Jack’s Blog

For the record, let me state that I am in full agreement that people who make slurs about someone’s race, heritage, sexual orientation or ethnicity should be made aware that this behavior is unacceptable.  Such comments, especially when made with an explicit intention to be mean and hateful, have no business in a civilized society and the offender needs to be, in most cases, educated that the world is “shrinking” and no longer do people only live and associate with “their own kind.” 

But, recently, people have seemed to take sensitivity to levels never before been discovered.  Granted, many of the remarks said in the ’60s and ’70s - and even the late 20th century - are now, (and ought to be, as the world shrinks to a civilized melting pot), taboo.  However, some of the statements that people claim offend them are a product of overly sensitive folks, many of whom I’m thoroughly convinced are looking for either their “15 minutes of fame” or “a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.”  And, please, don’t tell me someone is flipping through the Rolodex for their lawyer’s number for my last remark.  If you don’t know what I’m referring to, I sincerely say, “Thank you!”

The latest “speech criminals” to be disciplined (and worse, embarrassed) are the Los Angeles Clippers’ broadcast team, Ralph Lawler and Michael Smith.  The reason for the sullying of their names and each of them having to bear the moniker of “politically incorrect zealot” is due to a brief conversation they had during a recent Clippers’ telecast. An introduction of these borderline felons would be helpful in explaining their heinous crime.

Lawler is 71 years old and is currently in his 31st year with the Clips, having broadcast around 2400 regular and post season games (and anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of the Clippers knows that means nearly all of those contests were of the regular season variety).  Smith is in his 12th year.  Neither of these men are considered novices in the business.  What follows is a transcript (taken from the Los Angeles Times‘ website) of the viciously cruel comments that resulted in their having to serve a one-game suspension (and subsequently caused the management of the LA Clippers’ organization to issue a public apology for their two long-time employees). Smith: “Look who’s in.” Lawler: “Hamed Haddadi. Where’s he from?” Smith: “He’s the first Iranian to play in the NBA.” (Smith pronounced Iranian as “Eye-ranian,” a pronunciation that offended the viewer who complained.) Lawler: “There aren’t any Iranian players in the NBA,” repeating Smith’s mispronunciation. Smith: “He’s the only one.” Lawler: “He’s from Iran?” Smith: “I guess so.” Lawler: “That Iran?” Smith: “Yes.” Lawler: “The real Iran?” Smith: “Yes.” Lawler: “Wow. Haddadi that’s H-A-D-D-A-D-I.” Smith: “You’re sure it’s not Borat’s older brother?” Smith: “If they ever make a movie about Haddadi, I’m going to get Sacha Baron Cohen to play the part.” Lawler: “Here’s Haddadi. Nice little back-door pass. I guess those Iranians can pass the ball.” Smith: “Especially the post players. Lawler: “I don’t know about their guards.”  

Let me pose a question.  Are you as irate as I am?  Before you answer, first allow me to say, it was a rhetorical question, meant to come across as tongue-in-cheek. 

Are you freakin’ kiddin’ me?!?  The Times story also said “The on-air banter offended a viewer who e-mailed Fox to complain.”  A VIEWER (as in one).  Not one thousand guys, not one group of guys, not one of their sponsors.  Just a viewer.  And, although I’m not a gambling man, I’d be willing to place more than a few shekels that this complaint, whether - via email, phone call, flyer, letter, sit-in, demonstation - is not the first of this joker’s career - as verbally battered victim.

Have we, as a nation of educated humans, lost our abilty to distinguish light banter, intended merely as a form of levity and used to break up the monotony and boredom of the day’s events (like watching a Clippers’ broadcast) from those comments made to intentionally disparage a group of people?  Remarks like those said - from the heart - in hatred.  Like those of Michael Richards, Ann Coulter and Jesse Jackson? The Lawler-Smith conversation was merely a rather inept attempt at humor.  The others, and you wouldn’t be too far off the mark to include Don Imus’ now famous commentary with them, were in an entirly different and infinitely more egregious category.

Is what happened to the Clippers’ guys here to stay?  Is there anyone out there (and, unfortunately, there probably is) who would be offended if a broadcast team said, “Well, the Bulls are in town which means their ‘Eye-talian’ coach, Vinny Del Negro, will be in the building.”

“Are you sure he’s not Rocky Balboa’s older brother?”

“If they make a movie about D’Antoni, I’m going to get Sylvester Stallone play the part.”

Should someone truly be offended by those comments, I can only say that if experiencing such a horrific attack is the worst thing that ever happens to them, they’ve lived an extraordinarily charmed life.

The absurdity of the suspension of Lawler and Smith can only be summed up with a quote that matches it in logic.  It was uttered by that famous philospher, Mike Tyson:

“My biggest weakness is my sensitivity.  I am too sensitive a person.”

By now, I’m fairly certain most people in this country have heard, and probably have an opinion on, President Obama’s comment regarding the Cambridge police acting “stupidly” toward his friend Dr. Henry “Skip” Gates.

As I watched the press conference and listened to the President say he didn’t know all the facts, but that Skip Gates was a friend, so he might be biased, I was hoping he’d say, “and because I don’t know all the facts and because I’m friends with one of the people involved, yet don’t know any of the others, I probably should just focus on what I was elected to do, which has proved to be quite a task in itself.”

Instead, he made the now well-known remarks, making all the “extremists” day.  Enter, surprise! the Reverand Jesse Jackson.  To his credit, he was briefed that Sgt. Jim Crowley (imagine if his name didn’t have the “ley” at the end) was an officer with an outstanding reputation when it came to racial profiling, so much so that he was selected to teach fellow officers a class in racial profiling and why & how it should not be done.  Not exactly Mark Fuhrman.

But the Rev. Jackson (I always think of the late George Carlin’s line, “Exactly which church is Jesse Jackson the reverand for,” inferring, as blatantly as only George Carlin could, that the title allowed him a rather clever way to be exempt from paying taxes) never gives up the “pulpit” quite so quickly.  “The charges have been dropped but the stain remains.  Humiliation remains.  These incidents are so much a national pattern on race,” Jackson said, doing what he does best, fueling the fire any chance he gets to speak out on how poor race relations are, and how much better they need to be, knowing full well that he’d never admit the country was in racial harmony, as long as there existed one bigot.

My feelings toward Jesse Jackson were formed when he referred to Jews as “Hymies” and calling New York City “Hymie-town.”  Not only am I Jewish, but, coincidentally, my father’s name was “Hymie.”  I’ve heard from several blacks (friends of mine and others I don’t know, but have heard on television) that he has since apologized for those remarks but, you’ll have to forgive me if I feel that apology was as sincere as the one Michael Richards’ gave after his infamous tirade.  “I don’t know where those words came from,” Richards claimed.  I can tell you where they came from - his heart, because that’s where they were all along - just as Jesse Jackson’s remarks about Jews.

Then, I recall how Jackson flew in (or was flown in) to console and advise then-President Clinton after his Monica Lewinsky non-sexual affair - only at the time Reverand Jackson was performing this duty, it was reported that he had recently fathered a child out of wedlock.  No wonder he was brought in to advise the prez.  Did I hear somewhere that a major problem in the African-American community is the number of children born to unwed mothers?

President Obama’s remarks brought out the best in the self-promoting Sean Hannity too.  Always on the lookout for something in his wheelhouse, i.e. that which affords him the opportunity to criticize the President, the “stupidity” comment sent Hannity into a ratings orgasm.  He devoted his next show to this very subject and, to be “fair and balanced” (as only Fox News tells us they are), he had a panel composed of a white priest (let’s everyone forgive everyone else), a black pastor (forgive, hell, it’s all about race and Dr. Gates is a victim!) and an intelligent, blond representative from Fox News (hey, what’s wrong with a little eye candy) who, somehow, happened to agree with 100% of what host Sean “I have no problem having dialogue with anyone, as long as they side with me on every issue I bring up” Hannity.  The result was one of his most successful shows, success being measured by how much of the country can be further divided and make it look like the division was caused by the Democrats, especially the head one.   

On CNN, we were treated to Roland Martin, another talking head who never lets an opportunity pass to rail against all the racial prejudice there is in the country, yet somehow fails to mention that Barack Obama wouldn’t be president unless a whole lot of white folks voted for him - so aren’t we making a little progress, Rollie?  Martin said the charges were dropped, meaning there was no case.  Yet, others said due to the events that occurred, in situations like these, it’s common for the charges to be dropped.  

Some random thoughts about the case:   How about the woman who called 911 to report two black men breaking into a house in her neighborhood?  The aforementioned black pastor actually made the statement she was the cause of the problem for not recognizing her neighbor, Dr. Gates.  Wow!  And there’s the argument that if someone shows they live in that house, shouldn’t that be enough?  Someone familiar with domestic violence cases, on one of the shows I saw yesterday (I’m watching entirely too much TV), said there have been incidents where a husband broke into his wife’s (or ex-wife’s) house and brutality followed.  So, if the Cambridge police left after realizing he, in fact, did live there, and domestic violence ensued, what word would describe the cops’ behavior?  How about “stupid?”  Then, there’s the report that when Dr. Gates was asked to show his ID, he showed his Harvard ID, which didn’t have his address on it.  Whatever the case, was it really necessary to handcuff a 59-year-old man with a cane?  And is it true that Officer Crowley did not supply his name and badge number as requested by Dr. Gates?  Why wouldn’t he, (even if the professor was enraged) if that’s what it would have taken to diffuse the situation?

But nobody will acknowledge anyone else’s statements unless they are in line with their own.  Because it’s all about personal agendas (except for those who are also ratings-conscious) and as long as private agendas trump what’s good for the nation, we will continue to sink deeper into the abyss the individual has created.  Right now, we’re near, if not below, sea level. 

As far as my take on the situation (if you’ve read this far, you might as well finish), I’d say to the President (even though I don’t recall him asking), “Remember who you are.  The POTUS, as the CIA guys refer to you.  The majority of Americans voted for you to unify the country and to fix the overwhelming number of major problems that are currently destroying it.  Isn’t that a big enough task?  Was it really necessary to inject your opinions toward this case when you weren’t fully informed?  Isn’t that what your dissenters and the media do?”

We all understand he’s human (probably one of the reasons so many people like him is he’s shown more of a human side than others in that office), but he should make sure not to empower those who want to destroy him by promoting their own personal views and causes.  It’s not like he’s been checking off accomplishments he’s taken care of that were on his campaign promise “to do” list. 

A major point of contention in this overblown “Gatesgate” is the refusal by everyone involved to apologize.  Each person involved is a leader. One is the President of the United States, one is a leader of policemen (teaching peers against racial profiling) and one is a leader of the leaders of tomorrow (at one of the premier institutions of higher learning in America).  In The One Minute Apology by Ken Blanchard and Margaret McBride, there’s a quote that each of these gentlemen ought to heed (and if they don’t, possibly they’re not the leaders they make themselves out to be):

“The failure of many leaders begins when they are unwilling to admit to themselves that they’ve done something wrong.  It’s their job to accept responsibility for their actions.” 

 Â

Although I’m not sure who it was who thought up the idea of talk radio and television, there ought to be a statue of whoever it was in the backyard of every successful pundit’s mansion.

Why?  Because the premise was: be marginally (or completely) outrageous, stir up the emotions in your listeners (your “kind” - e.g. liberal or conservative will gravitite to whichever you are) and stimulate lively chatter.  I was going to say “debate” but it’s usually not debate at all.  It’s one side preaching to its choir, while the other side does the same to its own clones.  And it’s worked beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

The problem that has stemmed from it is this: all of this rhetoric is based on which side can WIN!  Except the question is: Win What?  Which side can be more flip and embarrass the other more?  It’s great entertainment (depending on which side you’re on and whether you’re listening to your “friends” or your “enemies”).  You can have a barrel of laughs at the other side’s expense or have your blood pressure skyrocket hearing the fanatics blather on using “facts” they pretty much they manufactured (as did your side, but that’s OK because it’s proving your case).

There are two topics that, I don’t believe, have been brought up (other than in a few of my previous blogs: 4/22/07, 6/30/08, 9/27/08 - this is a subject that hits my “hot button”).  One is that , while, initially this was brought up to add interesting discussion on radio and TV, it has blossomed into the anti-team motto: “What’s Right Is More Important Than Who’s Right.“  Every successful group, team, club, organization, company has at its core this fundamental belief.  Because of our attachment to these shows (and their hosts), we have lost the team concept that made America so great.

What these shows have done is violate Stephen Covey’s Fifth Habit of Highly Successful People - Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood.  If you’ve ever listened to one of these shows, especially if opposing sides are represented, all one side does, is to find a hole in their opponent (right there, we have pitted members of the same team - the United States of America - against each other) and wait … until they hear whatever tidbit they’ve been waiting to pounce on and, rather than listening all the way through, they interrupt (displaying what’s become a great American trait) and if their counterpart won’t stop talking, it turns into a shouting match to see which individual can yell over the other, thinking that whoever finishes the thought is declared the winner.

That has not - ever - been the case.  People who believed what they believed prior to the high decibel debate will still cling to their original belief.  In other words, what started out as good audio or visual entertainment, has polarized the nation - and, this is me being a realist more than a pessimist (although I hope I’m wrong) but I don’t believe we’ll ever be the same country we once were (at least when it comes to teamwork).

Right now, since the Democrats (liberals) are in power, the Republicans (conservatives) simply lie in wait for something - anything - to happen, whether it’s  a new policy, idea or proposal (independent of if, deep down, they think it’s great for the country) or some misstep, flub, or semi-controversial comment made by their opponent (which is how we look at those who disagree with us).  When that inevitably happens, it’s “OK, what’s wrong with it, how can we exploit it, twist it, repeat it thousands of times (even though it was only said once), to make us look good and, more importantly, them look foolish?

Should someone in the liberal camp be reading this and thinking, “Yeah, those bastards, that’s exactly what they do,” don’t be so righteous.  When the roles were reversed, the actions were identically reversed as well.  

The reason for the “statue” comment at the beginning of the blog is that many of the debates between the two fanatical groups deal with the financial well being of the citizens of the country: is the (upper) middle (working) class, because of their strong work ethic, getting wrongfully punished and therefore are expected to do more for those unfortunate or should the lower class (even though, many are good people who’ve been hit hard by the economy, lost their jobs and homes, and, basically, have next to nothing) start earning their keep, by pounding the pavement and pull themselves up by their bootstraps - similar to the rest of the country (other than those who form the “Lucky Sperm Club,” entrance of which is mandated by choosing one’s parents correctly)?

The ironic part of this entire dialogue is that every host, regardless of which side they’re on, have one trait in common: every last one of them is filthy, stinking rich as all get out.  Yeah, they have their charities and foundations, but so do Allen Iverson, Carmelo Anthony, Mark McGwire and the rest of the overpaid athletes (also entertainers).  And while those philanthropic (aka tax write-offs) are truly terrific gestures, don’t think for a minute that the “heads” of those foundations weren’t taken care of first - and in an extremely comfortable first class manner - before a dime was given away. 

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when some of these radical thinkers and screamers - on opposing sides - get together.  As pompous and egomaniacal as every last one of them - be it Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Jackson, Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Karl Rove or even “fair and balanced” Bill O’Reilly, a dollar to a nickel says there are at least some, “Is this a great country or what!” exclamations echoed throughout their little inner sanctorum.

Maybe it’s impossible, but what would be nice would be to have a television (or radio) show about people like us (call us the middle class) hosted by people like us.  And if the show topped the ratings, the hosts got no raises.  The money would go to those who deserved it.  Who?  That’s another verbal battle for another day.

Why are these “gonifs” (thieves) as my grandfather used to call them doing so well?  As a speaker I once heard (I believe it was Danny Cox of Orange County, CA) say, when asked if it was really possible to create emotion: 

“Did you ever go to a movie and laugh?  Ever go to one and cry?  Do you think it’s something they put in the seats?”

This country is in such bad shape now that, unless a newly elected president got up and stuttered and stammered through his speech, it would have to brighten the mood of the people.  The speech is always interesting, but for most Americans, present blogger included, what is usually of greater benefit is listening to the “experts” afterward.

Naturally, partisanship must be factored in, whether it be in the polls that follow or the guests who do.  The polls after a president’s speech are skewed, so we are told, along his party’s line because the only people who are polled are those who actually listen to the speech and, of those who listen, the majority are from the same party as the speaker.  So, it’s no surprise that the “those who approve” category was in the upper 60’s to mid 70’s (in terms of percent).

After hearing those results, it was time to listen to the other “pols” and representatives (whether they be talk radio or television hosts, columnists or others with a predetermined agenda - for either side).  The Obama supporters were giddy, listening to their summation of the speech while the anti-Obama’s will acknowledge the fact that the president is a good speaker (mainly because if they didn’t, no one would ever take them seriously again), but then got into the “pork” and the bigger government and other items of note they picked out which they claimed had been tried and failed in previous administrations.

The one person, of all those “interpreters,” for lack of a better term, I listened to following the speech (and that number was probably between 15-20) who showed the greatest amount of balanced opinion was none other than the president’s biggest (former) rival, John McCain.

I don’t pretend to be able to read minds, especially not one as savvy as Senator McCain’s - with all the experience he’s had and all the adversity he’s gone through (how’s that for an understatement), but one possible reason for his evenhandedness might be that he is the one person in the nation listening tonight who could have had the thought running through his mind, “There, but for the grace of a number of voters, go I.“  This thought process may have influenced his evaluation of what was said, keeping in mind that if the speaker actually had been him, he’d have hoped for an objective breakdown of the points he’d have covered. 

I saw Senator McCain on Larry King, during an interview in which The King asked him about most of the critical topics that were mentioned.  The Senator listened, as Stephen Covey advises, with the intent of understanding and replying to the question (as opposed to circumventing it to throw in a pointed criticism or an idea of his he thought would sound better to the American public), and on many issues he agreed with the president.  On others he agreed in principle but not in the actual practice (e.g. how Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was shut down) and on still others, he voiced his disagreement, but in a civil, logical and response.  That, among other traits, is what separates him from the over-the-top commentators and individuals with private agendas, wise as they may be, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Jackson (undoubtedly the first time those five names were mentioned in the same sentence).

Regarding Bernard Baruch’s line, I don’t think President Obama has to worry, but I think Senator McCain showed he doesn’t either.  That line was:

“A political leader must keep looking over his shoulder all the time to see if the people are still there.  If they aren’t still there, he’s no longer a political leader.”