2/28/07

A couple of years ago, when Barack Obama was just rising to national prominence after his amazing speech at the Democratic National Convention, I stupidly watched a portion of Colin Quinn's completely unwatchable and short lived late night show on Comedy Central (I can't even remember the name of it). Anyway, on the show, a black comedianne, I can't recall who (it wasn't Wanda Sykes or anyone like that) said that Barack Obama, because he was raised by his white mother, was "faking the funk". At the time I found the remark completely offensive, but I assumed it was the feelings of a teeny-tiny minority within the black community and it eventually drifted out of mind.

A few weeks ago, however, I was confronted by this ugly view one more time. A woman named Debra Dickerson was on the Colbert Report (funny how this view kept popping up in the 11:30 time slot on Comedy Central, but I digress...) and she said a varitiation on the same theme. She wasn't quite as overtly racist, however - she said that Obama's non-blackness was a result of his not being a descendant of West African slaves.

Now, on the one hand, I thought that this was merely a cloak to disguise the racism underneath. But on the other hand, I can understand that slavery leaves a legacy that many black Americans may feel is very important to their self-identification. And, who am I to say to a black person what makes them black?

Of course, Barack Obama says that he is black, too. Who to believe?

Then I read this article in the Post.


(Take a minute and glance over it.)


The passage I found most interesting was this one, the third paragraph in the story:

Sharpton, 52, said he had suspected that his forebears may have been slaves but had never attempted to confirm that or find out any details.

Now, if anyone in this nation has a view on what does or does not make one black, it would be Al Sharpton. And, while it turns out that his ancestors were slaves, the above passage indicates that Mr. Sharpton himself did not know if this was true or not. More importantly, it also tells us that he did not care enough to look into the matter himself. In 2004, when Al Sharpton was running for President, nobody was questioning his blackness, even though he, nor presumably, anyone else, did not know that he was, in fact, the descendant of slaves. So, my question is, where were the Debra Dickerson's of the world then, when they *should* have been DEMANDING that Al Sharpton PROVE his blackness by tracing his lineage?

Xenophobia and racism are just as ugly coming from the mouths of blacks as they are from whites. And this silly notion that Barack Obama is not "black enough" because he is half-white or because his father was an immigrant is exactly that - xenophobic and racist.

Personal blog tomorrow. Don't forget to catch the Terps in action tonight at 9:00 on ESPN. Peace...

2/26/07

I'm a day late with this one, so sorry.

First off, congrats to Al Gore. While he won't be bringing home a statue, his movie An Inconvenient Truth took home the Oscar for Best Documentary. And that wasn't the end of the Al Gore Show - Melissa Ethridge took time in her speech for winning Best Original Song, again for Inconvenient Truth, to thank him.

The Draft Al Gore Movement is gaining quite a bit of popularity over the Internets. It wouldn't be unprecedented. In 1960, Richard Nixon, the sitting Vice President in a very popular administration lost a hotly contested Presidential race with a controversial ending - it was Illinois, not Florida, where alleged malfeasance took place - only to return 8 years later to take the White House in dominating fashion in what was the beginning of the period of Republican ascendancy that has lasted until this day.

My take - I wouldn't be against it. But until further notice you can still count me in the Obama camp.

Some talk about Joe Lieberman bolting for the Repubs. Honestly, I hope he does. I want each and every Connecticut Democrat who voted for him first in the primary and then in the general election to kick themselves in the balls, or ovaries, or whatever they have. Besides, it's not like anything is getting through that chamber, anyway. If the Repubs retake the Senate with Lieberman's help, all that will mean is that the Democrats can distance themselves from all of the bad things that will continue to happen under this Administration's watch, from Iraq right on down. And it will make the victory in '08 all the more convincing.

2/21/07

Great Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair has finally pulled his tongue out of W's arsehole, as the British would say, and announced that the British troops are on their way out. The Brits have 7,000 troops in Iraq, and half of them are slated to not be there by the time we ring in 2008. Britain is not the first ally to ditch this disaster, of course, but they are W's major ally and the second largest presence in the country. Of course, this news comes as the US finds itself digging deeper into the shitstorm, as 20,000 more US troops are on their way over. As Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" becomes the "Coalition of the Fleeing", one has to wonder how long the Great Decider can keep up this charade.

Australia and her mighty contingent of 550 troops are not going anywhere - for now. But the Conservative Party is taking a political beating over the war, and right now 2/3 of the Aussie population is saying enough. The Labour Party is promising to pull out if they rise in this fall's elections, as all indications are they will.

By the way, anyone found those WMDs yet?

2/17/07

The issue I'm about to comment about might, in other people's minds, at least strattle the line between this blog and the sports blog, but to me this is a social issue, not a sports issue, and it's fairly distinct.

Recently, ex-NBA player John Amaechi came out of the closet. He is not the first former professional athlete to do so, nor is he the first to write a book about it. However, every time this happens, it opens up the discussion about when might a current athlete come out.

This time, a little old fashioned Fear & Loathing entered into the discussion, when another ex-baller, Tim Hardaway, told Dan Lebetard on his show that he "hates gay people", which seems to me to be a hell of a statement to make, seeing as they represent over 1/10th of the world's population andit would be difficult to know all of those people well enough to hate them. It also seems to me that Tim Hardaway probably knows more than a few gay people and does not hate them - in fact, I'd say he was friends with them - but just didn't know that they were gay.

It's statements like Hardaway's, of course, that keep current players in the closet. People see the hate and they fear retribution from the like-minded bigots in the League. However, I think that the proportion of those bigots to decent people is very much overestimated. The people who speak the loudest on the issue of homosexuality are those in whom it draws out the most passion - so it seems, by listening to the debate, that either you ARE a homosexual, or a heterosexual gay rights advocate, or you HATE homosexuals, because those are the only groups screaming. But it seems to me that there is an ever-increasing "middle class" for lack of a better phrase. People who might not be marching in the streets demanding EQUALITY NOW, but aren't willing to stop talking to their best friend forever if it turns out he is into other dudes.

People have called Amaechi's coming out an irrelevant, cynical ploy to sell books. It may be a book-selling ploy, but I don't think it's irrelevant. Every time an ex-athlete comes out, it reenforces the fact that there are many who are currently playing of the same orientation.

Jim Rome said recently he doesn't believe a current athlete would come out in his lifetime, or his children's lifetime. I think that is ridiculous. Rome vastly underestimates the rate of social change. Homosexuality is growing increasingly accepted in society, and I believe that when an athlete does finally come out - and it will happen within the next decade - he will get more support than hatred. And by the time Jim Rome's children are being laid to rest, homosexual athletes will be as commonplace and accepted as black baseball players are today.

2/14/07

Happy Valentine's Day, one and all.

The House of Representatives finally opened up debate on the much ballyhooed Nonbinding Resolution opposing the President's escalation of the Iraqi War. In a move that can only be described as predictably dissapointing, the Republicans in both Houses have been trying to quell this debate, arguing that it's mere existence is "hurting the troops". By the way, Joe Lieberman has aligned himself with the Republicans on this one, proving once and for all that Connecticut is a bunch of fucking assholes for re-electing that piece of shit.

But I digress. The point is it is pretty disturbing that so many on the right, which, according to its tradition, should believe in limiting the power of the executive and deliberating all courses of action extensively, seem to believe that anything Bush wants to do with his military should not only be approves, it should not even be up for discussion, for any discussion might damage the morale of the troops.

Part of me doubts that the troops are sitting around Iraq, watching CSPAN and going into a funk because Nancy Pelosi thinks that the President is wrong in his universally unpopular idea to keep throwing more bodies into the fire. Another part of me doubts that the REAL threat to troop morale ISN'T an apparently unterminable war which keeps getting the same troops called back over and over again because, for some reason, the armed forces now can't seem to find any recruits.

The bad news for the Republicans is the American people have seen through this act. They saw through it last November, when the Democrats pulled the Republicans' pants down and spanked them with moon rocks. And many Republicans are getting the message - an estimated 60 of them are going to break ranks and vote FOR the Resolution, giving it almost 2 to 1 approval. The Senate may or may not follow with their own Resolution, but know this, the Democrats are finally speaking out against this war, albeit years to late. And all this talk about how discussion of this war emboldens the enemy is finally losing its effectiveness.

2/11/07

Yesterday, in the shadow of the Illinois statehouse in Springfield, Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President in '08.

The move came as a suprise to no one - it was really a formality, mostly. His name has been brandied about as a potential candidate ever since he rocked the house in 2004 with his speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. And recently, as the Democrats scored a crushing victory in last fall's midterms and speculation about next year's races began, it became very apparent that Obama would enter the race, and that he would be an early favorite.

Back in November, I was resistant to the idea of supporting a Senator who had only recently been elected into office. I thought then that he needed a couple of terms under his belt before he should enter into the contest for the land's highest office. I've done a 180 on that, though, for several reasons:

1. There is, so far, anyway, a dearth of other candidates who get me excited. John Edwards is no more qualified to hold the post than Obama is, and in fact, even less so, since he has been out of government since '04. Hillary Clinton is someone I definately do not support, for a host of reasons that could be its own other post. Biden, Dodd, Vilsack, Clark - all very boring to me. So, barring a candidate emerging at the last moment - a la Bill Clinton in '92 or Howard Dean in '04 - Obama appears to be the best one available.
2. A worry I had about Obama's potential campaign - that America wasn't ready to elect a black President, or even a half-black one - has been assuaged in recent months. I can't imagine that Obama would fail to capture any of the states that Kerry won in'04, which means he would be one state away from victory. And I think he has enough appeal to carry that state, whether it be Ohio or Florida or Missouri.
3. What, exactly, was it that Obama should have been waiting for? His name will never be hotter than it is right now. Should I want 4 or 8 or 12 more years to pass before he is "ready"? And what would that entail? Less optimism? Having his name attached to pieces of legislation that might prove to be unpopular in years to come? His freshness not only isn't that much of a hindrance, but I actually think it will prove an asset. America wants change - not more of the same old people.

So, initially and with some hesitation (it is still very early in the process, so I'm not setting anything in stone quite yet), I'm jumping on the Obama '08 bandwagon. If you need more reasons to join me, go to his website (www.barackobama.com) and check out his announcement speech. It is quite stirring.

See you tomorrow in the personal blog.

2-7-07

Back when I first started this blog, I wrote that I wouldn't be writing about anything the right wing hatemongers - Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc - said or wrote unless they decided to run for office. Well, it looks like one one them, dipshit asshat extraordanaire Michael Savage, might just be running for the Presidency. What a gift this would be. The hatemongers basically have free reign to say whatever horrible thought they come up with because they speak to a limited audience - the Dumb People. In the rare occasions when they stray from their audience, like Rush did when he cohosted ESPN's NFL Sunday kickoff show, they do something stupid almost immediately and have to tuck tail and run back to the safety of their radio program, like the Donovan McNabb incident. The American people basically know the names, but most of them don't really know how spiteful these folks are until they get a public forum. And it doesn't get much more public than a Presidential debate, even a primary one. If Michael Savage climbs into the Republican ring and starts spewing his filth in front of the whole country, he could turn off independant viewers from the Republican Party for years. I'm composing an e-mail know that I'm going to send to Savage, telling him how much I support the idea of his running. I'll have it up on Saturday.

In other news, you may have heard about the recent report by UN scientists that tells us that it is "very likely" (in scientific terms, "very likely" means a 90% chance or greater) that global warming is caused by human factors, so even the Bush Administration can no longer stay in denial. But Exxon/Mobile isn't ready to give up the fight just yet. Their think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, is offering $10,000 US to any scientist who can build a case that would contradict the report of the UN scientists. Now, call me a cynic, btu I think that 10,000 bucks might just be enough incentive for some scientist who could use the extra cash to use methods that are, shall we say, less traditional, to "prove" Exxon's point. Keep this in mind when you hear from the right-wingers, like Michael Savage, that there is "debate within the scientific community" and "the links between global warming and human activity are far from established". In fact, there is virtually no debate, and the links are so well-established that oil giants have to offer a 5-digit reward to anyone who can even build a case against them. I won't be patronizing Exxon stores anymore. I've had enough from them, quite frankly. And, given the amount of leeway you are pretty much forced to give oil companies unless you want to drive halfway around the city/town looking for a gas station you aren't boycotting, that is saying something.