I think you know as well as I do where this is going.
Like Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain doesn’t need Harry Belafonte to tell him what it means to be black — but it looks like the legendary singer is just as willing to reject Cain’s life experiences as a legitimate example of what it means to grow up black in America as he was to reject the life experiences of Rice and Colin Powell in 2002. Remember when he compared the two of them to “house slaves” who would retain their privileged positions only for as long as they did what “the master” wanted? (I sure do - ed.)
He doesn’t have anything nice to say about Herman Cain, either. In an interview with HLN’s Joy Behar, Belafonte said Herman Cain was “denied intelligence” and called him “a bad apple.”
“I just want to make this observation about Herman Cain,” Belafonte said. “The Republican Party, the Tea Party and all those forces to the extreme right have consistently tried to come up with a representation for what they call black … and tried to push these images … They’ve got Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. They’re heroes for some people, but for a lot of us they’re not. And Herman Cain is just the latest incarnation of what is totally false to the needs of our community and the needs of our nation!”
When looking at back at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech, the one aspect that stands out is how he dreams of his four children not being "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I perused the entire speech and I found nary an excerpt which even so much as implied that one's "content of character" is dependent upon political party affiliation.
I daresay Dr. King would have been thrilled at the prospects of a black man obtaining the level of success Cain achieved as a businessman.
-When ESPN decided to no longer use Hank Williams, Jr.'s music as the opening theme to its Monday Night Football broadcasts, they cited their policy of prohibiting political advocacy by anyone associated with their network. It was just this past August that golf analyst Paul Azinger got his finger slapped for a snarky remark he made about President Obama, via Twitter. Keep in mind that ESPN's response to both incidents was rather expeditious.
So I'm wondering why I haven't heard so much as a peep from the sports titan regarding an ESPN contributor's remarks on NPR nearly a week ago.
NPR's apparently a great place to go to denounce Herman Cain. On Friday's edition of Tell Me More, host Michelle Martin cued up Cain's remarks suggesting the Occupy Wall Street protests are "planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration." Quite obviously, you can disagree with that theory without comparing Cain to segregationists.
But that's precisely what sports columnist and ESPN regular Kevin Blackistone said to Martin: "It sounds like to me what people who used to run the White Citizens Councils used to say in the South during the civil rights movement, that it was outside agitators who were coming in and stirring up black folks down there."
He added: "How disingenuous it is of a CEO of a company or anybody to make a suggestion that it is the unemployed's fault that they are unemployed at a time when corporate America is breaking the record profits in 2011, is flushed with cash in terms of its coffers, and unemployed people are over 14 million. Absolutely disingenuous."
This is the same left-wing columnist who suggested Israel should be banned from international sports competitions (except, er, the Olympics after that unfortunate Munich mass murder): "could it not be time for sport to illuminate Israel's deadly occupation of Palestinians?"
As of this evening, I've been unable to locate anything which would indicate ESPN reprimanded Blackistone for his comments. In fact, he was in his regular spot this afternoon as panelist on ESPN's afternoon show Around The Horn.
-There's been no shortage of reactions in the media, blogosphere and social network sites regarding the "Occupy Wall Street" protests. Because this is mainly a "progressive" movement, the protestors are characterized as a "diverse group" who are merely "frustrated" with those who aren't paying their "fair share" in taxes. On the other hand, for two years running, the Tea Party has been tagged with such labels as "angry" and "monochromatic."
Let me boil it down for you in the simplest terms. The OWS crowd acts like a bunch of petulant children because they resent those who were willing to do things (i.e. work hard and take calculated risks) which they aren't. With the Tea Party, you have a bunch of people in essentially the same economic class who want to be free to take risks and are concerned that all for which they have worked will dissipate due to out of control and unsustainable Federal spending.
I think David Burge of the blog Iowahawk summed it up best when addressing the OWS crowd.
Lemme get this straight. A bank lent you $100k that you handed to a college for a worthless degree, and now you're mad at... the bank?
Alas, personal responsibility appears to be in short supply these days.