Of GOATS and Men

I'm watching (out of the corner of one eye) another casual, yet boring debate on whether LeBron James is The GOAT. In full disclosure, I detest making lists -- with the exception of giving instructions or going to the grocery store. But I've participated in this and similar arguments on multiple people, places, and subjects with too many people to count. I have my opinion on James and others, but it's not my focus here. Instead, I'll share this idea for consideration; greatness is an altogether separate quality from 'best', 'excellent', 'most valuable', etc.. It speaks to those individuals, places, events, etc., that transcend their respective spheres of interest or simple moments in time.

The idea of someone or something being The GOAT is extremely subjective. It's affected by our individual selective bias, attention, and retention as much as 3rd parties influencing what we see, hear, and read. Even those of us who are very well versed on a given subject can't read every book, see every video, or experience every event to present our opinions as authoritative over that of millions who are likely witnesses to that same experience and many others. Such pronouncements are really outrageous when considering they're made in the moment without much regard to history. As much as it's entertaining to argue James as The GOAT over the Black Mamba or... gasp (!)... Air... it's nonetheless a bit irrational considering we have a generation of people who didn't experience the impact of Air in real time. (I'm sorry, but trying to figure out Air's impact on society from YouTube videos is a fool's errand.) Those of us who are completely flummoxed by the mention of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Russell as The GOAT should take their seats and remain quiet until called upon.

So all you wannabe influencers, tastemakers, gatekeepers... ease up off the gas. Let the rest of us enjoy and appreciate all of these outstanding people, places, and things while keeping an eye out for the emergence of new greatness in the future. It's the one thing we can all be sure about.

Welcome to Downtown Largo and the Hard Sell

My granddaddy had a saying that putting a kitten in an oven doesn't make it a biscuit. The Metro station at Largo Town Center was recently renamed 'Downtown Largo', and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission has announced its new headquarters will be built there. Downtown Largo?

With all due respect to Prince George's County, MD County Executive Angela D. Alsobrooks, M-NCPPC, and the county's marketing team, Largo is not a town for it to have a downtown, uptown, midtown, sidetown, or whatever. A 'town' is defined as having two characteristics: defined boundaries and its own government -- neither of which Largo possesses. I get county leaders and residents wanting to put the best face forward when promoting Prince George's County and its communities as places to live, work, and play. But all too frequently there comes a point when advertising boils over into hyperbole that overpromises and underdelivers. The new hospital center and now M-NCPPC moving its HQ there are truly notable developments. But outside of attending a Commanders' game, those of us who don't live or work in Largo or its adjacent neighborhoods, including Kettering, the town of Capitol Heights (!), Landover, Lake Arbor, or parts of Mitchellville, have zero incentive to travel there regularly. (The former Largo Town Center, which was an attempt at rebranding the Blvd at Cap Center -- itself conceived as a destination for replacing the Capital Centre -- and immediate surroundings never really caught on.) I have absolutely nothing against Largo or the county's newfound energy for its development. It's a very nice community with a LOT of upside. I would be comfortable living there. I'm only saying the hard sell's unnecessary. I would rather see the effort that's put into hype redirected into ventures whereby residents, local businesses, corporations, and organizations can buy in and exercise their voices in a sustainable future for Largo and communities throughout Prince George's County.

$.98 Movie (Non-)Review: Coming to America 2

The process of creating art is hard.  Creating art by way of an assembly line is terribly difficult.  And creating art that finds widespread acceptance among consumers is exceedingly rare.  Eddie Murphy is one of the few people who have managed to pull off the elusive trifecta of creating a body of work over decades which is of consistently high quality and is commercially successful.  He has even pushed the envelope on his considerable talent with noteworthy dramatic performances as in Dreamgirls. The point here being Murphy has earned the benefit of presenting us with occasional flops. 

But Coming to America 2 sucks.  I mean... it's really awful.  It's Best Defense bad; Meet Dave bad.  It's not as if I held expectations the sequel would recapture the lightning in a bottle that was the first movie.  I don't believe I was influenced too much by the advance hype.  I was hoping for a mildly entertaining update on the lives of Akeem, Semmi, and other characters from the original; something I'd watch just to pass time.  However, CTA2 failed to meet even this minimal standard.  I actually passed out after about 35-40 minutes out of sheer boredom.  And to think I turned away from my normal routine of Sunday morning public affairs TV for this.

I'm kinda, sorta okay now with having watched this bomb though, because as I stated earlier Murphy's body of work earns him the occasional pass.  I did get an extra hour of sleep.  I dreamed I was a studio executive about to reject a proposal for a sequel to a classic movie or TV series... or worse, a remake.

Fast Times in the Slow Lane on Wall Street

The constant pace of technological evolution has again stirred the waters At The Bottom of the Well as it seems every third person on social media fancies themselves a business coach or financial advisor.  I understand there's a growing cross-section of folks motivated to inspire everyone toward financial security and have no problem with it.  I want to believe most of them mean well.  But, it's these... motivational speakers' (?) pushback against putting any real effort toward understanding business basics, finance in depth, or the very product/service/activity they're hyping that's unnerving.  Even hacks tend to know a great deal about their subject matter; it's just that they disregard transparency and disclosures for turning a buck.

My earliest encounters with this phenomenon online were with acquaintances who were pushing one of several direct sales/MLM/network marketing opportunities -- some of whom were sometimes hawking more than one at a time (!) -- as the road to personal economic salvation.  There are two giant flaws with this approach: one, few people are cut out to be entrepreneurs; two, the hard sell (including the use of funnels) is better suited for selling high-ticket items such as real estate or automobiles. But cellular phone service? Or energy? Forex trading software?  I'm not suggesting MLM is illicit or inherently ineffective.  It's just that direct sales... Hell... sales in general ... isn't for most people, especially when the company offers practically no support and the 'independent representative' has to rely upon their social capital to recruit new reps and moving volume in order for the 'business' to earn decent money.  Once, a female acquaintance and her brother took to bickering with me over the cryptocurrency scam BitConnect.  The brother trolled me with selfies from BitConnect conferences and screen shots flexing his supposedly exploding account balance until just days later the con was exposed and the whole racket fell apart.  Naturally, dude ghosted everyone.  Another acquaintance held classes on teaching people how to buy Bitcoin notwithstanding the fact advising investments without a license or promoting securities without making certain disclosures is illegal. 

Many of these mountebanks and hustlers will state they're not economists, CPAs, CFPs, brokers, dealers, or even business owners of any type as if the announcement magically excuses them from any responsibility for trafficking in nonsense and disinformation.  'I'm just sharing information', they'll say. However, when we ask them to explain what's behind the performance of whatever investment they're promoting at the moment, the response is, 'the price is going up', as if they're real-life characters from the movie Idiocracy ("It's got electrolytes").  It is this attitude that was at the root of the recent WallStreetBets/Robinhood/GameStop pump-and-dump scheme that's still costing retail investors millions and destroying public confidence. 

The nature of how we use social media indicates we're going to see more of this stunting in the future, and so the best defense is to ask questions and otherwise do your own homework.  Keep in mind many of the people appearing to volunteer business or investment advice often have no skin in the game whatsoever by way of professional experience or training to qualify as reliable sources.  We owe it to ourselves to always measure twice, cut once.

10 Thoughts: Episode 1 of 'The GOP Presidential Candidate Dating Game' (Also Known as The GOP Presidential Primary Debate)

I managed to make through the entire telecast of Fox News' 1st GOP presidential debate featuring the presumptive 'A list' candidates.  In full disclosure, I only watched to satisfy my occasional jones for perverse entertainment and theater of the weird.  Here are the first 10 thoughts that came to mind:

• The candidates' latest idea for outlawing abortion involves invoking the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the unborn.  The 14th Amendment, however, only applies to, "... persons born [emphasis mine] or naturalized in the United States...".  Don't these dudes read?
• The candidates -- most notably John Kasich -- gave Donald Trump a pass for his irresponsible comments on immigration
• Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson are only in the race for future book deals and speaking fees on the rubber chicken circuit
• Aside from Huckabee, most of the candidates with experience as public executives demonstrated the importance of pragmatism
• You just know someone reminded Marco Rubio not to bring a bottle of water on stage
• Rand Paul is his father with the crazy sanded off.  He desperately wants us to accept him as a 'free thinker', but... he's not.  By contrast, Scott Walker wants everyone to accept him as an friendly idiot.
• Ted Cruz' campaign isn't sincere either.  I think he's betting The Dumpster Fire Known as Donald Trump will die out by winter, so that he can resume picking up checks from soulless, faceless corporations.
• Jeb Bush is a mush-mouthed, equivocating wimp in public.  IMO, it's a calculated decision to cover up the fact he's an asshole.  The equivocating is his way of searching for an answer he thinks will shut everybody up, which is the sign of a clever person.  But let's be clear... being clever is not the same as being smart. 
• Chris Christie is an asshole too.  But he makes no attempt to hide his asshole-ness.  He actually upbraided Paul for defending (?!?) civil liberties
• The candidates are unanimous in their calls to 'repeal and replace' the Affordable Care Act.  However, not one of them has uttered a single word on ideas for what a replacement would look like.

And to think I missed watching 'The Avengers' for the 237th time for this.

28 Black Films Black Film Critics Need to See Before Pulling Someone's Ghetto Pass

I don't do lists.  Lists are for lazy people.  More often than not, a list, no matter how good the intentions, leaves off deserving candidates.  At other times, lists are created to lend the author or authors the appearance of credibility.  I came across an example of the latter the other day on Facebook in a link to a 2014 blogpost on Scott Woods Makes Lists from "librarian, writer, poet, and critic" Scott Woods titled 28 Black Films You Need to See To Keep Your Race Card.  The title King of All Blacks is conspicuous by its absence from Woods' blurb.

In scanning through the list, there are certainly a number of no-brainers: Love Jones, Do The Right Thing, Boyz n The Hood, A Soldier's Story.  There are several iffy entries, including Purple Rain and Waiting to Exhale.  But the list is undone with the inclusion of some real dogs, like Harlem Nights, The Wiz, and... Beat Street.

Beat Street?  WTF?!?!?

So without further ado I'm submitting for readers' consideration my own list of 28 Black Films Black Film Critics Need to See Before Pulling Someone's Ghetto Pass (ranked in no particular order):

1. Juice
2. Down in The Delta
3. Pootie Tang
4. If God is Willin' and da Creek Don't Rise
5. Shaft (1972)
6. Brother From Another Planet
7. Def by Temptation
8. The Inkwell
9. Bird
10. Malcolm X
11. Fear of a Black Hat
12. Good Hair
13. Cornbread, Earl, & Me
14. Paid in Full
15. House Party
16. When The Levees Broke
17. Dead Presidents
18. Coming to America
19. Bird
20. Mississippi Masala
21. Always Outnumbered
22. Cooley High
23. American Pimp
24. Dreamgirls
25. Antwone Fisher
26. Deep Cover
27. Baby Boy
28. Car Wash.

Honesty Ain't Policy

The main takeaway from a recent media celebrity non-scandal -- ESPN's suspension of First Take's Stephen A. Smith -- is that honesty is overrated.  Smith, certainly no shrinking violet when it comes to expressing himself, gets paid to speculate and otherwise voice provocative opinions.  Beyond the fact he was filling time, I have absolutely no clue why he decided to postulate on the dynamics of modern dating as if it provided additional insight into Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice's knocking out his (now) wife.  IMO, Smith spoke truthfully.  But in doing so, he got in trouble.

I'm not defending Smith as a victim of political correctness gone amok.  He isn't.  Neither has he been subjected to a double standard.  He forgot -- egged on by ESPN -- to make sure his self-check was turned on.  He certainly didn't help his case with that non-apology apology tweet-a-thon.  But I get that.  I am not about to rip him for demonstrating a common conceit of modern journalists, commentators, and pundits.  They're socialized to believe their every opinion is relevant, therefore valid, and facilitates healthy conversation.  ESPN is one of Smith's enablers.  Yet I've got no issue with the network throwing one of its talking heads under the golf cart. 

I refuse to get into an argument whether ESPN and Smith, respectively, were 'right' or 'wrong' as it's clear to me we humans aren't as concerned with candor, due diligence, honesty, full disclosure, etc., as many of us like to profess.  To paraphrase Jack Nicholson's Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men, we can't handle the truth.  We often struggle when facing random and various facts, or more accurately, have difficulty reconciling fact with emotion.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Our brains' ability to block out select unpleasant or overpowering stimuli is actually quite impressive.  Dissonance, and in some cases outright ignorance, protects us.  There is a purpose; a value in 'for your eyes only', 'confidential', and 'need to know'.  None of us need to know everything -- the impossibility of which notwithstanding.

The corollary to We Don't Need to Know Everything is also true: we don't need to say everything.  Having the liberty to express ourselves isn't the same as knowing when, where, how, why, and to whom expressing ourselves is appropriate.  It seems many people in our culture are obsessed with volunteering their every thought or action for all to hear and see, regardless of whether the thoughts or actions make sense or if anyone is actually paying attention.  The behavior drives social media, reality TV, tabloid news, and is the basis for a 'self-help' industry that alternately attracts and repels people, sometimes simultaneously.  Considering the regularity with which individuals are censured for their public, semi-public, and sometimes private faux pas, off-the-cuff bad puns, tortured analogies, and malaprops -- often deservedly so -- my surprise is more of us aren't learning from these examples to just shut up.  

Beware: The Phony War on Go Go Music

In metropolitan Washington, D.C., a minor front in the region's ongoing cultural wars is being re-opened as a bass-ackwards reaction to regulations aimed at making public dance halls safer.  Public officials in Prince George's County, Maryland have been stepping up enforcement of an ordinance, CB-18, requiring more rigorous safety, egress, and security standards of public venues that host dancing.  Briefly, CB-18 requires 'public dance hall' [emphasis mine] owners to submit plans demonstrating their venues have adequate emergency exits, sufficient security inside and immediately outside the venue (including the use of security professionals registered with the county), and ample visitor parking with a (now) $1,000 annual license fee.  The law was created in response to the sporadic violence and illicit behavior that's associated with late night crowds, dancing, and alcohol consumption. 

As county officials have grown increasingly aggressive over time enforcing CB-18, it's important to note the law neither bans dance halls nor targets any one genre of music.  Nevertheless, many artists representing the indigenous Go Go milieu are crying 'foul' as various venues are shuttered, or their alcoholic beverage sales licenses suspended and venue owners fined.  Emerging music acts depend on these venues -- mostly 'mom & pop' restaurants and bars -- for earning income from concert performances.  But taken together with fly-by-night event planners/concert promoters and cheapskate restaurant owners, many of Go Go's artists and supporters perpetuate a dysfunctional cycle of superstition, mistrust, cynicism, and general unprofessionalism that alienates fans and undermines the artform's profile.   

Enter felon, race-baiting McActivist, and huckster Ronald Moten.  Moten, a D.C. resident and former CEO of the (now) defunct, scandal-ridden non-profit Peaceoholics, has taken to YouTube with a call to arms aimed at area African-Americans warning of an impending ethnic cleansing, first in Prince George's County and ultimately D.C., by unnamed (assumably 'White') gentrifiers wielding allegedly unjust laws like CB-18.  It's an absurd conspiracy theory considering CB-18 was authored by Af-Am elected officials responding to complaints from mostly Af-Am constituents, vetted through an open, democratic process by a county legislative body made up of mostly Af-Ams, and signed into law by an Af-Am county executive.  Nevertheless, Moten portrays Councilwoman Karen Toles as a hypocrite for defending CB-18 in a recent TV interview after being charged with a traffic violation in 2012, which is like an arsonist calling out the Fire Marshall for puffing on a cigarette at home.  He even has the temerity to justify his outrage as a civil rights issue claiming entertainers are entitled to perform concerts.  Yet not once does Moten address the civil rights of fans attending the dances, or residents who live near the venues to be safe.  Neither does he explain CB-18, the reasons specific events were cancelled, or the fact CB-18 does not prohibit public dance halls or censor Go Go music.

Go Go music's artists, entrepreneurs, and fans would be wise to dismiss the distortions and fearmongering by Moten and others as self-serving rhetoric.  CB-18 represents an opportunity to distance Go Go from the aforementioned negative perceptions.  If we're to organize a movement
educating the public about Washington, D.C.'s music and culture, fan safety at concerts and other public venues has to be a priority.  Besides, creating safe, comfortable environments where people can experience Go Go music is good for business.   

5 Thoughts: Florida v. Zimmerman

I'm still a bit numb to fully organize my thoughts in reaction to the verdict in Florida v. Zimmerman, but the following points were the first ones to come to my mind:

• Court cases -- whether criminal or civil -- aren't decided on the basis of what's believed or felt; they're decided on what can be proven
• race was merely a subtext to this tragedy
• George Zimmerman claimed self-defense, not 'stand your ground'
• 'profiling', when done by an individual, is legal, commonplace, and a normative human behavior
• society's cynics, nihilists, and demagogues see Zimmerman's acquittal as their cue to promote their personal agendas at the cost of trivializing Trayvon Martin's life and killing.

The Exploitation of Charles Ramsey... and You

Here's an example of our cynical news media at work. A man eating a meal at a nationally-known fast-food establishment is distracted by a commotion coming from outside the restaurant. He rises from his seat to run toward the source of the noise. Upon arriving at the scene, he joins another man in responding to a call for help from a woman inside the house. The two men eventually break down the door, facilitating the rescue of 3 women and 1 girl who had been held captive inside the house for years. Local media arrive at the scene shortly after law enforcement and emergency personnel, presumably, to interview those involved in the rescue. Only the first man who arrived at the scene isn't interviewed. (We'll call him, 'Man #1'.) Reporters mostly focus on Man #2; a distinctly odd-looking character armed with a full compliment of similarly colorful expressions. But we can't find fault with Man #2 for being himself. After all, he's due a little face time in front of the TV cameras after such a selfless act.

However, we're kidding ourselves. Man #2 is an unwitting tool; a prop used by the news media to dramatize an already dramatic story. Man #2 has now become, in fact, The News. Relatively little coverage is being afforded to the still-unfolding police investigation. Meanwhile, Man #1 has yet to get even a complimentary cup of coffee from the aforementioned fast-food restaurant. I can't help but notice Man #1's appearance and mannerisms are otherwise unremarkable. Man #2's interviews have since become a smash Internet meme in the tradition of the Harlem Shake and Antoine Dodson. He and the videos featuring his interviews are getting major league face time on seemingly every national TV news outlet. Both the meme and the so-called legitimate news interviews feed the 24/7 freak show that explains much of American commercial news media today. It's blatantly self-serving. And that means...

Many of today's news editors and journalists are insincere about providing the public with information whereby we can improve our daily lives. I wonder how much of this attitude has infected the media industry after today reading a suburban DC AM station boast about one of its hosts 'interviewing' Man #2 last Saturday (which I strongly suspect was driven by a misguided attempt to make Man #2 a race martyr). Their conceit stands as evidence the radio station thinks of itself as The News ahead of the victims, the accused, the investigation, Man #2, and certainly Man #1. By making themselves the spectacle, they're also signaling their contempt for their listeners' intelligence. All things considered, it's safe to say the news media isn't really concerned with what we think as long as we continue to watch or listen to the sideshow.

Signs of the Apocalypse: Maryland to Join the Big 10?

My question is why would the Big 10 ask Maryland to join?

It's clear that football is the big $$ in collegiate athletics, and a school looking to make big $$ wants to be in the most prominent conference possible.  In the BCS, the SEC and the Big 10 are the creme de la creme; their top teams are assured the highest rankings and best slots in the biggest bowl games.  Even the weak programs in these two conferences benefit from the windfall produced by their top-tier teams' bowl performances.

There isn't an ACC team that's a legitimate threat to win the football national championship.  Truth be told, the conference isn't that focused on football, despite FSU, Clemson... and maybe Virginia Tech.  That means ACC schools ultimately are left with empty cups when the bowl money's distributed.  So, if Maryland is going to field a legitimate BCS football team, it would be foolish for the school to NOT join the Big 10.  This is about business.

All this talk about 'tradition'?  FEH!!!  The ACC threw tradition out the window when it started expanding back in the 90s.  The day has already arrived when the Terps no longer face every conference rival in football each season (it's not like fans are attending games, anyway); in hoops this season MD faces N.C. State, Clemson, Miami, and Ga Tech only once.  If it's tradition you want, ask Jefferson Pilot to put their archived tapes of Maryland games online.

I've resigned myself to accepting Maryland will never, ever again compete for a BCS championship in football, or fill that too-ambitious-by-half football stadium.  I'm OK if they decided to downgrade to the FCS, or not field a NCAA football team.  So, if Kevin Anderson asks me, I'll tell him to take the money. 

Of Kickoffs, Running Backs, and Player Safety in the NFL

My goodness... there's certainly a lot of news around player safety in the NFL lately.  From the increased focus on head injuries, to implementing and enforcing various new rules, to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's dropping an iron fist on the New Orleans Saints -- including fining and suspending individual Saints players, coaches, and team executives, past and present (OW!) -- for its bounty system, the league is taking relatively aggressive steps to protect its main asset: the players.  Unfortunately, it has taken a tragedy to focus both the league and fans on the importance of player safety.  Perennial All-Pro linebacker Junior Seau was found dead in his home May 2nd, reportedly of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  Many people are already speculating Seau was a victim of degenerative brain disease brought on by repeated concussions suffered over a 20 year career.  Count me in with that group.

'Bountygate' has accounted for much of the NFL melodrama this off-season.  When the story first broke, the public discussion settled around whether Goodell had gone too far in punishing Saints General Manager Mickey Loomis, Coach Sean Payton, and former Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams for administering an incentive system for big hits on opposing players.  Initially, I thought use of the term 'bounty' to describe what the Saints had done was a little over the top.  'Bounty' to me in this context means rewarding a player for disabling an opponent by any means necessary.  If that means chop blocking a defensive lineman on a pass play, so be it.  A defender throwing down a runner already in the grasp, after his forward progress has stopped or once the whistle has blown is allowed the benefit of the doubt.  I don't believe Payton, Williams, and staff encouraged such dirty play and cheap shots.  I know from my own (piddling) experiences in and around organized football that players are taught to be aggressive but 'clean', meaning there are formal and informal rules of engagement on the field to be followed.  Extracurricular activity, e.g.; a punch to a runner's chops while he's at the bottom of a pile, is frowned upon.  Defensive players are not to 'headhunt'.  Above all, there's no hitting of an opponent after the whistle blows or who's stepped out of bounds. 

Football coaches and players customarily laud players who land big hits.  So do fans.  Players are definitely penalized by coaches and their teammates for making errors, both in practice and games.  NFL coaches routinely fine players for errors and penalties the latter has committed during games.  Offering them rewards for big hits seemed consistent and proper to me.

But then I thought how silly it is to have to incentivize a dude already making thousands of dollars, if not millions, for doing what he's supposed to do while playing a cotdamned game.  A $1,000 extra for a pancake block when you're already getting $500,000?  If I have to offer you what is, essentially, chump change on top of big bucks to take a little pride in your work, I don't want you on my team.  I realize this isn't Goodell's rationale for punishing Loomis, Payton, Williams, etc.  But it did cause me to focus on what's important -- the players' safety.

Cynical pundits and idiot fans (or is it idiot pundits and cynical fans?) maintain Goodell's politically-correct micromanagement threatens to ruin the sport of football.  When the league introduced stronger rules aimed at protecting quarterbacks, slobs, scrubs, wannabes and never-weres wailed football was being sissified; emasculated.  Why not just ban tackling altogether, give 'em flags, and make it flag football?  There's also the phony he-man argument: football's a violent game... if you don't want to get injured, don't play.  A similar outburst came after the NFL announced tougher enforcement against helmet-to-helmet shots, swings to players' heads, and spearing.  Admittedly, it's often difficult to police helmet-to-helmet shots.  A defender rushing toward a runner at full speed can't simply readjust his body once in the motion of tackling a target that's also in motion.  Helmet-to-helmet hits are a gray area.  Still, I'd prefer the league err on the side of safety.  I happen to think a professional football player will get the hint about keeping his head up while tackling once the fines pile up high enough.

Another recent NFL rule change on account of player safety involved kickoffs.  Teams now kickoff from their 35-yard line, instead of the 30 -- where kickoffs were spotted between 1994 and last season.  A sportswriter buddy of mine went spastic about the change, predicting the ruination of football.  I explained to him a) NFL kickoffs used to be spotted from the 35, and b) players' higher exposure to injuries during kickoffs due to c) the laws of physics.  He countered by rationalizing kickoff returns as potential scoring plays, data showing their infrequency and escalated physical risks aside.  I added the NFL has a history of changing rules, partially motivated by aesthetic considerations, that have tipped the balance of the game toward offenses and diluted the quality of play on the field.  I went so far as to posit rule changes favoring passing have fundamentally altered the game to a bad effect.  NFL offenses' new emphasis on passing has morphed pro football into a glorified video game of oversized humans colliding into one another at fantastic speeds, their sprints no longer interrupted by the contact than comes naturally with scrimmaging.  Pro defenses have countered with ever more aggressive and frequent blitzing using ultra-athletic man-child freaks of nature positioned further and further away from the line of scrimmage.  Just imagine if NASCAR constantly tweaked its rules so that the race cars could travel faster and faster, or race distances were made longer and longer, at the expense of driver safety.  The organization's integrity would go right down the toilet.

Besides player safety and the NFL's integrity, two potential beneficiaries of genuine rule changes are running backs and the ground game.  There are multiple teams who make only a gratuitous attempt at running the ball.  Absent from the current pro game are the 'every down' backs who possessed rushing, blocking, and pass catching skills.  I might be guilty of retrostalgia on this point -- pining away for an era that never really existed.  But it seems to me that in the pre-West Coast offense days, successful teams were built around bruising, punishing running games.  Before the mid-90's it seemed teams didn't run the ball just to control the clock to protect leads as time was running out; it was understood a successful ground game exacted a psychological price from your opponent.  So teams ran the ball as an exercise in manhood.  And what fan didn't get amped at the sight of Earl Campbell trucking Isiah Robertson, or Tony Dorsett exploding past defenders as if their feet were cemented in place?  Running backs suffered catastrophic injuries then too (see, 'Gale Sayers'), however I don't recall hearing of head injuries to the extent we're hearing about them today.    My understanding of physics leads me to believe the force generated by two 250-lb men crashing into each other from points beginning 7 yards apart is much less than that generated by the same 250-lb men crashing into each other from points beginning 15 yards apart.  I have no evidence to support my suspicion that the rise in head injuries being reported by pro football players corresponds with rule changes aimed, in part, at 'liberating' play.  OTOH, I do believe should the NFL re-implement select rules to take some of air out of passing games, there will be a corresponding drop in players suffering head injuries. 

Let's hope the NFL does the right thing. 

Alt.Blackness

The traditional narrative of Blackness in America is driven by the Black bourgeois; a class of Af-Ams who've been imbued with a sense of noblesse oblige toward 'Black' culture, generally speaking.  As Af-Ams fought and died to be respected as equals in American society, this narrative focused on showcasing the best examples of Black culture -- or more accurately, those which 'Whites' would not find objectionable.  The intent behind the production and distribution of positive Black imagery was certainly well-meaning and innocuous, if not invaluable to a minority culture coming to grips with the realities of self-determination.   

The Black Power movement of the 60's ushered in a militant variation on du Bois' Talented Tenth hypothesis.  Confrontational in tone and deed, this buppie militia represents a dissonant political vision.  Essentially, these would-be Black neo-culture warriors fuse romanticized versions of Malcolm X, Kwame Toure, a young Jesse Jackson, etc., with a nihilistic, cynical take on 'Black' culture into a counter-narrative intended to effect the wholesale socioeconomic advancement of Af-Ams.  In an odd twist, the many bits and pieces that make up this counter-narrative aren't of, or from within Af-Am culture, but its exterior.  And... they're much like long-dead corpses exhumed by crank scientists bent on answering questions never asked.  The buppie militia makes a habit of subjecting everything to a phony 'Black test'; an exam with no correct answers or cogent questions.  Ask one of these signifying monkeys what's the point of raking, say, The Cosby Show over the coals for allegedly being inauthentic, and they'll respond by dissembling.  Some of the more intricate scenarios involve wholesale conspiracies befitting a summertime Hollywood blockbuster, complete with decontextualized factoids for an air of intellectual authenticity.  In example: Welfare was a program conceived and implemented for the purpose of continuing the subjugation of Af-Ams -- destroying its individuals' sense of dignity and purpose, and therefore destabilizing its families.  Hackumentary filmmaker Janks Morton, Jr.'s What Black Men Think went so far as to indict established Af-Am organizations and politicians as co-conspirators in the nefarious plot.

A favorite term of the negroscenti is 'irrelevant', as in, 'So-and-so is irrelevant; nobody's buying what they're selling'.  Alternative Negro culture employs 'irrelevant' as a generic put down of the Black establishment on every issue to which members of the former arrive, uninvited, and on C.P.T., to volunteer their post-mortems.  I find their conceit ironic being that the same Alt.Blacks are conspicuously absent when the shit goes down or hard work needs to get done.

I came across the latest Black Spock-With-a-Beard outrage at The Root, where a number of aspiring Designated
Negroes were (again) pronouncing the NAACP 'irrelevant' for challenging the Hot Trailer Park Mess, AKA the "Tea Party", to disavow itself of racist elements.  In overlooking the proverbial forest of Ben Jealous and the NAACP's (1) commanding the attention of the country's largest media outlets and, (2) causing the Hot Trailer Park Mess to collectively blink by publicly tossing one of its affiliate organizations under a big assed interstate coach, the negrorati B-squad saw as trees the NAACP's resolution.  I'm willing to bet money that the pseudo-progressive talking points that take root on The Root (pun intended) are undoubtedly parroted throughout the Afrosphere on sites that feature 'Black' politics.  These self-righteous, self-appointed Knights of the Black Table wield their swords in the air at the NAACP, National Urban League, Congressional Black Caucus, etc., for not being Mr. Goodwrench to every problem affecting Af-Ams.  I believe they'd criticize Jesus Christ for turning water into wine rather than sugar-free energy drink.  Only then they'll add to the conspiranoia next week by explaining rappers' sugar-free energy drink endorsements increase Af-Ams' collective dysfunction.  Ergo the ultimate contradiction in Alt.Blackness: there can be no winners.  Ever.

Phantom Networks: A Fraud by Any Other Name

I am not a critic.  By this I mean I don't make it a point to assess the social value of everything that runs across my radar screen, then volunteer those judgements for public consumption.  I'm not a censurer.  Neither am I much of a culture warrior or demagogue; a citizen investigative journalist making it my business to shed light upon people's indiscretions. 

But I do recognize a fraud when I see it.  And I have no problem calling 'BS' on a fraud.

Back some time ago, I joined this Yahoo! group, 'Black Business Owners Network'.  I joined in anticipation the group's conversations might evolve into a genuine network; a common base of resources from which all the group members could draw upon.  Okay... I divorced myself from that expectation pretty quickly upon entering the group.  But I still held a belief that a chance remained I would meet a group member or members with whom I might someday corroborate on some future project. 

My previous experiences with 'Black'-themed online professional networks have not been good.  The most recent one prior to my joining the BBON was another Yahoo! group called 'e-Mobile'.  That group, arranged around developing a technology-based product or service company, albeit one owned and operated by 'Blacks'.  e-Mobile's founder and moderator was a Slim Shady by the name of James Neusom.  To make a long story short, Neusom ultimately undermined the group's project with his opaque machinations and micromanagement.  I didn't mind Neusom orchestrating group discussions or the project; it was his lack of transparency with the group that alienated me.  It was as if he was trying to leverage the group on the sly.

Brenda Eason's BBON popped up on my radar screen making similar appeals to racial solidarity.  It was easy to see early on that there wasn't much talk in the group on business-related issues or authentic networking.  Mostly, posts were announcements by would-be event planners and impressarios about music and/or comedy shows at local bars.  Even Eason's posts were mainly about hyping her podcasts on BlogTalkRadio.  I didn't exactly mind that most of the group's conversations were actually one-sided and self-serving.  I figured any genuine networking that might occur would likely transpire amongst a small, random assembly of group members.  I was fine with that.

Over the period I've belonged to the BBON, I haven't been very active.  I drifted away from Yahoo! groups in general, as I discovered other social networking sites that were better suited to my purposes.  When I did check in at the BBON group, the posts had become almost totally about Eason's announcing upcoming podcasts and happy hours.  Eventually, I gathered Eason's real hustle is promotions and that she was attempting to leverage the Yahoo! group's membership -- maybe its e-mail list -- with sponsors.  My estimation didn't exactly cause me to lose sleep.  The BBON was a network in name only.  There was no sharing of resources going on among group members.  In fact, members were talking at each other instead of with each other.  I figured I could still submit ideas on various programs, i.e.; microlending, syndication, etc., for brainstorming by group members.  But my optimism soured once Eason (or perhaps one of her silent associates acting as group moderator) blocked a couple of posts I intended as trial balloons for gauging the group's feedback.  I then e-mailed Eason directly, asking if I could present project ideas before the group to have her respond any ideas would be vetted by a stealth panel of her choosing -- consisting of persons unknown and unidentified to myself and the members at large. 

I'm not familiar with a network that can function where none of the nodes demonstrate any transparency toward other nodes.  Even in a completely de-centralized network, any two of its nodes in immediate contact with each other share some disclosures, or agree to provide some level of due diligence.  The BBON and Eason don't subscribe to this axiom. 

By the time I had concluded the BBON was something other than a true network, I had added the group's MySpace page to my friends list there.  It's at this point when I noticed Eason's something of a spammer, sending multiple e-mails and blasts from BBON group posts -- often in the same day -- trumpeting her podcasts or events she was likely being paid to promote at local nightclubs.  I started receiving e-mails from Eason offering "50 percent off" advertising packages to BBON members.  When I inquired about advertising with the BBON, I asked for a rate card and demographic information -- fairly standard information -- in order to evaluate and plan a purchase.  But the only information Ms. Eason provided was a claim the BBON's radio program reached 1,000,000 people.  There was no mention of a specific radio station (beyond a BlogTalkRadio.com podcast); no statistical overview, i.e.; time spent listening ('TSL'), age/sex/income information, etc..  Worse... there was no mention of pricing... anywhere... not on a rate card, not on the BBON website, and not on any of its message boards.  (NOTE: BBON advertising services and rates have since been posted @ http://www.bbon.biz/.)

Later in 2009, Ms. Eason and an associate named Kimberly Bowles, distributed e-mail blasts and posted messages on the BBON's Facebook and MySpace pages that announced a reinvention of the BBON as the National Association of Black Business Owners ('NABBO').  As I recall, Ms. Eason announced it as a "merger" of the BBON with Ms. Bowles' organization that was previously unknown to BBON members.  To my knowledge, no BBON member -- other than Mss. Bowles and Eason -- was informed beforehand of a possible merger or participated in its formation.  Ms. Eason also cyberparked the URL http://www.nabbo.org/ to give the new entity the appearance of a legitimate professional non-profit association.   (If you click the NABBO link, you're directed to the BBON's former site: http://www.bbon.biz/.)  At this point, Mss. Eason and Bowles announced a special membership incentive for members, although it was unclear whether they were planning to charge fees for membership renewals, simply charging new applicants to join the NABBO, or both.   Presuming myself to be a BBON member in good standing, I wrote to Ms. Eason requesting a clarification on the membership fee, as well as a formal list of benefits/privileges extended to NABBO members.  I also asked of the new entity's organization and hierarchy vis-a-vis officers (or officer candidates), board seats, articles of incorporation, mission statement, and by-laws. 

Thus began a series of exchanges between myself, Ms. Eason, and her surrogate troll, Ms. Bowles.  In response to my aforementioned inquiry, first Ms. Bowles, then Ms. Eason placed a curse (!) on me by way of e-mail.   As it became increasingly apparent the real purpose of the NABBO was to line Mss. Eason and Bowles' pockets, I posted a summary of our... eh... conversations on the BBON/NABBO/
XYZPDQ's Facebook page, backed up with the e-mails upon request.

As much as it pains me to play P.I. to out a couple of frauds, I'm very much against persons masquerading as if they're helping some aspect of the community.  It's both aggravating and disappointing to put a couple of scammers like Mss. Eason and Bowles on blast for exploiting the good will of people and generally behaving so unethically, for it diminishes the already shaky trust of people in commerce and undermines the integrity of social networking technologies like Facebook.

Black Identity Dystrophic Syndrome

In my cyberspace journeys, I've encountered a palpable mass of African-American angst over 'our' state-of-affairs. Most of this angst I've experienced through politically-oriented bloggers whom I'll presume to have the best intentions at heart.

The archetype of the blogger in question appears to be terminally bourgeois: suburban, between 28-50 yrs. of age, college-educated, and economically middle-to-upper middle class (extrapolating from the % of Af-Ams with high-speed Internet access and avid consumers of webcentric content, i.e.; blogs, podcasts, streaming, etc.). I find it interesting that many of these bloggers are journalists -- or maybe better described as journalistic types -- aspiring toward celebrity punditry. Many are also partisan, if not profoundly influenced and directed by eurocentric populism. I suppose by some perverse accident of education and technology, the bloggers have come to see themselves as DuBois' Tenth with attitude. They're intent on saving Blacks from ourselves, regardless of whether we want to be saved or if the crises they see are real.

Discussions unfold within largely American neoconservative constructs; that unholy marriage of laissez-faire capitalism to Puritan imagery. The issues are framed and analyzed accordingly. Economic, cultural and political issues are usually presented in emotional stereotypes, e.g.; 'gangsta' rap's negative affectations, without much thought given to context. Individually, some of these concerns have legitimacy. Sometimes. More often then not, they're spun into a neurotic tapestry that's meant to represent Why We're in The Shape We Are.

Iraq. Education. Poverty. Art. Jesse Jackson. Michael Jackson. All subjects along with others argued in terms of what's right and proper for 'Black' people without an empirical notion of what constitutes Blackness. Or, success. It's almost as if this Afroneterati class is instinctively repulsed by the gritty details self-determination imply. So, identity for Af-Ams remains a commodity defined by the outside. 'We' don't know who 'we' are.

I've invented a name for this malady: Black Identity Dystrophic Syndrome, or BIDS. Tucker's Disease.  Buppies are the largest group so infected, followed by Uncle Toms/Aunt Jemimas and Coons. Symptoms of BIDS include retrostalgia (a yearning to revisit a time/place that's never existed), consumerism, cultural dissonance, psychological and physiological addictions, and cultish behaviors. BIDS does not pose a imminent threat to an infected party's physical health, but should be considered a factor that negatively affects stress levels. However, the prognosis for self-consciousness is good-to-excellent for patients introduced to human diversity in its many combinations.