Bill O'Reilly: I See Black People!

Bill O'Reilly

Giulio Marcocchi/Getty Images

So, by now I hope you're up to speed on Fox News talker Bill O'Reilly's rather disgusting foot-in-mouthism. If not, take my word for it — it was a backfisted compliment regarding so-called normal black behavior. Bill was seemingly stunned that people of color can comport themselves in a black-run restaurant.

That Bill's comments are ignorant is obvious. But how could someone who lives in the Metro NYC area, works in Manhattan and talks with agenda setters daily be so completely unaware of blacks in suits who are able to order iced tea without saying M-F?

It really boils down to basic Ralph Ellison: To Bill (and plenty of people like him), blacks who don't fit his narrow view of what a black should be are invisible to him. O'Reilly crosses paths with "normal" people of color by the dozens every day, but he lacks the ability to truly see them. It's only when he's completely swimming in another environment, when he is forced to become aware of those around him, that he realizes that there is "no difference" between the patrons at a Harlem eatery and those at a "normal" restaurant.

I don't believe this kind of racial myopia is unique to Bill O'Reilly or even to white people. But people of color live daily in a culture dominated by white male Christians. We see all that culture has to offer: the good and bad and "normal." Guys like Bill O. need to get a special invite — to a soul-food restaurant in Harlem or an Anita Baker concert — before they will meaningfully interact with people who are truly other.

Based on his own comments, I believe that's an invitation Bill rarely accepts.

1:28 PM ET | 09-27-2007 | permalink | comments (33) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Fear of a Black Debate

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (left), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (center) and Sen. John McCain, along with former Sen. Fred Thompson, have indicated they will not attend a presidential forum organized by Tavis Smiley at Morgan State University in Baltimore.

Darren McCollester/Getty Images

When I write a post, my hope is to be pithy, or insightful or at the very least to take a sideways view of an otherwise warmed-over topic.

This time the Republican presidential candidates have got me beat.

I can think of no good, new or clever way to dissect what is, honestly, a dumb move on the part of the top-tier candidates — former Sen. Fred Thompson, Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. All are giving the go-by to the Sept. 27 All American Presidential Forum organized by Tavis Smiley at Morgan State University in Baltimore and airing on PBS.

This on top of all the Republican presidential candidates — save for McCain — putting the dodge on the Univision debate. Univision being the most-watched Hispanic television network in the United States.

It's not as if the Republicans have so much political capital they can afford to throw anyone a cold shoulder. They certainly can't run on the war. And polls show the electorate trusts the Democrats with national security more than Republicans. The scandals involving Sens. Larry Craig and David Vitter have taken family values off the table, along with the Republican candidates themselves and their multiple wives.

So why ignore voters of color? The Washington Post quotes one anonymous source as saying the candidates are afraid if they show up at Morgan State "they're probably going to be booed."

Two things here. Thing one. Fear of a hostile reception: Isn't that logic the same slam the conservatives — and, uh, me from time to time — throw at the Dems for avoiding Fox News? If they can't stand a hot discussion, how are they going to stand up to other world leaders/dictators/terrorists?

Thing number two: A debate at Morgan State ain't Showtime at the Apollo! Do the candidates really think black folks are going to sit there and boo their asses all night? Sandman's ghost isn't going to sweep them off stage.

I remember going to the first Republican presidential debate this year, held just days after the 15th anniversary of the Rodney King riots, in Simi Valley, Calif. (where the jury acquitted the cops who beat King). It was held at the Reagan library — Ronald Reagan having infamously launched his 1980 presidential bid in Philadelphia, Miss., where civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman were murdered in 1964. About the only two minorities in the joint were me and — as a stretch — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. I remember at the time, looking at all those old white guys lined up like a string of pearls. They might be well meaning, but those guys on that day in that location... I sure got the feeling the party couldn't communicate with me less if they tried.

With this latest snub, they've proven me wrong.

4:23 PM ET | 09-24-2007 | permalink | comments (18) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Life After the NF-Hell

Gene Upshaw of the NFL Players Association answers questions during a news conference on Feb. 1, 2007, in Miami Beach, Fla.

Scott Boehm/Getty Images

This past weekend's tragic injury to Kevin Everett is a reminder that pro football doesn't just look like a tough sport. It is one. Maybe the most demanding on the planet. The potential grab at millions of dollars and celebrity status is a tough trade-off for what a lot of players face once they've left the NFL.

By the NFL Players Association's own numbers: Twenty-seven percent of retired NFL players responding to a survey conducted in 1989 and through the 1990s claimed "financial problems" during their first year out of the game. Thirty-six percent had the same complaint after three years. Thirty-three percent listed divorce as the major personal problem in the first six months away from football.

If all that was caused by bad financial planning or inability to adjust to life after the game, well... it would be sad, but they had their day in the sun. But the problems players face go way beyond readjusting to "normal" life. Two out of three players in the NFLPA's survey said they left football with some form of permanent injury. And with today's players bigger and faster than ever before, sometimes a constant ache is the least of an ex-player's worries. Six of every 10 players suffer a concussion; more than a quarter suffer more than one. Such head trauma may lead to dementia, mental illness and early Alzheimer's disease. These players are not only left physically debilitated — the resulting medical bills can crush them financially as well. You could fill a Hall of Fame with stories of men who once had everything and who can now barely walk, think or take care of themselves.

How is it that a sport that grosses nearly $6 billion a year can leave some of its finest players physically busted and financially destitute? A lot of former players blame their union, the NFLPA. Its pension is bankrolled in the tens of millions and annually brings in millions more than it gives out. Yet players tell horror stories of having to fight as hard as they did on the field to get their union to give up the few hundred dollars they need to buy meds, food or pay rent.

The NFLPA's longtime head, Gene Upshaw, has made it quite clear neither he nor the union place a priority on legacy players. "The bottom line is I don't work for them," Upshaw has said. "They don't hire me and they can't fire me. They can complain about me all day long. They can have their opinion. But the active players have the vote. That's who pays my salary."

That salary, by the way, is about $6.7 million. A few million less than the NFLPA spends on disability for ex-players.

Upshaw might be right about who signs his checks. But with an attitude like his, and the average career of an NFL player lasting about 3 1/2 years, active players oughta think long and hard if Upshaw's the kind of guy they want repping them.

4:32 PM ET | 09-12-2007 | permalink | comments (15) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Days of Whine and iPhones

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has decided to offer a $100 store credit to iPhone users after uproar over a $200 price cut. Jobs unveiled the much-hyped iPhone at the Macworld Conference in San Francisco in January.

Tony Avelar/AFP/Getty Images

So, it goes a little something like this: At the end of June, Apple Inc. released its super-hyped iPhone. Mac addicts waited in line for a couple of days on end to drop $599 for an 8-gig model, $499 for the 4-gig.

On Wednesday, barely more than two months after its introduction, Apple unexpectedly slashed the price of the phones by $200.

Well, you could've just announced that Microsoft's Zune had taken over 50 percent of the MP3 player market the way the addicts went into full effect with their histrionics. All over Apple forums, there was talk of lawsuits, invectives against Apple CEO Steve Jobs and promises to ditch Apple forever. The day a Mac addict dumps Apple for a PC is the day an ice rink opens in hell.

As a guy who bought an iPhone in a reasonable amount of time after its release but still got caught paying an extra two bills, I really fail to see how the whiners think they're entitled to their bitching. Yeah, nobody wants to spend more than they have to. But if you want to get into the club early, it's gonna cost. Don't get pissed when it's 3 a.m. and the dregs get in for half-price.

That's the problem with these virtual worlders: They don't get out much.

I say again, yeah, I have an iPhone. But I knew they were gonna cut the price sooner or later — didn't know it'd be this much sooner — but I took the plunge anyhow. Companies actually do get to LOWER the price of their products. Much as there is no such thing as reverse discrimination (there is only one kind of discrimination, no matter which way it cuts or who it cuts against), there is also no such thing as reverse price gouging. For the extra two bills, we all purchased the thrill of being the first on the block to have a new toy. Now, for two bills less, some other folks get the pleasure of being smartest on the block. Until three months from now, when the price is dropped again and the torch is passed to the more patient. Then: new iPhones, new hype and the same early adopters go anxiously back to the front of the line. The infinite loop repeats.

As I would tell my kids: Quit yer whining.

Which is why I'm sorta split in my reaction to Thursday's turn of events. After standing resolute for all of 24 hours, Steve Jobs caved to the baying and offered a $100 store credit to ALL iPhone purchasers. Good news: I get a bill to spend in the Apple store. Bad news: Complainers are rewarded for complaining. Indicative of the victim culture in which we live, people have not only come to expect something for nothing, but are then rewarded for how loudly they can ventilate their sense of having been victims of fraud.

As I read through the threads of the addict forums, there was one post that stood out to me. In essence, it said: Quit your complaining and be thankful you had the money to be able to afford the phone in the first place.

That's a reality some of the digital crowd should learn to live with.

12:04 PM ET | 09- 7-2007 | permalink | comments (29) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Bush's 'Fantastic' Freedom Institute

Since The New York Times ran some excerpts from Robert Draper's Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, the blogosphere — both mainstream and arcane — has been filled with comments about the president's post-presidential plans to build "a fantastic Freedom Institute."

Now, from a guy who referred to the Sept. 11 terrorists as "evildoers" and reduced the office of the presidency to being "the decider," it doesn't take a leap of faith to believe he'd build a joint that sounds like (INSERT COMIC BOOK SUPERHERO JOKE).

But to mock our grammatically challenged president for giving an overreaching, cartoonish moniker to his institute leads one astray from what really needs to be discussed — and what seems to be at the heart of Draper's book. The title alone, Dead Certain, says it all: that Bush is resolute in his decisions and ultimately does not look for, or care to truly consider, opinions that run counter to his desires. Again, in and of itself, not exactly a revelation. The book, however, does offer up some bright, shiny new nuggets of alleged recalcitrance. Apparently, even the decision to bring Dick Cheney on the ticket was done over the stringent objections of Bush's closest adviser, Karl Rove, who saw the move as seeming "needy."

So, then, here is what seems fantastic about Bush's plans for his next act: It is not that a man who took us to war wishes his legacy to be about freedom. If there were a Nobel Prize for hypocrisy, I think John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson would be running neck and neck with Bush. What's "fantastic" about Bush's plans is that he wants to propagate freedom without seeming to understand the fundamentals of liberty.

It ain't all about bombs and tanks and diplomacy from the working end of a gun. It is about unrestricted exchange. It is about occupying real estate where reasonable people publicly tussle over tough ideas. It is opinion given unadorned rather than served with ginned-up intelligence or hidden behind executive privilege and presidential clemency or warrantless wiretaps. Freedom — as trite as it sounds — requires vigilance and oversight. And fortunately, our system has been set up so that there are those who can watch the watchmen even when public disclosure runs counter to national security.

But time and again — in the run up to the Iraq war through the firing of federal prosecutors — the president has shown abject disregard for contrary opinion, full disclosure and governmental oversight. I would hate to think the president, or anyone for that matter, would gather young leaders and school them that the path to freedom is paved with autocratic tendencies.

With fear of stating the obvious: Freedom belongs to "We the People," not "They the Politicians." We are the deciders, it's our government and we have a right to know. Before he builds himself an institute — magical, marvelous or otherwise — what would be fantastic is if George Bush finished his term by demonstrating he understood as much.

3:46 PM ET | 09- 6-2007 | permalink | comments (9) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)