Latest News

  • How Donald Sterling Will Beat The NBA

    Author Administrator

    First off, to be clear I am not a lawyer. I am an over the road truck driver. While this may make you want to be quick to dismiss my observations here, hear me out first. If at the end of the article you still want to dismiss me, feel free. If, however, this article leaves you thinking that I make some valid points, come back and read this first paragraph again. A truck driver, not a lawyer, came up with this. Donald Sterling will be represented by lawyers, not truckers. I'm willing to bet that they can do at least as good a job making a case for him as I am doing right here, and I would even go so far as to suggest that they might do better. Hard to imagine, I know, but it is possible.

  • NBA and Race Relations

    Author Administrator

    The verdict is in. Donald Sterling is banned from life from the NBA. He cannot run his team nor attend his (or any other NBA) games or any NBA meetings. Furthermore, new Commissioner Adam Silver has announced that the league owners will be meeting to vote on taking the Clippers away from Sterling. He also claims to have talked to a few of the owners and claims that he has the votes. Wait a second... I thought this guy was supposed to be a genius lawyer. Way to plead guilty to collusion before the deal is even done and open the door to the Sterling antitrust lawsuit that will allow him to keep his team. But I digress.

  • Donald Sterling is a racist, but...

    Author Steve Parry

    Yes, this is the topic of conversation for the day. Did you hear what Donald Sterling said to his girlfriend? He should lose his team. All over sports talk radio, and even into the mainstream sources, this is all I hear. What's my opinion on it? Sports talk show hosts are idiots. That's my opinion on the matter. I say this for two reasons. 1, these are guys whose very living depends on their ability to exercise free speech, yet they want a man to lose his livelihood for expressing an unpopular and undesirable opinion. Catch the irony here? But that aside, there is a much larger issue at hand. To be specific, I am speaking here to Evan Cohen, Steve Phillips, Dan Patrick, and Adam Schein. Would any of you hosts care to swim up from the bottom and deal with the real issue at hand here?

  • JFK Conspiracy Theories

    JFK Conspiracy Theories

    Author Administrator

    Two conspiracy theorists die and go to heaven. St. Peter tells them that Heaven is a place of all knowledge, so they can each ask him one question and he will reveal the answer to them. The first one says "Who killed John F. Kennedy?" St. Peter says "Lee Harvey Oswald." The other says "Who was he working with?" St. Peter says "He acted alone." The two of them look at each other and say "Wow! The coverup is bigger than we thought!" But seriously, what keeps this stuff going? Some would say the evidence. Other would say mental illness. I myself am unsure, and I have a hard time really focusing on this one as I didn't live through it. This article is pretty much a starting point for me and a note to self. Steve, debunk this one.

  • Defending Incognito

    Defending Incognito

    Author Administrator

    As with any story, it is hard to say what happened unless you were there yourself. So why do I feel the need to post an article defending Richie Incognito? Because I can recognize a good snow job when I see one, and there is a blizzard coming from Jonathan Martin and company on this deal. Now to be fair, I am well aware that I am in the minority opinion on this one. Chances are if you are reading this you already have an opinion on this topic. Either I am preaching to the choir or I am dealing with a skeptic who wants to get a good chuckle at a brainwashed Dolphins fan defending the indefensible. So while I typically take the approach of building a good case, let me lay the best logical argument I have on you to kick this thing off.

Tweet This

Print

Is America Racist?

Written by Administrator on .

Steve ParryThere has been a lot of talk flying around lately about racism in politics, and most of it seems to be centered around the birth certificate issue with President Obama. Now that he has presented the document and we have had a few days to mull it over, I wanted to take a moment to reflect on the general question of the alleged racism that drove the issue. I addressed this issue once before when it arose, but now Whoopi Goldberg has weighed back in on the subject, and Tavis Smiley has made an ugly prediction about the upcoming 2012 presidential campaign.

"I said over a year ago that this was going to be, this presidential race, Lawrence, was going to be the ugliest, the nastiest, the most divisive, and the most racist... in the history of this republic. I did not know that race to the bottom would begin so quickly."

If this election is to be "the most racist in the history of this republic" it has quite a hill to climb. After all, we had a black and a white candidate last time, and while it is arguable that race was to blame, we can surely see that one candidate was treated differently than the other. There were questions as to both peoples eligibility to hold the office, yet only one had to go through a legal process to defend his "natural born" citizenship. And while one candidate was able to reach across racial lines, the other one seemed unable to connect with the race of his opponent.

But it just might not be the way you are thinking. It wasn't the white candidate who got the seemingly preferential treatment, it was the black one. While John McCain had to submit to a Senate investigation that ultimately led to the Senate determining that he could legally hold the office, Barack Obama was never forced to answer the questions about his citizenship until now. Yet President Obama continues to call the questions that were asked about his citizenship "silly", claiming it is not a serious matter and the nation has more important business. He didn't seem to think it was silly, however, when the same questions were asked about McCain. He co-sponsored the House Resolution that recognized Senator McCain to be a natural born citizen. How could it be racist to merely ask the President to show his Birth Certificate when it literally took an act of congress to get his white opponent on the ballot?

The voting booth showed signs of what may have been a little racism as well according to exit polls. While 54% of young white voters sided with the black candidate, 44% of white voters overall went for Obama. This is almost the same number that went for the last Democrat to win the highest office, Bill Clinton. Yet 96% of black voters voted for Obama, compared to the 83% that helped Clinton to his victory. Once again, these numbers could be explained by something other than racism, but I firmly believe that if 96% of the white vote had gone to McCain we would not only be seeing the charge made, but you would be hard pressed to find a Republican commentator with the audacity to deny it.

My desire here is not to make a charge of racism against any group of people. The numbers that I have given are purely fact, and as I pointed out, there could be other explanations. As for Whoopi Goldberg, I firmly believe that she is likely unaware of the process that John McCain was submitted to before he was allowed to run. But Tavis Smiley, as a journalist for PBS, doesn't have that excuse. It is his job to know. If he is so outraged, then there are a couple of legitimate questions that he should be asking.

  1. Why didn't President Obama request a Senate hearing into his eligibility? Since he, as a co-sponsor, was clearly aware of the questions asked of McCain. Could it be that Obama knew he couldn't survive such scrutiny? It was, after all, the sworn testimony before the Senate that "if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,". President Obama, on the other hand, had only one parent who was a citizen. Could this be why he didn't want the extra scrutiny that McCain got?
  2. Why doesn't President Obama, who campaigned on being a "post-racial" candidate, dispel this notion that he is being treated unfairly due to his race? Once again, as a cosponsor, he is aware of what McCain went through. Could he be avoiding the topic because exposing it would highlight the fact that there are still unanswered questions about his eligibility?

My disagreements with President Obama are, and have always been, on the substance of the issues, not on the color of his skin. But when my Party is the victim of such horrible and unfounded accusations that are thrown around by people like Tavis "Can I Buy A Consonant" Smiley and Whoopi Goldberg, I must stand up and defend myself and my party from the charges. For us to ask that the same process that Senator McCain had to go through to be applied to President Obama is hardly racist. Insisting that we have no right to ask him the same questions that we asked of a white candidate, however, stinks of bigotry. If these individuals were not aware of that process, I would challenge them to educate themselves on a subject before they speak out on it.  If they are aware of that process, I would suggest they deal with the beam in their eye before they start looking across the aisle in hopes of finding a moat in someone else's.

Gallery

Phinatic