Kid, just know that your mom willingly put you in harm’s way.
I don’t have any personal investment in Tiger Woods’ personal life. Frankly, with each new trick that takes her lunch break to give US Weekly an exclusive scoop, I find myself feeling terrible for Elin Woods and their children. A wife and children deserve better than this. Still, I have to admit I find the newfound outrage regarding Tiger Woods’ jump-off choice particularly amusing. Many Black folks have wasted little time pointing out that all of Tiger’s jump-offs have been white. Read the rest of this entry »
Sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it?
The Supreme Court, not wanting to get involved in matters of right and wrong, opted not to hear the case of the Native American activists that find the name Washington Redskins offensive.
Maybe the justices are season ticket holders?
For the last decade or more, teams with questionable names have come under Native American scrutiny and names have been changed. St John’s, North Dakota and Illinois are just a few schools who have been chin-checked. The Seminoles and Florida State came to an understanding after tense negotiations.
Common theme: Maybe it’s not the coolest thing in the world to “honor” the traditions of people whose history you neither know nor actually respect by slapping their name and likeness on the side of a helmet, particularly when approximately zero people representative of that culture and history are in the mix. Read the rest of this entry »
“I just think what Michael Jordan has done for the game has to be recognized some way soon,” James said. “There would be no LeBron James, no Kobe Bryant, no Dwyane Wade if there wasn’t Michael Jordan first.
“He can’t get the logo [Hall of Famer Jerry West's silhouette adorns the NBA's logo], and if he can’t, something has to be done. I feel like no NBA player should wear 23. I’m starting a petition, and I’ve got to get everyone in the NBA to sign it. Now, if I’m not going to wear No. 23, then nobody else should be able to wear it.” — LeBron James
LeBron, I appreciate your initiative. You’re willing to change your jersey number to 6 because you think no one else should ever again wear the number 23 out respect for arguably the greatest player to ever lace up a pair of sneaks. I appreciate the homage you’re trying to pay to Michael Jordan’s career. I might like it a little more if you were vocal about things that actually matter, but basketball is your business and in business, no one wants to hurt their interests. In fact, that is perhaps the greatest lesson any pro hooper could have learned from MJ. Remember, Republicans buy sneakers too.
But this idea doesn’t hold up. Read the rest of this entry »
Three players from the University of Tennessee football team–Janzen Jackson, Mike Edwards, and Nu’Keese Richardson–were arrested early Thursday morning in connection with an attempted robbery that took place in Knoxville. Charges have yet to be filed, but the facts in evidence available right now do not look good. In light of what is known at this moment, I couldn’t help but offer a bit of advice…
Dear Mr. Jackson, Richardson and Edwards,
I’m writing today to volunteer some thoughts on your recent predicament. I realize that all the facts have yet to be brought into evidence, but my desire to help a few young brothas has overridden my patience. As it is, I understand my advice is unsolicited and you are, of course, free to do with it what you wish.
You are extremely gifted athletes able to exchange your gifts for an education and possibly an opportunity to play a sport you love at its highest level for a living. Please stick to backpedaling. Focus on banging that toe cleat and getting your hips around when you’re coming out of your break. Be extremely diligent about high pointing the football when making an interception (thumb to thumb, pointer to pointer). Work hard not to get jammed at the line of scrimmage. Don’t arm tackle; wrap your man up and drive legs.
Refrain, when possible, from sticking people up in Knoxville, Tennessee. Read the rest of this entry »
This whole Larry Johnson Twitter kerfuffle is all one big misunderstanding. It’s true; dude loves ‘fag,’ but not for the reasons you might think.
Understandably, ‘fag’ can be seen as a derogatory term used for homosexuals, but if you think it starts and ends with that, you’re just showing your lack of culture. Larry? He’s been places, seen things. He knows fag can mean lots and lots of things.
Do you really think he would be foolish enough to call someone a fag in that small-minded American way you understand it? On Twitter of all places? That’s just laughable. Larry may seem a beast on the playing field, but off it, he’s a man of Arts and Letters. That being the case, he brings a measured perspective to his life off the field. Derogatory statements and actions are generally beneath him and even if they were not, he’d have the foresight not to make those thoughts or actions know to the public.
So everyone just needs to take a deep breath and maybe learn a lesson while they’re at it.
See, when Larry says “You fag!” he’s really just telling the person in question that they need to check themselves before things get out of hand. He hates to “harsh peoples’ buzz” in that manner, but sometimes, he can’t help but feel the need to defend himself against the slings and arrows of outrageous slander. But he’s still keeping it civil, even in moments of anger. It’s other people who are getting it wrong.
When Larry calls someone a fag, he’s talking about people who engage in daily, dispirited drudgery; someone who toils at menial tasks while he lives in the lap of luxury as a well-paid professional athlete.
When he calls someone a fag, he’s just letting them know they are nothing more than a blemish on a piece of fabric; an imperfect loose end to his well-tailored bespoke-ness.
Being a big-time pro athlete and all, Larry likes to keep in shape and make sure his body is in peak physical condition. And he can’t do that smoking cigarettes. Cigarettes are an insult to his temple. So when he calls someone a fag, he’s not only taking an anti-smoking stance, he’s personally telling that person “Hey, you’re bad for me! You get outta here!”
So you guys lay off Larry Johnson. And get your culture up while you’re at it.
And don’t worry about those women he mushed in night clubs last year. That was a Maori mating ritual.
Serena Williams is beautiful. And Black.
As you’re probably aware, Plaxico Burress is going to be spending some quality time with the New York State correctional facilities for doing various dumb ass things while concealing an unlicensed firearm–not the least of those things being shooting himself in the leg.
Since he was offered a three month plea and rejected it, I have no problem with him getting the two years he agreed to after realizing prosecutors were going to throw the book at him.
Others do have a problem with this, feeling that Burress is getting a raw deal and a too-harsh penalty. Those who feel his stupidity only warranted a few months in jail–a few months that was rejected by Burress in his initial plea bargain–cite an outrage at the justice system, particularly with regard to minimum sentencing.
While I see the flaws in minimum sentencing–many seem arbitrary; others so obviously racially-motivated that you would laugh if it wasn’t so despicable–I still see far greater flaws in leaving the administration of justice to a case-by-case basis system. Why? Because those who support such a reform seem to do so under the assumption that, without guidelines, judges and prosecutors will be inclined to handle each case as unique and, in doing so, do the right thing.
That seems unlikely. Why? Because most people, good and bad alike, don’t have the energy to even attempt to bring an unbiased approach to sentencing based on facts particular to each and every case. And even if they have that energy, to expect them to not be affected by precedent is borderline foolhardy.
There are far too many laws and far too many people breaking laws to think that the few on the side of justice would be either effective or just if left to their own devices.
My concerns aren’t about the cases that warrant multiple decades in prison; I’m concerned about the crimes that warrant sentences of ten years or less. In a case-by-case system, can we really expect officers of the court to put forth the energy it takes to examine each and every case as special? The fact that they are human beings leaves them open to bias and the eventual comparing of cases for the purpose of “perspective.”
Simply put, prosecutors and judges would eventually start coming up with their own sentencing standards anyway, thus making the lack of guidelines not only irrelevant, but possibly dangerous. Police could say “Well, it’s illegal to go over 65mph and today is Thursday, so that ticket’s going to be $250 instead of 75.” (Obviously, some cops do this anyway, but without standard they could do this with near impunity).
And let’s not forget: the tossing out of minimum sentencing would have to necessarily toss out maximum sentencing as well.
Sentencing falls under ranges because there are two many laws, too many criminals and far too few people really willing to do the work that individualized justice requires. It’s just unrealistic. So what can be done?
In my mind, minimum (and maximum) sentences should be under constant and rigorous review (as should the laws that precede such sentencing); a living, breathing system that changes with the times. Such a system requires sweat, but seems realistic in approach.
The question then becomes: Well who is doing the reviewing and revising? In my (hopeful) system, this is an area in which the people could–and should–participate passionately. This is a way to make votes really count in a particular way. I’m not so naive as to forget ours is a representative democracy, but input from the people doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable.
What does seem unreasonable is the doing away with minimum sentences and the assumption that those in power would suddenly do the right thing.