Didn't Do The Right Thing

I'm going to continue along my line of pointing out the irresponsibility of people in regard to this Trayvon Martin case that is rapidly turning into a public fiasco which is rapidly turning into a lynch mob just itching for action. Today I shall point out the incredibly irresponsible Spike Lee for his reprehensible action on Twitter the other day.

See, a lot of people are still up in arms that George Zimmerman hasn't been arrested for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Mind you, all of these people have no more facts than you and I have. None of us have any idea what went on between the two of them. But for some reason, so many people want to believe that this is nothing more than racism and a young guy was blown away just because he was black. Anyway, Spike Lee is one of these people. This is evidenced by this tweet:

And that's fine. If that's his opinion, he can tweet that all the live long day if he'd like. But that's not what has me ticked off. No, it would be the tweet that he sent out which allegedly had George Zimmerman's home address on it. Behold!

Tell me something, Spike. What were you hoping would happen to Mr. Zimmerman by putting his "home address" out there? I'm having a difficult time coming up with any scenario that does not involve vigilante justice and horrifying violence. THAT is how you think this should be handled? Allow me to reiterate: You don't know what went on! Yes, I wish that the kid hadn't been shot, but I don't have enough information to understand why he was shot. And neither does Spike Lee! But this isn't the worst of it.

See, turns out that the address that he tweeted out to his at least 250,000 followers was the wrong address. The address that he tweeted out actually belonged to a couple in their seventies. And according to the Washington Post, what happened next was exactly what Spike Lee must have wanted to happen. "Menacing calls. Menacing letters. Menacing envelopes with Taste The Rainbow printed on them." Nice. Real nice. They also received "...hate mail, threats, harassing visits from reporters and fearful inquiries from neighbors." Holy crap. Look at these innocent people:

They had to leave their home because they were so afraid! I'm very thankful that nothing horrible happened to them. And given the mob mentality that people like Spike Lee seem to delight in stirring up, it might be nothing short of amazing that no one did anything terrible to them. (Not that sending letters and calling isn't terrible. You know what I mean.) And what did Spike Lee do in the aftermath of his stupidity and irresponsibility? He sent them an apology tweet.

Yes. A tweet. The tweet simply said "I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake. Please Leave The McClain's In Peace. Justice In Court." First of all, what's with the capital letters on every word? It's annoying and it seems like it would take a lot longer to type. Second, just to be pedantic, it should read "McClains", not "McClain's". Seems that grammar isn't his strong suit, either. But finally, it wasn't a mistake. The address was incorrect, but Spike Lee didn't send out that tweet by mistake. He sent it out on purpose. For him not to take responsibility for that in that manner makes me crazy. And saying he's sorry in a tweet, yeah, that'll fix everything.


For someone who seems to think that Trayvon was completely innocent in this whole matter, Spike Lee sure did manage to drag a couple of people are actually ARE completely innocent into this fiasco. The woman used to be a lunch lady and her husband has a heart condition, for crying out loud! Way to go, Spike. You jackass. Does it only go one way with you? It's OK for you to treat people the way that you did, but God forbid if a black person gets treated poorly by anyone? Is that how this works? And people wonder why there is a divide in this country. It's because people like Spike Lee do things like this to make it worse. It's like Jon Stewart said: "Yes, sending a lynch mob to the wrong address is a bad mistake. But I gotta say, even if it was the right address, that’s still a bad f***ing mistake. Sending a lynch mob to anybody’s address is bad mistake.” And that is why I love Jon Stewart and hate Spike Lee.

People really need to calm their asses down here. If y'all want to protest, I suggest that you take your protests to the Sanford Police Department or the district attorney's office building. There needs to be more information given. There needs to be more explanations given. I think that's part of the anger and hostility that people have right now is that they feel that nothing has been done. And really, not much has been done. I agree. But what is lacking right now is a sense of understanding as to why nothing has been done. The sooner that information gets out there, I think the better that things will be. In the meantime, don't do stupid ass stuff like this. It only makes things worse. And if you're serious about wanting things to get better, please do things that will make things better.

Sphere: Related Content

Ready...Aim...Fire!

Yesterday I talked about the little fiasco over there at ESPN when someone decided that a good headline referring to Jeremy Lin would be "Chink in the armor" when the Knicks lost. (In case you missed yesterday's post, that particular headline was a bad idea.) ESPN apologized and they took the headline down and they did so within 35 minutes. (Doesn't take long for an Internet ruckus to get going.) And of course, that wasn't enough for some people.

According to the Huffington Post, the "...Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, an organization that promotes civil rights for Asian Americans, wants the network to do even more". That's right. Even more. They apologized. They took it down within 35 minutes. And that isn't enough. Apparently, the AALDEF (who should really think about shortening their acronym) says "The time for apologies is over." Sooooo...I guess we shoot them? I'm so confused.

They went onto say "The media and the general public must understand that racist language and stereotypes used to describe Jeremy Lin are an insult to all Asian Americans, and no one should tolerate their use." Huh. I'm pretty sure that the "media and general public" DO understand that. If the media didn't understand that, wouldn't we see more inappropriate language in their reporting? Does this happen often? I don't think it does, but that might be based upon my definition of "often". Since I keep up to date on current events all the live long day, I'm pretty sure that my reading material isn't frequently peppered with racial insults. Based upon that, I'm not sure that it's the HUGE problem that they want to make it out to be. The headline that ESPN used? Now THAT was a problem. But is it widespread? I really don't think that it is. (By the way, the picture that I used for this paragraph is ALSO a problem. Whose idea was that?)

Now let's address the concern that they have about the general public. If you're reading this blog, you have to know that the general public is stupid. Paste eating, mouth breathin' morons is what a lot of 'em are. You know it. You know them! But the media and the general public are two completely different entities. Good luck at getting the general public to consistently adhere to an acceptable group of standards. There will always be those who don't go with the flow and who can't play nice with others. I'm not saying that it should be tolerated, but I don't think that people should be overly surprised when they encounter such softheads.

It's still unclear to me what the AALDEF wants anyone to DO. 35 minutes response time might be some sort of a record. And ESPN said in a statement "We are conducting a complete review of our cross-platform editorial procedures and are determining appropriate disciplinary action to ensure this does not happen again". OK, I don't know what "cross-platform editorial procedures" even means. I don't know if even ESPN knows what that means. But they also said "We regret and apologize for this mistake." There you go. It was a mistake. They didn't say "We're going to immediately fire the person who did that because it's clear that they are a flaming racist and are also probably a Klan member." It was a mistake. They apologized. And from what I can tell in reading the reactions to this debacle, the only person who thought it was a good idea in the first place was the moron who wrote it.

I'm all for making people aware of when things aren't OK because they have a racist tone to them. But there are instances when it's just a stupid mistake. I'm pretty sure this is one of those times. I'm pretty sure that everyone at ESPN is NOT a racist. I'm pretty sure that the person who wrote this wasn't a racist. (Really, if you were a racist, do you think that the most appropriate way to get your racist views out there would be to risk your job at ESPN with a comment as lame as "Chink in the armor"? Please.) But I guess now we're just supposed to shoot these folks or something because an apology isn't enough. Seems a bit extreme if you're asking me.

Sphere: Related Content

It's A Start

Well, it's a start. Too bad this person couldn't have gotten this message out before a whole bunch of idiot fellow students were out rioting at the firing of their jackass coach who protected a child rapist for many years.

Sphere: Related Content

The Other Women Want Apologies

Now, I expected that there would be a little bit of talk from folks after Tiger Woods's apology. Mostly I figured that it would be people discussing whether or not he was sincere or not. What I wanted to hear was people explaining why he chose that particular moment to "apologize" or whatever you want to call it. I mean, he wasn't announcing that he was returning to golf. There hadn't been any public developments that anyone was aware of. It was just out of the blue. But of course, since that's a legitimate question, most of the mainstream media didn't address that. Shocking, I know. Aside from that, while I did expect to hear stuff like I described above, what I did not expect to hear were complaints....from the women that he was sleeping with.

That's right. Tiger Woods's whores (I call 'em whores, some call them mistresses) are upset that he did not publicly apologize to THEM during his little speech on Friday. Wait. What now?

Correct. At least two of the mistress-y whores wanted an apology. First up we have Jamie Jungers. She went on E! Online and talked to some dude who I had never seen before and said that she felt that he should have addressed not her in particular, but all of the women that he slept with (I guess that would include his wife, but it's hard to say). According to the article over at The Huffington Post, since she claims to have slept with Tiger on the night that his father died, she "...did not hesitate to reference Earl Woods' passing. "I've seen his face and his emotions when his father died and this was different.... I'm not going to call him a liar but...he's playing that card." Well, she might be right, but she's not right in the way that she thinks that she's right.

See, one's emotions are going to be different on the night that someone, say their father, dies than they are going to be when they are standing behind a podium and blathering on about how sorry they are for something. I'm sure his emotions were different. So I don't know what card he could possibly be playing. That one is definitely a head scratcher.

The other head scratcher is her acting as if she has somehow been victimized by all of this. She claims in the E! clip "If it were up to me, I never would have done it to begin with, but I was young and stupid." Young and stupid aside, I'm pretty sure that it was always up to her. I'm pretty sure that no one forced her to sleep with the world's best golfer. Pretty sure of that.

The other disgruntled mistress is Veronica Siwik Daniels, also known as Jocelyn James. She has to go by a different name for all of the porn that she films. (Oh, that's right. That Tiger hooked up with the classy ones.) Ms. James has managed to get herself hooked up with the most despicable person on the planet, attorney Gloria Allred. Gloria Allred is like the queen of the publicity chasers. If there is an incident that is even the slightest bit in the public eye, mark my words that you will find Gloria Allred trying to weasel her way into it somehow. She's just a horrible, horrible human being. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't have a human soul.

Gloria Allred held her own little press conference after Tiger's. Again, over at The Huffington Post, we learn that Gloria Allred said that "I just watched Tiger Woods' apology on television, and he said that many people believed in him. He also said he wanted to make amends. He did not apologize by name to my client, Veronica, and I ask, why no apology?"

If you really have to ask "Why no apology?", then you're dumber than I thought. What is he going to apologize to these women for exactly? For lying to them? I'm sorry but if you're having an affair with someone who is married, can you really believe anything that they say? After all, they have no problem lying to and cheating on their spouse. Why would anyone expect that it would be any different with the person who is the cheatee? You wouldn't. Well, they did, so I guess I should have wrote that they shouldn't.

I find it amazing that these women want an apology from Tiger Woods. An apology for what now? For not being the only person that he was cheating on his wife with? That sounds like an odd apology to demand. Do they expect an apology because he told them that he loved them and only wanted to be with them? Please. What else was he going to say? "You're just one in a very long line of sluts."? I don't think that would have gone over very well.

People are amazing. So many people just expect that they should have people feel sorry for them when they're the ones who got themselves into whatever mess they're in. In the case of these women, the only difference between them and other women that sleep with married men is that the other women don't have a public platform to stand behind and cry about how hurt they are. Other than that, other than these women being able to let the whole world know that they feel that they were wronged, there's no difference.

Say, ladies? How do you think Tiger's wife would have felt about him apologizing to y'all? I'm guessing that wouldn't have gone over very well. And on top of that, he's never going to apologize to y'all because he never cared about you in the first place. Why apologize for something you don't care about? Harsh? Perhaps. But it seems like the truth. Get over it ladies. Go find some NBA player to sleep with.

Sphere: Related Content

Some Apology

And the Tiger Woods apology has happened! It was pretty much like I expected it would be. (Did I call it that there would be a podium in front of a curtain or what?!) The man yammered on for about 12 minutes. That is, if you can call talking in a robotic voice and reading from a script "yammering".

Naturally, there were several things about this that bothered me. Bothered. Annoyed. Tomato. Tomahto. Whatever. First of all, he wasn't taking any questions. I understand that. But I also understand that I don't like a "press conference" when the "press" can't actually do what their name implies, namely "press" the individual to elaborate. Well, according to the folks over at 10Connect.com the PGA Tour commissioner, a one Tim Finchem said that Tiger "...had interacted with reporters some 1,100 times during his pro golf career. When Tiger is ready to return to golf, he will return to the habit of talking with journalists." Um, yeah. That's not the same as talking to journalists who want to know more about your duping the public into believing that you were some squeaky clean family guy who could do no wrong. If you're not going to be taking any questions, then why have the reporters there in the first place? The whole thing was streamed live to the world as it was. It's not like the reporters were getting anything that we, the gawking public, were not.

That leads into my second annoyance with this process. Why did all major networks break into this event and use their "something terrible has happened" voice as if this was a serious matter? Sure, we're interested. I won't deny that. But did they really need to use the "Breaking News" screen and act as if we're all waiting for President Barry to step out and announce that we just annihilated Iran? I don't think we need to do that for a scumbag golfer who cheated on his wife with every cocktail waitress within arms length. (I'm assuming it was arms length. It could have been something else.)

Third, I can't stand things that are scripted. I mean, really scripted. Not only was he reading from two separate sheets of paper, he was moving his hand down the paper as he talked, presumedly as to not lose his place. I don't know that it takes two pages of fluff to say "I'm a dirtbag and I'm sorry I got caught."

I don't think that he was sincere. He was way too robotic and he used way too many scripted phrases that are supposed to indicate being sorry. If he had stood up there and just said, "I suck", that would have been better. The video is below. Judge for yourself.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Sphere: Related Content

Sorry, Sorry Tiger Woods

Rumor has it that Tiger Woods is set to come out of his self imposed exile from the world (and from all cocktail waitresses, apparently) and issue a "public apology". This won't be a statement read by someone else, though I have to believe that it will be a statement which has been crafted by someone else. My assumption is that Tiger wants to return to playing golf and there is no way that he is going to be able to do so without saying something more about his "transgressions" (ie, screwing everything in a Waffle House with two legs and a skirt, though the two legs didn't seem like a requirement that was set in stone or anything).

There are very few things that I like about the public apology. First of all, we all know that you didn't write it. We all know that you're just reading words that someone else crafted. Expecting us to believe that those are real words from deep within whatever amount of a heart that you actually possess is rather insulting. We're not idiots. Granted, overall, there aren't a whole lot of shining bulbs on the tree. But we're far from dim.

Second, I don't like how these public apologies are always one way. The wrongdoer comes out, blathers on about something, doesn't take questions, and then departs, usually through some large curtain. (Where do they get those apology curtains anyway? I'm guessing the same place they get the apology podiums and the apology lecterns.) I don't know that public apologies, if they're intended to be sincere, should be any different than private apologies.

Let's really use our imaginations here and assume that I am married to some guy. (I realize that is quite a stretch, but making crap up is half of the fun here, so stick with me!) And let's say that I find out that the guy I married has a seemingly insatiable thirst for dalliances with cocktail waitresses and porn stars (Internet or otherwise). After I crack him in the face with a 9-iron and cause him to attempt to flee from our Florida compound in his SUV, we separate to let things cool off for a while. Then he wants to apologize. Now, I realize that any sane person would tell this guy to go do to himself what he has been doing to all of those bimbos. But, let's say that I decide I'll listen to his apology. He apologizes and then right as I'm getting ready to ask him some questions about what he's just said, he stands up and says, "Sorry, babe. No questions." And then he walks off.

Um, no. That's not how it works. And that is why I hate the public apology. I am a firm believer that an apology is not on the terms of the one who is apologizing. The apology is on the terms of the one who has been screwed over. And for this particular sort of apology, the one who has been screwed over is the public. Granted, the public was rather gullible and allowed itself to be screwed over, but that doesn't really give someone else the go ahead to start the screwing.

See, this whole thing wouldn't be that big of a deal if Tiger hadn't promoted himself as being someone completely different than he was. That's why the Charlie Sheen ordeal isn't getting a lot of press like this Tiger thing is. I mean, seriously, Charlie Sheen gets arrested on Christmas Day for allegedly holding a knife to his wife's throat and then she subsequently checks herself into a rehab clinic for a crack addiction. Holy crap. That makes the fracas over at Tiger Woods's place seem like Thanksgiving at my place (during which no one was arrested, on drugs, holding others at knifepoint or cracked over the head with a 3-wood). But Charlie Sheen has never (to my knowledge) promoted himself as a squeaky clean guy with a squeaky clean image. That's why there is the uproar (pardon the pun) with Tiger. He made us all believe that he was squeaky clean. And now we're supposed to accept his apology, no questions asked? Screw you. Oh, wait. Someone already did. Never mind. Poor choice of words. You know what I meant.

I'd really like it if one of these public apologies would be on the same terms as private apologies are. You know, with all of the questions by the apolgizee for the apologizer at the end of said apology, because I'd really appreciate someone being asked "Why are you apologizing?" Frankly, I'd rather have someone be sorry than say sorry. I also wouldn't mind hearing the answer to "Why did you lie to us? Couldn't you have just done the right thing instead?" But I'd also really like to have them be asked, "Why should we believe that you're sorry?" Because I'm guessing that the majority of the time, if not every time, they're not sorry for what they did. They're sorry that they got caught. They're sorry that their carefully crafted life which they had previously enjoyed so much is no more. They're sorry that they have to deal with stuff. But I think that they're rarely sorry they did what they did.

If someone comes out on their own before being outed by a tabloid or a newspaper (that is, provided that there's a newspaper out there that still does reporting and stuff like that) and admits their own screwups before anyone had ever found out about them, that might indicate sorry. Then again, I don't foresee that happening because why admit something that no one knows about? Well, if you're sorry about what you've done, you do. I guess.

If Tiger doesn't like the public scrutiny, you know what? He doesn't have to deal with it. There is not one thing in this entire world that is making him be a pro golfer. I'd hazard a guess that he has more money than he can spend in this lifetime. (And he's going to have a heck of a lot more money now that he isn't paying off Perkins waitresses to keep quiet about their torrid affairs.) If he doesn't like it, if any of these public figures don't like it, there's a very simple solution. Stop being a public figure. Then you'll have all of the privacy you want and you can be as big of a pig and as big of an a-hole as you want. Enjoy.

Sphere: Related Content

You Want To Be Offended, Don't You?

Am I really supposed to be upset or outraged that President Barry made an ill-advised, off the cuff remark during his chat with Jay Leno? I really hope I'm not because I don't think that I can really muster up enough outrage to be convincing and to make it worthwhile. That's because it's just another fake controversy (or fakeroversy) that's been contrived (a contrivroversy), mainly by the media (way to go, CNN), over something that I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is actually enraged by this and not just people who think that they should be enraged. You shouldn't.

Here's the scoop: President Barry can't bowl. During the campaign he infamously bowled a whopping 37. And of course, almost a year later, the media still leaves out the part that it was not a full game!! He only bowled five or seven frames. That doesn't change the suckiness of the score, but at least it makes it sound like it's explainable. (Yeah, right. As if there is any explanation for an adult with all of his major limbs and organs in functional order who could only bowl a 37. The only explanation for that is 'you are the world's worst bowler'.) So Jay Leno was asking him if he had already ripped the bowling alley out of the White House and was surprised to hear that President Barry had not removed the bowling lanes and had been practicing to the point where he managed to bowl a 129!

That's when Jay started giving him crap about his 37 game and they were both laughing and that's when, in the midst of the laughter, President Barry said, "It was like the Special Olympics or something."

QUICK! Alert the press! Call in the media! Outrage! Bring your fake outrage! Pretend to be really angry! Offended! We need offense! Sound the alarms! Ring the sirens! Bang a drum! (Do we have drums? We do? Then bang them, for cryin' out loud! Didn't you hear what he just said?!?! At least, that's how I picture things right before a media frenzy begins.

OK, look, was it a bonehead thing to say? Sure. Should he have said it? Of course not. Do I think that because he said that it means that President Barry hates disabled people? No. Do I think he said that out of malice? No. Do I think that he has anything at all against anyone because of their disability? No. Of course not. And anyone who does needs to have their soft, soft head that is made out of cheese examined.

Now there's the "outcry" by those claiming to be "offended". To my knowledge, none of those who are "crying out" are either a) Special Olympians or b) disabled. Some of those weighing in on the non-issue were Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, herself the mother of a child with Down syndrome. She said that the comment was “degrading...especially since it was...coming from the most powerful position in the world." "These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will," she said, her words obviously directed to the black President. And still not content to hop off her soap box, she voiced these words of hope: "I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."

Oh, for God's sake, woman, did you lose the election and your mind at the same time?! You "hope" he doesn't really feel that way? Do you mean that you think there's a possibility, given all that you know about him, given all that you've seen of him, that he does feel that way? I can't imagine that you really think he might feel that way as opposed to just having said something stupid. You know what it's like to say something stupid that you later really regretted, don't you, Mrs. Palin? Think hard! I'm sure you can come up with a time or two (October and November, perhaps?) when you may have said things that, in hindsight, were not the most well-thought out statements. You keep thinking. I'll get back to you. Or I'll have Katie Couric give you a call.

Who else wants to throw in their inflammatory remarks of fake offense taken after the President's comment? How about Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver? He said, "I think it’s important to see that words hurt, and words do matter." And I totally agree with the guy. But I have yet to hear from the those who were "hurt" by the "words." “And these words that in some respect can be seen as humiliating or a put-down to people with special needs do cause pain, and they do result in stereotypes.” They can be seen that way, yes. Were they in this instance? I don't think so. It wasn't a mean or malicious statement. And he certainly wasn't trying to "humiliate" anyone! That is just ridiculous to even insinuate at. (And fortunately, not all of those involved with Special Olympics in a managerial sense feel the same way as Mr. Shriver, as Lori Arnold, the head of the Special Olympics in MIchigan stated, "We appreciate that the president "wasn't attempting to humiliate the Special Olympics." Finally! Sanity.) But let's see what a Special Olympian's reaction to this was.

Meet Kolan McConiughey, one of the nation's top Special Olympics bowlers with an average of 212 and a total of 5 perfect games. Holy crap, he's good! According to the AJC “He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily." Yeah, he could! President Barry only bowled a 129 once! Kolan would also like to bowl against President Barry and show him a thing or two about bowling. “I’d tell him to get a new bowling ball, new shoes and bring him down to the lane. Keep his body straight, his arm straight and keep his steps straight. He has to practice every single day.” Good advice. Anyone else?

Then there's a one 21-year old Daniel Fletcher of Brentwood. His reaction? "I am willing to get a team to challenge him. I'd challenge him myself." Huh. Doesn't sound bothered. What about his dad, Warren? What did he think? "A little off-key, but he really didn't mean anything negative." Huh.

Actually, his father Warren puts how he feels about what President Barry said into words that are damn near eloquent. The video of him speaking is below and I can only hope that some of those who are trying to stir up something that isn't there would watch it and listen to this guy. They know what he meant. So if something that is supposed to be offensive to a certain person or group is not offensive to that person or group, is it still "offensive"? I don't know. I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, it can still be a stupid thing to say, but I don't think it has to be offensive.

Sphere: Related Content