Brown's Big Blog

Talking about issues that matter to the world & everything in-between

[ladariusbrown]

The Impact of the Coronavirus on College Sports By LaDarius Brown – March 28, 2020

According to USA Today, major-college athletics directors are planning on the NCAA not being able to cover all the revenue it will lose because of the cancellation of the Division I men’s basketball tournament due to the coronavirus outbreak. Furthermore, the association has $250 million to $275 million in business-interruption insurance linked to the tournament, the athletic directors and administrators have been told, but it is uncertain how fast those funds would come to the NCAA – or how much.  

These kinds of insurance claims can bog down in several disputes, and catastrophic-event insurance markets are probable to be under stress due to the worldwide pandemic.

A greater impact can be found with many college seniors who will not have their “One Shining Moment in both the men’s & women’s basketball tournament. However, there is hope for those seniors. According to the Washington Post, an NCAA committee granted another year of eligibility to thousands of college athletes whose seasons were abruptly shortened by worries with respect to the coronavirus pandemic.  

As far as Division II & III senior college athletes, the NCAA’s Division II administrative committee announced that spring sports athletes at the Division II level would get an additional year of eligibility if they were set to be seniors in 2020. All Division II spring sports have been canceled due to the pandemic.

This news was music to Lauran Ziegler’s ears. As a former Division I softball player at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU), she was ecstatic for the senior athletes. Ziegler said being an athlete, you want to finish what you started. In addition to being a former D-I softball player, she plays in the X League (formerly Legends Football League), a women’s football league.

“Your sports career can be limited to college”, she said. Ziegler mentions that not having a chance to showcase your skills one last time could mean a big deal for many who may never play professional. Sadly, she is correct. Below is a chart of the percentage of collegiate athletes moving from the NCAA to a major professional in all sports, including men’s & women’s basketball, football, and baseball:

Source: NCAA

Online Tool Software: Piktochart

Most student-athletes rely on academics to assist them for life after college. Education is important. There are almost half a million NCAA student-athletes, and many of them will go pro in something beyond the field of sports.

[ladariusbrown]

My Goals & Lessons Learned About Research and Investigation Skills Development

One of the goals for this course was to become a better writer in the context of communicating my feelings. Throughout this course, I learned the way to do that is not through feelings but with facts. Being a Criminal Justice & Business major, I thought I knew the significance of research because of how fact-based these subject matters are. However, when writing articles for the course, it was about sticking to the facts, regardless of your personal input.  

The advantages of research extend beyond having an impressive degree certificate. Through detailed research, students develop critical thinking expertise, as well as productive analytical, research, and communication skills that are globally sought-after and incredibly beneficial. In the end, research is vital to economic and social development of our globalized society, creating the foundations governmental guidelines spanning the world.

Another goal that I had was to stay focus on the topic at hand for the article. Even though this course provided us with the autonomy to choose our article topics, it was still an arduous task sometimes to stay within the parameters of said topic. What this course taught me was the more I wander off, so will the reader. Wandering off topic, no matter how astute or sagacious my comments may be, it will detract from the force of your argument and hence does more damage than good.  

Lastly, a goal was to be a better interviewer. Doing a podcast, I try to stay on topic for the betterment of my listening audience. If I ramble, they will tune me out. This course taught to write down any thoughts I had to stay on point and focus. Interviewing techniques vary for different mediums. If you are interviewing for audio or video, you want to ask two-part questions, which encourages subjects to talk for longer blocks of time.  

[ladariusbrown]

Have We Become Our Worst Enemy?

As I woke up on a Thursday morning to news of another killing, I felt it was time for me to open my mouth (even though people may not want to hear nor value my two cents). When I read the comments on these posts about ‪#‎AltonSterling‬ and now ‪#‎PhilandoCastile‬, it solidified what I already knew: racism is alive and well in this country by not only Caucasians against African-Americans, but African-Americans against Caucasians as well. Yes, as a person whose African-American, I'm very sad, hurt, and angry about what's transpired over the last two days (even the last 5-10 years). However, we mustn't overlook that two families no longer have a son, brother, uncle, and a friend. They're the ones who are hurting, seeking answers to questions they may or may not get. Let us hold them up in prayer, comfort, and love. Shifting to the comments about the officers in these cases, I've observed that people have called them "pigs" amongst other things. You may be angry at the police officers involved in both matters,which you every right to, but never let those officers paint you a jaded view of the hundreds of thousands who put their lives on the line each and every day for all of us, regardless of race. This nation has become vitriolic toward one another more and more. We’ve truly become our own worst enemy. The more killings that occur of this magnitude, the more this nation is heading in a direct path of the L.A. riots times ten. By no means I'm taking sides in these matters. I want answers like everyone else but throwing around hate atop of more hate is throwing gasoline upon a dumpster fire. No matter what legislation our politicians draft, it won't change the hearts, minds, and souls of human beings. All that I ask from all of you (myself included) is to use this anger toward making change so that another family or another generation have to cry tears over another body, regardless of race. Now, 7 police officers are dead and another 7 were injured in Dallas. Folks, like I referenced earlier, these law enforcement officials put their lives on the line so that we can feel safe. I get the hate inside the hearts of many who feel that their son, brother, father, grandfather, or friend is a target and/or a victim. I say this in response: there’s a hold inside the hearts of those 5 officers who lost their father, son, brother, uncle, and best friend. #BlueLivesMatter as well ladies and gentlemen. My angle is that we always have been enemies; now, we’ve become our own worst enemy. The minute we pick up guns instead of our voices, we all lose not just potential lives yet our sense of morality. I saw that a black Millennial, as am I, doesn’t feel safe. This is what #BlackLivesMatter have been espousing for some time. I see many Caucasians and other races join in, which shows there’s an accord on senseless killings and the need to stop them. I hear the names #AltonSterling #PhilandoCastile #EricGarner just to name a few come out their mouths. That I get. No qualms there. My qualms kick in which I fail to hear the names of Caucasians killed by officers. I don’t put this on the #BlackLivesMovement at all. I look at the mainstream media as they pick & choose whose life is more important not based on severity nor age, but race in relation to the offense. You don’t have to believe me, just something to think about. When the lives of young, African-American males were being taken away via the police, there were lives of young,Caucasian lives being taken away by the same manner that you didn’t hear about. If we’re going have a frank and open forum about killings, let’s put all the cards on the table, not remove the hearts and diamonds from the deck.......

[ladariusbrown]

The Acronym That Saves Time...In Shaping A National Conversation

In staring off for the 1st blog entry of entry of 2016, I felt the need to reach back two years to 2014. More specifically, November 22, 2014 when 12 year old Tamir Rice was gunned down in Cleveland by a police officer after the officer suspected that Rice had a firearm on him; it was later revealed to be a replica of a firearm. The grand jury decided not to indict in the case against the officers. Fast forward two years later, Tamir’s mother, Samaria Rice, is quote “sad” that Cleveland Cavalier superstar LeBron James failed to speak out  about the shooting. ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith sided with James, saying the criticism is unfair. Where I stand on this is very simple: I understand why Ms. Rice feels the way she do. Her son’s life was taken away abruptly in the hands of the police. More importantly, the sadness by her when it comes James & his lack of speaking out has validity. He’s from Akron, a native Ohioan, a basketball superstar. I mean I get it. However, the real reason I sense is that he’s all of the above…and African-American. When Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and Sandra Bland died, whose voice was louder? African-Americans. To zero in more, African-American leaders, actors/actresses/directors, and athletes. After Trayvon Martin was killed, players for the Miami Heat worn hoodies as a tribute for that Martin was donning a hoodie at the time of his death. I had no issue with it (maybe except for Kobe) like a vast majority did. Where I take up the issue is how the power of athletes really possess, whether they realize it or not. LeBron wore an “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirt after the death of Garner in New York. This is where Samaria Rice’s point should be one of anger, not sadness. He advocated for Garner but not for her son, whose from Cleveland just like him. In essence, Tamir Rice was him. When it comes to the criticism, I’m on LeBron’s side for an entirely (and bigger) reason. That reason lies with us, people who expect the famous, super-rich people of own world, to have a voice on matters of the world. Is it fair? No; Do all of us still want it? Yes. Many of you may not remember when Michael Jordan said that “Republicans buys sneakers too?” in response to congressional race involving a racist politician in Chicago. He was criticized by many for his stance but people kept buying the sneakers. Secondly, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump (I know, I know….save the comments) alienated many in the Latino community with his comments on immigration and Muslims when wanted to bar them from entering the U.S. Did he lose votes? (He’s leading the Republican field & it’s not even close). My point is this: I truly feel that people listen & expect a response from four sets of people in this nation. In fact, I made it into an acronym:

Hollywood

Athletes

Politicians

Super-Rich

These four groupings are the voices we have an expectation (especially politicians) when it comes to any social incongruency, miscarriages of justices, or when we need to be comforted in times when the world’s at combat or comfort. All in all, LeBron was wrong not because he didn’t speak out, but because he’s an athlete who’s super-rich and an actor on the side. Imagine being punished for not speaking up just because you’re something in this world. Things that make you go hmmm………

[ladariusbrown]

A Race Within A Race: Trump v. Hillary v. The Conscious of the American Electorate

“Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.“ - Will Rogers

As I’ve followed this presidential election cycle, this was a field full of more-than qualified candidates for the highest office in the land. With heavy hitters such as Bush, Christie, Walker, Paul, Perry, Cruz, Rubio, and Graham for the Republicans, this was probably the best crop the party put forth in quite some time. I think Helga Pataki’s George ran also (Hey Arnold reference). On the Democratic side, the motto seemed to be “Hillary or Bust” where the closest candidate was an incumbent VP who chose not to run for reasons I whole-hardheartedly understand in Joe Biden. However, people have been “Feeling The Bern” and will so all the way up to the convention in July in Philadelphia.

Nonetheless, it’s the Donald v. the Hillary (hoping that will catch on) vying to be the nation’s 45th President of The United States and the 44th occupant of the Oval Office. In every case, there must be a series of events that lead us to this point for both candidates. For Hillary, it was shoo-in it seemed as the darlings of the Democratic Party were ready to crown her as soon as she launched her bid. As the case is in most campaigns, tribulations were heading her way, most notably emails and Benghazi. Issues of trust arose among the people, maybe some in her own party. Then, a Vermont senator took center stage with his message for the people, especially the ephebic and the energized ready for a change. Celebrities were joining in the Bernie Movement from rapper Killer Mike, Susan Sarandon, Will Ferrell, and John C. Reilly (aka Shake & Bake). However, the movement has won him some states, but lost the big mo’ in the end. Hillary now takes her place where many feel should have been eight years ago (an argument for another day), center stage with celebrity endorsements from Katy Perry, Robert De Niro, Kerry Washington, The Queen Bee, and Ja Rule (no typo here).

On the other end of political pool, Donald Trump, a billionaire turned reality star who beat out a political dynasty (Jeb Bush), experienced governors (Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Rick Perry), senators (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham), and some very sharp minded folks (Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson) to be the presumptive nominee for the Grand Old Party. He defied every pitfall from his comments about Hispanics to the issue of immigration by somehow maintaining a double-digit lead wire-to-wire. For many folks, he was the alternate to the same esoteric and self-deprecating rhetoric that’s been heard like a broken record. Trump drew crowds at his rallies in groves as people saw a man who wasn’t the establishment; they saw him as a man who was honest, straight shooter, and an orator to the issues plaguing the nation. Many people (including myself) initially was sort of unsure if could be taken seriously but, as it seems, he’s proven the critics wrong. His celebrity endorsements are  Hulk Hogan, Lou Ferrigno, Ted Nugent (shocked), and Jon Voight.

In the end,  this look pretty one-sided (depending on what party or candidate you’re supporting) right? If you’re Team Hillary, you see that, based on the current polling, she’d win by more than ten points over Trump in the general election, over half the voters view the billionaire unfavorably, and has the trust of the voters on key issues such as terrorism, health care, and income gap. Also, Trump may have alienated the Hispanic vote with his views on immigration, which will be a hotly tested debate throughout the election.

It you’re Team Trump, it’s an uphill battle despite obliterating the Republican field. Yet, there’s hope. Voters see you as the better voice for the economy than Hillary, nearly 6 out of 10 voters support you because they don’t want Clinton in the White House, and the race is an election, not a sprint. Contrary to popular belief, if he make up the ground in states won by Mitt Romney four years ago: North Carolina, Utah, Arizona, and Missouri. Bottom line: no Republican President has even won the White House without Ohio. Two Democrats have (FDR and JFK).

Overall, both candidates face the inevitable: no one really likes them. Trump and Clinton would be the most unfavorable major party nominees in polling dating back to 1992 according to CNN. This comes as no real shock to both sides. When you have candidates who people see as dishonest (Clinton) or a bigot (Trump), that won’t win the electorate over. The question now becomes, as the electorate, whose vision (not issues), do you rely on? Many see a Clinton presidency as either a sequel (more like Police Academy than Die Hard) of both President Obama and her husband or a shift in how the world views us as progressives. It seems everyone thinks a Trump presidency is going to be Armageddon times two with mix of Hitler with a dash of neon lights cascading the South Lawn. On the other hand, people see a Trump presidency as truly Making America Great Again reminiscent of Ronald Reagan in 1980 with a chance for the United States to be seen as strong. No matter what, it’s imperative that each and every one of us vote for that it expresses that America is great and are true progressives. Please don’t vote as if you were voting for America’s Got Talent but not based on Trump’s acting or Hillary’s dance move. Don’t...just don't....

[ladariusbrown]

The Oscars So White...? The Statute’s Gold & The Tux is Black and White.......

Before I delve into another blog, I just want to take the take the time to those who’ve taken time out of their busy schedules to read my blog(s). It means the absolute world to me. Moving forward, you may have noticed that the Oscars have zero African-Americans in any of the categories this year. Also, various African-Americans celebrities such as Will & Jada Pinkett-Smith are boycotting the event due to the dearth of color. To be completely honest, this didn’t come as a complete shock to me whatsoever. While I understand the anger among those in social media and Hollywood, the finger(s) should be pointed at Hollywood itself. The Academy Awards isn’t the institution to put all of the hate, boycotting, and disgust upon. It’s the equivalent of blaming the stove when one burns themselves. All of a sudden when no one of color is nominated, we become angry, throwing our hands in disdain? It’s downright ridiculous. Has anyone sat down, rationally & objectively as a movie goer, watched the performances of those nominated in the major categories? I may have to double check this but the Oscars is not in the affirmative action business. The institution is based upon putting the best of the previous years’ movies and the performances head-to-head. Besides, the only actor of color who should have any qualms about being snubbed is Idris Elba for his role in Beasts of No Nation. It was Oscar great. Despite what Will Smith or his fans think, his performance was great but not Oscar great. I love Will but not this year. All I hear is how racist the Oscars are for not nominating any one of color this year. The problem I think that many who are dead set in boycotting the Oscars are looking at the numbers. For those who are, I’ll just leave them here:

Denzel Washington has been nominated for six Academy Awards (won twice). Leonardo DiCaprio has been nominated for five Academy Awards (including this year): 0 wins

In the last 15 years, there have been 5 African-American actresses who’ve won the Academy Award (Halle Berry, Jennifer Hudson, Mo’Nique, Octavia Spencer, Lupita Nyong'o)

As I previously mentioned, the Oscars or the Academy isn’t the problem. Cheryl Boone Issacs, the African-American President of the Academy, has acknowledged the the lack of diversity. However, I sense that she’s urging those of color to make the films, create the roles that are Oscar worthy. I know that racism exists along with the hate attached to it. Nevertheless, African-Americans cannot use that as an excuse for not producing the work that it takes to get the gold statute. Granted, I’ve sat in rooms that made me uncomfortable when going for a job. In the end, I never placated race as a justification of not getting the job. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. One of my favorite instructors whom I really love, always said that: “Excuses are tools of incompetence used to build monuments of nothingness.” I apply that to Hollywood. Stop making the excuses of race, lack of diversity, and no role for actors/actresses of color in Tinseltown. Go out there and make them. Change is universally good when used correctly. If not, those monuments of excuses are going to be too large or wide that it’ll never take place. Instead of boycotting, let’s build a bridge to success together, not that monument blocking it....

[ladariusbrown]

The Acronym That Saves Time...In Shaping A National Conversation

In staring off for the 1st blog entry of entry of 2016, I felt the need to reach back two years to 2014. More specifically, November 22, 2014 when 12 year old Tamir Rice was gunned down in Cleveland by a police officer after the officer suspected that Rice had a firearm on him; it was later revealed to be a replica of a firearm. The grand jury decided not to indict in the case against the officers. Fast forward two years later, Tamir’s mother, Samaria Rice, is quote “sad” that Cleveland Cavalier superstar LeBron James failed to speak out  about the shooting. ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith sided with James, saying the criticism is unfair. Where I stand on this is very simple: I understand why Ms. Rice feels the way she do. Her son’s life was taken away abruptly in the hands of the police. More importantly, the sadness by her when it comes James & his lack of speaking out has validity. He’s from Akron, a native Ohioan, a basketball superstar. I mean I get it. However, the real reason I sense is that he’s all of the above...and African-American. When Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and Sandra Bland died, whose voice was louder? African-Americans. To zero in more, African-American leaders, actors/actresses/directors, and athletes. After Trayvon Martin was killed, players for the Miami Heat worn hoodies as a tribute for that Martin was donning a hoodie at the time of his death. I had no issue with it (maybe except for Kobe) like a vast majority did. Where I take up the issue is how the power of athletes really possess, whether they realize it or not. LeBron wore an “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirt after the death of Garner in New York. This is where Samaria Rice’s point should be one of anger, not sadness. He advocated for Garner but not for her son, whose from Cleveland just like him. In essence, Tamir Rice was him. When it comes to the criticism, I’m on LeBron’s side for an entirely (and bigger) reason. That reason lies with us, people who expect the famous, super-rich people of own world, to have a voice on matters of the world. Is it fair? No; Do all of us still want it? Yes. Many of you may not remember when Michael Jordan said that “Republicans buys sneakers too?” in response to congressional race involving a racist politician in Chicago. He was criticized by many for his stance but people kept buying the sneakers. Secondly, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump (I know, I know....save the comments) alienated many in the Latino community with his comments on immigration and Muslims when wanted to bar them from entering the U.S. Did he lose votes? (He’s leading the Republican field & it’s not even close). My point is this: I truly feel that people listen & expect a response from four sets of people in this nation. In fact, I made it into an acronym:

Hollywood

Athletes

Politicians

Super-Rich

These four groupings are the voices we have an expectation (especially politicians) when it comes to any social incongruency, miscarriages of justices, or when we need to be comforted in times when the world’s at combat or comfort. All in all, LeBron was wrong not because he didn’t speak out, but because he’s an athlete who’s super-rich and an actor on the side. Imagine being punished for not speaking up just because you’re something in this world. Things that make you go hmmm.........

[ladariusbrown]

Live From New York......It’s Absolutely Nothing

Honestly speaking, I wasn’t going to watch Saturday Night Live last night not for the fact that Donald Trump has made some...let’s just say not so friendly comments about Hispanics over the course of his presidential campaign. That played a role in my thought process, but the real reason was for that I knew there was going be Trump impressions, mediocre sketches, and cast members not wanting to show up. All in all, the above did occur (I liked the Donald’s dance moves in that Drake sketch though). The cold opening of the South Carolina Democratic Forum was good, not great. Larry David’s Bernie Sanders Taran Killam’s Martin O’Malley, and Kate McKinnon’s Hillary Clinton were spot on. I’d even throw in an honorable mention to Cecily Strong (who I kinda have a crush on for reasons that I myself will not reveal) for her Rachel Maddow impersonation. For me, the monologue was the equivalent of seeing Rome burn to the ground as Nero (Lorne Michaels) plays the violin in the bathtub. I get it: Trump has an ego that could be his own continent; people can impersonate him (e.g. Killam was pretty bad but Hammond nailed it?). Granted, I love Killiam & Hammond very much, but, like the whole cast, fell into a black hole that made everyone look like neophytes who acting for the first time. The sketch in which he “live tweets” the performances of those in the sketch was downright awful, even abominable. Once again, this is another paradigm of just how bad this SNL was. You can clearly see the looks on their faces in that sketch that it just wasn’t working as if one was attempting to revive a car with no battery. Being a fan of this show for so long, it was hard to watch for that I know that this cast is so good even if the writing’s not there week-to-week. Weekend Update is one part of the show is where we get a break from the Waterloo that was this Donald Trump-hosted show. However, anchors Colin Jost & Micheal Che missed their cues in the intro. After that, it wasn’t the same. Drunk Uncle is a character that’s strong, even on a bad episode. Even Moynihan’s staple character couldn’t save the show . The crowd began booing (and rightly so) during it. By far, the worst sketch was that of a potential Trump presidency (it could happen people). Just don’t watch it unless you wanna throw something at your screen really hard. Overall, Trump only appeared on screen for under 15 minutes the entire episode. Sia, the musical guest, was pretty good. Good thing she doesn’t let people see her face. I don’t think she wouldn’t wanna be face be seen in public after this. In the end, no one was outrageous, Larry David jokingly yelled “You’re a racist” for the money (as if he needs it), and the only real protest was the boos & forced laughter from the audience and the mailing it in by the SNL cast. For once, the American people finally told The Donald he’s fired...along with his possible presidential campaign....

[ladariusbrown]

The Debate 2: Moderators Gotta Moderate

Another Republican debate wrapped up Wednesday in Boulder, CO as the candidates were all on-stage debating....depending who you ask. Many of the candidates, most notably Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie went after the moderators of the aired that aired on CNBC. According to many, the debate went well out of bounds of the formats that was to cover policies, especially of the fiscal variety seeing how the networks covers as such. As a political junkie (or nerd), I watched the debate with great interest. Quite honestly, I can see how the qualms of the candidates are very valid. First off, there were some “gotcha” questions as front runner Dr. Ben Carson mentioned pertaining to his involvement Mannatech, a nutritional supplement business. Did he makes speeches for them? Yes (four to be exact) Was he spokesperson for the company? No. My point is he DOES have a connection to them via the speeches, which he said he zero connection to them. I get why you ask the question, but this the wrong forum to ask it. Once again, I want to know where the candidates stand on issues that matter (e.g. foreign policy, economy, domestic policy), not if he does or doesn’t have a connection to a company that was involved is practices that were deceptive, leading to the payment of $7 million dollars. If you dig hard enough, there’s a connection to politicians to companies that have not so reputable standings in the business realm (see Dick Cheney & Halliburton). Also, why do we need to discuss fantasy football on prime time in which  the next President of the United States could may well be on that stage? Chris Christie said it best:

"Wait a second, we have $19 trillion in debt, we have people out of work, we have ISIS and al-Qaeda attacking us and we're talking about fantasy football?"  "Can we stop?"

That type of rhetoric should be saved for the candidates when fielding questions after a rally or even on social media. Now, I get you have answer those type of queries while campaigning but, as I mentioned earlier, there’s a time & a place. All in all, when you come away from a debate discussing the moderators rather than the candidates, it speaks volumes. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has suspended its NBC Republican Presidential debate in February after the debate, saying he was “disappointed”. Shifting back to the debate, there was one clear winner, loser, and uncertain:

Winner: Sen. Marco Rubio: Rubio’s stock is on the rise after an impressive outing in the last two debates. Moving forward, the target’s clearly on him as it was shown by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (we’ll see him later). Gov. Bush went after Rubio for lackluster voting record during his presidential run. Rubio stood strongly, holding his footing by stating he’s not running against anyone on the stage but for the Presidency. Conservatives could take note of that, especially the ones on stage. 

Loser: Gov. Jeb Bush: I still think Bush is the more qualified candidate on that stage but, like in sports, the team with the better talent doesn’t always win the championship (see the NY Giants beating the undefeated Patriots in Super Bowl XLII). Like in sports, it’s about the team who shows up, ready to fight for the trophy & it looks as though Bush isn’t fighting. His campaign went through a draconian-esque overhaul, looking for answers. He can find him once he gets the elctorates to focus on his ideas, not his political surname.

Uncertain: Dr. Ben Carson: Entering the debate as the front-runner can be really good or bad as was the case for Donald Trump. However, it was hit-and-miss for Carson. Some of that could be chalked up the moderators, but he seemed to still be even keel as if he were the epitome of cool. The question remains is that can he sustain this front-runner moniker under the end of the year? If so, we must take him seriously.

Honorable Mention: Gov. John Kasich, Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Ted. Cruz

In the end, many of us walked away from this with more questions than answers, a sense of rising (Rubio), a sense of decline (Bush), and a base that needs to win back the White House. As is the case with most things in life, time will surely tell all in due time......

[ladariusbrown]

Two Guys, A Woman, & A White House

When we look at the Democratic side when it comes to the race for the White House, only three remain left in this marathon. Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chaffee and ex- Virginia senator Jim Webb announced this that they’re dropping out of the race. More importantly, Vice President Joe Biden informed the nation that he won’t run for the nomination. This was the biggest hurdle that front-runner Hillary Clinton has cleared, now able to zero in on Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. It looks as though that the hearing on Benghazi basically dug up no new revelations about her involvement as the committee grilled the former Secretary of State of 11 hours. Many pundits and others concluded that Clinton came out looking cleaner, giving a jolt to a campaign that sorely needed it.  However, I stand by the notion that the committee overreached & made it more about attacking her that getting to the truth. Even though in my heart I sense she may of had some responsibility in that situation, that Republican-led hearing just dropped the ball period. She looks more presidential (if that’s even possible). Now, her campaign can now go on the attack mode a little after  basically being in defense mode for quite some time. Yet, Sen. Sanders went after the “flip-flopping” on the issues, most notably the trade agreement by President Obama. When I assess the Sanders run to the White House, he’s won a pretty sizable fan base of young people by saying things like free education and eliminating college debt. Nonetheless, he encounters a two-fold issue: can he even generate the fundraising needed for the long haul? We all that Clinton has coffers and donors to amass a pretty abundant amount of fundraising. This isn’t to say that Sanders cannot get it, but he needs more than the small amounts by large amounts of persons. It works now, but when Clinton gets going, it’s a freight train with no real stops but to the nomination and the White House.  Secondly, can he attack Clinton without alienating his agenda? It can be done (see The Donald). Attack her various indecisiveness when it comes to gay marriage, the Keystone pipeline, and that trade agreement (which he started doing). I’m no James Carville nor Karl Rove, but you have to be able both fight & defend attacks while being on attack mode. This goes without saying. Sanders hasn’t been able to do so. During the debate, he made it about the issues (which was a plus to those who are repulsed by the rhetoric). However, he played it safe, which, in baseball is good but not when you’re steadily gaining the momentum. Beyond anything short of snow in Florida, Clinton’s nominee. I like former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley very much but his problems will be that fundraising and being seen as if he were sitting in the back of the class (which he is in the polls). In the end, it’s matter of if not when his campaign will cease, making it a two-horse race.  The last time a Clinton was elected, the number one song on the day (Nov. 3rd) was End of the Road by Boyz II Men. It could the end of the road for Sanders if cannot fight off this Clinton......

[ladariusbrown]

When The Sheep Flock Away From The Herd

In many of my blogs, I attempt to deviate from making the subject matter as objective as I possibly can like any other average person does. However, this forthcoming issue is very important to me for various reasons. Whether I’m having a discussion about sports (check out my sports blog BTW) or about politics, my goal is to first inform then entertain. During the recent events surrounding former NBA player Lamar Odom and his near loss of life, some of the news stories were too centrally focused upon the brothel where he was found and his wife (technically speaking) Khloe Kardashian. The issue should of been more focused upon Odom as he fought for his life, which many news outlets failed. The only news outlet that focused on the man was ESPN, Fox Sports 1, or really any sports-linked news site. It covered him only just for that fact that he was an NBA player (with a dash of the Kardashian angle. See what I did there?) I realized that some of us people have this great sensation toward the famous as an acknowledgement that their lives are by far more glamorous than that of the average Joe or Jane Citizen. In many ways, whether we wanna admit or not, they fascinate many of us through their lives: good or bad. It doesn’t if it’s a beautiful life or a train wreck waiting to happen, we’re there.  Case in point, did you even know who Lamar Odom was if he wasn’t “connected” to the Kardashians, admit it. Many non-sports outlets (take your pick) focused on his marriage to Khloe as they overlooked his whole NBA career he had before she was in the picture. The man could of died and thank God he didn’t. Sadly, we do it all the time. As a whole, we have this great proclivity to zero in on the fascinating or exciting, negating the actual story at hand. The thing is: I don’t blame you. In any situation, a story is just as important as the one telling the story. What’s newsworthy versus what’s not should come as no big surprise to us. The sheep will merely flock to where the herd is for our various enrichment of news. Seriously, we only give credence to what only affects us on a personal level, which is completely understandable, The thing is there are other issues that aren’t about us in the grander and bigger picture. Master Sgt. Joshua L. Wheeler may not be a household name to all of us, but he should. Wheeler was killed with attempting to save the lives of some 70 prisoners from ISIS. You know ISIS: that terrorist group that beheading Americans for just being Americans. That group. Throughout social media, Master Sgt. Wheeler’s name or story wasn’t plastered by a great deal of us in that it wasn’t glamorous nor was it headlining to the eyes of many. All he did was basically place his life on the life to go after a group who wants to kill anything that isn’t like them (sound familiar?). Going back to the grander & bigger I referenced earlier, it affected every single of us. It could’ve of been our brother, uncle, father who died defending not only those 70 lives, but all of ours. I saw more people commenting about issues that just don’t matter in that spectrum. Deep down, I care about Lamar Odom in that he’s a human being who nearly died. I even care about his kids in that they get to see their father again. What I don’t care about is where he was found nor about that Kardashian angle. Those things are minuscule in comparison to the story. We lose sight of the value of life or even the significance of the impact in a story. Once we get out of our ivory tower in relation to our view upon others, we’ll care and leave that herd. If you see a soldier, tell them thank you; if you see a police officer, thank them for keeping you safe. If you see a man or woman on the street, say hello. Never lose sight of the value of life when surrounded by sheep who don’t care about anyone but themselves. In the end, do you wanna go the slaughter for thinking about you or go on your own, leave the herd to think about the lives of others? Focus on your world and the world around you. Trust me, death shouldn’t make you feel that way; being alive should......

[ladariusbrown]

If Nice Guys Finish Last, Then Where Do Nice Women Finish?

To try to take my mind off the countless news stories that are out there, I wanted to write a blog about something that’s been troubling me for some time now: why do nice guys finish last? or where do nice women finish? To answer the first question, the notion of nice guys finishing last can be very subjective for that all guys say to women (or guys, it’s 2015 people) that “I’m a nice guy” or that “I’m a good guy.” The issue is how can one decipher this with no real clear evidence? Simply, go with how they treat their mother. Before you send the torches after me, hear me out. For a man, your mother or another female figure is the first woman they encounter. If he’s always calling her, checking in on her, and/or being there when she calls, odds are that his words are true. There’s a fine line between that & being a Momma’s Boy; however, that’ll become more evident through progression of a conversation. A lot of men, including myself, can go overboard when it comes to a person we really like many times. Through hard lessons, I’ve learned that slow & steady wins the race. It’s not about how fast you get there; it’s all about taking the care to get there. This means take the time to learn about the person, avoiding potential speed bumps such as “I wanna marry you” or even “I love you” at first glance. Time (and even a few meetings) will solve those larger mysteries. In the grander scheme of things, it boils downs to honesty and trust. No matter what relationship comes our way, one must be honest with the person as well as yourself. Also, creating a safe bridge of trust starts with that honesty. If you’ve never experienced being hurt by prickly thorns of love, don’t lie and say otherwise. if you don’t love a certain TV show, genre of music or movies, don’t lie just to gain some browning points. It amazes when I hear people just be dishonest to another potential love, it has long-term affects in that the person you fabricated may hard time loving someone else due to your negligent actions. Shifting gears, do nice women finish last? I personally say yes for the reason that nice people, by & large, are overlooked. Some men & women was a person who’s “bad boy/girl”, which is the reciprocal of the nice guy/girl image. This is not to say that they don’t possess an edge’ it means our edge comes from being open, which can be dangerous if you’ve been through hell & back in your life in some capacity. I hear women say I wanna nice guy and men say I wanna nice woman. Here’s the truth: it’s all subjective. I guarantee we all loved that “nice” guy/woman at some point in our lives, but we stopped not because they stopped being nice; we stopped for that being nice had a cost whether it be our time, money, heart, or even our trust. A nice person to some is someone who walks an old lady across whereas someone else thinks it’s a person who loves drama (trust me on that). The point is niceness is how we define it, not some TV show or book does. Overall, nice people are the people who continue to believe in love in a loveless world. trust when their trust was betrayed. In the end, nice guys/women do finish last but this journey is about who makes it through. So, I guess we all finish last in a way.......

[ladariusbrown]

Why Jennifer Lawrence (and Viola Davis) Are The Game Changers Hollywood Needs

On a full discretionary basis, I try to speak of issues that have an impact, regardless of the magnitude of the impact itself. One is women when it to equal pay and the treatment of women in the workplace. Academy-award winning actress Jennifer Lawrence and Emmy-award winning actress Viola Davis are changing the way Hollywood creates opportunities in Hollywood fiscally and racially.  Lawrence wrote an essay about how “much less I was being paid than the lucky people with dicks“ when it came to roles. She specifically mentioned actors Christian Bale, Jeremy Renner, & Bradley Cooper. She went onto say something I agree with wholeheartedly when it came to art of negotiation, still in 2015. Lawrence says:

“Jeremy Renner, Christian Bale, and Bradley Cooper all fought and succeeded in negotiating powerful deals for themselves. If anything, I’m sure they were commended for being fierce and tactical, while I was busy worrying about coming across as a brat and not getting my fair share. Again, this might have NOTHING to do with my vagina, but I wasn’t completely wrong when another leaked Sony email revealed a producer referring to a fellow lead actress in a negotiation as a “spoiled brat.” For some reason, I just can’t picture someone saying that about a man.”

Case in point, Lawrence is the highest paid actress this year according to Forbes at $52 million; Robert Downey Jr. is the highest paid actor at $80 million dollars. One may look and say that the gap is just $28 million. However, when you factor in that one of the actors mentioned in her essay, Academy Award-winning actor Bradley Cooper made $41.5 million this year, which is $10.5 million less than Lawrence. Her point may not convince people, especially those Sony executives who, in those hacked emails, called an actress “a spoiled brat” when it came to negotiation. When you delve further into the pay gap issue, the place when you see that the 3rd highest paid actor Vin Diesel made $47 million, due in large part to the success of Fast & Furious 7, where as Melissa McCarthy, the 3rd highest paid actress, made $23 million, twice as less. Overall, the top 6 highest paid actors made over $40 million where as just Lawrence was the only actress to crack that threshold. The point goes well beyond the physical scope in my estimation. Overall, it comes down to the notion that the earning power decreases as actresses get older as actors still command top dollar. There’s still this notion in Hollywood and in our workforce that women aren’t as viable once over the age of 50 (Amy Schumer nailed this to a tee on her show with a sketch with Patrica Arquette and Julia Louis-Dreyfus). When you look at TV, Kerry Washington is a bona fide star thanks to her leading role as Olivia Pope on Scandal. The same could be said for Viola Davis, who won an Emmy for Leading Actress in a Drama for her role on How To Get Away With Murder this year (the African-American woman to do so). In her acceptance speech, Davis bring up race and the roles in Hollywood: "The only thing that separates women of color from anyone else is opportunity. You cannot win an Emmy for roles that are simply not there." When you look at the list for Best Actress in a Leading Role in this year’s Emmys, it put the Oscars to shame. It had two (Davis & Taraji P. Henson of Empire), two more than the Oscars had. This is why I state that both Jennifer Lawrence & Viola Davis are changing the look and opportunities for women. I know others will go that it’s not a problem or why should we care. My answer is simple: How can we not be worried about women when they gave birth us? If you ever watch a show and wonder how much does she make, it’s less than the actor(s) on the same screen. What are we telling young women and young women of color? Are we telling them it’s OK be 2nd, never speak your mind, silence your voice, and just do your job? No, what you’re telling them is be second class citizens. The world is limited to being nurses, teachers, and any other atypical female profession, which is awful. Be powerful, have a voice, never settle for less for that the world shouldn’t define your worth: you should. This applies to only women, but to every living and breathing organism on this planet. In the end, changing the game means changing the rules sometimes....

[ladariusbrown]

Sanders & Clinton vs. The Field?

The first Democratic debate took place on Tuesday as Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont & former Secretary of State Hillary were on the same stage for the very first time. Honestly speaking, Clinton was very much ready for prime time, which should come to no one’s surprise. Secretary Clinton really came off as polished, labeling herself “progressive”, something that made me take a step back to be perfectly honest. My thing is that she says that she’ll be the solution to crack the division in Washington D.C.. She’s been the epitome of D.C. politics. case in point, being the 1st Lady of the United States from 1993-2001, attempting to make reforms to the healthcare system; U.S. Senator from New York (2001-2009); and Secretary of State (2009-2013). Surprisingly, the issue of Benghazi was not made an issue, something that should be made an issue more by her fellow candidates. However, this particular crop of candidates don’t come off as strong or austere candidates to do as such. Watching the debate, I get why people are having “Bernie-mania”. He wants to got after big banks, erase student debts, make college free for all amongst other things. The problem that Sen. Sanders will have long-term is exactly how(or who) will pay for all this. If you go by what The Wall Street Journal is saying, his initiatives will account for $18 TRILLION (with a T) in new spending. Sanders states that they “delve too deeply into his proposals to tax the wealthiest Americans.” I agree that taxing the rich is essential, but how much is the larger question. More importantly, taxing corporations is a must as well. My qualm with Sanders is going after the rich isn’t or shouldn’t be the lone issue. When nearly 60% of our wealth is given to the top 1% of the nation, it’s naturally going to be an imbalance of wealth. My issue is one should re-distribute the wealth via creating incentives for job creations, high paying jobs. If we’re really serious about paying an employee of McDonald’s $15.00/hr while we can’t even pay our civil servants (police, firefighters, teachers, etc.), this is an issue. What Sen. Sanders and most people fail to understand is that we can attack big business, big banks, and whatnot. At the end of the day, we need their money (not a whole lot) but enough in order to get them to “play ball”. I know many politicians can be or have been bought & sold by those aforementioned institutions, yet it’s for that we give them all the control sans the regulations. They make the laws, not the politicians. Sen. Sanders has turned money from them, which is OK now, but when the Hillary machine gets churning, that money will look good. Listen, I’m with Sanders on big business and big banks, but to completely shun them is too far. People don’t like banks, but their money’s gotta so somewhere besides the mattress. Before I lose myself like Eminem did in 8 Mile, let’s shift to the Three Amigos…I mean three other Democratic candidates. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley is someone who’s a dark horse, but I feel his comments on the subject matter of Black Lives Matter, saying All Lives Matter, ruffled a few feathers. As I mentioned in a blog some time ago, I somewhat defended O’Malley on this way while understanding why people were in such an uproar. He mitigated the Black Lives Matter movement saying that when African-Americans were being shot, but he meant all lives matter from the point of all of us. Regardless, it’ll hurt in the long run. As for Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, an A rating from the NRA is bad; saying affirmative action is discriminatory against whites is worse (but makes a point). When affirmative action was created, it was to give African-Americans & other minorities a fair shot in a population in which Caucasians were the majority. Now, as the shift towards minorities becoming majorities and vise versa for Caucasians, the concept will shift along with it. According to a 2010 study by the Department of Labor, the biggest benefactors of affirmative action are…wait for it, Caucasian women. Even 5 years later, it still rings true. The Department of Labor projected  that 6 million female workers are in more elevated occupational classifications currently than they would have been without the policies of affirmative action. Women are the bigger minority more so now more than ever. Look at the number of women who are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (22), number of women in Congress (104 out of 535), and even statewide office (77). My point is people of color have progressed a lot further than women have over the last 10-15 years, which might not be saying much seeing how strives still need to be made there as well. In the end, we mustn’t forget that this field has lot of flaws in their resumes or even issues that could be a problem. If you’re Lincoln Chafee, the problem is the fact no one is telling him he has just as much as chance to be President as Kanye West does in four years. Chafee, grab a microphone and let it rip on Hillary like Kanye did on Taylor Swift. It couldn’t hurt…… 

[ladariusbrown]

Raven’s View Needs To Be Adjusted

When it comes to The View, it’s a love-dislike (not fan of the word “hate”) relationship, more on the side of dislike as of late. On the show, co-host Raven-Symone, whose name is very “black-sounding), cited a study from UCLA which stated that there’s a racial bias when it comes to names that are “black-sounding” names. Furthermore, the same study cited that people saw men with atypical black names as “aggressive & more violent”. According to Symone when it comes to the issue of jobs, said: "I'm not about to hire you if your name is Watermelondrea. It's just not gonna happen. I'm not gonna hire you." The level of hypocrisy doesn’t do justice to her comments. There are cases of potential employers not hiring on the basis of your race, gender, religion, or even your sexual orientation (it still exists). However, your name is something we have little to no control over unless we decide to change when we become of age. Going back to her point of not hiring people based on her name, this where level one of the hypocrisy begins. Symone has been on our televisions ever since the age of three. Hollywood is one place where everyone’s name just isn’t the same it seems (like the faces or Lakers basketball). I guess if your name is Caryn Elaine Johnson you’d have a better chance of success than that of a Whoopi Goldberg (FYI: Whoopi Goldberg is Caryn Elaine Johnson). No one would dare hire a talented actor/musician named Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr.  over a talent like Common (Common = Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr.). My point with this that if Raven were a casting director or even a recording executive, she wouldn’t even hire a Whoopi or a Common, but a Caryn and a Lonnie will do. This is the same person who defended Rachel Dolezal, the controversial ex-NAACP president of the Spokane, Washington, saying: "Listen, we can't judge anybody. We don't know that person's life." As a refresher, Dolezal, who’s white, claimed she was African-American. Symone says let’s not judge anybody, but let’s discriminate someone’s name. The vast difference is really of an ascribed status (race) versus a birth certificate (name). If it’s not okay to judge a person based upon their race, yet criticize a name,  Raven needs to show how to justify it. Someone’s name makes them unique, gives them an identity. Would I hire someone named Watermelondrea? I’d never rule it out for that behind a name is a story, just like Symone said with Dolezal. She fails to neglect that tidbit when it comes to names. The second level of hypocrisy is derived from basically Raven-Symone’s name (as I mentioned earlier in this piece). She has made millions with her name that’s a variation of Simone to a more “dynamic” last name. Full discretion, I have no real qualms or issues with names that can be construed as “ghetto” or “urban”. I’ve sat in some classrooms with some LaQueshia’s, DeQuan’s and some LaShonda’s. Honestly, the names confused me in that it was out of the box but it stopped me for thinking they’d never have a future. I figured their names would give them an edge, if anything. My philosophy is one of that says your attitude will determine your altitude. A name is a name. Millions are made in this country of names alone (e.g. Beyonce, Jay-Z, Oprah) or even fashions/brands (Roc-a-Wear, Phat Farm). For Raven, of all people, to espouse her disdain for “ghetto” names is the biggest hypocrisy of all. The equivalent is a politician saying that big oil is bad as they themselves attain large sums of donations from big oil, shaking hands with BP executives. The view of Raven-Symone is one a person who’s lost sight of what discrimination truly is. In the end, if her logic is true, then instead of That’s So Raven, I’d of grown up watching That’s So Christina (Symone’s middle name).

[ladariusbrown]

One Job No One Wants.....

The current unemployment rate in the United States 5.1% as of this month. Of all the 7.9 million people currently without work, the one job no one really seems to want (the qualified ones) is that of the position of being Speaker of the House.  Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader who seemed to be the logical choice to replace outgoing Speaker John Boehner, dropped out of the race early this week. McCarthy couldn’t muster the needed 218 votes to win the job on the House floor. The Speaker is 3rd in secession to the Presidency; it’s a clear position of power that can wield a great amount of weight. However, the vibe I’m getting is that fellow members in the House will elect someone younger, a future in a party that’s had troubles reeling in the young voters in general elections as of late. In one of my most recent blogs, I suggested (and pushed) that Paul Ryan must be the next Speaker of the House. Ryan has the political capital for the job. He was a vice-presidential candidate in 2012, current chairman of Ways & Means Committee, former chair of the House Budget Committee, and can garner the votes easily. As he’s mentioned, the desire isn’t there for the position. If his colleagues can convince him, which could happen, the Republican Party wins. I don’t need to tell you just how Americans feels about the job Congress is doing (hint: it’s pretty lousy). The problem seems to be a disconnect with the voters, most notably with those of color. In this race for the job, no one of color has even been considered nor will they in my estimation. Another problem is that of the perception of alienating women (e.g. Sandra Fluke, Planned Parenthood). Case in point, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a potential challenger for Speaker of the House, went “all-in” on Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, cutting her off during the House Oversight Committee hearing on the matter of funding. He admitted that there was nothing to be found in the course of the investigation of Planned Parenthood. My problem with Rep. Chaffetz is that of being overzealous (which could be said for any politician). In this manner, he takes it to the extreme that turns off the electorate, even in his own party. It’s one this to be someone who’s pushing an agenda; on the other hand, to basically alienate Richards by not letting her respond to his questions in a timely manner is something personal. I know Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood as they made a talking point in a potential government shutdown recently. My biggest qualm is not with the issue or the agenda; it’s with putting Chaffetz’s lack of respect for the other side. The next Speaker of the House must come up with a budget amongst other issues. Do Republicans want someone like him doing the negotiating? An individual who seems to have a clear lack of conceptualizing his own agenda no less than the one of his own party? Let me take that back: Chaffetz’s agenda is that of being “the fresh face” Congress needs. He has lead investigations into Planned Parenthood & the Secret Service with great vigor, but can he lead a party that needs to win in 2016 to avoid losing 3 straight presidential elections? Can he negotiate with the White House despite his lack of experience dealing with them? He admits that Ryan fits the bill, going so far to say he’ll drop out if Ryan runs for the job. That reveals to me that Ryan is the guy. Without him, this party is up the creek with no paddle, unless they use Donald Trump’s hair to get there......

[ladariusbrown]

20 Years Later: Why The O.J. Simpson Case Is Still Relevant

On October 3rd, 1995, a nation sat glued to their T.V. screens awaiting the verdict of the former Heisman Trophy winning running back from USC and All-Pro for the Buffalo Bills: Orenthal James Simpson. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson & friend Ronald Goldman. This soap opera, lasting 474 days that included a chase in a White Bronco, racist comments from a member of the LAPD (Mark Fuhrman), a glove that didn’t fit (therefore, you must acquit), a dream team of attorneys (Johnny Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Robert Shapiro), a family who was adamant about Simpson’s guilt, and a spark to race riots all over this nation. I was just seven years old at the time of the verdict, but reading and viewing various materials about this case really gave me a high level of fascination as both a person with a curious mind as well as someone who studies criminal justice. This case literally caused a division of guilt or innocence from people that had strong feelings one way or the other. Nevertheless, O.J. Simpson became a face, a face to a case that riveted a nation. He was an African-American who resided in a predominately Caucasian neighborhood in Brentwood, California that was suspected in killing his Caucasian ex-wife and her friend. Without question, race was a factor in this case despite those who didn’t want to focus on that elephant in the room. I understand that race is always an issue in any case pertaining two different races, but even more so in this instance. It certainly was the 1st case of it’s kind that someone of Simpson’s status (and color). One of the many things that I hear and agree with, to an extent, that African-Americans are typically found guilty just on that basis. However, if you’re famous & wealthy like Simpson was, one may have the better means to get a not guilty verdict due to having the money for a better legal defense. When you’re famous, African-American, and wealthy, it changed the dynamic. That’s what caused the rift: people felt he’d get off for that he’s famous & wealthy while others saw a guilty verdict due to his race. It was a game changer of sorts. How is this case still relevant even 20 years later? One doesn’t have to look no further than the incidents involving the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Caylee Anthony, Michael Brown and Freddy Gray. In these cases, the killers were Caucasian in addition to, except for the case of Freddie Gray, were either acquitted or not charged in their deaths. In the matter of Gray, the trials of the officers (1/2 which were African-American) don’t start until next month. None of the accused in any of the cases weren’t as affluent as Simpson, but made race a central issue except for the death of Caylee Anthony. The case itself had imprints in all these cases in one shape or another. It sparked the same amount rioting, outrage, and disdain for the law that was found in the matters pertaining to Martin, Gray, & Brown. It was more outrage & disdain in the matter of Anthony. Overzealous prosecution, even in the Anthony case, stood out in that it paralleled the O.J. Simpson cases. Prosecuting attorneys Marcia Clark & Christopher Darden went all-in, even with some shaky evidence, especially the glove. Jeff Ashton in the Anthony case went all-in with a murder change, only having reasonable doubt, a party mother, and a family full of other suspects. In the end, no matter what side of the fence you sat on (guilt or innocence), the O.J. Simpson murder trial changed the perception of how the legal system looks at race when mixed with another dynamic (e.g. wealth, looks, gender). When the race is African-American, it stills serves as a factor (even in 2015); if you’re rich and African-American (e.g. Kobe Bryant), things could change the outlook. What’s in your pocket, not on your skin, makes the difference. The only color that seems to really matter is the one that’s in your pocket. In that instance, green is a golden ticket......