With Hollywood rehashing movie classics of yesterday, the Karate Kid gets a face lift, this time with new Asian villains and friends.  And instead of the marginalized Italian Danny Larusso amongst the WASPY high school kids of southern California, you have a black youth, Will Smith’s son, living among the Chinese in China.

From an initial glance of the trailer, this seems to echo popular black-Asian buddy films of the past: Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan of the Rush Hour series, Jet Li and DMX in Cradle to the Grave, and, of course, Jet Li and Aaliyah in Romeo Must Die.  Do black people love Jet Li?  At any rate, fans seems to love watching blacks and Chinese people duke it out and also work together in harmony, if at least on the big screen if not in real life.

But to some extent, has the Karate Kid series becomes the official “history” of Asians in the United States?  How does the shift from Mr. Miyagi living in a working class southern California neighborhood to Jackie Chan mentoring a black American youth in China suggest about the position of Asian/Asian Americans within the national imaginary?  What are the other reasons why Chinese have supplanted the Japanese as the friend (or foe) of choice?  Particularly, what do the friendships and antagonisms established between Asians (pictured abroad or within the domestic U.S.) and Americans possibly tell us about what the role of Asians within the making of U.S. power in the global arena?

From this opening trailer, there’s a moment where the gates to the forbidden city open, which the camera proceeds through the gate towards the sun-shone interior which a voiceover dub says “welcome to Beijing.”  It all looks and sounds too reminiscent to all the Olympics jargon about China’s opening up to the international community with obvious intentions laden with economic priorities.  The rest of the trailer shows bad Chinese kids learnin’ kung-fu gangin’ up on the outsider American Jaden Pinkett Smith.  Somehow Smith finds refuge with Jackie Chan who rehashes some of the ridiculous lessons of Miyagi, which waxes nostalgic of the old “wax on, wax off” variety but with a Chinese twist instead.  From the trailer, we gather the cliches about China in America’s imaginary, which it exists as both opportunity and also threat (if not already destabilizing) American hegemony.  Jaden’s trans-pacific movement in the film upon this initial glance of the trailer seems to suggest the problematic diplomacy that currently exists between “America” and “China” within the global arena.  Jackie Chan and the bad Chinese youth that harass Jaden provide varied choices of how Chinese (abroad and domestically) should be towards Americans for the sake of global economic harmony.

I could be making huge leaps with this having ONLY seen the trailer.  And I’m pretty excited about watching mostly because I know Bean loves these Black-Asian comedic dramas (much more than I do).  But the particular relations between Chinese and (African) Americans within not the domestic space of the U.S. (the original Karate Kid) but internationally perhaps emphasizes the greater place and position of Chinese within U.S. racial hierarchies, as overdetermined by China’s economic development and what that means for the U.S. economy and for Chinese in the United States.  In other words, why does the movie have to take place in China?  Why are these Chinese kids ganging up on the “American”?  Why are there both good and bad Chinese characters?

This leads me back to Karate Kid (1984) in the particular representation of Mr. Miyagi as the recluse, somewhat isolated, but kind Japanese man living in a working-class neighborhood.  Given the specific racial politics of the eighties where model minority discourse had become particularly overwhelming, Miyagi seems to exemplify the particular domestic racial politics of Asian cultural “assimilation” to “American values.”  Like the model minority discourse regarding Asian economic “success” based on familial values and hard work, Miyagi seemed to stay out of trouble and chose more non-violent approaches to ensuring Danny Larusso wouldn’t get his ass kicked on a regular basis.  Watching Karate Kid not too long ago on TV (about a year ago) made me realize how entrenched these representations were within the particular racial politics of the 80s and how this contributed to a larger dominant idea about Asian “assimilation” and how that constituted the “history” of post-civil rights America as the salad bowl.

Needless to say, this initial trailer seems to engage with the contemporary notions of “the Chinese” as both friendly and also antagonistic to “Americans.”  As Chinese and Chinese American become conflated within global capitalist discourses of development between the U.S. and China, I’m curious to see to what extent the new Karate Kid tells us more about where and how Chinese belong to the United States.

As if police barging in on a house party at like 9pm wasn’t major buzzkill enough, now their barging in and taking all your stuff too.

No, their not like the high school kids trying to steal VCRs, microwaves, and fine dishware from Montgomery Wards.  They’re looking to take dj equipment.

A friend put me up on the recent confiscation of dj equipment at “illegal parties” in San Francisco.  I’m not quite sure what makes a party “illegal.”  But based off various sources reporting on the topic, this can include anything from someone’s house, a warehouse, a garage, or even a fundraiser.  Here is the most concrete reason for the police seizure of the very expensive equipment:

The SFPD claims it does not have a specific task force looking at underground parties, but it does routine checks in the SOMA area, sometimes with other agencies such as the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, for permit and other violations.

Perhaps it’s a safety issue being in a public space and all the potential liabilities.  But punishing the dj is probably one of the weirdest things I’ve heard lately.  DJs get blamed enough for how wack a night might be (even if it’s the promoters’ and club owner’s job to handle that).  The only time the dj should get stuff confiscated or punished is if s/he’s super ugly.  So, c’mon SFPD, give em a break!

Man, times passes quickly when you don’t pay attention.  I noticed the last time I posted something was the beginning of October.  I’ve had my head down working extra hours the last few months that I didn’t even notice these delectably plushy toys (just in time for X-mas!).

Yes, meat pillows can be yours this winter.  T-bones, hams, bacon, pork chops can be purchased at sweetmeats.com.  No need to worry about mad cow or swine flu with these products.  No marination necessary either.

I knew something was up with Food Network.  It doesn’t take a culinary mind like Alton Brown to see beneath the thin veneer of cheerful “family-ready” personalities that the Food Network celebrities exude is just stuff for the televisions.

Alton Brown dishes the dirt on the co-workers he barely knows.  The only person he seems to have any identification with is Bobby Flay, which he describes as the “nicest guy ever.”  He has much much less nicer things to say about anyone else, unless you consider his comment about Giada’s eating habits, “I’ve never seen Giada (De Laurentis) eat,” a compliment to how well she can maintain her figure.

(via Food Network Humor)

If this is supposed to be “family” as the judges of “The Next Food Network Star”  claimed the Food Network to be, then maybe they were alluding to Michael Jackson’s family: semi-estranged.  But you can kind of tell from watching them how much “show” they put on for their audience.

This clip clearly shows Alton Brown’s own diva tendencies.  Tyler Florence showed off his own diva tendencies as he tried to play the tough judge by barking commands and criticizing contestants on “The Next Food Network Star.”  In the battle between Food Network hotties on “Iron Chef,” Giada neither congratulated Rachel Ray when they finished the challenge, nor when Ray was announced the winner.

All this is to say that, I watch waaay too much Food Network if I can cite examples to show how the Food Network isn’t really as “family friendly” as they try to portray.  Maybe Food Network should just hire this guy?

I’ve been wondering about the pending death of “the family dinner.”  Since the late nineteen nineties, there’s been quite a bit of press about the gradual disappearance of family time around the dinner table against the backdrop of the current dizzying lifestyle of capitalism.  By that I mean, you read about stories that lament about what’s happened to American domesticity: No more stay-at-home moms, dad working late or in other states and countries, and kids with too many social, work, and extracurricular activities that need to be fulfilled for the college admissions check-list.  Oddly, there’s this discourse about the dinner table as an ad hoc counseling sessions — eating around the table and confessing your teenage anxieties about sex with your parents — that supposedly protects children from deviant behaviors.

In the New York Times article, “The Guilt-Trip Casserole: The Family Dinner,” writer Jan Hoffman looks at the gradual disappearance of the family dinner and the new forms of domesticity that occur. The crux of the article is a study done about the relationship between family dinners to children substance abuse.  The argument being that children who have less family-time tend to do drugs.

Towards the end of the article, after giving a half dozen examples of (predominately white) families that find new ways of sustaining the heterosexual domestic arrangements of “family,” the stories seem to debunk the mythic place of the dinner table and the social practice of eating together within the American domestic imaginary.  It sort of inadvertently asks when did we begin to think that the  “family dinner” — maternal acts of cooking, eating mom’s cooking, children confessing personal problems and parents giving guidance — was the normal thing to do.  Why do these national fears over the loss of casserole in favor of bags of “Sonic” burgers scarfed down in a mini-van always appear as the tragedies of capitalism?

As I mentioned in previous post, the “family dinner” never was the moment of rejuvenation, but where the forces of “American” assimilation were contested and sometime reaffirmed.  It wasn’t domestic healing as much as it was domestic disputes.  My dad worked late and was home for dinner probably 3 days a week.  My sister was away at college for a portion of my h.s. days so it just ended up being my mom and I around the dinner table.  The “family dinner” seemed was more fiction than fact in our family and it hardly aligned itself with the fun times that re-runs of 50-60s TV made it out to be.  It’s not that we detested “family dinners.”  More often that not we tried to have them as much as possible.  But the national resonance of the rejuvenating properties of the kitchen table never emerged on our plates.  When we did eat as a “family,” we just sat silently together watching the sporting event on TV.

I find it kind of fascinating about the varied social meanings that come together at the ordinary dinner table.  What people ingest in their bodies, what people talk about, who prepares the meals, and the actual materials that people are gathering around (ikea table?) all seem to matter in the re/production of dominant ideas and practice of gender and sexuality (and by extension “America”).  In particular, these notions of what proper gender, sexuality is and isn’t gains its relevance and social meaning alongside capitalism.  Here’s a quote from the article:

““The family dinner research may be telling us that that some of the more important elements may be about slowing down, organizing our lives with a little bit less harried time,” she said. “There just needs to be some element of structure and reconnection during the day. And I don’t know that it has to be ‘meaningful.’ It could be a drive, a walk, a regular conversation.””

It’s interesting that children are susceptible to the machines of capital much more so than adults.  It’s like capitalism is as much as threat to their development if given to soon in their lives, like peer pressure or alcohol.

But isn’t capitalism what makes our country go?  Isn’t healthier and more innovative approaches to capitalism what our nation has been pining for, especially as the national employment rate passes 10%?  And if capitalism operates as a rule of law in the United States, why do we fear that it will bring deviancy and looser set of morals to youth?

Anyway, its funny to me that the “family dinners” may be losing their cache in the American imaginary.  Perhaps we can do away with the purportedly rejuvenating properties of mass manufactured furniture arranged to facilitate familial congregating.  Perhaps in this era of constant movement, will the mini-van or interior of the car take it’s place?

When did UPS man start delivering morals with your packages?

In the national imaginary, the UPS man exists as equal parts sex symbol and Santa Claus.  In the 1990s, I read a feature in either People magazine or Newsweek about the lives of UPS workers, which the writer focused on how well-received they are by stay-at-home moms and by kids.  What’s not to love about the UPS man, he is practically like the everyday Santa Claus, bringer of commodities, usually.

(UPS man doesn’t discriminate against women by age)

And for the most part, they are pretty well-groomed.  The UPS man I had in Michigan was a young, tall, and very well-groomed.  He was always lined up cleanly, rocked aviator glasses, and had “diamonds” in both ears.

In times of economic crisis like these, it seems that the UPS man is now asked to be a financial adviser.  Bean and I (Bean more than I) buy stuff online … and in more recent months with the Nordstrom anniversary sale and other economic stimulus sales going on with big department stores, our UPS man — a middle-aged, ripped, Chinese guy — makes his rounds around our block at least once a week.

Last week we saw him 3 times.

But in the last month and a half, the exchange between us usually begins and ends with him saying “you guys buy a lot of stuff.”  I used to say “oh, it’s my girlfriend…” Then I started buying some shit, too, recently.

I tried to strike up a conversation with the dude last week saying “It’s pretty awesome that we have a regular UPS man” and another time, “So, I’ll see you tomorrow, same time?  Maybe I can bring you a cup of coffee?” (chuckle chuckle).  but he usually just utters one judgmental line (and interpretation of the usual), like “I think I’ve been here everyday this week” or “buying more stuff, huh?”

This guy oddly reminds me of my father, who hates the fact that I ever buy anything — even if it’s for survival.  Even though my dad recommends spending extra to buy groceries and to stay healthy, he usually ends up judging my eating habits, telling me that I should just save money and eat fried rice everyday (which he has said to me before).  When I was buying records to support my semi-profitable djing profession, he told me to stop wasting money on music.  When I took my turntables to Michigan, he said “Will you have time to listen to music?  Don’t you have work to do?”

I’m thinking my UPS man is exhibiting these classic Chinese patriarchal characteristics.  Today, the first thing he said to me was “You guys are single-handedly keeping the economy afloat.”  In my mind, I said to myself: Man, isn’t my consumerism keeping YOUR job afloat?

I responded: “Yea, you could say we’re helping the country.  We’re like Obama, ‘putting America to work’!”

UPS Man: (no comment)

I tried to make small talk about how we missed him yesterday and instead got the Vietnamese dude (who’s also super friendly but tends to fart and stink up the area when he’s delivering stuff to us), which he responded generally, “Yea, he comes in the afternoon.  I like doing my rounds in the morning.”  He walked down the steps said without saying bye and that was it.

Anyway, Bean and I have tried to make a joke out of it now when we see him and Thumbu Sammy thinks I should invite him over for dinner.  Should we?  I imagine that he’ll think our house is like lifestyles of the rich and famous.  Like he has some wild imagination that the inside of our home has flat screens everywhere, a hot tub in the kitchen, and a non-stop fashion show given how much Bean gets stuff from Nordstroms.  But honestly, what gives?  Is it just because he’s Chinese?  Or is this some new policy about UPS men helping citizens stay-recession proof?

I learn a lot from the world of sports.  I learned today that assuming all white people are Klu Klux Klan members is inexcusable, but thinking all black people are ‘hood is socially acceptable.

Bruce Pearl, coach of the University of Tennessee Volunteers, is getting some heavy criticism for an off-the-cuff remark he made at a fundraiser.  In an attempt to excite the student fan base and also the employees, Pearl says:

“I’ve got a tough job. I’ve got to put these guys from different worlds together, right?  I’ve got guys from Chicago, Detroit … I’m talking about the ‘hood! And I’ve got guys from Grainger County, where they wear the hood.”

What’s so bad about that?  Isn’t this just the “true story” that became two Disney movies, “Glory Road” and “Remember the Titans”?  Or the most recent movie starring Dennis Quad, “The Express”?  Isn’t pointing out white racism against black people set in the 1940s-50s how we as a “nation” learn how to work together as a team and by extension country? Or maybe coach Bruce Pearl has been watching too many movies for inspiration on how to write a motivational speech.

But check out what he’s apologizing most for:

“Unfortunately while I was trying to excite the crowd and encourage employees to give, I made an inappropriate joke. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone and I apologize to everyone, especially the people of Grainger County.”

What?  Why do white people of Grainger County deserve extensive apologies versus the black people from Chicago and Detroit?  Granted, they might be from the ‘hood, but its interesting how as a country, it’s nationally acceptable if not ingrained that all black people are of a specific representation and that in itself, isn’t considered racist to think that way.

Granted, if someone called all Asians racist, I would probably be pretty upset.  Though I wouldn’t disagree with a statement that claimed Asians can be racist.  And Bruce’s comment, which I thought was a brilliant and critically ironic flip of the term ‘hood, probably should not have been made public the way he did.  But I think Bruce, as cliche as Disney movies are, points out the realities of racial conflict around access and educational justice that occur across universities in the U.S. involving everyone across the racial spectrum.  The U.C. walkout, in some ways, exemplifies this.

So Bruce’s comment might have been kind of a dumb thing to say.  His apology, rather than blowing off the challenges of his job, should have clarified that statement — even if it ended up in a Disney kind of fashion.  That is, Bruce clearly understands how racism manifests itself spatially in the way that certain kids grow up with different racist ideas based on the particular historical material consequences of those places.  More specifically, Bruce’s statement clearly shows that he understands the historical legacies and vestiges of how white-black racism can occur when the normative ideas of white and black inbalances in educational access are disturbed.

Instead, Bruce’s apology thus contributes to an existing discourse in the United States about racism in a post-civil rights era that calling white people racist makes you seem irrational and an outcast in the national public sphere.  That is, there is no place to talk about white racism publicly.

Maybe we should all refer to Spike Lee’s Nike commercial from the early nineties for a more refreshing take on how to “play together”!  After watching this video, can someone explain to me what’s so bad about talking white peoples’ follies in public, if we do it about other race all the time in mass media?

Zachary’s pizza, before our appetites got to it

Heijin and Dean (some of you may know them by Daron, De’Sha, or some other great nick name) were in town for some business and pleasure (pleasniss?) and Bean and I got a chance to catch up with them and a couple other mutual friends at Zachary’s Pizza.   Heijin, having spent her college years in the bay, was craving it as one of the meals she had to have during her visit.  Bean and I were more than happy to oblige to that request.

But several friends of mine swear that Zachary’s offers THE BEST deep-dish pizza, even better than they do in Chicago, where that style of pizza-eating comes from.  Oddly, the couple of friends who have told me about their strong affection for Zachary’s also happen to bay area “snobs”, as some of my homies born in and raised in the Midwest would say.  That is, these friends of mine that SUPER DUPER love Zachary’s would prefer not to live anywhere else besides the bay area to the point that living elsewhere would NEVER be an option.

There’s some odd relationship between their love for Zachary’s and their love for being a bay area resident. But the same could be said for some Midwesterners and their home-grown pizza styles.

Case in point, Bean and I were in Chicago for a conference once and we met up with one of my good friends from high school (who was living temporarily in Chicago) and a colleague who originally was from the Midwest, but was now living in the San Francisco bay area.  For some reason, my friend from high school and the colleague got into a semi-intense debate about what was the best Chicago-style pizza.  The colleague complained that to eat “real” Chicago-style, you had to have layers and layers of cheese.  The colleague further attacked Zachary’s “authenticity” by questioning its fat content: “Those ‘California’ pizzas all have to have organic ingredients and vegetables. What is that?”

From what I remember, this conversation began with my colleague asking my h.s. friend how he liked the Midwest, which I immediately jumped in to say that “it sucked.”  It was like we were tag-teaming in the ring.  We were finally getting our chance at redemption as if my colleague was supposed to apologize for all the suckiness that we (and our stomachs) had endured the last 4 years.

But the interesting portion of that conversation was how the debate about which part of the U.S. was “better” ended with a battle over deep-dish pizza and ‘health.’  In what ways in the culinary imagination do regional hierarchies manifest?  Does California’s claim to ‘health’ mean it’s on the cutting edge of food and what the rest of the country should be eating like?  Or is it something about the Midwest non-apologetic use of calories as it’s claim to a “realer” more “satisfying” way of life?  And what do these claims about our places of residence and personal meaning, specifically the types of foods and the ways we process it, possibly say about what we think and “taste” our identities on a daily basis.

So, as Heijin and Dean are set to embark on travels that will take them half-way across the world, I wondered on what side of the fence she was on with this debate.  Maybe she’ll weigh in???  And what about the rest of you, Zachary’s or the ultra-fatty-Midwest version?

In addition to Zachary’s, we also indulged with some chocolate infused with bacon flavor and chunks. Yum.

(Giant chickens: China’s strategic plan to ending their dependency on U.S. chickens?)

Just when we thought professional basketball was about to bring world peace, chicken feet may be the instigator for a pending World War III.

Okay, I’m being facetious.  But it is a little funny to see these weekly headlines about the U.S.-China relations that tenuously hangs in a balance over basketball, tires, children’s toys, and now chicken feet.

In a New York Times article about China’s response to Obama’s taxing on imported tires from China, Jeffrey Krauss notes that China has threatened to cut off all U.S. chicken imports.

American executives expressed concern about losing what recently has become the largest export market for their chickens, one that is expanding rapidly as the Chinese population grows more prosperous. But the executives also expressed relief that, so far, Chinese importers have told them to keep the feet and wings coming.

But China’s love for “America’s jumbo, juicy paws,” says poultry economist Paul W. Aho, means that Chicken will be a difficult commodity for China to negotiate their trade relations.  One of the most interesting things in this article is the price per pound of chicken feet in China (60-80 cents) is bazillion times higher than typically found elsewhere (couple of cents per pound in the U.S.).

At this point, I would like to interpret a Mos Def line from his insightful hit, “What’s Beef?”, to discuss this global crisis:

BEEF ain’t what Jay said to Nas, Beef is when Chinese people can’t find paws!  (chicken paws, that is).

BUT could we expect to see the Chinese equivalent to say the “Boston Tea Party,” where Chinese people — tired of the U.S. nation-state’s obstruction of free-market capitalism in the context of tariff’s and other refusal to import other Chinese commodities (that might kill us) — will publicly destroy and denounce U.S. chicken wings and feet on the docks?  Perhaps China will genetically engineer it’s own chickens, juicier, plumper, and MORE jumbo-licious chicken feet than ever before!  And maybe, imagine how that would taste and look in our fast food joints, like KFC and McDonalds.  Hmm… or mmMMMmm?

In the meantime, I guess American poultry farmers have dim sum in China to thank for keeping their jobs alive.  Or, maybe American poultry farmers should begin to generate some demand for chicken feet in the U.S. in preparation for the looming global crisis of the “chicken-feet” war.

As we’ve all witnessed to in the last few days and weeks, the culture of collective punishing of black protest in the public sphere has become the norm in the United States.

By protest, I don’t mean what we’ve come to know in the national historical imagination of the civil rights movements and people marching through the streets.  Instead, instances of black celebrities — athletes and entertainers — that express their opinions or emotions publicly on national television better watch out because the firing squad is about to publicly execute them, metaphorically speaking.  We’ve all followed the public media’s scrutiny of Kanye’s (in my opinion ‘truth-telling’) blow up at the VMAs, Michael Jordan’s bitterness towards everyone in spite of his illustrious career full of domination, and Serena Williams and Stephen Jackson’s complaints that were followed by severe fines levied by the respective professional sports associations that they belong too (by contract, I’m assuming).

Everyone — including myself — feels entitled to commenting, criticizing each of them for their sense of entitlement.  As “Americans” that watch TV together, we care so much — almost too much — about speaking against black public opinions.  Granted, each case is vastly different.  It’s difficult to compare (and to watch) Kanye shit on Taylor Swift’s MTV parade to the possible suspension of Serena Williams from future USTA Grand Slam events for her “I will shove this tennis ball down your throat” comment to a line-judge.  But as Andrew Sharp of the Sports Blogging Nation (SBNation) has written, there are stark contradiction and hypocritical judgments of certain athletes’ comments based on the success of certain athletes.

But those exceptions to the rule are few and far between.  For every Lebron or Kobe protected by the higher-ups, there are thousands of Stephen Jacksons or Jeremy Shockey’s (white) for that matter.  Yet Jeremy Shockey goes untouched.  To add to that, David Zirin, cultural critic, points out the hypocrisy of judgment based around race, as Roger Federer (white by American standards) was free from evaluation for his similar tirade against judges and his racket.  There have been other instances where anti-war made by black and white athletes have been construed much differently by the media and consumers of these athletes.  So, it makes me wonder why we care so much about containing moments of black opinion in the public sphere that is national media.

There’s something weird about television itself in the way it makes people citizens and in turn feel like they’re doing their national duties through their consumption of television.  Television is called “national television” for a reason.  As several scholars in media studies have noted, there’s an assumption that the viewers constitute a collective “America” as we can watch the same things and we’re all witness to historic events on an everyday basis, together.  Generally speaking, television corporations bank on that rhetoric of multicultural unity and nation in their marketing of shows because it makes dollars and cents.

On a separate but interrelated note, in a post civil rights era, there’s seems to be some sort of common sense logic that we all SHOULD speak out against black opinions or that these opinions need to be publicly scrutinized in a public forum.  The backlash always seems to come in the very context that because black entertainers and athletes (in particular) have “made it” given that they are awarded with million dollar salaries,  there should NEVER be a moment of black discontent, publicly.  These parts speak and supposedly represent the whole.  In a post-civil rights and post-affirmative action era, discourses of racial empowerment are ONLY understood through ideas of class mobility.   For some reason, the nation — collectively — removes the “right” to complain given the “right” by black people to make millions.  Basically, I’m suggesting that the ways that we understand and react to any form of black ‘protest’ reflect the vestiges of the fall-out of civil rights movement and the strategic attempts by conservatives and liberals to control social justice agendas (as flawed as they might be many of the times) that contest the exploitative marriage between racism, capitalism, and nationalism.

In NO WAY am I suggesting that any of these instances are platforms for social justice agendas.  But I will say that there is an eerie sentiment of punishing black opinions that smells strongly like other forms of black punishment in the law and of President Barack O’Bama and members of his administration.

These public forums of scrutiny have proliferated, thanks to the internet.  And I will go as far as to say these are metaphorical ‘lynchings’ and I will go there because of the type of public fanfare that we all seem to enjoy from it.  Though I’m not condoning all the way that Kanye publicly protested the award nomination, nor am I appreciative of the Stephen Jackson’s contribution to the on-going mess that is the Golden State Warriors (my favorite team unfortunately), I do wonder why people have become so invested in speaking out against black opinion … and often together.  Would this be the same if it was a White athlete?

For a very interesting reading on the consumption of kanye and his middle class striving and denunciations, click here