Be A Man About It

Yesterday a 19 year old man ran through a shopping mall in Nebraska and gunned down 8 people before turning the gun on himself. He apparently left a suicide note in which he said that he was “going out in style.” Now I’m sure that I don’t have to explain how disturbed I am at hearing such a horrific story, but as I grow older such events seem evermore prevalent.

I’d argue that the young man failed in his attempt to die with style points. So I have a suggestion for anyone who ever gets the notion that they’d like to follow in his footsteps: instead of turning the gun on yourself after committing your dirty deed of destruction, be a man about it and face the consequences of your actions in someone else’s court instead of your own. By committing suicide you are merely going out as the biggest loser and a coward, not with style points.

Such acts of "terrorism," if you will, really bother me because they are completely and totally senseless. To take anyone’s life is disgusting, but to go out and indiscriminately murder innocent people because you can’t deal with your own personal demons makes me even more upset.

Who gave you that right?!!!

But if you’re going to take it upon yourself to play God and kill who you will whenever you will, how bout actually stepping up to the plate and facing the consequences. I mean these people, often young men, walk around and mow down people with guns and assault rifles like they’re big and tough, but they don’t even have the balls to go down in a good old fashioned gun fight with law enforcement.

If you’re so big and bad, why don’t you match wits with people who can actually fend for themselves, people who know where you are and when you’re coming, people who know as much about a gun as you do? How 'bout really demonstrating your manhood by fighting fair, because shooting unaware, innocent bystanders isn’t going out in style by any means, it only demonstrates cowardice.

Better yet, how about trying the criminal justice on for size? Yes...go to court, be convicted, and then share a prison cell with some of your diabolical equals. Oh, that’s right, you’ve probably heard what happens to some cowards when they get to prison; maybe that’s why you forego that option and go right for suicide.

Ok, I think I’ve got it now…the ultimate solution: Instead of trying to add inches to what’s in between your legs by picking up a big bad gun (pardon the metaphor), how about exorcizing your demons before taking the valuable lives of others. Think about what those lives mean to the potential victims as well as the people that love them. You obviously don’t value your life, but the least you can do is consider the value of the lives of others.

I guess what I’m getting at here is personal responsibility and accountability. And clearly these people who commit murder-suicides are trying to dodge both. So all I’m asking of anyone who one day "loses it" and thinks the best thing to do is to “go out in style,” you’d gain infinitely more “style” points if you’d just handle your problems in house, and take no lives, including your own.

-Maelstrom

Some Things Aren’t Worth Protesting

Ever wonder why 50 Cent had beef with Ja Rule, and then The Game? What about Jay-Z and Nas? Better yet, why do you think Michael Moore makes his films so edgy and names them things like “Fahrenheit 911?” How about all those starlets who just happen to always end up in front of the camera during a meltdown? Well let me help you out, its either because of money or because of attention, and often the latter leads to the former.

So I don’t understand why it is that some people, groups and institutions even give certain issues that they disagree with a moment of their media attention. You think these groups would know better since the ire that followed the release of “The Passion of the Christ,” or at least by the release of “The Da Vinci Code.”

If I can make a mildly disparaging comment before continuing: In my high and mighty opinion most Americans are either largely socially unaware, or are at least largely apathetic. So by having a group speak out against an issue, that same “ignorant” populace only pays more attention to the issue when they wouldn’t normally pay attention to or understand it in the first place. In short, such boisterous objection only has the opposite effect from the desired effect a group wishes.

More specifically, there is a movie that is purported to be anti-God coming to a theatre near you. Of course religious groups are coming out of the woodwork to protest the movie. That is to say that these groups are doing exactly what the movie promoters want; promoting the movie for free. So effectively the religious groups are helping the movie get all the publicity it needs to spread the message that they are so afraid of getting out.

So what good does it do to protest in this fashion? And I should point out that I’m not one who is against protest. I have even participated in a few in my short years on Earth. But certainly I’ve learned that some things are best just left alone and some things are better left unsaid; they do not become significant until someone makes them significant. And I believe that is often the case with the attention-craving Hollywood stars, the platinum-album-seeking rappers, and certainly is the case with this movie “The Golden Compass.”

Approaching this topic from a different angle, as I understand it one of the major arguments in the movie made against God and organized religion is that it is controlling and does not allow one to think independently. Well, by protesting the movie without ever watching it, doesn’t that demonstrate exactly what the movie is saying? How ironic that these religious groups and leaders are becoming the embodiment of everything negative that the movie is saying about them.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, if there is indeed a God, that entity needs no human substantiation. And if God is who many believe Him to be, wouldn’t he want each individual to watch such a movie and make up their own mind about the implications of it?

You know what I think? I think anyone who likes the previews and finds them interesting should go out and watch the movie. I mean, how else are you going to know what you’re protesting against? You may find out that you actually agree with the movie, or that you just enjoy it whether or not you agree with its contents.

So everyone, hear me loud and clear when I say this: When in disagreement choose your battles wisely because seriously, some things just aren’t worth protesting.

-Maelstrom

Am I Drunk or Am I Seeing Stars

In an epidemic that seems just outright silly yet amazing to me, the latest in a string of celebrities, athletes and politicians to be arrested for suspicion of DUI is Rebecca De Mornay. You might remember her as the hot temptress that played opposite Tom Cruise in his breakout film “Risky Business,” or as the evil babysitter in “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle.” I personally remember her for being the really sexy lady in “And God Created Woman,” but that’s neither here nor there.

In any case, I am just astounded that this list keeps getting longer. De Mornay now joins “24” star Kiefer Sutherland, young pop singer and actress Lindsay Lohan, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, NFL player Chris Henry, and a whole host of other rich, well-off, famous people who have been charged with driving under the influence.

There are too many angles with which to consider this topic, so I’ll just keep it simple.

What disturbs me most is that these people, above everyone else, have the ability to do what many others could only dream of; they could call not just a cab, but a limo and a chauffeur to drive them to and from an occasion where alcohol will be present. In fact, they could call and have the party come to their location so that they don’t even have to drive anywhere, thus avoiding the potential for DUI.

It further bothers me that these people are not only being personally foolish, but they are also being selfish and inconsiderate. It’s not enough that they are endangering their own lives, but they are also putting at jeopardy the lives of those traveling the roadways with them.

Finally, I guess that the loose laws that govern these cases are the other factor that trouble me. Time and time again a celebrity gets caught for DUI; maybe they have to go to court. And after receiving a warning from the judge, they go to this fairytale place called “rehab,” which obviously has nothing to do with rehabilitation. After they return from “la la land rehab” they’re free to wreak havoc on the roadways once again.

And unfortunately they often do just that…continue to endanger theirs and others lives by drinking and driving again.

Perhaps if athletic organizations had tougher, consistent policies about not drinking and driving, St. Louis Cardinals’ pitcher Josh Hancock would still be alive. Maybe if Hollywood Studios would write clauses into contracts that warned of substantial loss of money in the instance of DUI, stars like part-time actress Paris Hilton wouldn’t be prone to getting behind the wheel intoxicated. Maybe if our lawmakers would actually abide by the traffic laws they help pass, and suffered severe punishment for breaking them, it would set some form of a societal standard.

But it seems that such sanctions are too much to ask.

In any case, I’m tired of the recklessness and lack of personal responsibility of the stars. And I’m even more tired of the weak law enforcement response. And undoubtedly, it seems like some of these already famous individuals, like Britney Spears, bask in the glow of their recklessness. If that indeed is the case as I suppose it to be, maybe the media could do us all a favor by not covering these stories and continuing to glorify the stupidity of these indigents.

Basically everyone just needs to follow that adage that seems as old as time, “Don’t Drink and Drive!”

-Maelstrom

Why Marion, Why?

For several years there has been widespread suspicion of many athletes from various sports implicated in using performance enhancing drugs like steroids and human growth hormone (HGH). The range goes from pro-wrestlers to baseball players, boxers to gymnasts, and from biking to swimming. Now there are even whispers that athletes in more “gentlemanly” sports like golf and tennis are using steroids. But perhaps the sporting event with the most extensive history of illegal drug use is the Olympics, including many heralded Track and Field events.

From the East German swim team in the ’76 Olympic Games to Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson in the ’88 Olympics, steroid use has been a major problem. The East German women won all but 2 gold medals in those games, while Ben Johnson annihilated a then-world record time of 9.93 seconds, clocking a time of 9.79 seconds in the 100 meter dash more than 11 years before that number was matched again.

With the advancement of technology, as in all sports, the use of performance enhancing drugs has become more widespread and prolific in Track and Field. Many Track and Field athletes from multitudinous disciplines have been caught using steroids. Names like shot-putter CJ Holder and sprinter Tim Montgomery come to mind.

But one lady sprinter has been suspected, but never caught. That lady is Marion Jones.

Over the years, Jones has vehemently denied any use of illegal performance enhancing drugs. She spoke many times, often defiantly and adamantly, to the press expressing her frustration at even the suggestion that she wasn’t a “clean” athlete. And because she was so candid in her denial, coupled with the lack of a positive test, we believed her…at least I did.

But I should’ve known better, she had smoke all around her. And I’m learning that with steroids, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. She was once married to the aforementioned Holder, and Montgomery is one of her baby’s daddies. Her trainer Trevor Graham was implicated in the federal investigation of the steroids producing company BALCO. Seven other athletes trained by Graham had tested positive for or admitted steroid use. Victor Conte, Founder/President of the BALCO Company, named Marion Jones as one of the athletes that he distributed illegal substances to. She even had to be defended by famed attorney Johnny Cochran while in high school to be cleared of doping charges. And the list of reasons to doubt her innocence could go on.

Yet I believed in her.

But now I question if ANY of her accomplishments on the track are legitimate—from her high school days until now.

And I don’t know why she’s admitting things now; perhaps she is truly remorseful and wanted to come clean. However, I suspect that she watched what happened to Michael Vick, and figured that it was wisest to come clean now and get a good plea deal than to continue denying and be forced to plead guilty later.

What her admission demonstrates to me is that I can’t trust these athletes anymore. Not even when they consistently test negative for steroid use. The fact that Jones denied so consistently, and had eluded a positive A and B sample test, is a very scary reality from a sports fan’s perspective.

What her accomplishments (as well as Johnson’s in ’88, and the East Germans in ’72, and Floyd Landis’ Tour de France victory last year) tell me is that these performance enhancers definitely make a major difference. Clearly these drugs give one an edge over the competition, sometimes years and years before “clean” athletes can match their “dirty” counterparts’ feats.

With Jones’ admission, I pretty much think that an athlete is dirty if their name comes up in steroid suspicions. I recently heard that Alex Rodriguez is on steroids (implicated by admitted user Jose Canseco), so to me, he’s guilty. Sammy Sosa, culpable; Bill Romanowski, a user; Barry Bonds…is there any question?!!

But here’s the worse thing, I am now skeptical of people who have gone down in the annals of history with records that stood for decades or still stand today. The late Florence Griffith Joyner still owns the world record in the 100 meter dash for women (she still owns the 200 m record too, by a huge margin). She set it almost 20 years ago and her time of 10.49 seconds is 0.24 seconds faster than the next best, non-Marion Jones time (Jones fastest time was 10.65 seconds). So to me, she might have been ahead of her time in not only speed, but also in masking her use of performance enhancers. Current 200 meters world record holder Michael Johnson broke the former record by 0.40 seconds back in 1996. How did he do that (he holds the 400m record too)? Heck, Bob Beamon held the world record in the long jump for over 20 years. He might’ve been “juiced.”

Still worse, people who break records that have never been under suspicion are suspect to me. Current men’s 100 meter world record holder, Jamaica’s Asafa Powell (who recently clocked an unreal time of 9.74 seconds) is suspect to me. He is the only person to ever clock times less than 9.80 seconds 5 times, and the only other person to clock a time of 9.77 seconds, American Justin Gatlin, recently tested positive for steroid use.

So the allure to watching athletes has greatly diminished for me. Especially in events where actual skill is not as required as power, strength and speed to be successful. And I don’t know where we can go from here except to just allow all performance enhancing drugs. That way if people want to stay clean that’s their prerogative, but everyone has the option to use steroids, therefore leveling the playing field.

Since that won’t happen, I can’t believe what I’m seeing, and the only thing that I know is that what I’m seeing ain’t real.

-Maelstrom

Congress' Education Proposals

Like most of America, I typically don’t have much praise for Congress. However, in the last several days Congress may actually be getting something correct on the domestic front. Both the House and the Senate have set in motion Bills that will aid thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans seeking higher education.

According to the Associated Press, over the last 10 years, interest rates on student loans have risen considerably. And just within the last 2 years, interest rates on student loans have increased so dramatically that the amount that some borrowers will (eventually) have to pay back has doubled. In short, the gift of education has become increasingly less affordable for many across the country.

The major focus of the House Bill is to cap the monthly payments for low income borrowers; a practice that has been adopted in other industrialized nations like Great Britain. Hopefully this will also ebb the number of people who don’t pursue degrees due to the fear of high monthly payments, a reality that has been cited as a cause for the loss of interest in low paying (but necessary) service jobs.

The Senate Bill, which was approved unanimously (95-0), targets the actual student loan industry. The Bill bans gifts by loan companies, like Sallie Mae, to public institutions; a move that should prevent specific loan companies from getting preferential treatment on lender lists. That move should help keep the focus on the best interests of each individual student as opposed to focusing on the financial benefit to a school from a particular lender. Also, the Senate Bill aims to make the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) clearer and concise, hopefully leading to fewer costly student mistakes on the application.

During the last few Congresses, and certainly during this current President’s administration, there has been far too little emphasis on domestic issues such as Education, Health Care, Housing and Urban Development. So it is nice to finally see a very significant Bill be brought to the table that actually benefits those of us who live here in this country—a concept that seems to have been lost since the start of our “global war on terror.”

I will have to do further research to better understand the specifics of these proposed legislative moves and all of their ramifications, but I am least glad to see that the legislative branch of our government actually remembered us for a change.

This legislation, along with a recent bolster to the Pell Grant, are certainly positive steps toward helping many people attain that great and powerful gift of education.

-Maelstrom

Vick Indictment

For several months now a storm has been brewing over the head of Atlanta Falcons Quarterback Michael Vick. The storm of allegations, which included hosting, participating and promoting dog fights on property he owns, seemed to die down. But the storm dramatically worsened this week when he was indicted by federal investigators on those allegations.

And the details in those charges are absolutely horrendous:

Reports of killing dogs that lost prize fights—which likely translates to losses of tens of thousands of dollars—by wetting down a dog and then electrocuting it, slamming another dog on the concrete to kill it, hanging another, and several other unthinkably inhumane dog killings. Investigators even uncovered a “rape stand,” used to hold unwilling female dogs in place to mate with males.

I mean, this ain’t lookin good!

The indictment of Vick comes at a very interesting time in the history of the National Football League (NFL), the league that Vick plays in. The new Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, has been on a mission to clean up the image of the league. He recently took the very drastic step to suspend 2 players for off-the-field activities. Pacman Jones of the Tennessee Titans—suspended for the season, and Tank Johnson of the Chicago Bears—suspended for part of the season, got the attention of the media for skirmishes with the law, but neither was indicted for their actions. In the case of Tank Johnson, he was not only suspended by the league for part of next season, but was also released from his team only to have all criminal charges brought against him dropped.

So the question is, with such a low standard for league suspension (i.e. no indictment, just repeated bad behavior can lead to suspension), how can the Commissioner not suspend Michael Vick now that a Federal Indictment has been leveled against him?

And don’t be fooled by many of the sports reporters that keep saying that Vick is a “first time offender,” and that the league’s zero tolerance posture is meant for repeat offenders (which is oxymoronical in nature). This is not Vick’s first run-in with the law; he has a checkered past, going back several years. His most recent skirmish with the law came earlier this year when he was caught with marijuana in a decoy water bottle at an airport.

As for Vick and potential prison time specifically, if the Feds have taken the time to indict him, and indeed have all the corroborating evidence and eye-witness testimony that it sounds like they have, I think he could actually serve time in the slammer; the most significant charge being brought against him being a Conspiracy charge. That charge means that even if Vick wasn’t present for any of the activities or didn’t participate in any of the activities, he could still serve time for merely agreeing to hide evidence or carry out these activities (etc.).

I hope the allegations aren’t true, because they are outrageously unthinkable. However, whether Vick is convicted or not, I don’t see how he can avoid being suspended for at least a portion of the upcoming NFL season.

-Maelstrom

"A Grave Miscarriage of Justice"

A couple weeks ago, a further injustice was perpetrated against a young prison inmate by the Georgia State judicial system. Genarlow Wilson was convicted of child molestation for having consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl at a New Year’s Eve party 3 years ago. Under Georgia state law, Wilson, 17 years old at the time, was committing a crime since the girl was not the legal age of consent, 16. He has been in prison serving a 10 year minimum sentence ever since.

As many people have pointed out, including some of the jurors that actually found Wilson guilty but have since expressed their regret, the law was never intended to be imputed in this fashion. The law was designed to protect children from adult sexual predators; not to jail teenagers for engaging in sexual activities. Since the ruling against Wilson, the law has actually be rewritten so that incidents like the one involving him won’t happen again.

But Wilson remains in prison.

Why?

Because a very cruel State Attorney General (Thurbert Baker) disagrees with the Judge who recently said, “The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice.”

So here’s just how silly this ruling against Wilson is: In the state of Georgia, until this case, it was a misdemeanor for a 17 year old to have intercourse with a 15 year old (with a maximum 1 year jail sentence and no sex offender status ascribed). But the same 17 year old (as Wilson was) can be convicted of felony aggravated assault for performing oral sex with a 15 year old (10 year minimum prison sentence, 1 year probation and required sex offender registration). In fact, until 1998, it was a felony for husband and wife to engage in oral sex in Georgia, punishable with up to 20 years in prison.

And this is how unbelievably heartless the State Attorney General and the Prosecuting Attorney (Eddie Barker) are: The crime that Wilson committed, which has landed him in prison for 10 years, would now only be a misdemeanor with a maximum 1-year sentence and no sex offender registry. But even though the state law has been changed, these to characters think that Genarlow needs to serve out his sentence, or plead guilty.

I should point out that the young lady involved in this case has repeatedly stated that the sex acts committed were totally consensual. But again the law steps in and fogs the situation. Since she was only 15 at the time, she couldn’t consent to have sex, legally.

It is in instances like these that I believe jurors, prosecutors and state attorneys should use responsible, reasonable discretion and consider the actual case over the law (i.e. uphold the spirit of the law, not the letter, since Mr. Baker has derogatorily claimed to have the duty to “uphold state law”). And assertions that by making an exception in this case, the flood gate of appeals will open for others with similar cases is a moot point at best. This instance is egregious, obvious, and I’d imagine that it is highly unlikely many other cases like this exist; and if they do, they should really be re-evaluated.

It is time for Baker and Barker to get off their high horses and do the right thing. Release Genarlow Wilson from prison, no strings attached.

That, Mr Baker, would be upholding the spirit of the law. That would be justice!

-Maelstrom

PS: There is a July 20 hearing for this case...this time I hope they get it right!

Pumping Gas on May 15th

Around this time every year I get a multitude of email (facebook, friendster, instant messenger) messages telling me not to pump gas on a particular date. This year the date is May 15^th, and supposedly if enough people don’t pump gas on that day, it will cost the oil companies billions of dollars. This is all done in an attempt to get oil companies to lower the price of gasoline.

Well I hate to burst the bubble of millions of Americans, but it ain’t gonna work!

Here’s why: If people top off their gas tanks on May 14^th in anticipation of boycotting May 15^th, or if people fill up on May 16^th, the amount of gas consumed won’t change. The only thing that changes is the amount of gas consumed on a particular day, not the overall amount of gas consumed. Since the amount of gas consumed would be the same overall, there would be no penalty to the gas companies, and hence no reason to change the cost of gas.

But fret not, there are possibilities that exist. Perhaps a similar plan of action could be mildly successful if we were all willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

One method that would be helpful would be to actually take public transportation (carpooling could also work). Most cities, even the small ones, have some form of mass transit that is reasonable with respect to cost (perhaps $1 per ride). Doing this would mean that less people would need to fill their personal vehicles, therefore causing a decrease in consumption at the pump. However, to make a significant dent in the pocketbooks of the oil companies I think such a gas station boycott would have to be sustained for more than a mere day; perhaps a week would suffice.

Unfortunately, in this present nation, the most of us want to be able to go where we want to go, when we want to go. We want the autonomy, and so it is much more convenient to just drive our own cars. Also, not all mass transit functions the hours necessary to sustain people who perhaps work late-night/early-morning shifts.

My final point is one that many will take issue with, but I think its worth thinking about. I recently purchased gas at $3.19 a gallon, and it cost me $47 to fill up my tank (yes, that’s a record for me). Of course I’m not happy with the cost of gas these days, especially since it is seemingly unnecessary given that the oil companies are making an exorbitant amount of money (literally breaking records in revenue during the last year and a half). But the fact of the matter is that we are blessed to only be paying $3 a gallon considering that in many nations gas cost double that, and sometimes more.

We are largely to blame as a nation because we don’t take the opportunities to use mass transit, we unnecessarily buy SUV’s, Minivans and Trucks, we ignored the call to manufacture hybrid vehicles until recently (unlike countries like Japan), and we didn’t take the lead on finding alternative sources of fuel energy (as countries like Brazil did).

So I personally tend not to complain too much about the cost of gas since I know we could be much worse off. And no, I haven’t ignored the reality that we have more motor vehicles in this nation than in others, and that the car industry has been a vital industry in this country since the beginning of last century. But those realities are fast becoming untrue and whether they remain the truth or not, we will still be faced with major problems like destruction of the ozone, global warming, high gas prices, and a need to find alternate sources of fuel.

My ultimate plea to you is instead of not pumping gas on May 15^th this year, try public/mass transit for 3 days. It will actually make a difference, and perhaps you’ll discover that it isn’t as bad as it may sound.

-Maelstrom

Topsy-Turvy

Throughout the course of the last week, I’ve been watching with great amazement as several teams in the NBA have really turned the tables on the so-called favorites. (Yes, this is a sports posting, so if you were looking for something social or political, check back in a couple of days.) I actually can’t believe some of the things I’ve witnessed, so I’ll give my mid-first round NBA playoffs perspective.

How bout them Bulls? I sat and watched with my mouth wide open as the Chicago Bulls took an insurmountable 3 games to none lead over the defending NBA Champion Miami Heat, eventually sweeping them like dust under a rug. Honestly, I thought the Bulls would win the series in 6 games, but a sweep was not on my radar at all. Wow!

As for wow, I can’t remember the last time there were 3 opening round sweeps. I certainly can’t remember the last time there were 3 opening round sweeps in one conference. But, that’s what happened this past weekend in the Eastern Conference. The #1 Pistons and #2 Cavaliers cleaned house against the Orlando Magic and the Washington Wizards, respectively. Reminds me of the good ole’ days, when the top seeds did what you expected them to; make light-work of their opening round opponents. I think these sweeps must be part of an NBA conspiracy to make me not believe that the league is rigged.

The only series that is competitive in the East is the Toronto Raptors vs. the New Jersey Nets. I thought that Toronto would win that series in 6 games, but now that they’re down 3-2, it appears I may be wrong. Honestly, they looked as young as they are, and the Nets look like the veteran squad they are.

On to the West…

It would be accurate to invoke the cliché “wild, wild west.” Seriously, when the Denver Nuggets and the Golden State Warriors opened up series’ against the San Antonio Spurs and Dallas Mavericks with wins, my eye brows were raised. Everyone suspected that Denver might pose a problem for the Spurs with Carmello and A.I. leading the Nuggets’ charge, but did anyone really expect to see the Warriors play like champs versus the Mavs?

I know I didn’t.

And of course I knew that Golden State beat Dallas each time they played this year. Yes, I knew that Don Nelson was coaching Golden State against the Dallas team that he largely cultivated, and against a coach (Avery Johnson) that he was mentor for. But I just knew that all the pre-postseason (if I can call it that) talk about how the Warriors gave the Mavs trouble all year long was going to be the fuel to push the Mavericks to dominate the Warriors. Honestly, I picked Dallas to win the series in 4 games; maybe 5.

Boy was I wrong! And seriously, Dallas is lucky to still be playing in the postseason. Golden State should have put them away Tuesday night. Maybe Dallas will pull out the series in 7, but if they do, it won’t be easy.

So here’s how I see the playoffs finishing. In the West I expect Houston to close out Utah in game 6, San Antonio to put Denver to rest in game 5, and Phoenix to put Kobe and the Lakers out of their misery in 5 (maybe 6). And yes, I’m jumpin’ ship and saying that Golden State will end the Dallas Mavericks great season. My only fear is that the Warriors are too tired to keep up their game play, since they are functioning with a short 8 man rotation. But I think they’re tenacious enough to do it. With Dallas out (should they lose), I totally expect the Spurs to win the Western Conference, barring injury, because they are the most effective team at keeping the Phoenix Suns’ Steve Nash out of the paint. If you keep Nash out of the paint, you prevent him from dominating the game. If you stop Nash, you stop the Suns (hint to all teams playing against teams with dominant guards; keep them out of the paint).

In the East, I think the Pistons will have their hands full with the upstart “Baby Bulls.” The Bulls play with a passion and an intensity that maybe only Golden State is playing with in this season’s postseason. They play like they have something to prove while the Pistons play like they’ve already won the game just by stepping on the court. I don’t think the Bulls are a better team than the Pistons, but they play with enough heart to beat them at times. That said, I still think the Pistons will win the series in 6, maybe 7 games, and end up playing the New Jersey Nets in the Eastern Conference Finals. To get there, I think the Nets will take 7 games in disposing of Lebron and the Cleveland Cavs, because the Cavs are a weak #2 seed in my opinion.

Ultimately I think we’ll see a repeat of the 2005 NBA finals with the Spurs beating the Pistons in 6. Yes, to those that know me this may seem like sacrilege, but even though I am a die-hard Pistons’ fan, I think they are a much softer team with Flip Saunders as coach than they were with Larry Brown or Rick Carlisle. The Spurs are just as tough today as they were 2 years ago.

I must say that with the topsy-turvy nature of these playoffs, this may be the best NBA postseason I’ve seen in a decade, and I can’t wait to see how it plays out!

-Maelstrom

Is There Any Humanity?

In the wake of the tragedy that occurred this week at Virginia Tech, several questions have arisen. First it was “who did this,” then it was “who died,” and the ubiquitous question of “why,” served as a major backdrop throughout the events. By Tuesday we found out who did this and we found out who died. On Wednesday the story took a drastic turn when it was discovered that the killer had delivered a package to NBC news. The package contained self-made video footage, photographs, and an 1800 word manifesto from the killer that law enforcement officials had hoped that would answer that ominous question of why?

Although the package gave an insightful look at a very troubled individual, it didn’t answer the great question of why.

Aside from the completely unnecessary and unwarranted murder of so many individuals, another aspect of the story that troubles me is the media coverage of the now infamous package of information. As in other recent cases the media has, in my opinion, gone too far in its explicit disclosure of all the contents of the information that the killer sent to NBC.

Imagine if you were one of the victims’ family members; would you want to relive the last moments of your childs’ life through images released to the media? Even worse, if you were one of the victims that was shot or saw classmates shot, would you really want to hear this man rail against the victims as if he knew them all?

I don’t think so.

And since the latest news cycle has past, I know that I’m no longer thinking in a speculative manner, as many of the victims and their families have expressed disappointment in the media’s decision to release the killer’s photos and videos.

Ultimately, I think the media is acting as an enabler to the sick purposes that the killer intended this package for. Obviously the killer knew that his image and his words would be heard if he sent this package to NBC. Essentially he knew that he would be glorified and immortalized by doing this, and now the media has done exactly that.

Too much emphasis has been placed on the killer and not enough attention has been paid to the people who lost their lives in such a senseless way. Fortunately the media has wised up a little in the last day, and begun expressing praise for the lives that the victims led. I think the media would be better served by continuing in that direction and the nation would be better served if the killer (his actions, intent, purpose, behavioral patterns, etc.) was thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and psychological professionals, not the media. And should any significant findings come of these investigations (findings that affect us all), then make that information part of the news coverage.

I know that in this day and age of 24 news coverage, home-made videos, full-disclosure social networking and youtube.com, we have become accustomed to seeing everything about everything. In fact, if people use any level of discretion, even if it’s to protect their family, it’s frowned upon.

Perhaps the only “normal” thing that I’ve witnessed from Tom Cruise in recent years was his refusal to allow the media to take pictures of he and Katie Holmes’ baby. But when this occurred, the media jumped on it and made a big hoopla about this lack of disclosure, and connected it to his Scientologist beliefs, and pretty much wrote it off as crazy. Honestly, I don’t see what’s wrong with protecting your baby from the media mob. I think the people who are crazy are the ones who hide out in bushes with cameras for weeks, trying to take one photo of the baby.

When Saddam Hussein was hanged, it wasn’t enough that the tv media showed everything up to the point just before his body was dropped through the floor, people wanted to see the whole thing. So millions of people signed on to youtube.com to watch the unadulterated, unedited version of the hanging.

For literally a split second, Janet Jackson’s boob was on display at the 2004 Superbowl Halftime show. Of those that were actually watching, many had no idea what they had seen. On top of that tens of millions of people would have never known or seen the “wardrobe malfunction” if it weren’t for the news. For several days the world became acquainted with Janet’s pastie, as the clip was on constant loop, making a big issue out of something that was an absolute non-issue.

We witnessed a similar occurrence later in 2004 in the aftermath of the “basketbrawl” involving the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers. ESPN ran the entire brawl on a 20 minute repeat throughout the course of the night. And it’s no conincidence to me that the following day there was a huge fight on the field between opposing college football teams (see 11.22.04 posting "The Media Again...").

The media is making a habit of unnecessarily divulging visual information that could easily be explained verbally. I think these visual images do unnecessary damage and amplify instances that don’t need to be amplified. If it was so reprehensible to see Janet’s breast, then why repeat it in slow motion on the news. In my opinion showing the basketbrawl led to other brawls in the immediate aftermath. In the current instance surrounding Virginia Tech, I suspect that we’ll see copycats in the future because the media has, in a sense, glorified him by displaying these images.

The only instance where discretion seems to have been at play is the sad story of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin being killed by a stingray last labor day. There was video footage of it, but those who were close to Irwin committed to not releasing the footage to the media even though I know there are many people who wanted to see it for themselves.

I’m glad they didn’t air the footage, and I just wish that the media would take that example and use it as a model. The story of his death was verbally told, and each of us can imagine what the scene might have looked like for ourselves. But nothing, from a news perspective, was lost by the decision to not air the footage.

Discretion can still be a good thing!

Out of respect for the victims of Monday’s shootings at Virginia Tech, I just wish that the media would demonstrate some level of humanity, and desist from glorifying the killer, focus on what we can learn from the situation, and honor the lives of those that were lost.

-Maelstrom

Where Were Al and Jesse When…

In the aftermath of the Imus debacle, I was astounded to hear the slew of criticisms of Civil Rights’ leaders, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. Critics from all sides kept saying that Jackson and Sharpton don’t have the “moral authority” to criticize Imus. I also heard that they aren’t Black leaders and there were many implications that they both are irrelevant and unnecessary. I also kept hearing that its time for new leadership in the Black community. Finally, I keep hearing “where are they (Jackson and Sharpton) when Black rappers denigrate Black women with their hip hop music?”

The only one of those criticisms I’ll agree with is that it’s time for new leadership in the Black community. But I don’t agree because Jackson and Sharpton are illegitimate leaders, rather because it is time for a new generation of leaders to stand up and carry on the work that Jackson and Sharpton have been carrying on since their predecessors passed the torch to them following the Civil Rights’ movement of the 50’s and 60’s.

In comparing Imus with Jackson and Sharpton, the media has dredged up 1 (Jackson) or 2 (Sharpton) statements that could be construed as racist, therefore maintaining that if Imus was wrong for making racists statements, Jackson and Sharpton aren’t the people to tell him so.

I disagree!

If Jackson and Sharpton did make racist statements, that makes Imus’ statements no less racist. Furthermore, Jackson and Sharpton are recognized as defenders for those who otherwise can’t defend themselves, therefore affording them the kind of clout that can bring light to a situation that deserves such attention. Acting in that capacity, despite purported past transgressions, they were certainly qualified to criticize Imus’ attack on the ladies of Rutgers. And I’m not typically into comparing levels of wrong-doing, but I think the media’s comparison of 1 or 2 politically incorrect sound bytes by Jackson and Sharpton is vastly different than a weekly barrage of bigoted, sexist and racist tirades over the last thirty years by Imus.

Above all the criticisms of the duo that bothered me over the last few days, the assertion that Jackson and Sharpton haven’t criticized Black rappers for using vile, derogatory and destructive language has just astonished me the most. I keep hearing “where are they” when rappers are using the same kind of language that got Imus canned. I submit to you that the question isn’t “where were Jackson and Sharpton when rappers used this kind of language,” but rather, “where was the media when Jackson and Sharpton were criticizing this era of rappers for using such language?”

I’m astounded that this criticism even exists given some of the events that Jackson and Sharpton have been involved with over the last 3 years.

As it pertains to Sharpton not speaking out about rappers and their violence and misogyny, I challenge anyone to do one thing: go to google.com and type these three words “sharpton rap violence.” A quick click on any of the hits that return should indicate to you that Rev. Al Sharpton has been fighting the war on violence and misogyny in rap music for several years. He’s even written editorials about it (see one in the New York Daily News archives: March 7, 2005). Sharpton even called for a 90 day ban and boycott on rap music that used such language and imagery; a boycott that got support from esteemed Princeton Professor Cornel West as well as Jesse Jackson. So, where was the media when Sharpton was attacking the rappers as he has done Imus? There is no inconsistency in his attack on Imus, it follows the same pattern he first established with rappers.

As for Jackson, due to his common last name a google search is a little harder to do, but we are on the heels of at least two major instances in which he called out Black artists for saying denigrating things. Following Michael Richards’ (of Seinfeld) racist tirade during a comedy act last year, Jackson brought Michael Richards and Paul Mooney on his radio show and convinced them both to quit using the “N” word, and Mooney committed to not using the “B” word anymore as well (in case you don’t know, Mooney is a Black comedian who is often credited with proliferating the use of the “N” word in comedy). Jackson didn’t have to bring Mooney on the show along with Richards, but he did because both men clearly had a problem using vile language in their professions. No distinction of Black or White was made at all. Where was the nationwide media at then?

Many have become well acquainted with Bill Cosby’s very loud disapproval of rap music and the way that Black parents are raising their children in this new millennium. Well one of the first prominent people to stand up alongside Cosby was none other than the Rev. Jesse Jackson. So to say that he hasn’t been around and hasn’t criticized black rappers for all these years, but is now scapegoating Imus, is completely false.

I will stop there for now, but I could opine about how both men are not “self-appointed leaders of the Black community” as several Black journalists have stated in the last week; they are leaders of the Black community by virtue of the body of work they have put together over the last 50 plus years (which include 3 very profoundly run Presidential campaigns as well as countless diplomatic acts here and abroad).

I’ll just finish by emphasizing that, with respect to Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson as it pertains to violence and misogyny in America today, THERE IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD!!! They have been consistent on these issues across the board! The media that keeps spouting these falsities should get back to journalistic integrity and dig up some files that will confirm what I’ve written in this post today.

The question isn’t “where were Al and Jesse when…,” it remains “where was the media when Al and Jesse were raising the issue before!”

-Maelstrom (a very frustrated, disturbed and disappointed Maelstrom)

PS: Sharpton certainly did apologize for his now infamous “white interlopers” comment!

Introducing Mr. Imus

Over the course of the last week many people became familiar with a man by the name of Don Imus. In case you still aren’t aware of who he is, let me fill you in. Don Imus was a CBS nationally syndicated radio talk show host who also had a television simulcast on MSNBC. He is often credited as being the original “shock jock” (that is to say that he was the first Howard Stern). Over the years he had taken on a much more intellectual and political radio persona, however he maintained many of the elements in his radio show that made him a shock jock.

He is currently in the news because last week, following the NCAA women’s basketball championship game, he made gender-cruel and racially incendiary comments toward the Rutgers women’s basketball team. The phrase that is most notably quoted from his near-minute tirade is “nappy headed hoes,” in reference to the predominantly black Rutgers team.

There are plenty of viewpoints that I could attack this issue from (including the implications of a phrase such as nappy-headed, to the issue of the lee-way money and influence can offer someone in his position), but I will try to be as targeted and focused as possible. I will direct most of this post toward explaining why I think Imus was well deserving of being fired, and briefly why comparisons of Imus to Hip-hop artists are misguided and ill-informed to a large extent.

In fact, let me start with that latter point.

Criticisms of hip-hop artists have become a major part of the conversation since this story gained nationwide attention. I’d like to say that for years rappers have been the topic of criticism by countless black leaders and commentators (including Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton). The verbal disrespect and the visual denigration they have propagated toward women, black women in particular, cannot be overstated. The negative nature of much (not all) of the culture is indeed reprehensible. However, the only similarity between Imus’ comments last week and the kinds of lyrics that we’ve become accustomed to hearing from rappers is the word ‘ho.’ And perhaps that is why the phrase “nappy-headed ho” is the only one the mass media, which is certainly dominated by white men, is the only one that we keep hearing about from Imus’ rant.

I would like to point out that Imus (and the guest on the show that day) went on to make very racially charged insinuations and gender/racial comparisons between the Tennessee and Rutgers women’s basketball teams. He even went so far as to compare watching the teams play each other to watching the Jigaboo’s playing the Wannabe’s (a reference to ‘School Daze,’ one of Spike Lee’s earlier films addressing the nature of classism amongst black people). The point I’m trying to make is that people who are upset that Imus got fired because “black rappers talk like this all the time” are looking only at a three word phrase that was apart of a much longer, more inflammatory discourse than the media is focusing on (seriously, dig up the entire tirade, I’m sure its somewhere on the internet, and you’ll understand what I’m talking about).

Imus has made racists statements totally unrelated to the kinds of misogynistic statements that (black) rappers have made over the years. Among some of his more recent racist statements are characterizations of Barack Obama as “that colored fellow,” referring to black female PBS news anchor Gwen Ifill as “the cleaning lady,” and discussing black female tennis players Venus and Serena Williams as savages that belonged in National Geographic instead of in Playboy magazine; AND THE LIST GOES ON, SERIOUSLY (a short list is included in the wikipedia.org entry about Imus)!

Certainly rappers aren’t saying such things. The two are not the same and I wish people would quit with the comparisons. Rappers are a different kind of evil which I have addressed in the past (see my 6/23/04 post ‘What’s a Tip Drill’), and will likely address in the future.

As for Imus being fired, people keep saying that “he is a good person and that it is wrong to fire him over this instance,” and “why didn’t they fire him before (when he made adverse statements) if he was so wrong this time,” and that “you have to take the man as a whole instead of just looking at one statement.” And the one that is frustrating me the most, “we have Free Speech, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants.”

Well, let me clear all of those arguments up by simply pointing out that any number of “good people” have been fired from various kinds of jobs for carrying on in behavior that their employer deemed detrimental to the company. Imus is a person who worked for large corporations, and they reserve the right to fire him for such behavior (I’m sure it was in his contract somewhere).

To briefly address the issue of Free Speech, I’d like to point out that Free Speech was totally exercised in this instance and not hampered at all. Imus exercised his right to Free Speech by saying what he said, the community and community leaders (including the very eloquent Rutgers Team) exercised their Free Speech by expressing their disdain for his comments, Imus’ corporate sponsors freely spoke by pulling their sponsorship from his shows, and his employers spoke by pulling him from their programming. Free speech was indeed exercised and not encumbered at all.

I hate it when people cower behind “free speech, free speech” when these types of situations come up. What you have to understand is the context under which you have free speech. There are regulations on virtually everything because virtually everyone has to answer to someone. We also have the “right to bear arms” as part of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can get a gun and that you can use it whenever, where ever and however you feel. So for the people crying “free speech,” are you also crying that a criminal has the “right to bear arms” when a masked fellow sticks up the local grocery store with a gun?

Free speech comes with many benefits, but can also come with consequences.

One thing that I find very interesting in watching countless hours of news coverage on this topic is that many of the people who are defending Imus by crying Free Speech were on board with the FCC for fining MTV and CBS and other stations during the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, and were upset that Bono (of U2) said the “F” word during a live telecast. So you want to regulate the F-word and a split second of a breast that most of the world didn’t see until after the news kept replaying it in slow motion, but you don’t want to censor a man who spews vile, hateful things ad nauseam everyday. I think there’s something seriously backwards with this.

On to my next point…

I know plenty of people that have been axed from their job for far less egregious offenses (like being consistently late) despite the good work they do or the good people that they are. So on this point, isn’t it fair that someone who has consistently engaged in detrimental behavior also be fired from his position. Sounds like the American way to me.

In my opinion, the great good that could easily come out of the Don Imus controversy is that now the hip-hop community may actually have to adjust the very low standards that the lyrics of the music and the imagery of the videos have set…

…And that is a great thing.

Till next time,

Maelstrom