Sunday Morning Foolishness from Disney’s Sports Arm, ESPN (or, “The Big Subliminal”)
March 15, 2009 by dwil
Outside the Lines impresario, Bob Ley, led us down the sordid path of – black – athletes penchant for engaging in unprotected sex and impregnating unsuspecting women who have no idea that the big, bad, black wolves are just that instead of the sheep they purport themselves to be.Ley’s panel consisted of former wolf Dennis Scott, Orlando Sentinel columnist Shannon Owens (hey, she’s black and a woman, so she’s an “expert,” right?) and family law attorney (negatively portrayed as a “father’s rights lawyer by Ley), Jeffrey M. Leving.
To set up their wolf trap Ley and his producers called on ESPN ace dirt hunter and Jeremy Schaap sound alike, Steve Delsohn. To set the stage for the public, Schaap and crew trotted out the new Black man’s standard, President Barack Obama. In Obama’s Father’s Day, “I’m the new boss, same as the old boss” speech, he gave a shout out to white men across the nation by spotlighting “absentee fathers” – i.e. ‘all you ghetto niggers out there who think you might identify with me, allow me to separate myself from you’:
“The foundations of our families have suffered because of it. You and I know this is true everywhere but nowhere is it more true than in the African-American community…”
“More true,” eh, Mr. President? Speech writer couldn’t deal with the correct comparative “truer?” You, will all you education couldn’t catch that most heinous of grammatical errors, that most glaring boy-girl bimbo speak of the undereducated American masses?
Or is it “more true” that you are the biggest, baddest, blackest wolf in the land, because after all, “you and I know it is true that while on your campaign trail you railed against NAFTA and GATT but when you received calls of complaint from Canadian industry officials (in other words, corporate owners) you told them not to worry, it was only “campaign rhetoric.”
Or in plain speak, it was yet another in a lengthy list of lies you told the American people during your campaign.
Nothing could be ———————— truer.
But I digress – well, not really. See, it is important to note that the Big Subliminal’s representatives Ley, Delsohn, and anonymous producers, trotted Obama – a wolf if there ever was one - out as the shining example of black man beatitude.
——————————-
These big, bad, black wolves come to the women in the night after their games and mimic sheep bahing sweet nothings in the ears of virginal females who are easily wooed by these professional Mandingos. Sure, Tom Brady, Matt Leinart, and Oscar De La Hoya were mentioned, but subjected to interviews? Nah, they begged off and their dirt was never dealt with.
No no they used prodigious wolf Travis Henry (nine children, nine women – or 11 by 10 depending on who’s counting), “Mr. Christian” Dwight Howard’s ex Christian girlfriend, Royce Reed, and Jason Caffey’s (10 children, eight women) ex-girlfriend Karen Russell, who had a child with Caffey when he was in college at the University of Alabama.
Reed laughed when told that athletes claim they were “set up” by women and said:
“Women don’t get pregnant on purpose.”
Let’s set up this scenario with Young Mr. Howard and former Miami Heat and Orlando Magic dancer, Reed.
Who came onto to whom is material in the case of the two people. The initial responsibility lies with the oldest person – Reed. Having been in close proximity to professional basketball players for years it might have dawned on Reed that, for these men, a premium is not place on maturity. And Howard and Reed were purported to have dated for three years before becoming pregnant. So Howard was 19 to 21 during their relationship (he turned 22 before the baby was born).
Now, the next problem in this coupling is Howard’s religion. A devout Evangelical Christian, condoms and sex do not mix. In fact, unwed sex is a no-no in Howard’s worldview. Reed purported herself to be a born-again Christian. With all that in mind, the question begs to be asked, who, sexually, approached whom?
Did Howard knowingly “sink into sin” with Reed? Or did Reed seduce Howard into acting firmly against everything his parents and community taught him?
I do not at all know Dwight Howard, so all I can say is that either scenario – or both – could be true. However, from what I do know of Howard and his life up to the point of his relationship with Reed, he had never “fallen into sin” with any girl or woman previous to Reed. Howard’s family is solid and is close to him, so the fact that Reed did become pregnant with Howard’s child must have been quite the shock to elder Howards. And I firmly feel that it is Howard’s parents who brought Dwight “back into the fold” of profuse church-going and repenting – and characterized Reed as a demon in human woman’s clothing.
In the end, where is Howard going to hang his hat? With his parents and his worldview, however flawed, or with 27-year old Royce Reed, who, as an older Christian woman, should never allowed her relationship with Howard to progress toward sex before marriage?
The answer is easy. And the answer is the reason for Reed’s statement.
On Ley’s panel, Leving took the stance that athletes are surrounded by “yes men” – agents, friends, and associates – and are often targeted by women looking for an easy payday at the expense of professional athletes.
Dennis Scott concurred with Leving averring that half of the women in social circles around pros act as official temptresses for athletes. He, like Leving also feels that athletes need to understand their responsibilities as parents, whether they have become “entrapped” by a woman or whether they actually had a relationship with a woman that resulted in the woman bearing the man’s child or children.
But Owens failed to view the subject matter soberly, instead choosing to solely excoriate athletes.
“It takes a lot of discipline to be a great athlete. If you’re goin’ out there shootin’ a thousand free throws a day it takes discipline, so why can’t you – shouldn’t you deserve the same discipline in your personal life.”
While Scott attempted to lay blame at the feet of parents, youthful naïveté, and temptation, Leving
Ley then asked Owens a leading question. He prefaced his query with a description of rookie seminars where players entering the NBA are subject to skits where “nightlife situations” are played out. The players are begged not to get involved with women they meet in these venues. And the Ley asked, “How much does it sink in?” to which Owens laughed jauntily and said:
“Apparently not much. a lot of guys out there are willing to play Russian Roulette with their careers… I’m thinking he [Travis Henry] was selling the cocaine because he had to pay for his kids.”
Perhaps Owens is correct. But Ley’s question grossly oversimplified the problem and Owens, though a columnist lent no insight to viewers. And after all, lending one’s insight into events is the responsibility of a columnist, whether they are a sports, political, or entertainment columnist.
And this is a failing of journalism today, as elucidated by Owens’ simplistic reasoning on OTL.
The crux of this problem is far deeper than anyone on the panel was equipped to touch. I understand Scott and Leving’s shortcomings. However, Owens is a different matter. To utterly fail to place blame on our society is unconscionable.
When Leving properly brought up movies and entertainers as mechanisms of pressure acting on our youth and on young athletes, Owens, primarily, pooh-pooed Leving and the thought that what young people are presented with as societal norms has any effect on their psyches and therefore their actions. Leving asked:
“How can it [the messages at NBA rookie seminars] sink in when almost every time you turn on the TV, young men and young athletes are being glamorized if they have recreational sex with multiple beautiful women?… That’s how media identifies young men; based on their physical prowess, their desirability with women.”
Leving went on to say that this glamorization was pervasive.
But sadly, as Leving made a revealing statement, Owens was shown shaking her head and smiling sardonically as she listened to Leving. As soon as the attorney ended his remarks, Owens quickly cut in:
“Key word. Mooo-vie (followed by condescending laughter by both Owens and Scott). If you use the movies to live your life then I’m sorry you’re going up the wrong stream, there.”
Leving then spoke the real truth by asking the very real question:
“What home doesn’t have a television set?”
Ley then asked Leving where the ultimate responsibility for these actions lies, to which Leving replied:
“With our society because unfortunately our family structure is disintegrating. Close to 40% of all children in America are born out of wedlock and that’s not from professional athletes, that’s all across the board.”
Dennis Scott who, like Owens scoffed at the notion that movies – the entertainment industry – are a major problem said:
“I think it starts at home. I thing Kanye West said in a song a few years ago talkin’ about the gold diggers…”
Whoa! And this guy laughed at Leving, mentioned “home,” and then brought up ———– and entertainer?!
The show ended too abruptly, as always (unless it is part one of a five-part negatively-biased steroids and growth hormone series), so no one could voice anything with any finality.
It was sad that ESPN chose not to highlight any of the white men they mentioned who have fathered illegitimate children. Ley et al. did not have to interview any of them; their stories are so well know that they could be told in their absence. Leinart’s former girlfriend was devastated that her quarterback boyfriend turned the way of Hollywood bimbos for sexual comfort and general companionship; Brady’s actress girlfriend was also very hurt to find that Brady was not the responsible good guy those, like the football people and producers at ESPN, make him out to be. She then had the child, claimed it for herself, and told Brady to take a hike; that she does not want Brady in her or her child’s life.
Portraying a white athlete as they did with black athletes would have allowed Ley and Delsohn to avoid the obvious “racism sells” charge that I have lobbed their way. It would have allowed them to reach young, white athletes in a way the show they broadcasted could not. But honchos at ESPN would tell you their job is to make money and put on a show that will maximize their profits for those 30 minutes, not to help young men with anything other than to purchase something from the network or one of its advertising sponsors.
Ley would say there is never enough time to put on a balanced show. Leving would say that, for him, the show was great because it allowed him to tell a story that has yet to be fully delved into. Why Scott appeared, I do not know. Owens would say this was an opportunity for her to be seen as a versatile reporter, a viable national voice.
All-in-all, Sunday’s OTL showed black athletes at their worst, as usual, glossed over the fact that white athletes are no better.
Delsohn told us that 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, 50% of Hispanic children, and 27% of white children. I am sure that most viewers shook their heads knowingly, the statistics bearing out their feelings, no matter how varied, about Black and Hispanic peoples. But the percentages are very misleading.
If half of each population is children, that 70% of black children equals about 10.5 million children; for Hispanic children that’s 11.5 million children, and for Whites, a whopping 21.6 million children are born out of wedlock.
As usual statistics tell only a partial story that fails to explain at all the impact of this phenomenon on our society. The stats also do not take into account the number of the couples that are not married but remain couples after having a child or children “out of wedlock.”
So, if the show was to have any real social impact, it was on the legion of young, white men fathering illegitimate children in droves across America.
Too bad Black faces dominated our television screens, once again. And too bad the Black faces speaking had nothing of worth to say.
The Sports Reporters:
Jonathan Papelbon gave an interview to Esquire and from the safety and bravado that 2,400 miles of distance will provide, dropped verbal bombs on Manny Ramirez.
“The beautiful thing about our team is, we don’t let anybody get above the team. He wasn’t on the same train as the rest of us.” And here Papelbon starts banging his kitchen table for emphasis, the punctuation marks in his sentences changing: “He was on a different train! And you saw what happened with that. We got rid of him, and we moved on without him. That comes from the manager, and it comes from guys like Jason Varitek and Tim Wakefield and David Ortiz. Nobody is ever going to be allowed to do that. Even a guy like me, just heading into my fourth year in the big leagues — if David Ortiz gets a little, you know — I’ll tell him what’s up! I’m not afraid to do that. I’m not afraid to put him in his place, because I think everybody needs that. And if somebody does it to me, I understand that. I most certainly understand that. Varitek tells me all the time, ‘Just shut up. Do what you’re supposed to do.’ So Manny was tough for us. You have somebody like him, you know at any point in the ball game, he can dictate the outcome of the game. And for him not to be on the same page as the rest of the team was a killer, man! It just takes one guy to bring an entire team down, and that’s exactly what was happening. Once we saw that, we weren’t afraid to get rid of him. It’s like cancer. That’s what he was. Cancer. He had to go. It sucked, but that was the only scenario that was going to work. That was it for us. And after, you could feel it in the air in the clubhouse. We got Jason Bay — Johnny Ballgame, plays the game right, plays through broken knees, runs out every ground ball — and it was like a breath of fresh air, man! Awesome! No question.”
Can you say, “load of shit?” Apparently Pappelbon didn’t dare say shit to Ramirez last season lest he face beat down.
Predictably though, on the Sports Reporters Sunday morning, Bob Ryan and Mike Lupica lauded Papelbon’s six months late lambasting of the controversial Ramirez.
Ryan spewed the ESPN baseball talking heads line from earlier in the week that Ramirez “is now behind them [the Red Sox team] and everyone can move on.”
Lupica chimed in with his assessment of Ramirez:
“He made it seem like he was working in a coal mine when he’s the toast of the town, he’s making $20 million…”
Ummm, Bob, Mike, Buster, Peter, et al. the Red Sox’s season ended in October 2008, it is now March 2009 and Emmanuel Ramirez is still a major topic of conversation in and around the Boston team.
For all the bluster from the Red Sox and from the press that the Sox were and are a better team without Ramirez, in the clubhouse it is obvious that the players feel pressured to right last season’s playoff failure and produce something more than key postseason game hitting flameouts this season without him.
And while there was and is angst in Boston, Ramirez was crushing the ball in the playoffs for Los Angeles and looks relaxed and ready to repeat his feats of last season.
It is interesting that Manny, like many non-white athletes who have played professional sports in Boston, hated Clam Chowder City. The city is legendary for cheering its players on the court or field as long as they are winning chips for the city and calling them all kinds of “nigger” and “spic” when the teams are losing.
As Bill Russell famously remarked, “I play for the Boston Celtics, not the city of Boston.”
Papelbon was lauded by Ryan as “having no filter” and this being “classic Papelbon.”
I wonder what Ryan would have said if Terrell Owens made this statement? He might have called it classic Owens, but would have added that it was classic, cancerous Owens.
Thankfully, Len Elmore lent his sober voice to the proceedings and put the two bloviating white men in their respective places. Elmore reminded the viewer that Papelbon’s teammates might just be thinking, ‘am I next on your list or when is he going to talk about me?’ Elmore asked Ryan:
“In fact, Bob, why didn’t he tell you that -Ramirez is a cancer – after he [Ramirez] left? Why didn’t he tell folks all this stuff earlier? I mean, what was it about the Esquire interview that forced all this honesty? As a teammate I’m wondering, ‘okay are you doing this to take the stage now – are you going to put yourself above the team?”
Of course Ryan had to acknowledge that Elmore asked “legitimate questions” but then went on to say that Papelbon’s teammates “know him”:
“I suspect that he [Papelbon] speaks for a lot of guys and I do think that teammates are very comfortable with this…”
Though Elmore was the athlete, it was Ryan and Lupica who treated Elmore as if baseball clubhouses and locker rooms are somehow different, relationship-wise, than other locker rooms and though Elmore’s questions were legitimate, they were not founded in reality.
The sad reality here is that neither Ryan nor Lupica could see the double-standard they possess when it comes to their perspective on White and Black athletes who make “controversial” statements. It is equally sad that moderator-host John Saunders did not think to slip in a query about this double-standard in their direction.
And what made this Sports Reporter segment even sadder – or in Obama-speak, “more sad” – is that there was no black baseball writer – say, Ralph Wiley – to verbally slap the two pontificating pansies spewing their special brand of racist palaver back into the Stone Age with Babe Ruth, Mel Ott, and Ty Cobb where they belong.
What a way to start a Sunday.
Yeah, I’ll never forget the Brady/Moynahan fiasco and how it was quietly brushed aside. Have a good week(?).
The whole black men as bad fathers, and black men father multiple illegitimate children has become a punchline for whites when discussing black men, just like the other usual phrases (‘thugs’, ‘bling’ etc). I mean just look at any discussion of a guy like Shawn Kemp’s career. No one will remember how good of a player he was, but just instead bring up how he had a bunch of kids.
Also in situations like this, everyone is always quick to give the benefit of the doubt to the woman. Truth is that just like for other entertainers, athletes have to deal with groupies and gold diggers as well. These kids come out of college and have all these woman throwing themselves towards them to get a taste of the fame or riches. What better way to keep a guy in your life other than to make him father one of your children. Of course some of these guys are going to make bad judgement calls, but it shouldn’t be an indicator for an entire race like those at ESPN make it out to be.
Regarding the Papelbon thing I felt the same way as what you said about if TO (or any other outspoken black athlete) had something similar to say. Basically Papelbon said that guys like him and Veritek keep each other in check, and we’re made to believe that these guys are ‘locker room leaders’. If a black athlete keeps his teammates in check, he’s automatically a cancer. I never did like Papelbon for some reason… probably because he personifies Boston quite well, and those clips of him doing those stupid dances after winning the world series.
i think the more misleading thing about their “statistics” regarding birth out of wedlock is the second thing you mentioned about many couples not technically being married when having kids. the statistics also don’t take into account the number of couples that are divorced within the first year or so of the child’s life.
the percentages themselves, however, i don’t think are necessarily misleading. the way they are highlighted is almost always going to be misleading. anytime you see someone quoting percentages you should be wary because misusing percentages is the easiest way to paint the picture you’re trying to. so of course they’re going to use the percentage measure of out-of-wedlock-births instead of the pure numbers measure because it favors their racist goals. but that doesn’t mean that the percentages not a valid measurement — they’re a relative measurement which can be very helpful when analyzed correctly. and i can’t emphasize enough that one always has to be careful anytime percentages are brought up. p.s. in no way am i defending those bigots at big disney — fespn.
aaron-
The percentage are misleading because, as I wrote, the actual numbers are so very different from the percentages. And if people at ESPN were thinking about shining light on this subject to the larges audience participating in this behavior, they would have removed Jason Caffey’s segment, which was basically redundant after Travis Henry’s, and replaced it with a segment on Tom Brady’s relationship or Matt Leinart’s, or another white athlete we don’t even know about…. so, as we both see, they give percentages – “stats” – that back up their agenda which was/is to illustrate how irresponsible Black athletes are.
I don’t watch OTL so I can’t comment on Sunday’s show but I did watch the Sports Reporters and I liked how Len Elmore called out Papelbon’s fugazi behavior and how telling Ryan and Lupica’s responses were. Lupica’s crack that Manny wasn’t working in a coalmine when in Boston was very irresponsible because as much as a baseball writer and ‘historian’ as he is, Lupica knows what goes on around the Red Sox in Boston. There’s an unbroken line of Red Sox stars from Ted Williams to Carl Yastremski (sp) to Jim Rice up to Manny Ramirez who had prickly relationships with the press and the fans there. Everything Manny did off the field in that city was reported on by the media and dissected by the so-called passionate fans who wanted to find something to howl about as much as wins and losses. So no Manny wasn’t working in a coalmine but he was living in a fishbowl which is just as bad.
No woman gets pregnant on purpose? Yeah, just like no man tells lies to get laid, right?
aaron – You’re on point with the percentages. Shouldn’t they have mentioned that Bristol and Levi aren’t going to get married now? If Sarah Palin does run for president in 2012, the “family values” folks should be up in arms.
It’s always kind of brushed aside about Brady and Leinhart’s out-of-wedlock trysts. Whenever someone brings it up to them, they will say that they are good fathers, and won’t follow it up. I cheered when Leinhart’s ex found a sympathetic ear from a reporter and told the real dirt on how Matty didn’t even come to see his kid. Haven’t seen anything like that from Brady’s ex.
The New York Times had a better article about Travis Henry being broke on Friday. He said he used protection first, then, would stop, believing the women when they said that they were on the pill. Next thing you know, they are pregnant. It mentions that Henry’s own father wasn’t around until Henry became famous. The article also mentions when he signed his last contract with Denver, a couple of the mothers came after him big time. And how even with no job now, some of the mothers want to keep the same level of support coming in. It can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/sports/football/12henry.html?ref=football
I don’t buy that these guys have uncontrollable libidos and are lured into having lo these many kids by gold-digging women. It takes 2 to tango, hombre, and if you don’t want to get a girl pregnant, use protection. That advice goes for the 16-yr-old broke kids, and the 20-yr-old millionaire athletes. White or black.
Also there is a difference between Travis Henry and Jason Caffey. Travis appeared to be trying very hard to be a father to his kids, whereas Jason didn’t. Obviously it’s tv so we don’t really know the truth, but it still stands that regardless of what mistakes have been made, those kids still deserve a father in their lives.
As for Obama’s stance on fatherhood, are you saying you disagree? He shouldn’t be addressing the number of absentee fathers in our community? Leaning on obscure grammatical mistakes in the speech is a facile way of dismissing it without addressing the merits.
The Dwight Howard story is frustrating. I’ve done my share of digging into that, and it’s not clear who Dwight is and who the woman was. It’s definitely not the clear-cut situation that OTL tried to portray, and I’ll leave it at that.
I once had a post prepped on how hard it actually would be for an athlete to remain abstinent (ala Kaka, AC Green). I think people fail to realize just how hard it is for athletes to to protect themselves sexually. (Yes, “put a condom on” fixes a fair amount of issues, but not all. And remember, some of these babies emerge from long-term relationships, not one-night stands.)
BTW, don’t forget all the drama around Brian Urlacher’s kid as well. Most of the big examples I can remember involve white irresponsible athletes, except for Kemp and Henry.
Papelbon’s attempt to shift the blame to Ramirez just because Ramirez is gone is so transparent as to be laughable. No one who has spent any time in corporate American can fail to realize an example of “pass the buck” behavior at its finest.
McBias,
The Chicago media dissed Urlacher’s baby mama to a degree that you NEVER see done to the female when dealing with a black player during a paternity suit/custody battle. The protected “their boy” in a way that no black player on that team, no matter how valuable to the squad, would be handled.
I think it’s interesting that guys like Tom Brady didn’t end up on “Outside the Lines” and they should have.
Phil and MC-
…. Urlacher! Riiiiight… and yes the Chi media did protect him completely.
and MC, the Howard story is very complicated. However, I’m surprised that you haven’t checked out his background more. As I was telling MODI, when he was a kid, his parents and community saw that he was special, in their eyes and was treated so. His parents lived with him for awhile (at least) after he was drafted. And I’m sure you remember his stated intentions about flipping the NBA and making it a Christian community.
Now, I’m not on the religion tip, but I do know that Howard has been rock-solid in his beliefs (remember he attended a small Christian H.S., too) and Reed claimed she was born-again (there’s a bio of her – on Zimbio? – stating so)….
However, I do find it interesting that much of the info I saw about her when the whole “D. Howard is having a child” affair became public, has slipped into the shadows, even on the Internets…..
cdg-
I wrote about B.O. the day after Rahm Emmanuel was picked…. I mentioned briefly just a couple of days ago that the people he is surrounding himself with are sheisty. Just to re-name one, remember, Henry Kissinger is an International War Criminal. He has extended torture, albeit moved it to foreign countries and voted to extend the PATRIOT ACT when he was still a senator, The NAFTA-GATT crap he pulled was well-documented (though I notice you didn’t mention that). And I felt it was disingenuous to, on Father’s Day, hit up the Black Christian community for votes and rail on said community without offering any real solutions – unless you call developing a “parallel civilian army with all the benefits of the U.S. Military” (I think that was the exact quote from one of his campaign speeches) that taps children in programs like Head Start and uses the elderly as “mentors” in this parallel army a solution, and requires three months of mandatory basic training plus 110 hrs. of mandatory community service for 18-24-year olds a solution.
So, you can aks – yeah, a-k-s, me a question, you can hit the archives and check out why I wrote what I wrote, but do not at all pretend that I would ever write something like that without the existence of some prior contextual info.
B.O. is no savior, he is pure poli-sci,and the quicker peeps realize that the quicker we can soberly – not more sober – discuss him in the context of his politics and political decisions.
As far as women are concerned and the two to tango deal is concerned – you grossly oversimplify the “dance.” But you do need to read the NYT article on Henry….
Also….. there’s a whole ‘nother side to this where athletes – and men, period – act as predators against women (and I feel they are acts against women, not toward women). And that’s part of our effed-up collective sexuality. However, that is for another article with different circumstances than those put forth by ESPN.
D…
Is Wiley was around, he might have said about Papelbon, “Well, if nothing else, we know the man doesn’t know how to show gratitude.”
The Red Sux blow the moose. No Manny, no rings. Those cats are 2nd rate and owe every dollar in those post World Series contracts to Manny.
As for the baby-makin’ binnis — these are desperate times when ESPN is ackin’ lyke dey care ’bout wimmin’ and chirrens’ by dragging out the Negro du jour. Nothing yells like an unforgiving inferiority complex with a voracious appetite.
“S” and “F” are not as close on my keyboard as I recall.
Y’all are brave for still watching ESPN. That station almost never gets cut on at my crib. Don’t have the time for my little boy to get self hate beamed right into his home.
That’s right Big Man Daddy.
…watching, “In Prison all My Life” on one TV and PTI on the other…. In prison all our lives….
Big Man-
Sweet quote…. My daughter is a real verbal person and because of her mom and me, she’s real wary of how language is used by people and real exact with it – and she caps on those fools at the Big Disney all the time. For her, I treat watching ESPN like class time… a class on “Corporate Society” for a nearly seven-year old.
T3-
Ralph would have had a few nice quips for “Bon-Bon.”
dwil,
my point was that the misleading part of that segment is the actual question being considered. the fact that they chose percentages over numbers is definitely indicative of their agenda. but the fact that they chose the criteria “births out of wedlock” is what is the most misleading. like you mentioned in your piece, this criteria doesn’t in fact say anything significant because there are so many factors not considered like the stability of the relationship, etc. but with the proper presentation, the results of the question considered gives them “justification” for not including the likes of brady, leinhart, or urlacher in their piece. so i definitely agree that the percentages of children born out of wedlock are a mischaracterization of the reality in our society, but i would argue that the greater crime is deliberately choosing a criteria that favors their agenda with the lesser crime being the fact that they chose to state them as percentages. i really hope that i’m not sounding too pedantic about this.
Great post Dwil. Man just when I think ESPN can’t get worse they pull the old blame a negro out.
Temple, aaron, mcbias and Phil makes some great points.
As far as Urlacher and the lady who fathered his child. The media in chicago did protect the golden boy. Even when the media addressed the issue it had a racial ting to it IMO. The lady who had his child was black, so they tried to paint here out as some ghetto hood rat who was trying to trap urlacher. Even though Urlacher was married and never had a relationship with her. They even brought up how she was a stripper and had sued.
Now this was after the chicago defender ran their story (listed below) weeks before the white media even addressed the issue.
“Like many single mothers, Tyna Robertson wants to give her son the best life possible – and believes his father should help financially. But Robertson, 33, said Will County courts may be offering her child’s father preferential treatment because of his celebrity status.
Bears middle linebacker Brian Urlacher, father of Robertson’s 14-month-old son Kennedy, earlier this year, was allowed to determine how much child support he should pay. He decided $2,000 was sufficient for the care and feeding of his son.
Robertson said not only has she found herself in deep debt, but also Kennedy is entitled to more of his father’s fortune. Urlacher earns an estimated $240,000 per game.
“All those other guys have to pay 20 percent of their salary and a couple of the Black guys (in court) go to jail,” Robertson said.
At a hearing Wednesday before Will County Associate Judge Ludwig Kuhar, Robertson petitioned the court for an emergency child support order. Urlacher’s attorneys asked the judge to deny the emergency support.
“This is 1 percent of this man’s net income,” Robertson’s attorney, Steven Lake told Kuhar at a Will County child support hearing Wednesday. “There is an emergency here. (Robertson) needs day care money, $500 for transcripts. She doesn’t have gas money to go downtown to see her attorney. (Urlacher) has unlimited funds to litigate this, but she sold one of her cars, her credit cards are maxed out.”
Kuhar will decide on the emergency child support Aug. 15.
After the hearing, a teary-eyed Robertson told the Defender Wednesday she had to borrow money to fund her son’s birthday party in May.
“I’m not crying about the money because I know the Lord’s going to provide,” Robertson said.
A former stripper, Robertson said it is difficult for her to work as a real estate agent because her image often appears negatively in the media.
Robertson has been portrayed as an opportunist for her involvement with Urlacher, as well as a $35 million lawsuit against Irish dancer Michael Flatley for an alleged sexual assault in a Las Vegas hotel room in 2002. Flatley said the sex was consensual and police did not press charges.”(The negative publicity) makes it hard to recruit new clients,” she said.
A Los Angeles court ruled last week Riverdance star Flatley can to sue Robertson for defamation and extortion.
“I don’t know anything about that,” Robertson told the Defender Wednesday.
Robertson said Wednesday she knew nothing of the ruling and had not hired an attorney for the matter.
“All of that has no relevance with me being a mom,” Robertson said. “I will not back down from Brian or anybody else.”
Jeffrey Leving, a father’s rights attorney and chair of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood, said he wonders if Robertson can get a fair trial if the court is favoring Urlacher, as he suspects.
Leving said he wanted to add the case to a book he is working on, but found Kuhar has the case under seal.
Wednesday, Kuhar called the first and last names of others to appear before the court. But when the Urlacher case was called, Kuhar called only the last name of Robertson’s attorney.
Urlacher should not receive preferential treatment in the courtroom because he is a professional football player, Leving said.
But because his father is a professional football player, Kennedy is entitled to much more of Urlacher’s salary, Leving added.
Kennedy deserves to live the lifestyle of a child whose father is worth several million, Leving added.
“He should have more than the necessities of life. He should have the best education, the best medical and dental care that can be provided, the best extra curricular activities,” Leving said. “If he’s earning millions, $2,000 a month just doesn’t make sense.”
Robertson and Urlacher met at a downtown nightclub. Urlacher has two daughters from his first marriage; one is just seven weeks older than Kennedy.
“My main concern is not monetary, it’s that (Kennedy) and his siblings should be treated equally,” Robertson said. “I don’t want my biracial son to be treated any differently than his sisters.”
Though she alleges Urlacher asked her to move out of town after learning of the pregnancy and seldom contacted her until more than two months after Kennedy was born last May, Urlacher has also petitioned the court for full custody of the child.
Robertson said she believes Urlacher does not want custody of Kennedy, but instead wants to avoid paying child support.
Urlacher, who was not in court Wednesday, has not returned Defender calls seeking comment.
Kuhar is expected to decide both child support and custody at a trial in October.
Urlacher’s $2,000-a-month support for the child sounds incredibly low, given the minimum support awarded in Illinois is 20 percent of the father’s salary, Leving said.
“It’s hard to believe his net income is $120,000. Managers make more than that,” Leving said.
Robertson said she fears Urlacher may receive preferential treatment not only due to his celebrity status, but also because he is white.
“It just makes you wonder if (the support order) would be so inadequate if he had a different face,” Robertson said.
Two Black men in the same courtroom Wednesday said they believed their child support judgments were fair. Charles Carter, 27, of Joliet said Kuhar has been relatively fair with him and ordered him to pay $38 a week in support to his 9-year-old child, which he said is about 10 percent of his income.
Kuhar encouraged Tony Jones, 28, of Chicago to look for a “better” job than his current one where he works about 30 hours a week. A job with more hours might give him the opportunity to provide his child with more insurance.
Jones, who lives in Chicago, said white men are treated no better than Black men in Kuhar’s courtroom.
“The only reason why there’s more Black guys in there than white guys is because (whites) have good lawyers and don’t even have to come to court,” Jones said.”
Oh and aaron I hate these blame black folks statistics.
You know the 70% out of wedlock. The more black men in jail then college and the only 42% of black women are married.
As a engineer who works on statistics and crushing numbers. I know that you can make statistics look however you want. And many of these statistics are mis-leading.
Perfect example the more black men in jail then in college is totally mis-leading. First when they take the number of black men in jail they are listing men from the age of 17 all the way till the oldest man in jail. That could be 90 years old. Then in college they are only taking into account black men between the ages of 17 and 25. So of course the jail number is bigger.
Here is one for you. I didn’t finish grad school until my late 20s. So I was over 25 and wasn’t counted as a statistic for college and I wasn’t even in jail so I didn’t count there. So I guess by the stats I didn’t exist. Or how about now I have gone back to school to work on another masters. I am 33 so I still don’t count.
Also many of these prisoners are counted year after year because some are doing life. But there are no college students counted as such, because eventually they graduate or stop going to college.
Actually if you only count ages 17 to 25 of black men. There are more black men in college then in jail.
I tell you these stats are a joke. They just make these to fit their agenda. Even the 42% black women who have never been married stat. Realize that their are 44% of black men who have never been married also.
Anyway sorry for my rant. But this mess just pisses me off.
When I have more time Dwil and aaron I want to tell you some of that funny math that the CDC uses to collect stats. I actually did a research paper in grad school (some years ago) about that.
O-
Do email me and let me know the results of that research paper…. and thanks for the rant.
origin,
i’d like to see that paper as well. it cracks me up (and simultaneously makes me sad) to see the “creative” ways in which people gather and report statistics. the majority of the time, there is a already a conclusion in place and the next step is to find some numbers somewhere to support it. it’s pretty interesting because i think that as soon as a lot of readers start to see the “math side” of a situation, they assume that whoever did it has done so correctly. that’s why i always try to tell students that one should always take a close look at the percentages and numbers being quoted.
and i liked your rant as well. and those are perfect examples of (not so) subtly changing the context of the quantity being measured in order to fit with a predetermined conclusion. in one of the examples you mentioned, since it’s already *so obvious* that black americans are more likely to be in jail than to be in college, it doesn’t matter if dubious methods of gathering and sorting data are used in order to support a claim that is *clearly* true.
On the “more black men in jail than in college” stat, the Washington Post de-bunked this one during the elections when both John Edwards and Barack Obama said it on the stump. Ooops.
The numbers aren’t pretty, though. I’ll say, YES, there should be more black guys in college, but to villainize a race of men like that? I’m not going to stand for it.
As for Tyna Robertson, even if she were squeaky-clean, the Chicago media would hold her up as a harlot that enticed the small-town boy into her clutches. I hope the sistahs are watching this mess that’s going on in this case and take a look at the hyper-sexualization of Michele Obama and “Bare Arm Gate” when she took that picture with bare arms and it turned on the mainstream media or disgusted them, take your pick.
Urlacher should be paying more. If a black Chicago Bear player did the same thing, he’d be guilted by the fans into paying more than what he probably should—just out of spite and paternalism.
it takes 2 to tango…
but there are money grubbing women out there with pathetic jobs who cop out of real life by having sex with athletes for that instant quarter of a million dollar a year payday.
it’s bullshit that a man has to pay a set percentage of his salary to a woman who lived in poverty prior to locking up an athlete with paternity tests and accusations, etc.
The athletes put themselves in that position, and only the dirty news comes out in the media… they’re both at fault, but like Origin’s comment contained lawyer remarks about Urlacher’s $2000 a month child support payment and how he should be paying 20%. 20% is an unreal payment no matter what the person’s salary is, especially considering if the female in the situation had a horrible background.