Here's the Jason Whitlock you haven't seen yet

[footstepsfrom#27]

When Jason Whitlock wrote a column that blasted not only convenient targets like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as part of the problem with black America, but even Rutgers University's Hall of Fame basketball coach Vivian Stringer as a duplicitous partner in the destruction of black youth, I decided I needed to know a bit more about Jason Whitlock. Whitlock said of Stringer, an innocent by-stander in this theater of the absurd: "I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas." He then goes on to contradict himself, say all three ARE gold diggers..."It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$." Mixed signals from Jason Whitlock...

At first glance I thought Whitlock was just another sports writer who unwittingly got himself tangled in controversy with a hot sports opinion...that is until I realized that Whitlock's got a method to his madness...a method you have to look a little deeper to locate.

If you wanted to find an enthusiastic audience for the stuff Whitlock says about black people, one could hardly dream of doing better than NFL fans...most of whom are white males who are fed up with watching the kind of behavior we've witnessed by people like Pac Man Jones, Michael Irvin, Terrell Owens and Ray Lewis. Not suprisingly, just as he has with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Whitlock has zero'd in on all four of these guys as easy targets that resonate with white NFL fans, and found eager ears and fertile soil for his opinions in the group of people he writes for on a regular basis.

Jason Whitlock has himself the perfect soap box.

But do you know who the REAL Jason Whitlock is? Let's take a look...because Jason Whitlock definitely wants YOU to KNOW who Jason Whitlock really is. On his AOL homepage Whitlock says so in no uncertain terms, mentions tha no "bojanglers" are allowed in there, and describes the role he sees for himself with his new column "Real Sports": (http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/welcome-to-real-talk-with-jason-whitlock/20060928200809990001)...check it out...
One thing I’ve learned from more than a decade of writing columns and being a sports media personality is that it’s difficult to get to know me. I’m hard to figure out, and it’s easy to jump to the wrong conclusions. The place I just left (ESPN.com) and the place that just dumped me (ESPN television) still don’t have a clue about me. They think I’m like most sportswriters, fantasizing about being associated with the World Wide Leader and in love with the idea of being a TV celebrity. No disrespect to ESPN, but I’m most in love with me and the opportunity to express who I am.
It's not often you find someone this honest about their own narcisism...so let's find out WHO Jason really is. Read a little further...you'll find out he's right...he doesn't consider himself just another sports writer...he fancies himself as the golden child...a kind of Ghandi to black America and the chosen instrument for change...the new voice of civil rights in America:
America is on the verge of a new civil-rights movement, a cultural revolution that will see intelligent, responsible African-Americans stand against the rap music, gangster idiots who are defining black culture as pro-drug dealing, anti-education, condoning of unmarried babies having babies and in love with random violence, disrespect toward women and the N-word. It’s only natural that Real Talk act as a catalyst in this cultural revolution, because people of every race are for it. Bill Cosby speaks for all people with common sense. His message just needs an injection of youth and energy. He’ll get it here and from us.
Elsewhere on his AOL site, Whitlock goes further than describing himself as the heir to Bill Cosby's mantle of leadership as a proper role model and the new voice of change in America for civil rights. In his Bio page (do most sports writers have a "Bio" page?) "Big Sexy", as Whitlock calls himself, says he is "the most unique, important and insightful voice in the world of sports." Apparently Whitlock views himself as not only the most "unique", "insightful" and "important" voice, but one that is in direct competition with the old guard civil rights reactionaries represented by both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. In other words...Whitlock's column's aren't just commentary...they're advertising...for himself as the new civil rights sherrif in town.

Here's a few things "Big Sexy" doesn't tell you on his web site:

Whitlock was born in 1967, to late to experience most of the truly horrible aspects of white racism in America. Despite his continuous contribution on the subject of race relations and the things he perceives as wrongs in the black community, Whitlock didn't grow up in the hood as one might expect from a black man who speaks this much on race. He grew up in Warren Township Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis that is 73% white. Whitlock played football with Jeff George at Warren Central High School in the majority white school district. Among the notable graduates of his high school are NBC's Today Show and Dateline host Jane Pauley and Ryan Murphy, creator of the television show Nip/Tuck.

Whitlock mentioned in his self promoting bio that he's here to put a stop to the degredation of women by black men, which seems out of sorts with calling Vivian Stringer out as part of the black commuity's problem for not taking it upon herself to go toe-to-toe with the Jackson/Sharpton coalition...especially since her girls were called whores on national television. But there's a reason Whitlock had so little respect for Stringer...Jason Whitlock calls black women whores also. In his recent diatribe on the NBA All-Star game, Whitlock noted that the game needed to be moved... (http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/mayhem-main-event-at-nba-all-star/20070220103009990001)
"The game needs to be moved overseas, someplace where the Bloods and Crips and hookers and hoes can't get to it without a passport and plane ticket."
Note that Jason distinguishes here between two kinds of whore..."hookers", who I assume are Las Vegas professionals working the strip, and "hoes"...that would be your garden variety black woman attending the NBA All-Star game...the same word Imus used. So while Jason Whitlock wants us to know he's here to protect black women from their negative characterization as whores by OTHER black men...he himself has no problem using the word in his nationally syndicated column.

Not only does Whitlock refer to women as whores, he also blames black women the problems that black men in society have today. Whitlock spends part of his PR time blogging on a site dedicated to the HBO black soap series called The Wire, a show that portrays his version of what is wrong in black society. The Wire, who Big Sexy says is the best thing since Alex Haley's Roots, depicts a ghetto world of crime infested urban blight where hip hop influences and ganta rappers are flushing black youth down the toilet. Witness one of Jason's recent blogging "conversations" he hosted on the AOL Black Celebrities blog along with Chad C. Coleman, who plays "Cutty" on The Wire http://journals.aol.com/thewiretapped/the-wire-tapped/entries/2006/10/26/untitled/373)... check out Jason's real feelings about black women:
Jason: Season 4 of The Wire has a chance to be the best season of the series. I love what David Simon is doing with the four young boys. I think he’s basically telling the backstory to Stringer, Avon, Wee-bey and Bubbles. Right now I’m most fascinated by Namond Brice, Wee-beoy’s son. Namond’s mother, D’Londra is basically turning her 8th-grade son into her husband. This is a big problem in the black community, and it’s a problem we never talk about. Single mothers turn their sons into husbands, and the boys never develop the ability to connect with another woman the way they’re supposed to.

Chad: Absolutely, and who's to blame for this misguided approach to raising a son? Is it the fact that the father is incarcerated or is the mother blinded by materialism? Seems to me she has misplaced values, but also I guess she's going by the model of manhood that's been demonstrated to her. Inevitably it does become some kind of reverse Oedipus syndrome. It locks the child into this false idea of manhood....

Jason: Hmm, Who's to blame is a good question. But I don't know if assigning blame is where we need to be as black folks right now. The blame is obvious. We were stripped of our family structure 300 years ago. Where we need to get to is acknowledging that this is a problem and then correcting it. I don't think weeven know this is a problem. Denial is our biggest enemy, in my opinion.
I found it fascinating that not only does Whitlock blame single mothers in the black community who are raising their sons alone without their fathers for the fact that their sons have a difficult time relating to women...a job that black MEN should be doing...(many are) but note that Whitlock, who is all about forgetting and ignoring the past...then goes on to lay the blame at the door of slavery!! Whitlock whines about Jackson and Sharpton and their victimization roles, then declares in his view on current black family problems..."We were stripped of our family structure 300 years ago." Apparently in Jason Whitlock's world, victimization as a role play objective, calling black women whores and blaming them for problems that young black men have is a terrible thing when other black men do it but it's OK for the new civil rights voice in America (him) to do so.

Whitlock is also not shy about going beyond the generic black "hoe" tag for anonomous black women...he gets more specific and identifies one of the "hoe's" he has a problem with...calling Janet Jackson a "tramp" (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/whitlock/030227.html). In a bizzare, rambling and surreal article titled "Jacko- A picture of Normalcy", from his days as an ESPN page2 columnist, Whitlock defends known child molestor and sexual pervert Michael Jackson from his detractors as just a guy admittedly shouldn't want to have slumber parties with children, but is merely just a normal dude "who wants to be 12 again", saying..."That's what we're supposed to believe about the Jacksons. I don't buy it, except the fact that Janet is a tramp, which has a definite upside".

So from Jason Whitlock we learn that Michael Jackson is a normal guy who enjoys a good romp in the hay with kids but it's perfectly normal since he misses his own stolen childhood. Somebody should tell the new voice of civil rights in America that this is why most child pediaphiles rape kids.

Whitlock acts as if he's mortified over the horrific and damaging lyrics of hip hop songs, peppered as they are with words like "****a", "b****" and "hoe"...and that hip hop is the single most damaging cultural cess pool tearing apart the black community. What he doesn't tell you is that he has written articles for Vibe Magazine, Quincy Jones' slick grocery store publication that bills itself as the voice of hip hop music and the new urban culture...in other words Jason Whitlock blasts hip hop while also taking money to write for one of it's main publishing voices. Some people might call that hypocrisy...maybe the same kind that got Jesse Jackson in trouble for representing himself as a civil rights activist and anti-racist while he was using a Jewish slur, calling New York City..."hymietown"

Jason Whitlock has good reason to dislike the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world. They represent his competition in the battle to be the new voice of the civil rights movement in America. They're the old voice...by his own self promoting statements...he's the new voice.

The new voice...looks much like the old voice...doesnt' it? Whitlock doesn't want to be known as a "house negro" or "Uncle Tom"...blacks who go out of their way to curry favor with white society to get ahead instead of struggling for it on their own.

Based on his own egotistical self promotion and political agenda meant to appeal to whites and alienate blacks, is there any good reason he shouldn't be?

[KCbroncos]

ENOUGH with the racial threads. Let's talk sports!

[Paladin]

frankly, who gives a sh^t who Whitlock is? I really don't care to read anymore crap about race. WWJD?

[ol number 7]

When Jason Whitlock wrote a column that blasted not only convenient targets like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as part of the problem with black America, but even Rutgers University's Hall of Fame basketball coach Vivian Stringer as a duplicitous partner in the destruction of black youth, I decided I needed to know a bit more about Jason Whitlock. Whitlock said of Stringer, an innocent by-stander in this theater of the absurd: "I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas." He then goes on to contradict himself, say all three ARE gold diggers..."It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$." Mixed signals from Jason Whitlock...

At first glance I thought Whitlock was just another sports writer who unwittingly got himself tangled in controversy with a hot sports opinion...that is until I realized that Whitlock's got a method to his madness...a method you have to look a little deeper to locate.

If you wanted to find an enthusiastic audience for the stuff Whitlock says about black people, one could hardly dream of doing better than NFL fans...most of whom are white males who are fed up with watching the kind of behavior we've witnessed by people like Pac Man Jones, Michael Irvin, Terrell Owens and Ray Lewis. Not suprisingly, just as he has with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Whitlock has zero'd in on all four of these guys as easy targets that resonate with white NFL fans, and found eager ears and fertile soil for his opinions in the group of people he writes for on a regular basis.

Jason Whitlock has himself the perfect soap box.

But do you know who the REAL Jason Whitlock is? Let's take a look...because Jason Whitlock definitely wants YOU to KNOW who Jason Whitlock really is. On his AOL homepage Whitlock says so in no uncertain terms, mentions tha no "bojanglers" are allowed in there, and describes the role he sees for himself with his new column "Real Sports": (http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/welcome-to-real-talk-with-jason-whitlock/20060928200809990001)...check it out...

It's not often you find someone this honest about their own narcisism...so let's find out WHO Jason really is. Read a little further...you'll find out he's right...he doesn't consider himself just another sports writer...he fancies himself as the golden child...a kind of Ghandi to black America and the chosen instrument for change...the new voice of civil rights in America:

Elsewhere on his AOL site, Whitlock goes further than describing himself as the heir to Bill Cosby's mantle of leadership as a proper role model and the new voice of change in America for civil rights. In his Bio page (do most sports writers have a "Bio" page?) "Big Sexy", as Whitlock calls himself, says he is "the most unique, important and insightful voice in the world of sports." Apparently Whitlock views himself as not only the most "unique", "insightful" and "important" voice, but one that is in direct competition with the old guard civil rights reactionaries represented by both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. In other words...Whitlock's column's aren't just commentary...they're advertising...for himself as the new civil rights sherrif in town.

Here's a few things "Big Sexy" doesn't tell you on his web site:

Whitlock was born in 1967, to late to experience most of the truly horrible aspects of white racism in America. Despite his continuous contribution on the subject of race relations and the things he perceives as wrongs in the black community, Whitlock didn't grow up in the hood as one might expect from a black man who speaks this much on race. He grew up in Warren Township Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis that is 73% white. Whitlock played football with Jeff George at Warren Central High School in the majority white school district. Among the notable graduates of his high school are NBC's Today Show and Dateline host Jane Pauley and Ryan Murphy, creator of the television show Nip/Tuck.

Whitlock mentioned in his self promoting bio that he's here to put a stop to the degredation of women by black men, which seems out of sorts with calling Vivian Stringer out as part of the black commuity's problem for not taking it upon herself to go toe-to-toe with the Jackson/Sharpton coalition...especially since her girls were called whores on national television. But there's a reason Whitlock had so little respect for Stringer...Jason Whitlock calls black women whores also. In his recent diatribe on the NBA All-Star game, Whitlock noted that the game needed to be moved... (http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/mayhem-main-event-at-nba-all-star/20070220103009990001)

Note that Jason distinguishes here between two kinds of whore..."hookers", who I assume are Las Vegas professionals working the strip, and "hoes"...that would be your garden variety black woman attending the NBA All-Star game...the same word Imus used. So while Jason Whitlock wants us to know he's here to protect black women from their negative characterization as whores by OTHER black men...he himself has no problem using the word in his nationally syndicated column.

Not only does Whitlock refer to women as whores, he also blames black women the problems that black men in society have today. Whitlock spends part of his PR time blogging on a site dedicated to the HBO black soap series called The Wire, a show that portrays his version of what is wrong in black society. The Wire, who Big Sexy says is the best thing since Alex Haley's Roots, depicts a ghetto world of crime infested urban blight where hip hop influences and ganta rappers are flushing black youth down the toilet. Witness one of Jason's recent blogging "conversations" he hosted on the AOL Black Celebrities blog along with Chad C. Coleman, who plays "Cutty" on The Wirehttp://journals.aol.com/thewiretapped/the-wire-tapped/entries/2006/10/26/untitled/373)... check out Jason's real feelings about black women:

I found it fascinating that not only does Whitlock blame single mothers in the black community who are raising their sons alone without their fathers for the fact that their sons have a difficult time relating to women...a job that black MEN should be doing...(many are) but note that Whitlock, who is all about forgetting and ignoring the past...then goes on to lay the blame at the door of slavery!! Whitlock whines about Jackson and Sharpton and their victimization roles, then declares in his view on current black family problems..."We were stripped of our family structure 300 years ago." Apparently in Jason Whitlock's world, victimization as a role play objective, calling black women whores and blaming them for problems that young black men have is a terrible thing when other black men do it but it's OK for the new civil rights voice in America (him) to do so.

Whitlock is also not shy about going beyond the generic black "hoe" tag for anonomous black women...he gets more specific and identifies one of the "hoe's" he has a problem with...calling Janet Jackson a "tramp" (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/whitlock/030227.html). In a bizzare, rambling and surreal article titled "Jacko- A picture of Normalcy", from his days as an ESPN page2 columnist, Whitlock defends known child molestor and sexual pervert Michael Jackson from his detractors as just a guy admittedly shouldn't want to have slumber parties with children, but is merely just a normal dude "who wants to be 12 again", saying..."That's what we're supposed to believe about the Jacksons. I don't buy it, except the fact that Janet is a tramp, which has a definite upside".

So from Jason Whitlock we learn that Michael Jackson is a normal guy who enjoys a good romp in the hay with kids but it's perfectly normal since he misses his own stolen childhood. Somebody should tell the new voice of civil rights in America that this is why most child pediaphiles rape kids.

Whitlock acts as if he's mortified over the horrific and damaging lyrics of hip hop songs, peppered as they are with words like "****a", "b****" and "hoe"...and that hip hop is the single most damaging cultural cess pool tearing apart the black community. What he doesn't tell you is that he has written articles for Vibe Magazine, Quincy Jones' slick grocery store publication that bills itself as the voice of hip hop music and the new urban culture...in other words Jason Whitlock blasts hip hop while also taking money to write for one of it's main publishing voices. Some people might call that hypocrisy...maybe the same kind that got Jesse Jackson in trouble for representing himself as a civil rights activist and anti-racist while he was using a Jewish slur, calling New York City..."hymietown"

Jason Whitlock has good reason to dislike the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world. They represent his competition in the battle to be the new voice of the civil rights movement in America. They're the old voice...by his own self promoting statements...he's the new voice.

The new voice...looks much like the old voice...doesnt' it? Whitlock doesn't want to be known as a "house negro" or "Uncle Tom"...blacks who go out of their way to curry favor with white society to get ahead instead of struggling for it on their own.

Based on his own egotistical self promotion and political agenda meant to appeal to whites and alienate blacks, is there any good reason he shouldn't be?

Do you play ping pong against yourself too ??? Never read so much to learn so little about the topic. Your point is ???

[bronco militia]

Do you play ping pong against yourself too ??? Never read so much to learn so little about the topic. Your point is ???

no doubt

[Rohirrim]

Man! You sure can type.

[shakenbake]

there you go attack the messanger ignore the message.

[Northman]

I think we've found out who Footstep is and the agenda he is pushing. lmao

[brian85in]

Whitlock mostly speaks out against those blacks who consistently play the race card for their lack of success/incarceration. He simply wants blacks to take responsibility for their actions. Those blacks who choose education over guns and 'keepin' it real' are the symbol and examples of what opportunity now lies in America for people of African descent. I am in a profession in a state which has 1 historically black college that produces the degree necessary for licensure in my profession. Those who choose to educate themselves and achieve make just as much money and have just as much success as I do, being a white male. Whitlock wants the excuses to stop and quite frankly so do I.

[Northman]

Whitlock mostly speaks out against those blacks who consistently play the race card for their lack of success/incarceration. He simply wants blacks to take responsibility for their actions. Those blacks who choose education over guns and 'keepin' it real' are the symbol and examples of what opportunity now lies in America for people of African descent. I am in a profession in a state which has 1 historically black college that produces the degree necessary for licensure in my profession. Those who choose to educate themselves and achieve make just as much money and have just as much success as I do, being a white male. Whitlock wants the excuses to stop and quite frankly so do I.



Well, as Foot will tell you he is the only white guy in america that can speak on the blacks behalf. Either that or he is just a black guy who got smacked around by a couple of bags of flour.

[sirhcyennek81]

So...because whitlock is a narcisist, that disproves his point that jackson and sharpton are hypocrites?


:Broncos:

[Maximus]

ENOUGH with the racial threads. Let's talk sports!

Don't read them... That's the simple answer. Anyhoo....

Clearence Whitlock Thomas's agenda is clear to anyone who can see and listen objectively. The only African American that he stood up for was Barry Bonds and that was only because the rest of the sports world was dogging bonds. Find a issue that the minorities support and Clearence Whitlock will support the other side.

[GonzoLays]

frankly, who gives a sh^t who Whitlock is? I really don't care to read anymore crap about race. WWJD?

I think we've found out who Footstep is and the agenda he is pushing. lmao

Oh now people don't give a **** about Fatlock. A couple of days ago he was a true American Hero who "kept it real" with his black-bashing article. I distinctly remember this board singing his praises after the all-star NBA weekend article as well.

Whatthe****ever.

Footstepsfrom27 exposed him for the hohos eating uncle tom he is.

ROOOOF!

[cutthemdown]

So footsteps because Whitlock doesn't come from the hood he isn't black enough to tell other black people when he feels they are wrong? Wow I see what a huge battle this is going to be. The blacks that feel things are wrong because the world is racist are going to fight a battle with people like Whitlock and Cosby. White people are going to be wondering what they can even say about it for fear of being labeled racists.

[-Slap-]

Footstepsfrom#32 has appointed himself as the most emotionally evolved man on the board (if not the world). Reading one of his posts is an experience in male sensitivity equal to watching Alan Alda give Richard Simmons a shoulder massage.

[Tredici]

Who wrote the article?

[footstepsfrom#27]

BAAAHAAA! Just as I thought...proof of point blank statements similiar to the one Imus made, and hypocritical narcisistic assertions promoting himself as the new leader civil rights leader in America lead to...

...not a single attempt to deal with the things he said.

Instead...attack the messenger since that's an easy way to avoid the issue.

No big suprise.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Oh now people don't give a **** about Fatlock. A couple of days ago he was a true American Hero who "kept it real" with his black-bashing article. I distinctly remember this board singing his praises after the all-star NBA weekend article as well.
I'm laughin' at that too. Hilarious!

[Donk]

Good Post footsteps.

[Maximus]

So footsteps because Whitlock doesn't come from the hood he isn't black enough to tell other black people when he feels they are wrong? Wow I see what a huge battle this is going to be. The blacks that feel things are wrong because the world is racist are going to fight a battle with people like Whitlock and Cosby. White people are going to be wondering what they can even say about it for fear of being labeled racists.

I'm not trying to speak for footsteps but, you're not even close. Clearence Whitlock Thomas has been under the influence of a different part of society for his entire life. He has no touch with the pulse of the Black Community. His lack of touch shows in the continual false statements that he makes. Clearance II represents your views... Not the African-American View. If you want to know people who truly care and represent African Americans ( I know you don't cause you've proven who you are with your ****ed up comments in the past... but I'll play along ) Take a listen to Cornell West, Bill Cosby, Eric Michael Dyson or Maya Angelou.

[shakenbake]

BAAAHAAA! Just as I thought...proof of point blank statements similiar to the one Imus made, and hypocritical narcisistic assertions promoting himself as the new leader civil rights leader in America lead to...

...not a single attempt to deal with the things he said.

Instead...attack the messenger since that's an easy way to avoid the issue.

No big suprise.

Isn't that what your doing attacking the messager. I guess anyone who has ever called a woman a hoe cannont comment on the imus situation.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No matter where Whitlock is coming from, he does make some points.
And Sharpton and Jackson are media whores basically.

That said, what I find interesting is the majority of young white males that need to qualify racism to talk about it (using Whitlock, Sharpton, Jackson, etc...). Every time one of these "Imus" stories comes along that's exactly what happens.

"Yeah but what about so and so and so on and so on?"

Well, that's a problem too but why are you dismissing one for the other?

[GonzoLays]

Footstepsfrom#32 has appointed himself as the most emotionally evolved man on the board (if not the world). Reading one of his posts is an experience in male sensitivity equal to watching Alan Alda give Richard Simmons a shoulder massage.

Slap has an uncanny ability to turn any post into a homosexual experience. Hilarious!

[Maximus]

No matter where Whitlock is coming from, he does make some points.
And Sharpton and Jackson are media whores basically.

That said, what I find interesting is the majority of young white males that need to qualify racism to talk about it (using Whitlock, Sharpton, Jackson, etc...). Every time one of these "Imus" stories comes along that's exactly what happens.

"Yeah but what about so and so and so on and so on?"

Well, that's a problem too but why are you dismissing one for the other?

Hammer hits the nail on the head!

[footstepsfrom#27]

Isn't that what your doing attacking the messager. I guess anyone who has ever called a woman a hoe cannont comment on the imus situation.
This messenger begs to be attacked. He tells you point blank that his interest isn't sports, because as he puts it, "I'm in love with myself..."...:rofl: then goes on to embark on a self promotional ad campaign billing himself as the next great hope for black society, specifically mentions that the hoods and gangstas need to respect women...while simultaneously blaming black women for black men's problems, callng them whores and tramps...are you kidding me?

Jason Whitlock isn't pissed with Jackson and Sharpton out of moral outrage. He's going after them because he sees them as his competition! Hilarious!

This is some funny ****. :giggle:

[Moon§hiner]

I've changed my mind....people like Whitlock should be stomped into the ground and not heard...god this is so silly

[shakenbake]

This messenger begs to be attacked. He tells you point blank that his interest isn't sports, because as he puts it, "I'm in love with myself..."...:rofl: then goes on to embark on a self promotional ad campaign billing himself as the next great hope for black society, specifically mentions that the hoods and gangstas need to respect women...while simultaneously blaming black women for black men's problems, callng them whores and tramps...are you kidding me?

Jason Whitlock isn't pissed with Jackson and Sharpton out of moral outrage. He's going after them because he sees them as his competition! Hilarious!

This is some funny ****. :giggle:

I think the main differnce between Whitlock and J.Jackson/Al Sharpton is that other than his journlism carreer he isn't profiting from all of this. It seems to me his motive for speaking out is differnt than that of Sharpton/Jackson.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I think the main differnce between Whitlock and J.Jackson/Al Sharpton is that other than his journlism carreer he isn't profiting from all of this. It seems to me his motive for speaking out is differnt than that of Sharpton/Jackson.
If that's what you're getting from this you're missing the entire point, and it's blatantly obvious because Whitlock himself tells you straight up what he's about...not sports journalism...he's interested in the platform he has with NFL fans to become the new Bill Cosby. Like Woody Paige, Skip Bayless, and other sports writer contrarians who are merely sports versions of the radio shock jocks like Imus, Whitlock is deliberately trying to provoke controversy. But unlike Paige, Bayless, etc...Whitlock's goal is not fame and a higher paycheck from his newspaper. He wants to be seen as leader of the new civil rights movement in America...the heir to Cosby's throne as a role model/civil activist riding in on a white horse to hold the forces of Rap, hip hop and Al Sharpton at bay.

Jason Whitlock IS Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. He just has a different set of constituents...his are white.

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't understand what your point is footsteps...it would seem that's it's consistent with the articles he's been writing.

[-Slap-]

Speaking out like he did sure has done wonders for Bill Cosby's career, hasn't it?

[footstepsfrom#27]

I don't understand what your point is footsteps...it would seem that's it's consistent with the articles he's been writing.
Consistent? His behavior isn't consistent. On the one hand he attacks hip hoppers and on the other hand he's calling women whores, tramps, blaming single moms for problems caused by male absenteeism...all hypocritical stuff.

Jason Whitlock has made his career all about being controvesial, but he himself says he's not about being a sports writer. He says he's only using sports for another agenda...HIS agenda...which, hard as it is to believe...is to become the leader of this "new civil rights movement". Here... http://thebiglead.com/?p=1038 ...he mentions that it's not up the "old people" like Cosby and Opray to be the spokespeople...:thumbs:

Jason Whitlock wants to be the spokesman for the "new civil rights movement". In other words he has his own agenda. Sure...it's packaged to be more palatable to whites than Jackson's and Sharpton's...but Whitlock's goal is still all about trying to bring attention to himself.

[Garcia Bronco]

Whitlock mostly speaks out against those blacks who consistently play the race card for their lack of success/incarceration. He simply wants blacks to take responsibility for their actions. Those blacks who choose education over guns and 'keepin' it real' are the symbol and examples of what opportunity now lies in America for people of African descent. I am in a profession in a state which has 1 historically black college that produces the degree necessary for licensure in my profession. Those who choose to educate themselves and achieve make just as much money and have just as much success as I do, being a white male. Whitlock wants the excuses to stop and quite frankly so do I.

That's exactly what he's saying in the interview about the wire.

[ZachKC]

Do you have to grow up "in the hood" to have an opinion on race relations?

What?

[ZachKC]

Jason Whitlock wants to be the spokesman for the "new civil rights movement". In other words he has his own agenda. Sure...it's packaged to be more palatable to whites than Jackson's and Sharpton's...but Whitlock's goal is still all about trying to bring attention to himself.

Well which is it?

Is it about himself...or the agenda that he holds close.

I am trying to see a problem here. I really am.

[ZachKC]

I am a photographer. The chances of me being able to bring about a lot of change or bring to light on the national scene a matter that is very close to my heart are slim. But if for some reason that chance came about. Why wouldn't I take it?

JW is just a sports writer. Even so, he has been able to shake things up and bring a perspective (and who knows, maybe some change?) to an issue that is very close to him. Should he not do that because he is a sports writer? Or because he doesn't have a disclaimer stating all of his intentions for everyone to see.

This thread is pretty funny.

Another reason you don't seem to like it is because the approach is different?

[Tredici]

Footsteps, am I missing the credit on the article? Still wondering who wrote it?

[ZachKC]

Footsteps, am I missing the credit on the article? Still wondering who wrote it?
No doubt, talk about secret agendas. Ha!

[Tredici]

No doubt, talk about secret agendas. Ha!

Whoever wrote it uses some pretty good literary license to create an illusion of making the writer's opinion look like Whitlock's. Just wondering what the agenda was. Plus if we are going to see "the real" whoever authored this.

Ha!

[Ratboy]

Welcome to ignore.

[Tredici]

From the article Whitlock wrote concerning the All Star Game:

"The game needs to be moved overseas, someplace where the Bloods and Crips and hookers and hoes can't get to it without a passport and plane ticket."

Note that Jason distinguishes here between two kinds of whore..."hookers", who I assume are Las Vegas professionals working the strip, and "hoes"...that would be your garden variety black woman attending the NBA All-Star game...the same word Imus used.

See, the problem is in the "Who I assume" part.

I don't "assume" that at all.

I would take the words more literally. Hookers are the pros who follow events like the All Star Game, and make a profit. Hoes would be the women who are, well, hoes.

Calling a hoe a hoe isn't calling all women hoes. And it certainly isn't referring to young college women on a basketball court. or in anyway garden variety black women.

Those distinctions seem pretty clear to me.

The other funny thing is most of the highlighted statements are easy to take out of context without what either precedes or procedes them. Shabby tricks that aren't all that clever. Yet they work.

[Garcia Bronco]

From the article Whitlock wrote concerning the All Star Game:

"The game needs to be moved overseas, someplace where the Bloods and Crips and hookers and hoes can't get to it without a passport and plane ticket."

Note that Jason distinguishes here between two kinds of whore..."hookers", who I assume are Las Vegas professionals working the strip, and "hoes"...that would be your garden variety black woman attending the NBA All-Star game...the same word Imus used.

See, the problem is in the "Who I assume" part.

I don't "assume" that at all.

I would take the words more literally. Hookers are the pros who follow events like the All Star Game, and make a profit. Hoes would be the women who are, well, hoes.

Calling a hoe a hoe isn't calling all women hoes. And it certainly isn't referring to young college women on a basketball court. or in anyway garden variety black women.

Those distinctions seem pretty clear to me.

The other funny thing is most of the highlighted statements are easy to take out of context without what either precedes or procedes them. Shabby tricks that aren't all that clever. Yet they work.


yep

[footstepsfrom#27]

Do you have to grow up "in the hood" to have an opinion on race relations?

What?
No. Where does it say you do?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Footsteps, am I missing the credit on the article? Still wondering who wrote it?
Which one?

[ZachKC]

No. Where does it say you do?

Whitlock was born in 1967, to late to experience most of the truly horrible aspects of white racism in America. Despite his continuous contribution on the subject of race relations and the things he perceives as wrongs in the black community, Whitlock didn't grow up in the hood as one might expect from a black man who speaks this much on race. He grew up in Warren Township Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis that is 73% white. Whitlock played football with Jeff George at Warren Central High School in the majority white school district

[enjolras]

Whitlock may be a narcissist, but he's absolutely right about Sharpton, Jackson, and their ilk.

I'm a white man who is simply tired of hearing about race. That card has been played 1 to many times for me to give it any credibility. Racism exists, but as long as the 'leaders' in the African American community insist on creating tempest-in-teapots (Imus included), I'm choosing to simply tune them out.

I'm tired of being a racist simply because I'm white. I'm tired of being told about the horror of the black experience in which racists lurk around every corner. About how black people can't succeed in America today. I'm just tired of it... because in my experience it is rarely true.

[footstepsfrom#27]

From the article Whitlock wrote concerning the All Star Game:

"The game needs to be moved overseas, someplace where the Bloods and Crips and hookers and hoes can't get to it without a passport and plane ticket."

Note that Jason distinguishes here between two kinds of whore..."hookers", who I assume are Las Vegas professionals working the strip, and "hoes"...that would be your garden variety black woman attending the NBA All-Star game...the same word Imus used.

See, the problem is in the "Who I assume" part.

I don't "assume" that at all.

I would take the words more literally. Hookers are the pros who follow events like the All Star Game, and make a profit. Hoes would be the women who are, well, hoes.

Calling a hoe a hoe isn't calling all women hoes. And it certainly isn't referring to young college women on a basketball court. or in anyway garden variety black women.

Those distinctions seem pretty clear to me.
Which category does Janet "tramp" Jackson fit into?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Whitlock was born in 1967, to late to experience most of the truly horrible aspects of white racism in America. Despite his continuous contribution on the subject of race relations and the things he perceives as wrongs in the black community, Whitlock didn't grow up in the hood as one might expect from a black man who speaks this much on race. He grew up in Warren Township Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis that is 73% white. Whitlock played football with Jeff George at Warren Central High School in the majority white school district
Right...that's his background information. Where does it say he can't offer an opinion on race relations? Most people are curious when somebody speaks out so strongly what the individual's personal background is. Whitlock himself states that his personal experiences make him uniquely qualified to do so...though he didn't explain why.

[ZachKC]

Right...that's his background information. Where does it say he can't offer an opinion on race relations? Most people are curious when somebody speaks out so strongly what the individual's personal background is. Whitlock himself states that his personal experiences make him uniquely qualified to do so...though he didn't explain why.
His backround info was presented along with "Despite his continuous contribution on the subject of race relations" and then throws this in "Whitlock didn't grow up in the hood as one might expect from a black man who speaks this much on race."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put it together and take the opinion that this author thinks you have to grow up in the hood to have an opinion in this matter.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Whitlock may be a narcissist, but he's absolutely right about Sharpton, Jackson, and their ilk.
Absolutely he is. That's not in dispute. The point is not that he's right about them...it's WHY he's so invested in this in the first place. You don't have to wonder if you read his website...he makes it clear this sports gig is all about him having a platform to reform society. Considering the demographics of his audience, his statements are interesting to say the least. Given some of the other things he's said...they support the idea he's got some pretty grandiose ideas on his importance to the world. Though his approach is 180 degrees from the Jackson/Sharpton nonsense...his objectives appear similiar; namely to have himself looked at as a civil rights leader.
I'm a white man who is simply tired of hearing about race. That card has been played 1 to many times for me to give it any credibility. Racism exists, but as long as the 'leaders' in the African American community insist on creating tempest-in-teapots (Imus included), I'm choosing to simply tune them out.
I don't blame you...I tune them out too. But those idiots are "leaders" only because the media hangs on their every word. Whitlock makes a good point when he says neither has done much of anything to justify that title.
I'm tired of being a racist simply because I'm white. I'm tired of being told about the horror of the black experience in which racists lurk around every corner. About how black people can't succeed in America today. I'm just tired of it... because in my experience it is rarely true.
Funny how the loudest voices are usually taken for being those that belong to the majority. I know few black people who take that position. Most black people I know tell me they experience racism but don't let it deter them from what they're about. On the other hand, I also know few whites who are open to listening even about legitimate problems before they get defensive.

Both are needed.

[footstepsfrom#27]

His backround info was presented along with "Despite his continuous contribution on the subject of race relations" and then throws this in "Whitlock didn't grow up in the hood as one might expect from a black man who speaks this much on race."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put it together and take the opinion that this author thinks you have to grow up in the hood to have an opinion in this matter.
No it doesn't take a rocket scientist...it takes the author himself to know what he meant. Since I AM the author and know what I meant by what I wrote, I can tell you that's not the intent. The point is simply that Whitlock's background is different...that isn't necessarily a negataive...in fact it could be a positive. My issues with him have zero to do with his background. I merely found it interesting and possibly relevant at some level to anyone reading his views to know where he's come from. That paragraph is probably the least important in the whole story.

[ZachKC]

Are trying to say it wasn't your intent to discredit his opinion based on his background?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Are trying to say it wasn't your intent to discredit his opinion based on his background?
Not at all. His background is relevant because of two things; 1) his approach is characteristic of one that appeals to whites much more than blacks, and 2) his audience is largely white since most NFL fans are white. Taken together this platform is one he himself admits is designed to propel him into becoming some kind of civil rights leader. Sports is merely the vehicle he's using to be heard.

I dont' care where he grew up. I care whether he acts the same way he wants others to act.

[ZachKC]

Not at all. His background is relevant because of two things; 1) his approach is characteristic of one that appeals to whites much more than blacks, and 2) his audience is largely white since most NFL fans are white. Taken together this platform is one he himself admits is designed to propel him into becoming some kind of civil rights leader. Sports is merely the vehicle he's using to be heard.

I dont' care where he grew up. I care whether he acts the same way he wants others to act.

I think you are giving your own imagination a lot of credit. I think growing up this is obviously and issue very close to him...and once he found he had such an audience he decided to use it. As Rod Burgandy said "I wanted to shout it from a mountain but I didn't have a mountain. I have a news show." :rofl:

We are talking about a guy who was a mediocre football player at Ball State. But I guess that was just all apart of his plan to take over the world using sports journalism as a springboard.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I think you are giving your own imagination a lot of credit. I think growing up this is obviously and issue very close to him...and once he found he had such an audience he decided to use it. As Rod Burgandy said "I wanted to shout it from a mountain but I didn't have a mountain. I have a news show." :rofl:

We are talking about a guy who was a mediocre football player at Ball State. But I guess that was just all apart of his plan to take over the world using sports journalism as a springboard.
Read his bio and the other information he has on his website. It's pretty hard not to see this guy as an EXTREMELY arrogant individual. He states that his is the most important and unique voice in sports journalism...that's not arrogant? I don't really care where or when he developed this idea that he wanted to save the world. I don't even care that he has it. What I care about is that by his own admission he is in love with himself. Those are his words not mine. I care about the fact that he's telling us he's about making it known how wrong it is to be dissprespecting women and then he turns around and calls women whores and tramps. I care that he's suggesting individual responsibility is how black America needs to get ahead instead of blaming others (which I agree with) and then turns around and blames the problems black men have in treating women with dissprespect on their mothers. I care about the fact he wants people who lived through evils he never had to face to forget about them, and on his blog he then blames something 300 years ago for the reason black families have those very problems.

I think he's a hypcocrit because he's asking others to "do as I say not as I do". You don't have to be using the N word every five minutes, beating up women and fathering multiple kids by different women to break down and destroy your reputation if you're counting on your reputation to make people believe you're a leader. It takes a lot less because you're literally asking people to watch what you do and what you say.

There are tens of thousands of great black men who are leaders and civil rights leaders in this country who don't call women tramps and whores, don't blame their mothers for their issues, and don't openly side with anything that makes white America feel better while simultaneously engaging in the very thing they're preaching against. These very issues are why we have so little respect for Jackson and Sharpton...because they're in it for themselves. I think when you read everything Whitlock is saying...and there is more on the net that I didn't include...you get a picture of a guy who wants to be admired as a civil rights leader but is more show than substance.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Whoever wrote it uses some pretty good literary license to create an illusion of making the writer's opinion look like Whitlock's. Just wondering what the agenda was. Plus if we are going to see "the real" whoever authored this.

Ha!
Are you taking the general post as an "article"? I wrote the general post...and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm tryiing to make my opinion look like it's coming from Whitlock...maybe I'm confused about what you're asking or stating here. I wrote the "article"...not sure why it's being seen as an "article" though...my "agenda" is merely to call into question Jason Whitlock's sincerity. It's hard not to read all the crap he's writing about himself and not do that.

I'll lay odds most people critiquing me in here did not even read the full text of the "article"...certainly not the text from the links I supplied...I'd almost bet my last dollar on it. Most people on this board won't even finish a post that's more than two paragraphs, let alone even click a single link to see what it says...they want the actual text written out for them.

On another note...let's just use the word "whore" instead of "hoe" since they mean the same thing but "hoe" is an attempt to water it down and make it more "cool" for generally accepted use in society. Since "whore" is about the filthiest thing you can say to a woman...I find both words repugnant. I don't see the point in labeling somebody a whore...even prostitutes...why? I bet you'd probably agree there are thousands of women who have either been forced into or turned to prostitution based on all kinds of bad choices that ultimately led down that path...some of their own making and some not...is there something to be gained by calling them whores? I don't see it. I'm old fashioned...I still believe in the whole respect for women thing that used to be normal in this country. If somebody like Whitlock wanted to say what he does and live by the same creed he's wanting others to...I'd applaud it as leadership...but when I see them throwing stones from glass houses it ticks me off.

[shakenbake]

I care about the fact he wants people who lived through evils he never had to face to forget about them,

how the hell do you know what he had or didn't have to live through? Did you walk in Jason's shoes? Because he didn't grow up the "hood" he doesn't know what its like to experience racial prejudice? You certainly make a lot of assumptions wouldn't you agree? Don't you think a black kid growing up in a white neighborhood might experience MORE racial prejudice? You really have no clue as to what he has or hasn't experienced in his life. Oh wait you read his bio so obviously that explains it all.

Oh and god forbid anybody be self confident about what they do. I guess he should say he is just a crappy sports writer trying to make a buck, Doesn't really bring anything interesting or important to the discussion, but hey please ready my stuff.

[footstepsfrom#27]

how the hell do you know what he had or didn't have to live through? Did you walk in Jason's shoes? Because he didn't grow up the "hood" he doesn't know what its like to experience racial prejudice? You certainly make a lot of assumptions wouldn't you agree? Don't you think a black kid growing up in a white neighborhood might experience MORE racial prejudice?
Actually I was referring to his age...40...he was born well after the worst opression had already been legislated out of existence. I made the same point you're making about Larry Johnson and was roundly criticized for suggesting he might have gone through things most of us haven't even though raised in middle class suburbia. But in Whitlock's case...we know he never sat on the back of the bus, drank from seperate water fountains, entered through the back door of restaurants, or probably saw anyone in his family lynched.

Second...it's not his confidence...I've already explained this...it's the fact he's coming off like black America can't get along without him...and at the same time he's criticizing hip hop culture he's calling women tramps and whores, defending Michael Jackson as missunderstood, blaming single mothers for the failure of black men to respect women...etc...

This isn't that tough unless you're emotionally committed to Jason Whitlock as some sort of modern day MLK in training...he comes off as a very arrogant jackass quite frankly.

[shakenbake]

Actually I was referring to his age...40...he was born well after the worst opression had already been legislated out of existence. I made the same point you're making about Larry Johnson and was roundly criticized for suggesting he might have gone through things most of us haven't even though raised in middle class suburbia. But in Whitlock's case...we know he never sat on the back of the bus, drank from seperate water fountains, entered through the back door of restaurants, or probably saw anyone in his family lynched.

I'm really trying to understand your argument here but you keep going in circles. So are you saying that anyone born after the Civil Rights act is not qualified to issues of race ?

[footstepsfrom#27]

I'm really trying to understand your argument here but you keep going in circles. So are you saying that anyone born after the Civil Rights act is not qualified to issues of race ?
Obviously not. I'm saying that one of Whitlock's major points is that blacks need to let go of the past...which I can agree with to a point. But let's not pretend that he knows by experience what some people went through "in the past". A guy born in 1945 might tell holocaust survivors to get over it too...and we'd all think that was idiotic. My problem is not just that he's suggesting the past be the past...it's that he simultaneously BLAMED the past when he was talking about the black family being stolen from them 300 years ago.

If you want to emphasize responsibility over victimization, don't tell us how black men have the right to blame their struggling single mothers for not training them up right to respect women...from what I've seen problems in kids lives that have to do with parental neglect can be laid at the feet at the parent was was NOT there...not the one who was.

[shakenbake]

I found something interesting for you. Now to be fair I really have no idea if this affected Whitlock but it has to deal with desegregation in Indiana...You said he went to school in Wayne Township right ?

Aug. 19 to Sept. 7, 1981: The transfer of 5,600 black IPS students to schools in Decatur, Franklin, Lawrence, Perry, Warren and Wayne townships is implemented. The district closes 10 elementaries and Shortridge High School.

That was freakin 1981 so yea he didn't live though any of those things you spoke of. You can check the link if you would like more info about desegregation in Indiana.
http://www2.indystar.com/articles/3/147020-4793-009.html

[footstepsfrom#27]

I found something interesting for you. Now to be fair I really have no idea if this affected Whitlock but it has to deal with desegregation in Indiana...You said he went to school in Wayne Township right ?

Aug. 19 to Sept. 7, 1981: The transfer of 5,600 black IPS students to schools in Decatur, Franklin, Lawrence, Perry, Warren and Wayne townships is implemented. The district closes 10 elementaries and Shortridge High School.

That was freakin 1981 so yea he didn't live though any of those things you spoke of. You can check the link if you would like more info about desegregation in Indiana.
http://www2.indystar.com/articles/3/147020-4793-009.html
I'm not sure what the point is...that he might have transfered schools at age 14? Possibly so...Dallas was under court order to desegregate up until just a few years ago. What does that have to do with the environment that blacks experienced in the 1950's and '60's though? There was a world of difference growing up when he did versus that time period.

I'm not making the point that Whitlock's never expereinced discrimination or racism...that would be nuts. I'm making the point that he's talking one thing while doing another. Now maybe some will say it doesnt' matter...I submit that when you hold yourself up as the next great representative for civil rights...the leader of a "civil rights revolution" as he put it...you invite closer scrutiny. Searching the net for more Whitlock stuff is an eye opening experience...I found places where his audience is black and he's speaking eubonics to them...while he uses the king's englilsh with his mostly white NFL audience...that's just one example of the things that don't ring true with this guy. Factor in all the other stuff and his own statements about himself and he leaves me with the distinct impression he's a phony.

There are millions of black people who believe they need to be responsible for their own actions, live in harmony with society, take care of their kids, respect women...etc...but few make a huge show of suggesting they're one of the few that believe that. When you do that...you should be ready to have your own backyard scoped out too.

[shakenbake]

I guess my point is that you make a lot of assumptions without really knowing the man. You really have no idea what he has lived though or how he came to his current beliefs. Then you go on to attack the messenger and not the message. I read his Bio page a lot of it sounds like satire to me. Additionally, It sounds like he has more interest than just sports which may be the reason he is no longer with ESPN. He points out that his articles will cover a broad range of topics including sports. As he says "Real Talk" will cover the sports and entertainment world. I also don't read where he saying we wants to lead the new Civil rights movement. To me it sounds like he wants to start a debate. He wants to bring up topics others are afraid to address, is that such a terrible thing? I could care less if you love him or hate him, I don't really have an opinion about the man. But I do like the fact that he is willing to start the discussion.

[penguintheory]

Whitlock's a douche. Jemele Hill is awful, too. When is ESPN going to hire some decent "ethnic" columnists (I say ethnic because it appears, by the content of the articles they cover, that they are hired in order to present a certain slant) who don't alienate just about every reader?

Jesus, either stay objective or hire some writers who aren't total morons.

[ZachKC]

Whitlock's a douche. Jemele Hill is awful, too. When is ESPN going to hire some decent "ethnic" columnists (I say ethnic because it appears, by the content of the articles they cover, that they are hired in order to present a certain slant) who don't alienate just about every reader?

Jesus, either stay objective or hire some writers who aren't total morons.

Whitlock doesn't work for ESPN anymore and hasn't for a while. Great rant though.

[penguintheory]

Take a listen to Cornell West, Bill Cosby, Eric Michael Dyson or Maya Angelou.

West and Cosby are almost polar opposites in terms of their ideology. Cosby is considered a black conservative with his "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality whereas West is considered a black liberal with his "culture of love" theory.

Whitlock, who may be a flip-flopper (I haven't paid enough attention to his work to know), is on this issue at least more aligning with West.

[penguintheory]

Whitlock doesn't work for ESPN anymore and hasn't for a while. Great rant though.

Fair enough. Still, I think the general point stands.

[cutthemdown]

how the hell do you know what he had or didn't have to live through? Did you walk in Jason's shoes? Because he didn't grow up the "hood" he doesn't know what its like to experience racial prejudice? You certainly make a lot of assumptions wouldn't you agree? Don't you think a black kid growing up in a white neighborhood might experience MORE racial prejudice? You really have no clue as to what he has or hasn't experienced in his life. Oh wait you read his bio so obviously that explains it all.

Oh and god forbid anybody be self confident about what they do. I guess he should say he is just a crappy sports writer trying to make a buck, Doesn't really bring anything interesting or important to the discussion, but hey please ready my stuff.

Great post!!!!!

[cutthemdown]

Are trying to say it wasn't your intent to discredit his opinion based on his background?

That is how I perceived it also. They are basically saying he's an Uncle Tom.

[cutthemdown]

I'm going to read a book by Eric Dyson anyone have a suggestion as what would be the best one. I'm think Hell and High Water? Or is Bill Cosby Right? I'm ready to try and really understand some of this better and this dude seems like a good place to start.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I guess my point is that you make a lot of assumptions without really knowing the man. You really have no idea what he has lived though or how he came to his current beliefs.
Nowhere do I claim to know how he arrived at his beliefs. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with the what he says, what he does, and how he's coming off while doing it. I don't need to know what he's faced to recognize that he's a guy who is about promoting himself first and foremost...because he said exactly that himself. I take him at his word that he's all about himself. Second, I don't need to know every detail to be bothered by his characterization of single mothers as the ones to blame for black male dissrespect for women. I dont' need that information to be perturbed over him calling black women whores either...and when I hear him blasting OTHER BLACK MEN for doing that while he does it also...I can call that for what it is...hypocrisy. If Sharpton or Jackson did this they'd be rightfully criticized...Whitlock doesn't get a pass because he makes me feel good by going after those two...especially when I suspect he's got his own hidden agenda for doing so.
Then you go on to attack the messenger and not the message.
What is the message? That black society has problems and hip hop music and thuggish behavior are contributing to those problems? That someone is addressing that as a probem is not news in the black community. It might sound like news to whites who only listen to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and think those guys speak for all blacks, but blacks all over the country have addressed those issues, and continue to do so. The MESSENGER, on the other hand, invites criticism because he has set himself up as a guy who is some kind of lone voice crying in the wilderness about these issues. When you say one thing and do another...well if you get caught with that it's on you...and that's what's going on here. He's saying how things should be and doing somethng different by example. I have yet to hear anyone even agree that he's out of bounds calling black women whores or tramps...why is that? Is it because he attacks Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? If so that's a pretty sad excuse for giving him a pass. It's not like they aren't easy targets...they're total morons...anybody could go after them and probably get 90% of America to agree on that. Whitlock acts like he's the great moral compass pointing the drifting black culture back to it's senses, when in fact there are people around who have been at this a lot longer and a lot stronger than Jason Whitlock, including tens of thousands of black ministers who do NOT appreciate the stuff the Sharptons and Jackson's do. We have quite a few right here in Dallas.
I read his Bio page a lot of it sounds like satire to me. Additionally, It sounds like he has more interest than just sports which may be the reason he is no longer with ESPN.
It's' not satire at all. There's a youtube video of him talking about this and it's definitely not something he's using as a joke. He really sees himself in this way...as the next Bill Cosby/Oprah/Jesse Jackson type image in the black community. As for ESPN...he's no longer with them in part because of money and in part because he didn't like some of the moves they made with people in the lineup around him. He had a falling out with them...there's stuff on the web if you google it that has him explaining it. It's true ESPN also had some kind of problem with him taking off on these social commentaries...I guess they would since they're about sports, not politics...but he also blasts his former employer and other people too in what sounds like a pretty vindictive spirit.
He points out that his articles will cover a broad range of topics including sports. As he says "Real Talk" will cover the sports and entertainment world. I also don't read where he saying we wants to lead the new Civil rights movement. To me it sounds like he wants to start a debate. He wants to bring up topics others are afraid to address, is that such a terrible thing? I could care less if you love him or hate him, I don't really have an opinion about the man. But I do like the fact that he is willing to start the discussion.
It's not that he wants to address topics "others are afraid to address"...he's far from the only one addressing these things...he just acts like he is. Read the whole text and check out the links...he does talk about how he's the "catalyst" for this new civil rights movement...that Youtube video is also great...he has this news geek who looks like he's 21 interviewing him and suggesting that (shock) he Jason Whitlock should be the next civil rights leader...it's a hoot...I'll find it tomorrow and post it.

Right now I'm just going to get 3 hours sleep before this house starts waking up. ;D

[shakenbake]

Nowhere do I claim to know how he arrived at his beliefs. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with the what he says, what he does, and how he's coming off while doing it. I don't need to know what he's faced to recognize that he's a guy who is about promoting himself first and foremost...because he said exactly that himself.
tell me next quote here isn't an attempt to discredit his message based on what you perceive to be his upbringing. If you "don't claim to know how he arrived at his beliefs" and "don't need to know what he has faced" then why write the following quote in your opening post. It is a clear attempt to discredit him. It looks as thought your saying he isn't in touch with his peers. Not only that, as I pointed out in my previous post about desegregation in Indiana, just because he went to school in Warren Township doesn't mean he was raised there. As you said he would have been what 14 (a freshman) in high school when black students were bussed into the school.

Here's a few things "Big Sexy" doesn't tell you on his web site:

Whitlock was born in 1967, to late to experience most of the truly horrible aspects of white racism in America. Despite his continuous contribution on the subject of race relations and the things he perceives as wrongs in the black community, Whitlock didn't grow up in the hood as one might expect from a black man who speaks this much on race. He grew up in Warren Township Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis that is 73% white. Whitlock played football with Jeff George at Warren Central High School in the majority white school district. Among the notable graduates of his high school are NBC's Today Show and Dateline host Jane Pauley and Ryan Murphy, creator of the television show Nip/Tuck.


Again if you are not concerned about how he arrived at his beliefs then why even type this? It is a clear attempt to discredit him based on his upbringing and I am not the only one who reads it that way.

[cutthemdown]

Shake-n-bake reads it the same way I do. Footsteps is saying Whitlock isn't black enough to speak on black issues.

[Northman]

I am a photographer. The chances of me being able to bring about a lot of change or bring to light on the national scene a matter that is very close to my heart are slim. But if for some reason that chance came about. Why wouldn't I take it?

JW is just a sports writer. Even so, he has been able to shake things up and bring a perspective (and who knows, maybe some change?) to an issue that is very close to him. Should he not do that because he is a sports writer? Or because he doesn't have a disclaimer stating all of his intentions for everyone to see.

This thread is pretty funny.

Another reason you don't seem to like it is because the approach is different?


Hmmm, you think? lol

[Northman]

I guess my point is that you make a lot of assumptions without really knowing the man. You really have no idea what he has lived though or how he came to his current beliefs. Then you go on to attack the messenger and not the message. I read his Bio page a lot of it sounds like satire to me. Additionally, It sounds like he has more interest than just sports which may be the reason he is no longer with ESPN. He points out that his articles will cover a broad range of topics including sports. As he says "Real Talk" will cover the sports and entertainment world. I also don't read where he saying we wants to lead the new Civil rights movement. To me it sounds like he wants to start a debate. He wants to bring up topics others are afraid to address, is that such a terrible thing? I could care less if you love him or hate him, I don't really have an opinion about the man. But I do like the fact that he is willing to start the discussion.


Home run.

[x123z]

I don' know about his new column. I enjoyed his football column.

[Tredici]

Which category does Janet "tramp" Jackson fit into?

I would assume she belongs in the category of any woman who would deliberately decide to expose her breast on one of the broadcasting events with the largest viewing population each year. -- One without parental warnings.

It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. What do you call the Girls Gone Wild who publicly expose themselves?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I would assume she belongs in the category of any woman who would deliberately decide to expose her breast on one of the broadcasting events with the largest viewing population each year. -- One without parental warnings.

It was an incredibly stupid thing to do. What do you call the Girls Gone Wild who publicly expose themselves?What's that, a Broadway play or something?

[Tredici]

Which one?

Why so disingenuous Footsteps? I don't think asking for the source of the article is that confusing.

[footstepsfrom#27]

tell me next quote here isn't an attempt to discredit his message based on what you perceive to be his upbringing. If you "don't claim to know how he arrived at his beliefs" and "don't need to know what he has faced" then why write the following quote in your opening post. It is a clear attempt to discredit him. It looks as thought your saying he isn't in touch with his peers.
I already explained this...I tried to give you a broader, big picture snapshot of where he was coming from because it's pertinent in this case. I could care less where he was raised, except for the fact that when people take this mantle upon themselves their personal lives become part of the story. Is it relevant that he might have been raised in a white community and gone to white schools? In this case it is...why?...because it offers a potential window into his thinking.

Nowhere in anything I've posted have I insinutated that his background disqualifies him to speak on race...I posted it because HE HIMSELF claims that his background makes him uniquely qualified to do so. Why should Jason Whitlock get to make that claim if he doesn't also say what his background is? Why do you think I looked this up in the first place? I looked it up because after reading that his background made him qualified to UNIQUELY speak to these issues, I wondered what his background was...and why he didn't mention it himself. Since HE claims that it's relevant...it leads me to ask why that is true. It leads me to wonder what those UNIQUE qualifications are. It's also relevant given that his attitude seems to be so beligerent to other blacks in general...including some of the stuff he says about his own collegues...read some of the stuff he has to say about other black sports writers...Scoop Jackson in particular. He calls Jackson a "bojangler"...a clown and an idiot. Why? Because Jackson had the nerve to write a column where he compared his writing to that of the late Ralph Wiley who wrote for Sports Illustrated and also authored a book with Spike Lee on Malcom X. It's almost as if Whitlock couldn't stand for another black man who was a sports writer to offer social commentary on racism so he attacked him as a "bojangler"...a term not far removed from the "Uncle Tom" or "house negro" he protests over being applied to him...again...it's "do as I say, not as I do". Apparently this had a good deal to do with why ESPN also fired him. When a guy is this controversial and attacks other writers, travels outside the domain we normally associate with sports, bills himself as the "catalyst" and the heir apparent to Cosby in turning around the civil rights movement, weighs in every chance he gets on social issues involving race with articles he knows will draw attention to himself becuase they're controversial...then yes...his background is of interest and that's why I posted it.

I find it amazing...though typical...that my detractors on this thread are looking to focus on a single issue or two...especially something this trivial that I've explained three times now...when meanwhile you are completely silent on the 95% of the information on this thread that's far more relevant. There's an entire article posted in here on how Whitlock defends one of the biggest perverts on the planet and in the next breath he's calling his sister a tramp without explanation. Why no comment on this guy's judgement or mental state of mind if he's willing to say that Michael Jackson is "normal"? How many people do you know that think Michael Jackson is normal? Does that tell you something about whether his views on other things should be trusted or not? Why no comment on the fact that while he's blasting hip hop artists he's getting paid to write for Vibe? Why no comment on the fact that he calls for black people to hold themselves accountable in his sports column that's mostly read by whites and yet when he's speaking to an audience of black people on his blog he blames single black mothers for how their sons disrespect black women? Why no criticism of him for calling black women whores and tramps while he knocks hip hop artists for doing the same thing? Why no criticism of him for stating point blank that he's not particuarly interested in the profession he writes on...that it's just a way to get his personal view into the public eye? People in here were blasting Adam Sheffter for daring to comment on his preference for restaurants yet Whitlock can get free license to say anything he wants outside of sports and he's hailed as knowledgeable and sensible black man...as if he were a rarity because he had those qualilties. Gimme a freaking break already.

The craziest thing of all is that this guy comes right out and tells you on his own website that he's all about himself...yet no criticism of that either.

Let's focus instead on the fact that I told you he went to a mostly white high school...that makes sense huh?

[footstepsfrom#27]

I would assume she belongs in the category of any woman who would deliberately decide to expose her breast on one of the broadcasting events with the largest viewing population each year. -- One without parental warnings.
Did she do it herself or did that idiot on stage with her do it without her consent? Frankly I don't know...you may be right...and if so it WAS an incredibly stupid thing to do. Does that explain the rest of his comment, "Janet is a tramp and that has a definite upside." What exactly does that mean? It sounds like maybe he likes tramps...how do you take it? And how does Micheal freaking Jackson get a pass for being a child molestor who is "normal" and "just wanting to be 12 again"...yet Janet is a tramp?

Yeah...that's no double standard is it? Hilarious! If I'd posted nothing on this thread but the fact this guy is defending Michael Jackson I'd have gotten massive agreement that he's got some issues.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Why so disingenuous Footsteps? I don't think asking for the source of the article is that confusing.
I don't understand the question..WHICH article? I provided links to everything...one wasn't working because it got a ) added in by mistake and I fixed it. Are you talking about the linked stuff or the post itself? I already asked this question earlier...how is this being disengenuous if I ask what you're talking about? ???

[shakenbake]

I already explained this...I tried to give you a broader, big picture snapshot of where he was coming from because it's pertinent in this case. I could care less where he was raised, except for the fact that when people take this mantle upon themselves their personal lives become part of the story.

Ok these two sentences contradict each other. In the first sentence you say you want to give a picture of where he is coming from because it is pertinent in this case, and then say you could care less where he was raised. So which one is it? Not only that you painted a broad picture of a guy who grew up in a "white neighborhood" when in reality you have no idea what type of neighborhood he grew up in. Only where he went to school.

I focused on this single issue because 1) you included it, and it reads as though you included it to disqualify his views. 2) To point an area where you contradict yourself.

You state things as facts in your post when in reality YOU don't know what the facts are, and under what conditions he was raised.

I am also interested in the types of words and phrases you used to make your arguments. Things like "self promoting bio" well what is a bio if not way of self promotion. "the REAL Jason Whitilock" as if you know the man and who he really is.


As far as the calling Janet a ho and defending Michael I think your quotes and how you link them together are little off. Here is the quote on Micheal and his sleep overs
Are Jackson's social habits weird and inappropriate by my standards? Absolutely. A grown man shouldn't want to have slumber parties with children.

you quote it like this Whitlock defends known child molestor and sexual pervert Michael Jackson from his detractors as just a guy admittedly shouldn't want to have slumber parties with children, but is merely just a normal dude "who wants to be 12 again",

He says he is a weird dude and has inappropriate social habits. I could take the same article and twist it to what I want it to say just as you have done.

[shakenbake]

His is another misstatement on your part. No where in his bio does he call himself "the heir to Bill Cosby's mantle of leadership"

Again the reason I point these "trivial" things out is because you include them in your characterization of him and because I think when you start you look at the small "trivial" things you are misquoting or just not accurate about it makes your entire argument look silly.

[Northman]

Ok these two sentences contradict each other. In the first sentence you say you want to give a picture of where he is coming from because it is pertinent in this case, and then say you could care less where he was raised. So which one is it? Not only that you painted a broad picture of a guy who grew up in a "white neighborhood" when in reality you have no idea what type of neighborhood he grew up in. Only where he went to school.

I focused on this single issue because 1) you included it, and it reads as though you included it to disqualify his views. 2) To point an area where you contradict yourself.

You state things as facts in your post when in reality YOU don't know what the facts are, and under what conditions he was raised.

I am also interested in the types of words and phrases you used to make your arguments. Things like "self promoting bio" well what is a bio if not way of self promotion. "the REAL Jason Whitilock" as if you know the man and who he really is.


As far as the calling Janet a ho and defending Michael I think your quotes and how you link them together are little off. Here is the quote on Micheal and his sleep overs


you quote it like this

He says he is a weird dude and has inappropriate social habits. I could take the same article and twist it to what I want it to say just as you have done.


Surely you jest Shake? LOL

[Northman]

As far as the calling Janet a ho and defending Michael I think your quotes and how you link them together are little off. Here is the quote on Micheal and his sleep overs


you quote it like this

He says he is a weird dude and has inappropriate social habits. I could take the same article and twist it to what I want it to say just as you have done.


I think Foot should get into poilitics. I think that is his calling in life. He would make a great smear campaign manager. Hilarious!

[-Slap-]

Does that explain the rest of his comment, "Janet is a tramp and that has a definite upside." What exactly does that mean? It sounds like maybe he likes tramps...how do you take it?

Anyone who's not grotesquely stupid takes it to mean being a tramp is marketable.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Ok these two sentences contradict each other. In the first sentence you say you want to give a picture of where he is coming from because it is pertinent in this case, and then say you could care less where he was raised. So which one is it?
Actually that's not what I said. You edited out my qualifying explanation as to WHY I was interested...I said this:
I could care less where he was raised, except for the fact that when people take this mantle upon themselves their personal lives become part of the story. Is it relevant that he might have been raised in a white community and gone to white schools? In this case it is...why?...because it offers a potential window into his thinking.
Not only that you painted a broad picture of a guy who grew up in a "white neighborhood" when in reality you have no idea what type of neighborhood he grew up in. Only where he went to school.
Fair enough...it's a fairly natural assumption to believe that if you went to school in the 1980's you went to school where you lived. I did some research into this and noted where he went to school. If you want to suggest he might have been bussed from the hood I have no problem with that. It's still true that he attended school in a white district, which is also relevant for the same reason's I suggested his neigborhood might be...BECAUSE HE CLAIMS IT IS.
I focused on this single issue because 1) you included it, and it reads as though you included it to disqualify his views. 2) To point an area where you contradict yourself.
Point conceeded that he might have lived in a black neighborhood. That's not "contradicting myself" as you put it. I did some research...more than you or anyone else in here bothered to do...how much do you expect...should I hire a PI to investigate his background? I found a Google link...same as you did to support the fact that he MIGHT have been bussed. If I somehow find out he wasn't bussed...does that mean because you found a link regarding bussing you contradicted yourself? No...it means we operate with the information at our disposal...same as anything else we discuss on this board. More to the point...why did you edit out my qualifying statement on why his background was of interest?
You state things as facts in your post when in reality YOU don't know what the facts are, and under what conditions he was raised.
Let's move on to the things we DO know...you've addressed none of that except the Jackson thing...and you failed to do that accurately (see below).
I am also interested in the types of words and phrases you used to make your arguments. Things like "self promoting bio" well what is a bio if not way of self promotion. "the REAL Jason Whitilock" as if you know the man and who he really is.
I'm not sure how many times I need to restate this...would five or six be enough? Maybe a dozen? Jason Whitlock HIMSELF states in the openng paragraph of his home page that he wants people to get to know the real person that he is...so why do you continue to rake me over the coals for suggesting that I have the right to do what he himself is telling me to do? Second, most people don't promote their opinion in a bio, (a bio is supposed to just be a summary of your accomplishments and background), and they sure don't bill themselves as "the most unique, important and insightful voice in the world of sports". When you claim yours is the most important, the most unique, and the most insightful voice in the entire world of sports...yeah...I say that's arrogant and that's self promoting. Why would you dispute that he's self promoting...? He TOLD YOU HIMSELF that he is... LOL...I don't understand why you continue to tell me that I can't hold Whitlock to the statements he himself makes about himself. Third, did you happen to notice this part?
Whitlock's willingness to address sports' most complex and controversial issues in a straight forward, agendaless manner has made his columns must-read material for journalists, broadcasters, athletes, coaches, executives, educators and anyone able to see the parallels between real life and sports.
Excuse me...but is there one person on this board naive enough to think Jason Whitlock is using an "agendaless manner" in his approach to his collumn? Is there anyone in here who doesn't think that his statement that his stuff should be eagerly read by executives and educators isn't pompous and self promoting? Do you really think executives 1) have the time, or 2) give a crap what some sports writer thinks? I guess they'll all add that to their Wall Street Journal reading time right? Please...this guy's as arrogant as it gets.
As far as the calling Janet a ho and defending Michael I think your quotes and how you link them together are little off. Here is the quote on Micheal and his sleep overs

"Are Jackson's social habits weird and inappropriate by my standards? Absolutely. A grown man shouldn't want to have slumber parties with children."

you quote it like this

Whitlock defends known child molestor and sexual pervert Michael Jackson from his detractors as just a guy admittedly shouldn't want to have slumber parties with children, but is merely just a normal dude "who wants to be 12 again",

He says he is a weird dude and has inappropriate social habits. I could take the same article and twist it to what I want it to say just as you have done.
You obviously failed to read farther than the part you quoted. What makes you think I'm stupid enough to provide a link to the story and then distort it? Here's the part you left out IN CONTEXT with the part you included. This is hardly the worst part of this story BTW...there are many other equally ridiculous statements but here it is:
Are Jackson's social habits weird and inappropriate by my standards? Absolutely. A grown man shouldn't want to have slumber parties with children.

But you know what? I don't have more money than I could spend in 10 lifetimes. I didn't have my childhood damaged by starting to work as a five-year-old boy. Michael just wants to be 12 again.
So the message is...because Michael has tons of money and wanted to "be 12 again"...it's OK for him to have children in his bed...are you freaking kidding me? Whitlock makes other bizarre statements in there, including the fact that he buys everything Jackson says about this...this is the guy whose judgement you trust?

So as you can see...I'm not the one who is distorting what he said...you are. I invite anyone to click the link and read the entire story...not just selectively drag out something that makes Whitlock look good.

[Needa Pass Rush]

Whitlock is near?? ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TrK433jdU4

[footstepsfrom#27]

His is another misstatement on your part. No where in his bio does he call himself "the heir to Bill Cosby's mantle of leadership"
I never said he said it in his bio. Where do you get this stuff? Here's what I said:
Elsewhere on his AOL site, Whitlock goes further than describing himself as the heir to Bill Cosby's mantle of leadership as a proper role model and the new voice of change in America for civil rights.
What DOES he say? Here it is:
It’s only natural that Real Talk act as a catalyst in this cultural revolution, because people of every race are for it. Bill Cosby speaks for all people with common sense. His message just needs an injection of youth and energy. He’ll get it here and from us.
Did you catch it? Cosby's message needs youth and energy...and it's Jason Whitlock who is going to supply that. Another place he makes the point that the "old people" like Cosby and Oprah are not the ones to do this. Quit splitting hairs...most of the stuff you're splitting hairs over you're incorrect on anyway. Why not deal with the whole picture instead of continuing these microscopic looks at every gramatical construction in my posts? Tell me how you feel about him saying Michael Jackson "just wants to be 12 again" instead of this nonsense.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I think Foot should get into poilitics. I think that is his calling in life. He would make a great smear campaign manager. Hilarious!
Actually that's your specialty. Exhibit A: the way you acted like a gutless little puke in the thread on the 14 year old girl you called out as a budding criminal with absolutely ZERO KNOWLEGE WHATASOEVER on that situation, yet you have the gaul to suggest I'm the one acting without information? You argued your case that she was guilty with BOTH me and others, then when you were proven 100% totally wrong on all points, you fled the scene and postured that you were "just kidding"...ie; trying to bait me...as if that were a point in your favor...LOL

Your posts are the very definition of trying to smear someone.

[Northman]

Actually that's your specialty. Exhibit A: the way you acted like a gutless little puke in the thread on the 14 year old girl you called out as a budding criminal with absolutely ZERO KNOWLEGE WHATASOEVER on that situation, yet you have the gaul to suggest I'm the one acting without information? You argued your case that she was guilty with BOTH me and others, then when you were proven 100% totally wrong on all points, you fled the scene and postured that you were "just kidding"...ie; trying to bait me...as if that were a point in your favor...LOL

Your posts are the very definition of trying to smear someone.



Your still feeling the sting from my prank eh? Hilarious! LOL

[footstepsfrom#27]

For those to lazy to click on the link:

Jacko: A pictue of normalcy

By Jason Whitlock
Page 2 Collumnist

I'm tired of all the Mike Tyson-Michael Jackson comparisons. It's unfair to the King of Pop, the greatest entertainer of all time.

Yes, I'm man enough to admit that I'm a huge Michael Jackson fan. I'm tired of his name being dragged through the mud. I'm tired of having to hide my enduring admiration of Jackson and his unmatched singing and entertainment skills.

The Jackson Family used to be black royalty in my childhood. They were bigger than the Kennedys and damn near more revered than the Kings. The Jacksons were the Cosbys before Bill ever birthed Theo or married Claire.

Now the Jacksons have been turned into a punchline, fodder for late-night TV monologues and spoofs on "Saturday Night Live." Joe Jackson was an abusive father. Tito ate too much. Jermaine had no talent. Janet is a tramp. And Michael is a child-molesting, skin-bleaching, face-lift-addicted whacko who is the singing-and-dancing version of Mike Tyson.

That's what we're supposed to believe about the Jacksons. I don't buy it, except the fact that Janet is a tramp, which has a definite upside.

I quit buying all the Jackson garbage after watching Michael conduct himself masterfully in the TV interview that rebutted the slam-job documentary on his life that aired the week before. Call me a naive fool, but I believed Michael on just about every issue. I thought Jacko scored a more decisive, more impressive knockout in his rebuttal interview than Tyson did in his prove-nothing, 49-second victory over the Black Rhino.

I want the Jackson-Tyson comparisons to stop. Tyson has proven time after time that he poses a threat to himself and the rest of society. I don't believe Michael poses any such threat. I don't believe Michael is a child molester.

You ask: Why would Michael pay a family $20 million to not pursue criminal child-molestation charges?

I ask: Why would any parent accept money in exchange for really punishing the adult who molested his/her child?

Look, $20 million to Michael Jackson is like a thousand bucks to you or me. Michael probably has $20 million stashed in a shoe box in his closet. If someone had molested my child, there is no amount of money that could've stopped me from wanting the perpetrator to spend 10 years playing hide the soap with Simon Adebisi of "Oz." I'd have sued Jackson in civil court after he was incarcerated.

Are Jackson's social habits weird and inappropriate by my standards? Absolutely. A grown man shouldn't want to have slumber parties with children.

But you know what? I don't have more money than I could spend in 10 lifetimes. I didn't have my childhood damaged by starting to work as a five-year-old boy. Michael just wants to be 12 again.

I can relate to that. I want to be 21 again. None of us wants to get old. It's just that most of us don't have hundreds of millions of dollars to build a fantasy complex, Neverland, to escape the reality of getting old.

Trust me on this, if I won the lottery tomorrow and collected $10 million, you'd probably never hear from me again. I would quit all of my jobs and move back to Ball State University's campus and spend the next 10 years trying to be 21 all over again. I would. I'd build a big house on the parking lot next to Ball State's duck pond, and I would throw parties every weekend. My family and friends would think I was crazy. But I would be content and perfectly happy.

Michael just wants to be young again. Can you blame him?
Getting old sucks. There's nothing but bad news. Messy divorces. Unexpected, tragic illnesses. Job layoffs. Sick kids. Sick parents. Lots and lots and lots of responsibility.

I don't blame Michael for using his money to create a fantasy world for himself where he never grows out of the most carefree time in a person's life. Michael wants to be 12 and host slumber parties. I want to be 21 and be on location for the next collegegirlsgonewild video shoot. Is there really that much difference?

As for his plastic surgery? So what? That's overblown. Everybody in Hollywood gets some sort of plastic surgery. Yes, Michael's nose looks ridiculous. But I don't care that Michael lies about how many times he's had surgery on his face. And I believe Michael's explanation that a skin disease has caused him to lose pigmentation over his entire body. He's not ashamed of his African-American heritage. It's just that Michael has travelled the world so extensively that he has evolved beyond racial limitations.

I know I sound silly defending Michael Jackson. His celebrity has made him eccentric and a little nuts. But he's no Mike Tyson. He's never been convicted of a crime. He doesn't deserve to be villified.

Jason Whitlock is a regular columnist for the Kansas City Star (kcstar.com), the host of a morning-drive talk show, "Jason Whitlock's Neighborhood" on Sports Radio 810 WHB (810whb.com) and a regular contributor on ESPN The Magazine's Sunday morning edition of The Sports Reporters. He can be reached at ballstate0@aol.com.

Yeah...he sounds like a guy I want to listen to...:clown:

[footstepsfrom#27]

Your still feeling the sting from my prank eh? Hilarious! LOL
Hardly...anyone who reads that link will see you for the lying tool you are. You could have garnered more respect with an admission you were wrong.

Imus had more gumption than you. Hilarious!

[TDmvp]

http://thebiglead.com/?p=2111

hes never been so right ...

[brian85in]

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-12hm.html

British prime minister Tony Blair has just broken one of the biggest taboos in Western politics: talking frankly about black crime. Give the man a medal for courage. And then ask why American pols are unable to summon such backbone in addressing the biggest impediment holding back poor black Americans: out-of-control crime rates and the gangsta culture that gives rise to criminality, problems that will be with us long after Don Imus is sent into belated retirement.

A wave of teen black-on-black murders has struck London over the last two months. Most recently, a horde of 12 black boys attacked a 14-year-old aspiring rapper with baseball bats and knives in an apartment lobby on Good Friday, killing the boy, Paul Erhahon, and seriously wounding his 15-year-old friend. Officials have charged a 13-year-old and 14-year-old with murder; the mother of the younger suspect laughed and joked during a recent court proceeding. The family of the surviving victim has received threats since the stabbing, which appears to be gang-related. Since February, nine teenagers have been shot or stabbed to death in London and other British cities.

Politicians and “community leaders” have two usual responses to such crime: ignoring it or blaming poverty and racism. Silence is eminently safe; changing the subject to poverty wins you political sensitivity points from media and cultural elites. But Tony Blair has undergone what he calls a “lurching into total frankness” in the final weeks of his premiership. And so he’s thrown out the usual politician’s playbook and spoken the truth: The violence will not end “by pretending it is not young black kids doing it,” he said yesterday in a lecture in Cardiff, Wales. The spate of killings isn’t part of a generalized crime wave, Blair said, but results from the behavior of black youth. Even more astounding than his willingness to name the violent-crime phenomenon was his rejection of the acceptable explanations for it. “We need to stop thinking of this as a society that has gone wrong—it has not—but of specific groups that for specific reasons have gone outside of the proper lines of respect and good conduct towards others and need by specific measures to be brought back into the fold,” he observed.

In the past, Blair has also fingered the real “root cause” of so much underclass criminality: the breakdown in marriage. Without fathers in their lives, he has said, boys will be more at risk for antisocial behavior. He made the same point yesterday: the crime epidemic has “to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.” And in case his audience still didn’t get the point, he rejected the usual excuse for black crime. “Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that,” Blair noted, “but I don’t think it’s the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation.”

The problem with the crime taboo is that it leaves untouched a culture that puts law-abiding black citizens—the majority of blacks—at risk. The crime taboo allows a subset of that population to destroy the hopes and lives of others. Blair called on the many upstanding black leaders and parents to take on the gang culture: “The black community—the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law-abiding people horrified at what is happening—need to be mobilized in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids.”

Blair also recognized in his speech that stronger policing is the best solution to violent crime. The police and prosecutors need to focus intensively on the youths behind the recent gun and knife attacks, he said, and take the leaders “out of circulation.”

The victim lobby of course struck back hard, denouncing Blair’s call for more assertive policing and demanding more antipoverty funding. Yet in a sign that Britain may contain pockets of sanity still unthinkable in the U.S., the ordinarily PC Commission for Racial Equality stood by Blair’s remarks, saying that people “shouldn’t be afraid to talk about this issue for fear of sounding prejudiced.”

America contains its share of lame-duck politicians at the moment—the mayor of New York City and the president of the United States come to mind. If they want to leave a legacy of leadership, they could do worse than following Tony Blair’s lead in tackling the most pressing urban problem.

[Spider]

what would Brian Griese say ??? ;D

[brian85in]

He'd say--"R ya' gonna finish that beer?"

[-Slap-]

He'd say--"R ya' gonna finish that beer?"

Then Trevor Pryce would kick his ass.

[Spider]

When Jason Whitlock wrote some column dat blasted not only convenient targets likes Al Sharpton and Jesse Buckwheatson as part uh de problem wid brother America, but even Rutgers University's Hall uh Fame hoopball coach Vivian Chittlin'a' as some duplicitous partna' in de destrucshun uh black ya'd, ah' decided ah' needed t'know some bit mo'e about Jason Whitlock. Ya' know? Whitlock said uh Strin'er, an innocent by-standa' in dis deata' of de absurd, dig dis: "I ain’t sayin' Jesse, Al and Vivian is gold-diggas, but dey don’t gots de heart t'mount some legitimate campaign against da damn real brother-folkwasteas." He den goes on t'contradict himself, say all dree ARE gold diggers..."It’s an oppo'tunity fo' Chittlin'er, Buckwheatson and Sharpton t'step on victim platfo'ms and elevate demselves and deir agenda$." Mixed signals fum Jason Whitlock. Ya' know?.. fixed it for ya ;D

[footstepsfrom#27]

To much time on your hands and the Mrs. is gone eh? ;D

[Spider]

To much time on your hands and the Mrs. is gone eh? ;D

LOL my load doesnt deliver in Craig co untill monday

[Tredici]

I don't understand the question..WHICH article? I provided links to everything...one wasn't working because it got a ) added in by mistake and I fixed it. Are you talking about the linked stuff or the post itself? I already asked this question earlier...how is this being disengenuous if I ask what you're talking about? ???

Well, the linked stuff is fairly easy to figure out isn't it? I was referring to the post. If you wrote it, or if the spin job was being lifted from someone else.

I think the whole thing is disengenuous and one of the worst forms of journalism. There is nothing remotely resembling "The REAL Jason Whitlock". The title should be How I Am Going To Slant, Take Out of Context, and Sensationalize to Create the Jason Whitlock I Want To. It's poorly done, and so heavy handed one has to ask the motive.

Just guessing but I think there is some misguided notion white people can only agree with "white think". Which is pretty retarded since Don Imus represents the "white think". To attempt to put that tired old label of Uncle Tom on Whitlock, isn't any new thought either.

Whitlock has an email address. If you want to present the "real" one why don't you actually converse with the man? All this thrashing around and innuendo is really beneath someone with any type of integrity to go along with their intellect.

JMO.

[Pseudofool]

Footsteps, first off, let me commend you on a thoughtful, well-considered post. Though, I'm not sure I agree with you.

Your post reminds me of Wanda Coleman Maya Angelou rift a few years back (Village Voice article (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0236,davis,38042,1.html)) Wanda Coleman got a lot of heat for criticizing a fellow black successful women writer, of which, admittedly, there are few too many in the public eye. However, what I think that debate, and the current one, of Whitlock/Sharpton-James alludes is to the notion that African American community is somehow better off being seen as unilaterally united. The point, I hope to make, is I don't think that's the case. For as much as Whitlock is narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, he offers a disparate POV from a community who seems to have only a few "talking heads"--what Whitlock has to say is not entirely beside the point, but that he is willing to descent, and draw up his own soap box, is worthy of some praise. Somehow, I doubt Whitlock panders more to "whites" any more than Sharpton or Jackson does, after all it is "white viewing audience" that turns community leaders into talking heads.

Let's consider hip-hop for minute--and not to delve into the blah-blah platitudes of hypocrisy--but to examine the criticism of the genre itself from within--groups like Blackalicious and Jurrasic Five not mention countless others have set themselves ideologically opposed to the values found within gangster rap. Does that mean those groups pander to whites? No. Does that mean whites buy more of their albums? Maybe, but I doubt it. Whether it be within the sports media, or in political forum, the black community has far too few voices that are willing to engage one another in a dialectical discourse. I'm not sure it does black community good when it's Al Sharpton defending the honor of black people each and every time. There needs to be a plurality of talking heads.

Was Imus' remarks wrong? Clearly. Can the response to his remarks be seen as an opportunity to the collection of token talking heads? I think so. (And even to a basketball coach, who might benefit through recruitment or money? Less likely, but possible.) I think Whitlock is stating the obvious, whether it's true or not--it's important to consider. What's been downplayed is that fact that Imus remarks were as much sexist as they were racist, and what's worse it was a particular type of sexism that is applied only to African American women. I don't think you can address Imus remarks properly until one sees that sexism and racism is paired in Imus comments, and when Sharpton, or whomever, ignores the sexism as part of the violation, it taints the nobility of criticism.

Sometimes it takes unabashed egoism to make a space in discourse where a plurality among a community--in this case the black community--can exist. Do we have to like Whitlock? Or Sharpton? No, but we should agree they are both important, or rather that the point of views they represent are important. Without disagreement, there is no discourse, and in turn, very little progress.

But then again, who am I to talk? I'm just another White guy, who has couple minutes to spend reading, watching, or buying. And that ought to color how I'm recieved.

[footstepsfrom#27]

There is nothing remotely resembling "The REAL Jason Whitlock". The title should be How I Am Going To Slant, Take Out of Context, and Sensationalize to Create the Jason Whitlock I Want To. It's poorly done, and so heavy handed one has to ask the motive.
How do YOU know who the real Jason Whitlock is? Are you a friend of his? At least I bothered to do some research on this guy before blindly lining up to support him, something I'm fairly sure you have not done...so you can't really say whether what I'm saying is accurate or not can you? For all you know I might be spot on 100% accurate.

Second, I took nothing out of context, but drew logical conclusions from available information...though my detractors on this board took most of what I said out of context...and many other sources on the net describe Whitlock as I have characterized him here. He was fired from ESPN because of his attitude and the fact that he couldn't get along wth other writers, in particular Scoop Jackson who he pubicly insults and tries to verbally attack every chance he gets. He bills himself as the be all end all in both sports journalism and as a civil rights leader in the black community, and he appears to me to be neither.

If you are so interested in my motives, and if you bothered to read the opening paragraph of my post, you would know why I produced this thread. I said straight up front that it was his treatment of Rutgers coach Vivian Stringer that got me looking at this guy closer. Prior to his comments about her, I had no particular beef with him or interest in his viewpoints. Whitlock had the unmitigated gaul to blame Stringer...a hall of fame coach who has been mentoring and coaching young women and young black women almost as long as Jason Whitlock has been alive...for not doing what HE thinks SHE should do to confront Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for their evil ways, as if that was somehow her responsibility anyway. He shamelessly lumped her along with these other two fools into the Imus thing as cohorts who were in this for the money.

What a freaking scumbag.

I ask you as someone who defended her players on another thread...why does someone like 60 year old Vivian Stringer owe an explanatoin for her life or her actions or anything whatsoever to a self absorbed, egotistical douchebag like Jason Whitlock? What has Jason Whitlock ever accomplished in his life that gives hm the right to take her to task in the black communnity and through his collumn over something that's frankly none of his stinking business? Read Vivian Stringer's long list of impressive accomplishments in her career as one of the most decorated college basketball coaches male or female in history...and you'll see Jason Whitlock's paultry sports gig pales by comparison. If he accomplishes 1/10th of what she has he'll need to travel light years to do so. She grew up in a time when blacks DID ride on the back of the bus, suffer open humiliation and abuse and had to struggle for everything they got against a society determined to destroy them, and somebody like Whitlock has the freedom to even speak his mind at all because of the sacrifices and tireless efforts of people like her. If Whitlock is the civil rights advocate he promotes himself to be, instead of insulting a legend like Stringer, he ought to get down on his knees and thank her for her contribution to the world he lives in and benefits from.
Just guessing but I think there is some misguided notion white people can only agree with "white think". Which is pretty retarded since Don Imus represents the "white think". To attempt to put that tired old label of Uncle Tom on Whitlock, isn't any new thought either.
You're not even making sense. You're surely not suggesting my views represent "white think" are you? I doubt you'll find a single person on this board who agrees with that. Why do you think I attract so much nastiness in here when race comes up? It's becuase I DON'T let my skin color dictate how I think or what I believe is true. As for the Uncle Tom label, Whitlock is making a career out of selling his opinion to a predominately white audience, benefits from that, and goes out of his way to act like he's the only black man in America with the answers to questions that thousands of other people far more qualified and commited than him are trying to solve. If you want an example of a true civil rights leader from the sports world doing something other than attacking other people and promoting themselves go look at a guy like former Philadelphia Eagle Herb Lusk who quietly goes about changing thousands of lives in inner city Philly without asing for people to stand up and clap for him like he's some kind of future MLK. Do you honestly think Whitlock's hypocritical characterization of single black mothers as the source of black men's lack of respect towards black women is consistent with his call for individual responsibility? Do you like the fact he calls women whores while slamming others who do? Please...gimme a break...this guy is nothing but a fat, obnoxious, self promoting hack whose discovered he can get attention disproportionate to his talent by acting the way he does.
Whitlock has an email address. If you want to present the "real" one why don't you actually converse with the man? All this thrashing around and innuendo is really beneath someone with any type of integrity to go along with their intellect.

JMO.
According to some things I've read on the web, Whitlcok doesn't answer emails he doesn't like, and he says right on his website that he's not interested in people conversing with him who don't see things his way. Even if he did...I can assure you I wouldn't waste my time with him.

Not suprisingly you question my integrity...now tell me what you think of the integrity of a man who defends child molestor Michael Jackson and excuses him having kids in his bed...I noticed this thread emptied out pretty quickly once I posted his comments on how Michael "just wants to be 12 again"... Hilarious!

Not to surprising...

[footstepsfrom#27]

Footsteps, first off, let me commend you on a thoughtful, well-considered post. Though, I'm not sure I agree with you.

Your post reminds me of Wanda Coleman Maya Angelou rift a few years back (Village Voice article (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0236,davis,38042,1.html)) Wanda Coleman got a lot of heat for criticizing a fellow black successful women writer, of which, admittedly, there are few too many in the public eye. However, what I think that debate, and the current one, of Whitlock/Sharpton-James alludes is to the notion that African American community is somehow better off being seen as unilaterally united. The point, I hope to make, is I don't think that's the case. For as much as Whitlock is narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, he offers a disparate POV from a community who seems to have only a few "talking heads"--what Whitlock has to say is not entirely beside the point, but that he is willing to descent, and draw up his own soap box, is worthy of some praise. Somehow, I doubt Whitlock panders more to "whites" any more than Sharpton or Jackson does, after all it is "white viewing audience" that turns community leaders into talking heads.

Let's consider hip-hop for minute--and not to delve into the blah-blah platitudes of hypocrisy--but to examine the criticism of the genre itself from within--groups like Blackalicious and Jurrasic Five not mention countless others have set themselves ideologically opposed to the values found within gangster rap. Does that mean those groups pander to whites? No. Does that mean whites buy more of their albums? Maybe, but I doubt it. Whether it be within the sports media, or in political forum, the black community has far too few voices that are willing to engage one another in a dialectical discourse. I'm not sure it does black community good when it's Al Sharpton defending the honor of black people each and every time. There needs to be a plurality of talking heads.

Was Imus' remarks wrong? Clearly. Can the response to his remarks be seen as an opportunity to the collection of token talking heads? I think so. (And even to a basketball coach, who might benefit through recruitment or money? Less likely, but possible.) I think Whitlock is stating the obvious, whether it's true or not--it's important to consider. What's been downplayed is that fact that Imus remarks were as much sexist as they were racist, and what's worse it was a particular type of sexism that is applied only to African American women. I don't think you can address Imus remarks properly until one sees that sexism and racism is paired in Imus comments, and when Sharpton, or whomever, ignores the sexism as part of the violation, it taints the nobility of criticism.

Sometimes it takes unabashed egoism to make a space in discourse where a plurality among a community--in this case the black community--can exist. Do we have to like Whitlock? Or Sharpton? No, but we should agree they are both important, or rather that the point of views they represent are important. Without disagreement, there is no discourse, and in turn, very little progress.

But then again, who am I to talk? I'm just another White guy, who has couple minutes to spend reading, watching, or buying. And that ought to color how I'm recieved.
This is the kind of post I can appreciate...somebody who takes a look at an issue from a different perspective, offers disagreement yet intelligent discourse on WHY they disagree, as opposed to the culturally robotic, thinly veiled and caustic comments made by people who simply spew the first insult that pops to mind.

I hope you stay around on this board. :thumbs:

[Pseudofool]

This is the kind of post I can appreciate...somebody who takes a look at an issue from a different perspective, offers disagreement yet intelligent discourse on WHY they disagree, as opposed to the culturally robotic, thinly veiled and caustic comments made by people who simply spew the first insult that pops to mind.

I hope you stay around on this board. :thumbs: Thanks, though I'd like to specifically hear if you buy my argument or not.

Moreover I'd like to add, that the White Culture or more accurately the Capatilistic Consumer Culture much prefers a talking head like Sharpton than one like Whitlock. The reason for this is a distortion of the concept of fetishization--that is, White Culture can more easily dismiss Sharpton's POV because he fits into the a-typical mold for what White Culture sees as black talking heads--when black talking heads start to resemble in tenor and demeanor white talking heads they are less dismissible, less easily placed in that throw-away box, that isn't-it-cute-how-eloquent-and-with-what-bravado-that-Black-man-speaks. Is it any wonder that the most prominent African American political black leaders of the past two decades have been eloquent, verbally gifted, preachers? Does that remind us of anyone? National Holidays are also a social means of forgetting, as well as ::cough:: honoring. Wiping one's hands clean, so to speak.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Thanks, though I'd like to specifically hear if you buy my argument or not.
OK...forthcoming...

[footstepsfrom#27]

However, what I think that debate, and the current one, of Whitlock/Sharpton-James alludes is to the notion that African American community is somehow better off being seen as unilaterally united. The point, I hope to make, is I don't think that's the case. For as much as Whitlock is narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, he offers a disparate POV from a community who seems to have only a few "talking heads"--what Whitlock has to say is not entirely beside the point, but that he is willing to descent, and draw up his own soap box, is worthy of some praise.
I agree with this to a point, though I can't offer Whitlock praise simply because he's breaking from the mold. I think the break from the solidarity and unity theme is happening (see below) but the substance he provides is so devisive...not just because of WHAT he says...but HOW he says it.
Somehow, I doubt Whitlock panders more to "whites" any more than Sharpton or Jackson does, after all it is "white viewing audience" that turns community leaders into talking heads.
It's a different kind of pandering though...Whitlock's basing his popularity on being controversial to draw attention to him...easy to do since he's got a niche market that he can exploit without much competition...but the Sharpton/Jackson approach merely tries to keep power by diverting attention from legitimate issues and focusing on hatin' on whites...different roads to the same result really...both designed to garner attention for themselves.

Moreover I'd like to add, that the White Culture or more accurately the Capatilistic Consumer Culture much prefers a talking head like Sharpton than one like Whitlock. The reason for this is a distortion of the concept of fetishization--that is, White Culture can more easily dismiss Sharpton's POV because he fits into the a-typical mold for what White Culture sees as black talking heads--when black talking heads start to resemble in tenor and demeanor white talking heads they are less dismissible, less easily placed in that throw-away box, that isn't-it-cute-how-eloquent-and-with-what-bravado-that-Black-man-speaks.
I do agree with this. Sharpton and Jackson are much more media creations that further increased white alienation from legitimate civil rights issues than they are heirs to the legacy of MLK and Malcom X. It's easy to relegate these guys as carpetbaggers and stereotypical uppity n****** whose chief purpose is to provide complacency and a natural disconnect with anything that they attach their name to. They're the perfect patsies for those addicted to the status quo who revel in the contentment they get from watching them act like fools.

What's unfortunate is that a lot of black leadership that still exists from the 1960's is still on the stage and committed to the ideas they standardized around in the past...namely this concept of pulling the wagons in to ward off the apaches, meaning that there's a reluctance to criticize them publicly because there's still this concept that you can talk about family but not in front of the neighbors. I think white society sees that and you get reactions like you do on this board because people don't hear that kind of thing being said since it's the national media that has to carry that message and they so rarely do.

There are young black leaders outside politics who are very influential like Dallas minister Dr. Tony Evans who have the credibility to bring criticism to how leadership confronts it's own in the community, and some of that seems to happen, particuarly in the less directly political spheres of business and education...sometimes in the church. I know that there are people here in Dallas at Paul Quinn College that I've had conversations with about this subject who shake their heads when Jackson's name comes up...but these people have no natural conduit to media attention apart from their institutions and I see a reluctance to buck what a 65 year old univesity president thinks just like you would anywhere else. Change, unfortunately sometimes moves very slowly.

Controversy sells and produces ratings for both the print and electronic media...ironically it's probably talk radio, both black and white where I hear the most stirring rebukes from blacks of these old guard shysters like Jackson and Sharpton. Then you have people like Julilan Bond whose on the board at the Harvard Business School and his influence has been big in getting the dialogue shifting away from this model of confrontation that was useful in the 60's but is giving way to business development in the black community as the dominant theme...ironically it was Booker T. Washington a hundred years ago who was pushing this idea that political power would follow economic success instead of the other way around which is what Jackson/Sharpton teach...USA Today called it social entrepreneurship, though that's a much more limiting view of what SE really is...but that's happening all over the country at the best biz schools in the country...Harvard, Yale, Columbia, MIT, Stanford, Duke...the top 20 or so MBA programs in the country are all developing socially conscious business models that are perfect fits in the black community because they centralize around redefining business in terms of success being both financial and social as far as return on investment.

None of this stuff ever gets discussed in the media because it's not consistent with the image you're talking about...doesn't sell ad space or get ratings...it's off the radar unless somebody's watching for it.
Is it any wonder that the most prominent African American political black leaders of the past two decades have been eloquent, verbally gifted, preachers? Does that remind us of anyone? National Holidays are also a social means of forgetting, as well as ::cough:: honoring. Wiping one's hands clean, so to speak.
Well that's definitely true in that people like Evans and of course TD Jakes are powerful voices for change but those two tend to shy away from the political arena...especially Evans...who has been criticized by other black ministers in Dallas as not political enough. Jakes has been seen in that role...the next Jackson...but I don't see him gravitating to that. He's following the same Booker T example...they do huge stuff to empower people economically and through ecucation and working to network the Dallas black community toward providing access to things like financial services, etc...I think there's the reluctance by some of the best black ministers to get to far involved from a political side because they don't want to be seen as the conflict starters like Sharpton/Jackson are. That's not what they're about and entering that arena would push them in directions they're not interested in going. The whole idea of conflict as the means to achieve equality is really a gradually dying concept now...but when Jackson or Sharpton and their ilk are involved you'd never guess that. I think this is something Whitlock definitely does not understand. He sees the top of this iceberg and thinks the rest of it looks like it does above the water.
Whether it be within the sports media, or in political forum, the black community has far too few voices that are willing to engage one another in a dialectical discourse. I'm not sure it does black community good when it's Al Sharpton defending the honor of black people each and every time. There needs to be a plurality of talking heads.
Agree on this...but I don't think it's "talking heads" that they need. I think it's substance and the quiet leadership of tens of thousands of people who won't be moved by cultural drift...they have adequate spokesmen in the Cosby's and Oprahs of the world already but have a definite need for somebody like Obama...even Condi Rice...despite the fact she's outside the mainstream political views of most blacks...she's breaking ground and has a platform. It wouldn't suprise me to see her make a greater impact after she's out of government. None of these people are the Sharpton/Whitlock pot stirrers though...and even Cosby only took a public stance briefly and has let it slide now.

[shakenbake]

Well, the linked stuff is fairly easy to figure out isn't it? I was referring to the post. If you wrote it, or if the spin job was being lifted from someone else.

I think the whole thing is disengenuous and one of the worst forms of journalism. There is nothing remotely resembling "The REAL Jason Whitlock". The title should be How I Am Going To Slant, Take Out of Context, and Sensationalize to Create the Jason Whitlock I Want To. It's poorly done, and so heavy handed one has to ask the motive.

JMO.

Thats exactly what he tried to do. Hey footsteps are you saying prior doing your "research" you haven't formed an opioion of Jason Whitlock?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Thats exactly what he tried to do. Hey footsteps are you saying prior doing your "research" you haven't formed an opioion of Jason Whitlock?
That's right...I've read him a few times related to sports since he wrote for the KC Star and his article on the NBA all star game...I had no opinion one way or the other on him. As I stated up front...my interest in him for this started when I saw him lump Vivian Stringer in with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Now would you like to explain why you twisted my prior posts out of context and ignored all those key sections from the article on Michael Jackson? You accused me of taking his words out of context. As you can see I did no such thing.

[shakenbake]

That's right...I've read him a few times related to sports since he wrote for the KC Star and his article on the NBA all star game...I had no opinion one way or the other on him. As I stated up front...my interest in him for this started when I saw him lump Vivian Stringer in with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.


Hmm thats interesting. I belive this was posted by you
First of all...I'm not a Whitlock fan either but I do recognize this took some guts to write. He's going to take a lot of heat. That may also be what he wants. Following in the Woody Paige, Skip Bayless tradition, lots of sports writers today seem to love to create their own press and use it to draw attention to themselves. I could be wrong though so I wont' say that's his motive but that kind of motive seems to exist more than ever today.

http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=53529&page=2&highlight=black+KKK

No opinion huh. Yea it really looks that way. You just wern't a big fan as of a few months ago.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Hmm thats interesting. I belive this was posted by you

http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=53529&page=2&highlight=black+KKK

No opinion huh. Yea it really looks that way. You just wern't a big fan as of a few months ago.
It's really hard to believe you're this dumb...I choose to believe you're deceitful instead. I just got done saying that until I read his article on the NBA all star game...which is the one that's being discussed in that thread you linked to...that my only prior interest or familiarity with him came from reading him in the KC Star...and as most in here can attest to...Whitlock has written some pretty wild stuff on SPORTS in there. Kansas City fans think of him as a lot of Denver fans think of Woody Paige. Why do you think I cited Woody Paige and Skip Bayless in there? Because Whitlock's SPORTS takes are in that same genre also...deliberate controversy to draw attention to himself. So that's right...I was not a fan. What's that got to do with whether I had the same opinion I do now? The correct answer is NOTHING.

Once AGAIN you come up short trying to twist my words...I see you ignored the more relevant stuff I posted...

1) I gave him credit for having guts to write what he did and said he'd probably take some heat for it.

2) I declined to ascribe a motive to his article.

Does that sound like the way I'm writing NOW?

Now please answer my question about why you ignored the context of the Michael Jackson story and twisted my words to make it look like I was the revisioinist.

You've been utterly silent on that score...are you a fan of Michael's also? Or just to stuborn to admit you were wrong?

[shakenbake]

I never defended Michael Jackson I was just showing how you linked you quotes together and twist the story. In your orginal post you start a quote mid sentance. I stand by everything I have posted you on the other hand are the one being decietfull.
Lets review just the few previous posts shall we.

Me: Footsteps: footsteps are you saying prior doing your "research" you haven't formed an opioion of Jason Whitlock?

You:That's right...I've read him a few times related to sports since he wrote for the KC Star and his article on the NBA all star game...I had no opinion one way or the other on him. As I stated up front...my interest in him for this started when I saw him lump Vivian Stringer in with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Me: Really thats interesting because here you say: "First of all...I'm not a Whitlock fan either but I do recognize this took some guts to write. He's going to take a lot of heat. That may also be what he wants. Following in the Woody Paige, Skip Bayless tradition, lots of sports writers today seem to love to create their own press and use it to draw attention to themselves. I could be wrong though so I wont' say that's his motive but that kind of motive seems to exist more than ever today."

Now notice first you say that you have yet to form an opioin of him, but then we see hat a few months ago "You are not a Whitlock fan". Now this was written in response to the NBA KKK article he wrote. So if you weren't aware of him before then (reading his article) how is it tha you wern't a "big fan" Notice the word since it sounds like you just started reading his sports articles since the time that you discoved him after the black kkk article. But as we see that is clearly a lie.

You go on to say "As I stated up front...my interest in him for this started when I saw him lump Vivian Stringer in with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson."

Actually, it sounds like your interest in him started when he wrote the NBA article or perhaps before that seeing how at that time you wern't a "big fan".

As far as to how you feel about him now I think it has alot to do with it. You had a idea of what you thought he was and then found information to back that opioion up. Just be honest you didn't start your little research project without an idea of what you wanted it to say.

[Northman]

It's really hard to believe you're this dumb...I choose to believe you're deceitful instead. I just got done saying that until I read his article on the NBA all star game...which is the one that's being discussed in that thread you linked to...that my only prior interest or familiarity with him came from reading him in the KC Star...and as most in here can attest to...Whitlock has written some pretty wild stuff on SPORTS in there. Kansas City fans think of him as a lot of Denver fans think of Woody Paige. Why do you think I cited Woody Paige and Skip Bayless in there? Because Whitlock's SPORTS takes are in that same genre also...deliberate controversy to draw attention to himself. So that's right...I was not a fan. What's that got to do with whether I had the same opinion I do now? The correct answer is NOTHING.

Once AGAIN you come up short trying to twist my words...I see you ignored the more relevant stuff I posted...

1) I gave him credit for having guts to write what he did and said he'd probably take some heat for it.

2) I declined to ascribe a motive to his article.

Does that sound like the way I'm writing NOW?

Now please answer my question about why you ignored the context of the Michael Jackson story and twisted my words to make it look like I was the revisioinist.

You've been utterly silent on that score...are you a fan of Michael's also? Or just to stuborn to admit you were wrong?




I am a little curious. When did Michael Jackson become guilty of child molestation? Is he currently serving time? Although he has been alleged to have done things nothing has ever been proven. Personally, the guy is weird but weird doesnt constitute being a child molestor.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I never defended Michael Jackson I was just showing how you linked you quotes together and twist the story. In your orginal post you start a quote mid sentance. I stand by everything I have posted you on the other hand are the one being decietfull.
Lets review just the few previous posts shall we.
I'm not going to play this juvenile game with you. I don't care what you "stand by". In every single instance that you attempted to misquote me, take what I said out of context, or flat out make crap up...I refuted it. You point blank llied about my remarks related to Jackson, probably because you were to lazy to read further and thought I was also, or else you thought I was to stupid to remember what I read. Anyone on this thread who wants to scroll back a few spots can see your dishonest approach to this conversation.

Me: Footsteps: footsteps are you saying prior doing your "research" you haven't formed an opioion of Jason Whitlock?

You:That's right...I've read him a few times related to sports since he wrote for the KC Star and his article on the NBA all star game...I had no opinion one way or the other on him. As I stated up front...my interest in him for this started when I saw him lump Vivian Stringer in with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Me: Really thats interesting because here you say: "First of all...I'm not a Whitlock fan either but I do recognize this took some guts to write. He's going to take a lot of heat. That may also be what he wants. Following in the Woody Paige, Skip Bayless tradition, lots of sports writers today seem to love to create their own press and use it to draw attention to themselves. I could be wrong though so I wont' say that's his motive but that kind of motive seems to exist more than ever today."

Now notice first you say that you have yet to form an opioin of him, but then we see hat a few months ago "You are not a Whitlock fan". Now this was written in response to the NBA KKK article he wrote. So if you weren't aware of him before then (reading his article) how is it tha you wern't a "big fan" Notice the word since it sounds like you just started reading his sports articles since the time that you discoved him after the black kkk article. But as we see that is clearly a lie.

I was wrong. You are stupid; either that or you're reading comprehension skills border on Moc's. Do you understand that the word "since" can be used in more than one way? Apparently not. I did not use "since" to designate time, but rather causation...just as the word "because" is used...here's an example:

Suzy took a sack lunch to school since they were having hot dogs in the cafeteria that day.

Does this mean:

A) Suzy took her lunch to school after they served hotdogs in the cafeteria.
B) Suzy took her lunch to school because she didn't like hot dogs.

The correct answer is B.

I suggest you go get "See Spot Run" and practice awhile before you post again.

Let me explain this to you like I would a child working on the first grade reader OK?

1) I've been aware of Whitlock for several years, reading his take on sports...mainly the Chiefs...now and then.

2) I was never very impressed with him because he struck me as a guy simililar to Woody Paige or Skip Bayless...a sensation monger

3) I read his story on the whole NBA/black KKK thing, which BTW...was NOT several months ago...it was 6 weeks ago...and I stated at that time that I was not a big fan of his. (It should be obvious that if I'm saying at the time of that story, that I was not a big fan, BUT...I give himi credit for X, Y and Z...then obviously I HAD PRIOR FAMILIARITY WITH HIM BEFORE THAT TIME.)

4) Nobody reads an article by a guy they've never heard of or read before and comments referencing the past that they're not a big fan....duh.

5) Once I read the black KKK story, I was alerted for the first time to his opinion on social issues, and commented AT THAT TIME, that I was not a big fan, meaning obviously..."IN THE PAST"but I gave him credit for being outspoken, etc...

6) After reading his article blasting Vivian Stringer I decided to look closer at who he was.

Do you get it now? Don't bother wasting any more of my time with any more of these stupid, asinine safaris into the my sentence structure, the derivation of words, or any of this other crap. If you're not smart enough to understand this...to bad.
As far as to how you feel about him now I think it has alot to do with it. You had a idea of what you thought he was and then found information to back that opioion up. Just be honest you didn't start your little research project without an idea of what you wanted it to say.
Dude...don't even think about talking to me about honesty. After this idiotic BS you've been spouting on here, you have zero credibility related to honesty. I am done with you...you have the last word in this conversation.

Try to say something halfway intelligent this time around.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I am a little curious. When did Michael Jackson become guilty of child molestation? Is he currently serving time? Although he has been alleged to have done things nothing has ever been proven. Personally, the guy is weird but weird doesnt constitute being a child molestor.
And OJ was innocent...you're a complete fool if you think Jackson didn't buy his way out of all this. You and 2 other people beleive that...his mother and Jason Whitlock.

[shakenbake]

1) I've been aware of Whitlock for several years, reading his take on sports...mainly the Chiefs...now and then.

2) I was never very impressed with him because he struck me as a guy simililar to Woody Paige or Skip Bayless...a sensation monger


Well point one and two both contradict this statement made by that you had no opinion of the man. btw, I am not the only pointing out your misquotes and things being taken out of context. Perhaps it is you that could use a little reading comprehension. Show me where I twist your words on the Michael Jackson issue. Whitlock says "Are Jackson's social habits weird and inappropriate by my standards? Absolutely" That isn't the same as saying the guy is normal. He says he gets where he is coming from as far as wanting to be young again but doesn't condone having children over for sleep overs. But you ignored that part didn't you.

So let me get this straight today on this very page you claim that prior to your "research". "I had no opinion one way or the other on him (Whitlock).
then just a few posts later you claim what I have quoted for you here. Those are your words not me twisting them. You call him a "sensational monger" yet you went into researching his background with an open mind. sure you did.

I set the trap and you fell for it. But hey keep trying to type your way out of it. I love how you break down the word since for me. That really makes me laugh, and lets me know I really got you. Its like saying well "that depends on what the definition of is is."

[shakenbake]

btw...this is a very poorly constructed sentence by you.

Suzy took a sack lunch to school since they were having hot dogs in the cafeteria that day

You would be better served saying: Since they were having hot dogs in the cafeteria, Suzy took a sack lunch to school. Even then the word since is rarely used in that context and if used it usually comes at the beginning of the sentence.

[footstepsfrom#27]

btw...this is a very poorly constructed sentence by you.

Suzy took a sack lunch to school since they were having hot dogs in the cafeteria that day

You would be better served saying: Since they were having hot dogs in the cafeteria, Suzy took a sack lunch to school. Even then the word since is rarely used in that context and if used it usually comes at the beginning of the sentence.
I said, say something halfway intelligent.

Bye.

[shakenbake]

since you're leaving this thread, I won't post on it in more.

[GonzoLays]

btw...this is a very poorly constructed sentence by you.

Suzy took a sack lunch to school since they were having hot dogs in the cafeteria that day

You would be better served saying: Since they were having hot dogs in the cafeteria, Suzy took a sack lunch to school. Even then the word since is rarely used in that context and if used it usually comes at the beginning of the sentence.


How the **** are you going to tell someone they constructed a sentence poorly when you have numerous grammar errors in your own writing?

Don't play yourself.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Not at all. His background is relevant because of two things; 1) his approach is characteristic of one that appeals to whites much more than blacks, and 2) his audience is largely white since most NFL fans are white. Taken together this platform is one he himself admits is designed to propel him into becoming some kind of civil rights leader. Sports is merely the vehicle he's using to be heard.

I dont' care where he grew up. I care whether he acts the same way he wants others to act.


Clearly you have done your best to establish that Jason Whitlock is a hypocrite... now overall... what's your point? What are you really trying to say here? Are you wanting us "who pointed out that he made some good points in his KC Star article regarding the Imus situation," to say he was wrong? Would it make you feel better for us to admit that he has contradicted himself? If it would then ok... he contradicted himself.

People make mistakes through thier lives and sometimes the mistakes help to define who they are. I don't know Jason Whitlock and I'm not planning on getting to know him. I do however think he has made some excellent points in the last week or so concerning issues of racism. I don't care if he is white - black - green - or blue. I don't care if he grew up in Compton or Beverly Hills. He made some good points.

Whether we like it or not. Jason Whitlock seems to be the one stepping up right now and talking about difficult issues... that is... other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I know there have been others but these three seem to be the newsmakers. If I were to pick, personally, I would have to side with the views of one Jason Whitlock when it comes to his stance on the Imus situation. I'm all for the Bill Cosby's of the world...It seems as this time that Bill has stayed out of this one so we are left with Jason.

Again I ask... what is your point? Overall? Do you think Jason is wrong in his stance? What are you really trying to convey here?

[footstepsfrom#27]

I also wish people like Jason Whitlock would practice what they preach. Now are you planning to write a HUGE diatribe on how rap music is contributing to racism and sexism in this country? Or do you also give rap music and EVERYBODY who is involved with rap music a pass on acting the same way they would want others to act?
Welcome to the Mane noob.

I'm confused... ??? ...how DO rappers and those associated with rap music want other's to behave? Are they acting differently than they ask others to act? :kiddingme Please explain...

If you use that little "search" feature up there at the top of the screen you can find out what I think about rap/hip hop and it's influence on society. ;)

[Popcorn Sutton]

Welcome to the Mane noob.

I'm confused... ??? ...how DO rappers and those associated with rap music want other's to behave? Are they acting differently than they ask others to act? :kiddingme Please explain...

If you use that little "search" feature up there at the top of the screen you can find out what I think about rap/hip hop and it's influence on society. ;)

OK, so I changed my post above for ya. Please give it a second look...

BTW, I'm not so much referring to the rappers but the Al Sharpton's, Jesse Jackson's etc. who choose to work tirelessly on issues like the Imus one but sidestep the larger problem which is the effect rap music has on today's society and specifically our youth. Yes maybe Al Sharpton and such are not treating other people of their race the way rap music does but cherry picking issues of race without addressing issues within your own race is what I am referring to.

[footstepsfrom#27]

How the **** are you going to tell someone they constructed a sentence poorly when you have numerous grammar errors in your own writing?

Don't play yourself.
Hilarious!

[footstepsfrom#27]

I'm not so much referring to the rappers but the Al Sharpton's, Jesse Jackson's etc. who choose to work tirelessly on issues like the Imus one but sidestep the larger problem which is the effect rap music has on today's society and specifically our youth.
Well the Jackson's and Sharptons of the world are shysters...I've already stated that...more to the point though; do you really think rap music is the larger problem? Why would you assume that? Black society's problems hardly began with the introduction of rap or hip hop. I'd say it's pretty far down the list of their problems.

For some reason a lot of whites seem to have this odd idea that anger in the black community today is largely the result of music and it's surrounding gang culture or people who can't forget the past abuses of racism. Whitlock thinks that, and I think that's utter nonsense. Hollywood has given us this image over the years of blacks being largely passive and accepting of their plight throughout the early history of this country, but that's a myth. Blacks have felt rage in our midst for the entire history they've been here. The 1984 movie Amadeus portrays defiant black men filled with anger and rage who overpowered their captives and mutinied on board a slave ship, and were then charged with murder because they were trying to escape. Contrast this with earlier Hollywood movies that portrayed blacks as passive like Gone with the Wind or To Kill a Mockingbird. Black anger didn't begin with hip hop culture...it's just being given a voice in the media because of it. Violence and crime were here long before rap as well...we just get a front row view of it on television now.

Just out of curiousity...please be honest...have you visited any inner city schools in the last few years? I'm talking about places where the poorest kids live...utter cesspools we shouldn't even call schools. Taking a look at the enormous issues we have in this country in the urban community...crime, drugs, poverty, an education system that's utterly failed, a judicial system that is heavily weighted and prejudiced against minorities and people without means to afford good legal representation...decaying infrastructure and poor health care...inadequate access to financial services...all these things combined with long held resentments are what drive anger in people well before you get to hip hop music and it's negative messages. One might just as well say that the music culture of the 1960's drove anger on college campuses over the Viet Nam War. Music culture only reflected people's dissatisfaction with our government's policies and involvement with the war...it didn't cause that anger.
Yes maybe Al Sharpton and such are not treating other people of their race the way rap music does but cherry picking issues of race without addressing issues within your own race is what I am referring to.
First of all, who are we in white society to tell blacks what issues they have to address in their communities before they can protest misstreatment? In case it's been missed in here...and I think it has...we in the white community have some major problems WE need to address. Why are we trying to tell the black community how they need to handle their problems when we haven't even solved ours?

Second, check out my response to psyedofool above...I referenced this issue you're raising here about Sharpton/Jackson by noting that they are nothing but propped up white media creations that can easily be dismissed by any thinking person...not unlike the absurd Hollywood representations you see from old movies...the black Aunt Jemima...the slow whitted shufflin' house servant... Why do you think the media focuses on these guys? Why not focus on blacks that are continuously engaging in much more important and positive efforts to combat racism and empower the black community? Clearly the media...including Whitlock...ascribe great significance to these guys...I do not.
Clearly you have done your best to establish that Jason Whitlock is a hypocrite... now overall... what's your point? What are you really trying to say here?
Whether we like it or not. Jason Whitlock seems to be the one stepping up right now and talking about difficult issues... that is... other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I know there have been others but these three seem to be the newsmakers.
The fact that you think three clowns like Jason Whitlock, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the three primary "newsmakers" stepping up to address these issues ought to make you ask some serious questions about why you are not seeing other people represented in the media. I referenced Julian Bond's involvement with the Harvard Business School...the things he's been doing there and the direction the entire civil rights movement is heading in this country right now as a result of him and others working in the same arena represents the most significant shift in direction the fight for equality that we've seen since the end of the civil war...and it has nothing to do with Jackson, Sharpton or Whitlock.

What's my point? My point is that Whitlock's views and the influence he and others like him represent to white society skew our understanding of the real issues here...just as much as the idiocy shown by Sharpton and Jackson. Until we start addressing those issues I raised above...the same ones that thousands of others in the black community are raising...we will continue to have these problems. Do you really think the average black kid in America cares about Imus? Of course he doesn't. He also doesn't care about what Jason Whitlock thinks about hip hop. He does care about whether he's got any kind of real future or not.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Well the Jackson's and Sharptons of the world are shysters...I've already stated that...more to the point though; do you really think rap music is the larger problem? Why would you assume that? Black society's problems hardly began with the introduction of rap or hip hop. I'd say it's pretty far down the list of their problems.

I want to clear one thing up here. I am stating that I think rap music is a larger problem in terms of racism/sexism than the Don Imus's of the world. It is my stance that you can't expect our society to understand a double standard and it is imperative that the leaders of our country speak out against all forms of racism including black on black. I'm sick and tired of these situations that arise (like Don Imus) and these so called black leaders go to war against this and cry out against racism and sexism. Yet, these attrocities that they are fighting against go on everyday within rap music. Yet, less than 2 years ago a black "shock jock" thought it would be funny to play a Tsunami song calling Asian kids chinks. Why did Al Sharpton not demand meetings with the ownership of Hot 97 and demand Miss Jones be fired? Why is she still working today? Why was 50 Cent on her station last week spewing racial remarks about Jewish people? I am not addressing all problems with "black society" as you put it... I am trying to address issues of racism and sexism which is exactly what Jason Whitlock... the subject of this thread had spoke out against.

For some reason a lot of whites seem to have this odd idea that anger in the black community today is largely the result of music and it's surrounding gang culture or people who can't forget the past abuses of racism.

Again. I'm not going there. What I am saying is if we want to work towards solving the problems of racism... it would be a good start to stop what's going on in rap music today. Imagine a world where we don't hear words like b****ez, hoes, tricks, ni**az on a daily basis. An issue like Don Imus would be so much more cut and dry... If these words were universally not accepted then there would be no question.

Just out of curiousity...please be honest...have you visited any inner city schools in the last few years? I'm talking about places where the poorest kids live...utter cesspools we shouldn't even call schools. Taking a look at the enormous issues we have in this country in the urban community...crime, drugs, poverty, an education system that's utterly failed, a judicial system that is heavily weighted and prejudiced against minorities and people without means to afford good legal representation...decaying infrastructure and poor health care...inadequate access to financial services...all these things combined with long held resentments are what drive anger in people well before you get to hip hop music and it's negative messages. One might just as well say that the music culture of the 1960's drove anger on college campuses over the Viet Nam War. Music culture only reflected people's dissatisfaction with our government's policies and involvement with the war...it didn't cause that anger.

I can't speak for all rap music and it would be ignorant to do so but the overwhelming theme I see is not anger and dissatisfaction with our government. What I see is large groups (parties) where there are hundreds of half dressed women parading around getting slapped in the ass, liquor poured on them, money thrown at them, guys swiping credit cards through their butt cheeks and the rappers throwing racial and sexist words around as a part of a vocabulary. I've never seen so many uses of the word "hoe" as I did when Garcia posted the lyrics from one of Ludacris' songs. Are you telling me that these rappers are acting out against government policies? Can you honestly draw a correlation between the View Nam War music and today's rap music?

First of all, who are we in white society to tell blacks what issues they have to address in their communities before they can protest misstreatment? In case it's been missed in here...and I think it has...we in the white community have some major problems WE need to address. Why are we trying to tell the black community how they need to handle their problems when we haven't even solved ours?

Again, I'm only speaking about racism and sexism here. All I am saying is that you can't continue with double standards. All issues of racism and sexism need to be addressed. Why today has Don Imus been fired right after CBS had a meeting with Al Sharpton but Miss Jones of Hot 97 is still on the air? Why did Al Sharpton not come down on Miss Jones? Why does it go completely un-noticed last week that 50 Cent made a derogatory statement towards Jewish people on Miss Jones' show? The Miss Jones who is well known for her racist past. That is what I mean about cherry picking matters of racism and sexism. I have no problem speaking out on Don Imus but like I said before. It can't be a double standard. There is no way we as a society will ever get everybody on the same page trying to understand a double standard.

The fact that you think three clowns like Jason Whitlock, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the three primary "newsmakers" stepping up to address these issues ought to make you ask some serious questions about why you are not seeing other people represented in the media.

I agree. Why is it that clowns like Sharpton and Whitlock are all we hear about? Why is it that Bill Cosby was seen as siding with white people for trying to address these issues?

I referenced Julian Bond's involvement with the Harvard Business School...the things he's been doing there and the direction the entire civil rights movement is heading in this country right now as a result of him and others working in the same arena represents the most significant shift in direction the fight for equality that we've seen since the end of the civil war...and it has nothing to do with Jackson, Sharpton or Whitlock.

This is great. I am glad that you have pointed this out. I plan to read up on this more. Julian Bond still isn't the news maker that Sharpton, Jackson and recently Jason Whitlock are. That was all I was saying there. Please don't read too far into that statement. It concerns me greatly that we see people like Sharpton out there claiming to be black leaders.

What's my point? My point is that Whitlock's views and the influence he and others like him represent to white society skew our understanding of the real issues here...just as much as the idiocy shown by Sharpton and Jackson. Until we start addressing those issues I raised above...the same ones that thousands of others in the black community are raising...we will continue to have these problems. Do you really think the average black kid in America cares about Imus? Of course he doesn't. He also doesn't care about what Jason Whitlock thinks about hip hop. He does care about whether he's got any kind of real future or not.

Okay. I hear you. I guess I'm just crazy for thinking it may be a positive start to stand up against all forms of racism. I guess I'm just crazy for thinking that we may stand a better chance as a society at reaching some of these young kids in the inner city if they weren't subjected to the glorification of guns, drugs, mistreatment of women and people calling each other ni**az. What does the average black kid in America think when he sees these rappers in all their glory throwing hundred dollar bills around? Is it possible that this average black kid may think it's cool and possibly that average black kid may start to behave the way these rappers do?

[-Slap-]

Shaun Powell, obviously another self loathing black man from the Jason Whitelock school of journalism.

Milledge taking bad rap (http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-sppow0517,0,1257930.column)

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2096/369978he7.jpg

Shaun Powell (http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-shaunpowell,0,6314841.columnist)

Newsday.com

May 16, 2007, 10:48 PM EDT

By day, he's known as Lastings Milledge, Triple-A ballplayer, a vital piece of the Mets' future. By nightclub, he's known as L Millz, triple-X rapper, encouraging "b****es" and "hos" to spread their legs and touch their toes.

Well, those are the tamer lyrics on the song "Bend Ya Knees," an amateur swing-and-a-miss at a music career by a professional baseball player who should know better, even at an age where males are at their dumbest. Here we are, some 30 days and 30 nights after Imus, and once again we're dealing with words that demean two of the most vulnerable and victimized people in America: women and blacks.

Done by a black person, no less.

Of course, this comes as a surprise only to those who don't listen to urban radio or eavesdrop on conversations between teenagers of all races or watch certain music videos. Milledge didn't rap about anything you can't hear walking down the street or taking the bus or subway. That's why much of the Imus hysteria was misdirected by a knee-jerk society looking for blame in all the wrong places. A shock jock, who's paid to say shocking things, merely repeated stuff he'd heard from a misguided culture that consumes our youth and has crept unchecked into mainstream America and Madison Avenue.

Milledge is only 22 and heavily into hip hop. What did you expect him to rap about, the ecology, the way Marvin Gaye so eloquently addressed in "Mercy, Mercy Me," one of the greatest pop music recordings ever? No, unfortunately, that era is gone and missing from the top of the charts and the minds of impressionable young people. Instead, their heroes are two individuals connected to the Cleveland Cavaliers and New Jersey Nets, who played Wednesday night in Game 5 of their Eastern Conference semifinal playoff series. And in this case, the two individuals in question aren't LeBron James or Jason Kidd.

One is Nelly, a part-owner of the Cavs, while Jay-Z has a piece of the Nets. They've got far bigger clout with young America than any player on those teams or any other team. These guys are music royalty, kings of the charts, worshipped on the gritty streets of Harlem as well as the lush green lawns of Oyster Bay. You ought to check out their lyrics, which kids can recite, word for word, better than they can recite Shakespeare. Nelly and Jay-Z have made enough money from their records to buy their way into the NBA, which means two people whose financial empires were built on such lyrics are currently sitting in the boardroom of sports.

Oh, and if that's not sick enough, their videos for years were in heavy rotation on BET, the cable company formed by Bob Johnson, a billionaire who now owns the Bobcats.

See where I'm going?

Why knock Milledge, the symptom of the problem, instead of directing your frustration at those who helped cause the problem?

And are still profiting big-time from it?

Oddly enough, David Stern and the NBA are too busy ruining a great playoff series by punishing the Suns and Amare Stoudemire for tiptoeing on the court instead of taking some of their owners to task for polluting the air(ways). Nobody in the NBA made a big stink about Nelly and Jay-Z because everyone in the NBA, especially the players, are too busy bowing at their feet and filling up their iPods. Just like a good number of music fans in America.

Thankfully, the proud women at Spelman College said "enough" a few years ago and barred Nelly, who demeaned black women in one particular video, from making an appearance on that campus. Unfortunately, there aren't enough protesters or consumers like that. Everyone else is listening to the beat without hearing the message.

While morality crumbles around us, we're looking the other way or simply dismissing it as "today's culture" without taking more serious action. But hey, if this is what society wants, then someone will find a way to provide it. So maybe the problem is us. We're providing the demand, and Nelly and Jay-Z and others are only too willing to provide the supply.

Oh well. At least the Mets are angry. Which means if Milledge ever gets back to the big leagues, we know one song that won't be played over the loudspeaker at Shea Stadium when he steps to the plate. That's progress. I think.