The Oscars aren’t Black enough, and Hollywood’s Black community is threatening a boycott.
Since nominations for the 88th annual Academy Awards were announced last week, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have been under fire because all 20 of the acting nominations went to White people. Most Oscar observers felt Will Smith (”Concussion”) and Idris Elba (”Beats of No Nation”) were snubbed. Almost immediately, the uproar began, but it’s really picked up steam now that Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith are urging a boycott.
The Academy has had a tortured history with race. Almost every year, the Oscars have faced criticism for a lack of diversity in its nominees. And even when Blacks have won Oscars -- like Halle Berry for “Monster’s Ball” or Denzel Washington for “Training Day” -- folks have complained that the winning roles didn’t project positive images of Black people.
Without question, the Academy doesn’t nominate enough people of color for Oscars. But there are two reasons for that, and it’s easily explained.
First, there are too few quality roles for Black and Latino actors. Moreover, Black and Latino people are rarely cast in quality roles where race and ethnicity is irrelevant. If people of color aren’t given quality roles in quality films, than it stands to reason they won’t be in contention for awards. It’s really that simple. The first step towards diversifying the Oscars is to diversify the people in quality roles.
Secondly, Academy members vote on who gets nominated for Academy Awards. Nominations aren’t decided by Hollywood popular vote or even by the success of a given film. In order to become a member of the Academy, you must first be nominated for an Oscar. Therefore, this creates a catch-22 for minorities. Since Blacks are few within the Academy, they can’t nominate more Blacks and thereby create more Black members. And even if the Academy suddenly did have more Black members, there aren’t sufficient Black roles in quality films that would warrant a proliferation in Oscar nominations.
It’s all a vicious cycle that perpetuates itself every few years, and leads to calls for boycotts.
Cynics might say that there are quality Black performances that are simply being ignored by the Academy. There is some truth in this. However, since human beings vote on the nominations, the Academy can’t remove bias from the nomination process even if it wanted to do so. Inherently, there’s no fairness in personal preferences; and that’s what’s happened to Oscar nominations.
For these reasons, boycotting the Oscars make little sense. The Academy is powerless to enact any significant change in who’s nominated. The Academy does have complete control of the ceremony, and this is where it has shown its commitment to diversity. In fact, Chris Rock is returning as host for the upcoming Oscar ceremony. Last year, many of the presenters were people of color. I’d expect these symbolic gestures to continue.
However, the movie studios and the casting directors have the biggest influence on who ultimately wins Oscars. It is the studios and casting directors who are passing over quality Black actors for quality roles. Boycotting the Oscars would be like addressing the symptoms, but not the underlying illness. Instead a making a big stink about the Academy Awards and who gets Oscars -- we should invest our time and energy in ensuring people of color have an opportunity to be in quality cinema in the first place.
Three times the paper of record has targeted the Democratic front-runner, and three times it's swung and missed
The New York Times hates the Clintons -- it always has. But at least the liberal media is trying to do a decent job of calling the paper out on its bullshit.
Each new mass shooting in America confirms a sad truth -- We Don't Care. No society that cares about its people would allow these shootings to continue to happen.
It's not hyperbole or an overstatement. Collectively, our nation has concluded that our liberties -- specifically unregulated firearms -- are more important than protecting innocent lives. Consider this: Four Americans died during a 2012 terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the Congress launched 8 investigations and has spent nearly $5 million to get to the bottom of it. Granted, much of this was politically-motivated, but at least the Congress did something.
Conversely, hundreds of innocent Americans have died in mass shootings since those same Benghazi attacks -- yet the Congress has done nothing. Nothing. Moreover, the Congress continues to get away with doing nothing because the electorate doesn't demand action from its representatives. Literally, no one cares.
Earlier this afternoon, at least three people opened fire at a social services facility in San Bernardino, California. At least 14 people were killed. Many others were wounded. The death toll and full ramifications of today's shooting could easily rise in the hours ahead. But even if it doesn't, this qualifies as the worst mass shooting since Newtown -- when 27 innocent people were killed. (Most of the Newtown victims were elementary school children, who were executed in their classrooms.)
There have been 21 mass shootings in America in 2015. With four weeks left in the year, we could easily hit 23 or 24 for the year.
In the days ahead, everybody will say the right things, but nobody will really mean it. After all, we've all sent our "thoughts and prayers" so many times before that it seems rudimentary. Kind of like asking a stranger you pass on the street, "Hi, how are you?" No one really cares about the answer to that question. The stranger knows you don't care, and that you're just being polite and going about your way.
We can no longer go about our way as it relates to mass shootings. America is the only civilized country in the world in which this happens. Mass shootings in European countries are extremely rare. It's primarily because they value life over firearms. They care.
Speaking at the 83rd U.S. Conference of Mayors, Hillary Clinton directly addressed white privilege and racism. She was blunt:
“For a lot of well-meaning, open-minded white people, the sight of a young black man in a hoodie still evokes a twinge of fear. And news reports about poverty and crime and discrimination evoke sympathy, even empathy, but too rarely do they spur us to action or prompt us to question our own assumptions and privilege. We can’t hide from any of these hard truths about race and justice in America. We have to name them, and own them, and then change them.”
By my count, this is now the fourth or fifth time that Hillary Clinton has addressed this issue in the last 2 months. She previously addressed the inequities in the criminal justice system, and the ongoing attempts to disenfranchise voters of color.
It's mind boggling to me that she's facing a primary challenge for not being progressive enough!
So here's the thing: A white bigot commits an act of terrorism against the people of South Carolina, killing 9 Americans. In response, he wasn't choked on a sidewalk or shot in the back -- he was arrested peacefully. Meanwhile, other bigots -- on racist cable networks -- debate whether or not he committed a "hate crime." Trying to figure out why a bigot did what bigots do, is pointless. It also absolves us of the role we've all played in this senseless tragedy.
Our president reminded us that we remain the only advanced nation with such uncontrolled gun violence. We ignore him, just as we have every other time he's pleaded with us to come to our senses. As the state flag of South Carolina, the confederate flag still flies atop the state capitol. A flag that is the very symbol of racism and hate. Yet we are surprised that in such a state, a white man so freely enters a historic Black church and kills innocent Black people?
We allow police to administer justice without equity. We allow guns to proliferate. We allow symbols of hate to stand. And when challenged about our collective failings, we fight amongst ourselves -- as Democrats or Republicans or Blacks or Whites or Cops or Politicians or Whatever. This is the society we have created for ourselves, and actually, it's the greatest hate crime of them all.
As Abraham Joshua Heschel once said, "Few are guilty, but all are responsible."
Imagine the disaster if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination
Never underestimate liberals, and their ability to let perfect be the enemy of the good. In these early stages of the 2016 presidential race, Democrats have a rare advantage: an obvious front-runner, who's well-known and broadly popular. In fact, Hillary Clinton beats every Republican in every hypothetical match-up -- and in some cases, by wide margins.
One of the rarest feats in American politics is for one party to control the White House for three consecutive terms. It's a rare occurrence because, frankly, the electorate tires of one party and simply wants change. Since World War II, a party has held the White House for three straight terms only once: 1981-1993, the Reagan-Bush era.
The fact that Hillary Clinton is posed to actually achieve this rarest of feats is reason enough to nominate her. But on top of that, there are many other very good reasons: she's the most qualified; the most tested; the most vetted. She's also a woman, which means her nomination and subsequent victory would be historic.
But some liberals within the Democratic Party are not amused with Hillary Clinton. They contend that she's not liberal enough, and that she's too cozy to Wall Street. Never mind that she's spent the first two months of her campaign pushing for voter registration reform, criminal justice reform, and immigration reform -- she's still not trusted by liberals. They crave a "real" progressive like socialist Democrat Bernie Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont.
Sanders is 73, has an extremely-low national profile, and believes that average voters will be able to draw a distinction between "socialist Democrat" -- which he is; and "socialist" -- which he isn't. It would be political suicide for any political party to make Bernie Sanders its standard-bearer.
Sen. Sanders is a nice man, with great ideas -- but his views are not within the mainstream of the United States. It would be simply too easy of a contrast between he and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). The youthful-looking Rubio would relish sharing a general election debate stage with Sanders, in which he highlights his genuine Latino roots and "American Dream" back story, while Sanders, who actually looks like a mad scientist, rails against the "billionaire class" that's ruining America. There's no way such a scene would end well for Democrats.
Nominating Bernie Sanders would be tantamount to forfeiting the presidency to the Republicans. Under no circumstance or scenario could Sanders win a national general election in 2016. So the question becomes, what's the point of his primary campaign against Hillary Clinton? She actually could win a general election. Given the political environment and the history of voting patterns, she's the best hope for retaining the White House for Democrats.
Despite all claims to the contrary, the Democrats don't need a competitive primary. Hillary Clinton is the most vetted politician alive, and her positions are already sufficiently liberal. The primary challenge from Bernie Sanders will only serve to raise the hopes of his extreme liberal base of supporters -- even though they have no chance of winning the nomination. And it will make Hillary's job that much harder in making sure these voters actually support her in November 2016.
If the Republicans had a candidate like Hillary Clinton, you can best believe they would have coalesced around him or her early, and pounded the Democrats at every turn. With every possible advantage, the Democrats are spoiling for a fight that can only help the Republicans. Progressives have their hearts in the right place, but who knows where their brains are these days.
Goodell outsmarts critics with a classic bait-and-switch
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has concluded that there is no evidence that the NFL lied when it said it did not see the infamous Ray Rice video prior to its public release by TMZ. In fact, Mueller didn't even find evidence that such a tape was ever received by the NFL at all. Though some in the public may be dismayed, this report completely clears NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell; though to be fair, his job was never in any real jeopardy.
The only people surprised by today's report are folks who don't follow the NFL closely. This investigation has never about getting to the bottom of anything; it was about managing a public relations crisis -- and giving it ample time to blow over. Mission accomplished.
But we've also witnessed something even more amazing: The NFL just gave a master class on how to pull a bait-and-switch to its own advantage in a moment of deep crisis. All season long, and even now, we've all been arguing about the wrong things. The public, along with its many media critics, wanted blood from the NFL for knowing about (and subsequently viewing) a tape that showed Ray Rice punching out his wife in a casino elevator. Despite all the other issues swirling about the entire scandal, the public willfully allowed the NFL to transform the crisis into one about who saw the tape and when. Even though the public had the league cornered on the merits, that shiny sensationalistic tape was all that people cared about. That was a product the NFL was happy to have folks chasing. Once it became all about a tape -- the NFL won. Case closed.
The bottom line is that we were never going to get to the complete truth about the tape. The layers of bureaucracy surrounding any chief executive is expressly designed to prevent damaging things from reaching the CEO's desk. Such a set up allows Goodell plausible deniability in any public relations scandal. He was never going to take the fall for the existence of some random videotape that was supposedly confirmed as received by a secretary who answers the phone. I mean, let's be serious!
But here's the best part -- the video in question is completely irrelevant to all of this. Once we saw Ray Rice dragging his unconscious fiancée out of that elevator, we all knew what happened. That should have been the end of it. And all the people who wanted Goodell's scalp should have pressed that point. Instead, Goodell played them all like a fiddle and agreed to commission the search for a tape that he knew would never be found. Genius! It's a classic bait-and-switch: Focus attention on the sideshow, so that folks completely miss the main event -- even though it's unfolding right in front of them.
Roger Goodell gets points and props for being far more crafty than his critics.
Michael Sam was cut because he isn't good enough to be in the NFL
Those who were surprised that the St. Louis Rams decided to waive Michael Sam are not football fans. Because those who follow the NFL carefully, weren't surprised at all. The only occurrence this week that could be classified as a mild surprise is that the Rams decided to pass on adding Sam to its practice squad. (Sam was not claimed by any NFL team, and is now a free agent.)
Even though Michael Sam was an accomplished college player, he never struck me as a serious NFL talent. As a defensive end who plays exclusively in the 4-3 scheme, his options were already limited to the 15 NFL teams that deploy that defensive style. He's undersized as a defensive end, but too big (and too slow) to be a linebacker. He also doesn't play special teams well -- which is vital for players such as Sam.
When Michael Sam was drafted in the 7th round this past May, many speculated that he would have been drafted higher had he not come out as gay. I disagree. In retrospect, I believe that Sam's coming out helped his draft positioning. Being that be played his college ball at Missouri, it is no coincidence that St. Louis decided to give the state favorite a legitimate chance to make an NFL team. After enduring all the buzz and attention after drafting Sam, the team certainly would have given him every opportunity to make the team and cement history. The fact that the team would not even retain him for its practice squad tells you everything you need to know -- he's a good football player, but not good enough or versatile enough to play in the NFL.
Good college players strike out in the NFL all the time. Remember Tim Tebow?
I don't believe that Michael Sam is out of the NFL because he is gay. If he were an outstanding player, he'd be on a team, because winning is everything. And if someone can help your team win, it doesn't matter if they direct dog fights or beat their wives unconscious. Just ask Michael Vick and Ray Rice.
Michael Sam is still a pioneer having achieved something that no one else did before him -- he was drafted as an openly gay man. That's not nothing. In fact, that's a huge achievement. The next Michael Sam will journey down a much easier path.
UPDATE 9/2/14: The Dallas Cowboys will sign Sam to its practice squad, pending his passing a physical.
Fred Phelps is dead! He was 84. It wasn't just that Phelps hated gay people, but he went out of his way to bother, antagonize and hurt gay people. He did the same thing to straight people who didn't share his hate for gays. He and his church, Westboro Baptist, made a name for themselves by picketing the funerals of gay people, soldiers and almost anyone who was decent and good-spirited. They picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, a man who was killed in a hate crime in Wyoming. Generally, but now always, their moniker of choice was "God Hates Fags."
Today I've noticed that some gays are calling for restraint upon hearing the news of Phelps' death. Their argument: We should strive to be better than him, and not use his death as an opportunity to be gleeful. It's a modern day version of "turning the other cheek."
I find it truly reassuring that there are people in this world who are more forgiving than I am. It gives me hope.
As for myself, I'm very happy to see that Fred Phelps is dead. To say that I'm gleeful would be an understatement; I'm over the moon! When evil leaves the world, I see this as cause for celebration. After all, we're talking about a man who didn't even have enough decency to allow his fellow man to rest in peace. I won't be picketing his funeral, but I'm very glad he's dead. I think I'll celebrate with a stiff drink, and lots of butt sex!
It seems that everyone is up in a lather over the Washington Redskins. President Obama has had his say. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has chimed in. Even the great and powerful Bob Costas has rendered his thoughts about the Redskins.
Naturally, since the team is 1-4 and regressing by the week, this chatter has little to do with actual football. Instead, everyone is busy telling the Redskins that they should change their nickname to something less "offensive."
Even though the Redskins are the most profitable franchise in all of sports, and even though they've been called the Redskins forever -- the political correctness police have concluded that their nickname is too offensive to continue being used. Several polls indicate that more than 90% of Native Americans are not offended by the name, and aren't all that interested in seeing it changed. This is part of the rationale team owner Daniel Synder made to fans, when he reiterated in an open letter that he has no intention of changing the name of the team.
There are plenty of reasons why this entire episode is ridiculous, but for the sake of brevity, I'll discuss just two of them.
First, changing the name of the Redskins football team doesn't actually improve or enhance the lives of Native Americans. With all the talking heads so suddenly concerned about offending Native Americans, it would be refreshing if their crusade actually led to better lives for these people. That would be a case I could get behind. But changing the name of some sports team is a symbolic gesture that is truly trivial. It's truly trivial because no one can make the case that Native Americans are damaged, discriminated against or otherwise disenfranchised because of the nickname "Redskins." And if we actually wanted to make life better for Native Americans, we should try advancing public policies that might actually increase their standing in society.
Secondly, it really only matters what Redskins fans think. I've heard countless people say that Native Americans should have the final say on whether this nickname is used or not. Wrong. The fans of the Washington Redskins should have final say on what their team is called, because they are the ones buying the tickets, concessions and merchandise to keep the club in existence. Why should a bunch of people -- who don't even watch football -- decide what a football team will be called? That's complete foolishness. And it's the aspect of this entire debate that bugs me the most.
Fans of sports teams often have deep allegiances to their clubs. Allegiances that only they fully comprehend and appreciate. And these fans are sophisticated enough to decide if a nickname is consistent with its community norms and standards. As a 49ers fan, I can't think of anything more offensive than a non Niners fan telling us what we should call our team. Go fuck yourself! It's our team. We live, eat and breath it, and we can decide for ourselves what to call it.
Fans of the Redskins can decide what their team will be called. People who can't support that viewpoint are free to not support the Washington Redskins. And people like Barack Obama, Roger Goodell and Bob Costas should just butt out. Seriously.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) published my op-ed on the importance of ensuring optimal care for gay men as the enrollment period begins for public health exchanges being created as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Read it!
The Graham family has sold The Washington Post to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos for $250 million in cash. The paper changes ownership for the first time in more than 80 years. This was surprising news, especially since most people didn't even know The Post was up for sale.
However, I was struck by this passage in the story announcing the sale:
Bezos’s political profile rose suddenly and sharply when he and his wife, MacKenzie, agreed last year to donate $2.5 million to help pass a referendum measure that would legalize same-sex marriage in Washington state, catapulting them to the top ranks of financial backers of gay rights in the country. The donation doubled the money available to the initiative, which was approved in November and made Washington among the first states to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote.
Though The Washington Post has a long history of being progressive on its editorial page, it's still refreshing to see that a pro-gay businessman will own the paper. That's bound to be a good thing for gay folks. And this sale is damn sure good for Amazon.
Truthfully, the NFL's all-star game -- known as the Pro Bowl -- should probably just be scrapped completely. It's notorious for the fact that players love being selected for the game, but hate actually playing in it. Why risk an injury that could end your entire career to play in a meaningless exhibition game?
The last few Pro Bowls have been awful. Between the watered-down rules and the half-hearted effort from many of the players, it wouldn't be fair to even call it flag football. It's just an embarrassment. And for a $10 billion industry like the NFL, embarrassments are bad for business.
So the league set out to fix the problem, and today announced some radical changes for the Pro Bowl. The game will no longer feature AFC versus NFC, and it won't feature any kickoffs, either. Instead, the NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to select Pro Bowl players with no regard to conference; and the two teams will be determined through a fantasy-style "Pro Bowl Draft." Crazy, isn't it? Under this new format, teammates could end up on different Pro Bowl teams. I can't wait to see how seriously Clay Matthews tackles Aaron Rodgers when given the chance!
It remains to be seen whether this new format is here to stay or whether the NFL is just experimenting. What is clear is that the Pro Bowl is on its last leg. But if we absolutely must have an NFL all-star game, here's three ways to improve it.
Hold the game after the Super Bowl
This seems like a no-brainer. Currently, the game is played the week prior to the Super Bowl. Naturally, the two teams participating in the Super Bowl exclude their players from competing in a pointless game just a week before the biggest game of their lives. By definition, Super Bowl teams are quality squads, so they are generally loaded with quite a few all-stars. Having the Pro Bowl before Super Bowl Sunday automatically eliminates key all-stars that fans want to see. The NFL use to hold the Pro Bowl the week after the Super Bowl, and if the all-star game stands as its own event, the league should return to that spot on the calendar.
Stage a Pro Bowl-Super Bowl Doubleheader
A staple of the regular season is the Sunday afternoon "doubleheader," meaning a regional game played early in the day followed by a national game played in the late afternoon. The NFL has gone to great lengths over the past few years to start late afternoon games even later -- to ensure more fans see the marquee match-ups. Fans eat it up!
Why not a doubleheader on Super Bowl Sunday? The NFL could stage the Pro Bowl as the "early" game, and then follow it up with the Super Bowl as the "late game." The league could use the same venue, and create this mega atmosphere of celebrating its all-stars and its two best teams. It would be a super-sized Super Bowl Sunday; the entertainment could be sandwiched between both games, thus maintaining a normal halftime period for both. The only drawback is that the Super Bowl clubs would still exclude their players from the Pro Bowl. But on the plus side, those players would still technically get to attend the all-star game.
Cut Back Preseason to Encourage Pro Bowl Participation
The players hate the preseason. Quite simply, it's four meaningless games that serve no greater purpose than injuring players. The NFL loves the preseason because the games generate more revenue from fans and the TV contracts. The NFL and Players Association could strike a deal that benefits both sides. The NFL could agree to cut preseason in half, down to just two games. In return, the NFLPA could agree to have its members sacrifice their bodies in one meaningless Pro Bowl, given that they'd have two fewer meaningless preseason games to worry about. Under this deal, the players would be cutting their overall meaningless games by two. It's a trade-off that favors the players. And the fans would get to see a real Pro Bowl game, where defenses are allowed to blitz and kickoffs are actually included.
As with the other two options, this one is not perfect, either. For starters, most all-stars rarely play in the preseason. The preseason is mostly filled with rookies looking to earn a spot on a team. From this perspective, there is not much incentive for veteran players to strike such a deal involving the Pro Bowl since they aren't playing in the exhibition season anyway. Since the guys playing in the preseason are so radically different from the guys playing in the Pro Bowl, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
Nonetheless, any of these options are better than what the NFL floated today. Though I must admit, even after writing this column, I think I'm more convinced the Pro Bowl should just be canned.
titsay
turnnoffyourmind
origamiaround
yousharknotpass
kaledo-art
germansingergirl