President-elect Barack Obama An Advocate For College Football Playoff

President-elect Barack Obama has and will have a lot on his plate as he prepares to officially become the next president of the United States. President-elect Obama has already made it pretty clear that he has a major passion for college football and a college football playoff. On 60 Minutes, while being interviewed by Steve Croft, the president-elect spoke of an eight-team, three-round playoff to decide what now is a somewhat subjective national championship process. Said President-elect Obama, “It would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don’t know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I’m going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it’s the right thing to do.” It’s a great idea to have a playoff and it will be nice to have someone in a high place who is an advocate of settling the national championship on the field instead of mostly in computers. More than a few schools have been victimized by the current system and perhaps this could be a welcomed change. No system will be 100 percent perfect, but this will move us a lot closer to a better system that more closely upholds a higher level of credibility within the system. Sometimes, the system lucks out and gets what most people feel are the two best teams. Other years, it has led some to feel a sense of betrayal with regard to the quality of the system. Perhaps the 60 Minutes comments of President-elect Obama will light a fire under those who are a little too happy with the cash-cow bowl system that allows so many of the big, medium and small corporations to make money advertising as part of the current system. Maybe change could be in the air for college football.

ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3708348

Response #3 To Christian Science Monitor Editorial: Thank Goodness for Slavery?

This part of this editorial from The Christian Science Monitor was appalling: “Those who are sympathetic to the victim view of African-Americans should read ‘Out of America,’a stunning book by journalist Keith Richburg. After seeing firsthand the reality of the lives of the vast majority of Africans, he expressed gratitude that his ancestors had come to the United States, even as slaves.” This is nothing short of “stunning,” disgusting and indicative of a growing sentiment among conservative whites and House Negro blacks that all black people should be thankful for slavery. It is ridiculous and absurd to believe that anyone should be thankful for the atrocities of slavery that saw the deaths of so many people in Africa, through the Middle Passage and into North America. We as Westerners of the world, thumb are nose at other cultures and think that so many other cultures are inferior. So, it is no surprise that a Westerner would see Africans and believe that they are inferior to what a lot of people in the United States have come to know and love. The United States is a great country, perhaps the greatest in the world, but that is no reason to thumb are nose at other cultures that some arrogantly feel don’t measure up to Western standards. Forgive me if I am not quite ready to give thanks for slavery.

Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0806/p09s01-coop.html

Response #2 To Christian Science Monitor Editorial: Affirmative Action

The Christian Science Monitor editorial that caught my attention had another issue that kind of made me shake my head: affirmative action. Obviously, affirmative action is a controversial issue in the United States of America. But, here is a quote that sort of defined affirmative action (at least in the eyes of those at The Christian Science Monitor): “Affirmative action has become a highly significant symbol of the divide on race. For those who see African-Americans chiefly as victims, affirmative action is an indispensable policy of expiation for the sins of slavery, segregation, and all the other forms of racism and discrimination.” This is an oversimplification of what affirmative action is all about. It’s not just about making amends or saying “oh, my bad.” But, since we are into oversimplification, affirmative action seeks to level the playing field by providing access to areas that blacks had historically been denied access to. If one person is able to start the 100-meter dash early … he can’t get to the finish line and say, “Yeah, I got an unfair advantage at the start, but the rest of the race was fair.” I’m not going to go into a long debate about affirmative action. Colleges and Universities are clever enough to work around the wave of anti-affirmative action movements sprouting up around the country. We know that President-elect Barack Obama wants to open up access to colleges and universities based on class, too. There are many different forms of affirmative action that a lot of people have no issue with, but can achieve the same objective. Since our nation is still relatively segregated, policies can be tailored to target certain geographic regions to achieve the same objectives of affirmative action. Sure, we all seek to achieve a color-blind society, but it’s difficult to get respect without access to the same power that some groups have built up over generations. There is no question the playing field is far more level today than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. We all look forward to the day when affirmative action will be a thing of the past. We’re close, but we’re not there yet. And, as I said in another blog entry, the election of President-elect Barack Obama does not simply mean racism vanishes. We still have work to do.

Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0806/p09s01-coop.html

Response #1 To Christian Science Monitor Editorial: So-Called Victimology

I can’t honestly say that I would normally read The Christian Science Monitor. I’ve heard of it, but that is about it. However, I did stumble across an editorial written (online) that certainly grabbed my attention with the headline: “Could Obama’s rise signal the end of black victimology?” The headline instantly made me think of the negative perceptions that a lot of conservative whites have of black people and nearly any claim of racism (cleverly subtle or arrogantly overt). For the purpose of this blog, I am focusing on this particular passage in the editorial: “Victimology, in the view of black writer John McWhorter, is the theory that (1) African-Americans are continuing victims of racism and discrimination, and (2) their progress consequently depends chiefly on acts of repentant benevolence by whites – in the extreme case, reparations for slavery.” I must admit my ignorance of who John McWhorter is, but according to The Christian Science Monitor, he is a “black writer.” Perhaps that means he speaks for all black people because he is a “black writer.” I am not sure. I became even more confused as the written piece started to rip apart Jesse Jackson (a convenient target for many conservative white people who get angry at even the mention of racism, diversity or anything of the kind). These are the same people who would be tearing apart Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. If he were alive today for most of the same reasons they use to attack Jackson (they will not admit it, since so many of have a glorified memory of Dr. King and perhaps justifiably so, but it is true). I am not denying that Jesse Jackson may have been doing some player hatin’ on President-elect Barack Obama at one point, but whatever. Jackson is a human being and, like the rest of us, he is hardly perfect. But, back to the so-called “victimology” passage I quoted. Many people of all races believe that racism exists. Many of us also believe that the United States of America has made great strides (strides greater than most of our parents would have ever dreamed possible) during the last 40 years since the assassination of Dr. King in Memphis, Tenn. But, even with that progress, there is still work to be done. So, to believe that black people or people of any other color still believe that racism exists is not a sign of so-called victimology. The second point is that many blacks believe that their progress depends upon “acts of repentant benevolence by whites – in the extreme case, reparations for slavery.” This is conservative bull—t. Without anything to necessarily back me up, I would venture to guess that there would be a small amount of people of all races who would strongly support reparation for slavery (even though some races clearly had advantages in the young United States of America as a result of slavery that blacks did not enjoy). This written piece implies that there are a lot of black people who feel this way, but I think not. This article also asks a question that seems to further imply that Barack Obama’s election as president of the United States of America instantly wipes racism off the face of the country. Anyone who believes that is foolish.

Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0806/p09s01-coop.html

Was The Media Biased Or Was Obama Simply A Better Story Than McCain?

We’ve heard so much about so-called mainstream media bias in the campaign; this is a bias that some believe proved to be anti-John McCain and pro-Barack Obama. But, was there really a bias in the sense that the media was cheerleading for Obama as some on the conservative wing of the political spectrum wholeheartedly believe? I have long contended that people in the media are human beings – in spite of how so many like to push the illusion that the media are simply fair-minded people with a robotic-like sense of right and wrong when it comes to coverage of candidates in political races. Frankly, human nature is the reason that perhaps Barack Obama did get a little more attention from the press during the election coverage. What is a better story: (At the risk of being harsh) Another old white guy being named president of the United States of America, or the first black man being named president of the United States of America? Sure, John McCain had a great story with his war record, but other than that Obama was clearly a more intriguing figure to the media and to the public. Besides, not all the coverage of Obama was a love affair between him and the press. We should all remember that he was pounded throughout the campaign by negative coverage from stories about Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers and others. This was scrutiny McCain did not have to deal with for his associations with G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Keating, Rod Parsley and John Hagee. McCain mostly got a free pass on this from the mainstream media, the tabloids, the Internet bloggers and so many others (while Obama was subjected to all kinds of scrutiny for his associations). So, Obama may have gotten more press coverage, but it was hardly all good (let’s be up front and honest about that). Obama, in the simplest of terms, was a more compelling story (positively and negatively).