the benefit of the doubt. Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, has been sued by the Justice Department for housing discrimination--that's so last century--and most people don't even know about this.

Imagine if we took these accusations against Cuban and used them to paint all the NBA owners as white collar criminals? How ridiculous, right? An owner is accused of something that has yet to be proven and we turn around and dismiss all NBA owners as crooks based on an accusation against one of them.

Guilt by association is wrong whether it applies to players or owners. Nonetheless, I expect that the court of public opinion will treat Cuban much better than it does the players who find themselves among the accused.

Barbershop

2008-11-16T18:40:00.000-08:00

Now that Barack Obama is planning his move to Washington, word on the street is that his long time barber, Zariff, is possibly planning a move to D.C. himself to serve as "first barber," if you will. Reading about the residual effects that the President-Elect's recent victory has on an otherwise unknown cat like Zarriff, who is all over the media lately enjoying his Warholian 15 minutes, brings a smile to my face.

But, while I can ignore the fact that Dude goes by one name, I don't mean no harm, really, but I would like to offer a bit of advice. Slow down, Dog. Pump your brakes. Stay in your lane, Bruh. If Obama asks you to accompany him to D.C. so as to keep his hair cut game tight, that's great. Before you start signing leases and changing your address my man, keep in mind what Jean Carne once said, "don't let it go to your head."

Oh How the Mighty Have Fallen

2008-11-16T18:14:00.000-08:00

The trouble is far more fundamental than that. The G.O.P. ran out of steam and ideas well before George W. Bush took office and Tom DeLay ran amok, and it is now more representative of 20th-century South Africa during apartheid than 21st-century America. The proof is in the vanilla pudding.

Frank Rich, "The Moose Stops Here"

As usual, Frank Rich comes correct. The GOP postmortem continues. R.I.P.

Doin' Dirt

2008-11-13T19:04:00.000-08:00

There is something to be said for knowing your enemy.

To this end, the late Lee Atwater and his "politics of resentment" resonate in Washington political circles, though Atwater has been dead for some time. Atwater, whose biggest success was running the campaign that made George H.W. Bush the nation's Forty-First President, was a compelling, if not completely despicable figure. His life is the subject of the documentary Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story currently running on the PBS program Frontline.

Atwater got his start interning for another late South Carolina racist, Storm Thurmond. The Boogie Man's career spans from Thurmond to Ronald Reagan, the aforementioned Bush through to the soon-to-be-departed Bush 43. Karl Rove was an Atwater protege.

Perhaps Atwater's most controversial political move was the infamously racist Willie Horton ad that he ran against Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Atwater's willingness to do any and everything to win an election bought him a lot of glory, though the tactics that he choose were beyond reprehensible. Karl Rove, the prized pupil of the Atwater school, used all the lessons on how to do dirt that he learned from Atwater in his work for 43. Thus Atwater's evil political style outlasted him.

In the ultimate of all ironies, Atwater lived out the last few years of his life suffering from a debilitating bout with cancer. Boogie Man documents this rise and fall which is indeed fascinating, while at the same time infuriating.

One can only hope that days of people like Lee Atwater dominating our politics have passed and that Obama's election, and his refusal to go engage in such disgusting low ball antics, may have indeed started a new trend.

A Damn Fool

2008-11-10T11:16:00.000-08:00

As indicated by the alarmingly incorrect subtitle, it now appears that Shelby Steele's book of hateration is destined for the .99 bin, right along side those discarded caps and tee shirts from the losing team in the Super Bowl that had been made up before the outcome of the game was known. This reminds me of a scene from the documentary Straight, No Chaser (1990), on my man pianist Thelonious Sphere Monk, where Charlie Rouse describes how Monk liked to do only one take of each song that they were recording. As Rouse said, if you made a mistake, it was going on the record and you would have to live with it the rest of your life.

Steele is a holdover from the days of the Reagan/Bush era when America first discovered this new breed known as the black neo-coons; excuse the typo. Steele and his brethren, people like Thomas Sowell, Armstrong Williams, and later on Ward Connerly, found a ready made niche for themselves as obstinate critics of everything black. Each of these jive cats, along with their main man on the inside, Clarence Thomas, would eventually turn the notion of playa hatin' into a highly formidable art form.

One wonders what is the fate of such haters in a new environment of 'change' as it regards the President-Elect of the United States? While we can't do anything about Clarence Thomas (he laughs), perhaps the others will be sent to re-education camp along with the counterrevolutionary Tavis Smiley (see previous post "Hi Hater")?

"Our Long National Nightmare is Over"

2008-11-09T12:35:00.001-08:00

What up?/what's happ'nin'?/all you haters/should get at me/'cause I hear ya/ and I'm watchin'/but I'm serious/haters/so all I gotta say is what up?

T.I., "What Up?"

There are so many levels upon which Obama's recent victory signals change, not the lest of which is a profound change to the political direction of this nation. For me, Obama's ascendancy represents the potential end to the Reagan Revolution. As the faltering economy tells us daily, the exploits of casino capitalism have failed miserably. The John Wayne style gung ho militarism has run its course as well.

Right-wing Republican politics were dealt a death blow this past Tuesday night. Obama is the first Democrat since JFK to be elected President who isn't a southerner. While the euphoria of this historic election still swirls in the air, the full evidence of this dramatic change will reveal itself over time to be more profound than even the obvious racial difference that President-Elect Obama brings to the White House. Sam Cooke said that it would be a "long time comin'" and we've only scratched the surface.

All this means that "The Comedian" Rush Limbaugh, "Billo the Clown," and the rest of their lot really have something to hate about now. They better get use to the bitter taste that the name Obama will have ever time they utter it because they will be saying it a lot over these next four years.