Harry Potter and the Misplaced Political Agenda

Author J.K. Rowling recently stated that a primary character from her popular Harry Potter series, Albus Dumbledore, was gay.

Uh, no.

When I finished reading the series, Dumbledore was not gay.  When I read the series again, he will not be gay.  Homosexuality was never a central storyline, plot point, main idea, tone, or anything of the novels--let alone anything involving a central character.

It is tacky to create a groundbreaking literary series, like Rowling did, then to go back after they're finished and essentially say, "Oh, by the way, this is an important point I left out of the books...." 

If it was important, it should have been in the stories themselves.  What Rowling did was bleed her own emotional politics into her work post-facto, which was not only tasteless, but damaging to potential fans and readers across the world.

Forever.

Now there will be scores of children (and adults) who won't read the books because one of the characters is allegedly gay.  There will be many parents who won't permit their children to read the series because of its new (and ridiculous) ties to homosexuality.

Rowling and supporters may argue that this hype is good because it teaches tolerance; but they would completely miss the point: If people won't read the books now, because of its new homosexual undertones, they won't learn the alleged lessons of tolerance espoused within the pages.

DUH-UHHH!

Having read the series, I can attest to the fact that tolerance is an issue throughout--but on a reasonable, non-ideological basis.  The general concepts of tolerance, open-mindedness, and consideration for others, are decent morals and lessons promoted through various actions in the stories.

However, this newly tacked-on, forced, desperate attempt to be more tolerant (I guess) was unnecessary in order to teach the values of behaving and thinking respectfully toward others.

Perhaps Rowling's intentions were good, but her idea for expressing those intentions was horrible.

Again, it is absurd that Rowling retroactively changed a key character because it now associates the series with the issue of homosexuality, which has NOTHING to do with any of the stories in the series.  She has thus alienated a potential audience and used "tolerance" as the shield from attacks. 

Her books have enough about tolerance already.  She didn't have to desperately reach back and change characters to say, "Now I'm more tolerant."

Where will it stop?  Who's next to change?

Perhaps Harry actually had a drug addiction, and he secretly entered a rehabilitation program that cured his "illness" rather than just keeping him behind bars for years.

Maybe Hermione Granger became a prostitute to help feed her secret illegitimate children, before she adopted orphans from Africa and Asia who were dying of AIDS and SARS, respectively.  Thanks to compassion from society and tolerance for her "life choices" she was able to get back on the straight and narrow and marry Ron, have two legitimate children, and live happily ever after. 

(Then she cured her babies and, in her spare time, fixed New Orleans's levee system.)

It's possible that Ron Weasley headed the U.N. and stopped feuding in Darfur, Sudan, and ended AIDS with a magic spell.  After that, he single-handedly paid African Reparations for America's history of slavery and allowed marijuana use for all citizens because, hey man, it's the earth. 

(Then he did something that Africa actually needs, and helped limit the spread of malaria, a much larger epidemic than AIDS in that continent.)

Or maybe Draco Malfoy actually headed a rock band that led the revolution to control global warmng--by ingeniously holding concerts around the world that consumed tons of energy and required thousands of people to loiter and litter on grass fields and stadiums in support for the clean earth movement.

Finally, perhaps Professor McGonegal, the new Hogwarts Headmistress, banned organized religion and any association and reference thereof, except for Islam, because it was too often misunderstood as not being peaceful.  No more Christmas trees, references to God, Christian symbols.  No more yamicas for Jewish wizards, either.

All in the name of tolerance.

(Except tolerance for the intolerant, of course.)

Long story short, I have nothing personal against homosexuals in general; and neither tolerance nor prejudice toward homosexuality is the basis for my opinion.

I know the series was Rowling's creation, and she's allowed to say what she wants about it.  But it's not that she shouldn't be allowed to say things like "Dumbledore was gay" -- it's that she shouldn't say it.  In the best interest of her fans and potential future fans, it's desperate and alienating.  She should write another book about gay people if there's a related message she wants to deliver.

And for those who think I'm just a bigoted, closed-minded individual--first, get a clue.  Second, I promise not to change anyone else's histories or private lives either, when I again read the series.

For example, I won't pretend that the evil wizards with whom Harry, as an auror, combats are all radical Islamo-Facists.  Nor will I have Hermione grow up to run a corporate empire that benefits the economy AND employs elves.

But did I mention they'd be homosexual, migrant-worker elves from Darfur?

Say It Ain't So, Do (...novan)

 

Donovan McNabb, quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles (a storied National Football League franchise), recently said in a televised interview that he is unfairly scrutinized by media and fans because he is black.  He defended his comments a few days after the interview aired on HBO.

 

McNabb claimed that “there [are] not that many African-American quarterbacks, so we have to do a little bit extra” and that white quarterbacks like Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning “don’t get criticized as much as we [black QBs] do.”

 

 

Somewhere, Rush Limbaugh is smiling.

 

McNabb is the same quarterback to whom conservative radio show host Limbaugh referred when he said (in 2003) that the media want him to succeed, in part, because he is black.  Limbaugh resigned from ESPN within a week of making that statement due to the delayed media firestorm that erupted in the following days.  In fact, these were Limbaugh’s exact words:

 

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.  There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

 

Here is an excerpt from anOctober 2, 2003, story posted on ESPN’s web site:

 

Negative reaction did not come immediately. But on Tuesday, McNabb told the Philadelphia Daily News: "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal."

 

From there, the firestorm spread quickly. Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and Rev. Al Sharpton called for ESPN to fire Limbaugh. Others in both political and athletic circles also lashed out at Limbaugh's comments.

 

The National Association of Black Journalists also called for ESPN to "separate itself" from Limbaugh.

 

"ESPN's credibility as a journalism entity is at stake," NABJ president Herbert Lowe said in a news release." It needs to send a clear signal that the subjects of race and equal opportunity are taken seriously at its news outlets."

 

McNabb also provided more reaction on Wednesday.

 

"It's somewhat shocking to hear that on national TV from him," McNabb said. "It's not something that I can sit here and say won't bother me."

 

To be specific, Wesley Clark accused Limbaugh’s opinion as being “hateful and ignorant speech.” Howard Dean, now Democratic National Committee chair, said, "To imply that the success of an African-American is an undeserved gift from a biased media is absurd and offensive.”  Then NAACP-president Kweisi Mfume said the following: "If this is the future of ESPN, I think fair-minded fans, who tune in for sports news coverage, and not for racist views, should get their sports on other networks. It is appalling that ESPN has to go to this extent to try to increase viewership."

 

And, of course, Al Sharpton called for a boycott of ESPN and said, "We cannot sit back in silence. That would be consent and we would have lost self-respect."

 

Some popular sports critics also contributed to the debate.  One of ESPN’s highest-rated shows, Pardon the Interruption (PTI), a "Crossfire"-type sports talk show starring two Washington Post columnists (Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon), played a large role in spreading both the story and the controversy.

 

Kornheiser, who now co-hosts Monday Night Football on ESPN, and who is white, saidin January of 2005, "What Limbaugh did was race baiting in its purest form. He went out there to be controversial. He knew he could be controversial about race, and he picked on this guy [McNabb]."

 

Wilbon, who is black, said in January 2005, "I know black and white guys root for [McNabb]. I root for Donovan McNabb and if Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it, I mean, that's tough. I root for him.  I think Donovan McNabb should do what he's always done, which is ignore Rush Limbaugh."

 

On January 27, 2005, Limbaugh responded to these comments on his radio show:

 

I said [the media] 'had a social agenda.'  I said you guys can't let go.  By the way, you're still doing stories on black quarterbacks.  We've had Doug Williams.  We've had Steve McNair.  Now we're going to have McNabb.  You're still doing stories on how 'Isn't it wonderful black quarterbacks are getting in the Super Bowl?'  I mean, you're still doing the stories, and there's no question you feel good about it.  So what?  That's fine and dandy.  All I'm saying is, that that led you to overlook what I thought were some performance deficiencies in McNabb at that time.  Of course he's better!  The statistics indicate that.  It doesn't even need to be substantiated that he's better [than in- and before 2003, when Rush's controversial comments were first made]."

 

So now that Donovan McNabb, the media’s unequivocally-declared victim of 2003, has made “racially charged” (euphemistic for racist) comments, where are the same media who attacked Limbaugh for his comments in 2003?  How did the mass media, whom McNabb had just accused of being racist, react?

 

So far, Howard Dean hasn’t accused McNabb’s comments of being “absurd and offensive.”  Wesley Clark hasn’t classified McNabb’s assessment of media scrutiny as “ignorant and hateful.”  The NAACP has been uncharacteristically silent on the matter thus far.  Al Sharpton has not demanded that McNabb be fired from the Philadelphia Eagles, or that fans boycott the team.

 

Jason Whitlock, who is black, of FOXSports.com said in a recent online column:

 

“Donovan Mcnabb is right, black NFL quarterbacks face more pressure, scrutiny and criticism than their white counterparts.  The assertion is neither debatable nor controversial.  In fact, when [HBO’s] James Brown’s sit-down interview with the star quarterback was over, I wondered how McNabb’s comments had caused so much of a stir.  He’d simply stated the obvious in the most inoffensive way possible.  McNabb’s comments were not angry, defiant, or whiny.  They were matter of fact.  They were also incomplete and, therefore, out of context.”

 

Were Rush Limbaugh's comments "angry, defiant, and whiny"?  Remember, there was no backlash until McNabb responded to Limbaugh's Sunday comments the following Tuesday.

 

Popular ESPN.com blogger Matt Mosley, who is white, concluded that “…upon further review, I don't think it's really my place to beat up McNabb for his comments. We [the media, not regular fans/people] sit around and complain that players aren't candid enough, but then we immediately condemn them when they say something that might be deemed unpopular.  McNabb couldn't help the timing of that interview. He didn't know he was going to stagger around the field and play poorly two nights before it aired. It's what the guy felt at the time, so I don't have a problem with it.”

 

So his comments were controversial only because he played poorly two nights before the interview aired?  Interesting.

 

In fact, the most noticeable refutation of McNabb’s comments so far has come from other black NFL quarterbacks, namely Vince Young of the Tennessee Titans and Jason Campbell of the Washington Redskins.

 

Said Campbell:

 

“That's [McNabb's] opinion, and as an African-American quarterback, I have to support other African-American quarterbacks.  But it's something I can't get caught up in.  I look at all quarterbacks as the same.  I support every guy who's playing the position.  It's the hardest position to play in professional sports, and you get graded differently than any other position on the field.  Nine timesout of 10 the ball is in your hands, so everybody is watching you.  Since you're in the spotlight, the mistakes get recognized.  You need thick skin and a short memory.”

 

Vince Young was more concise, having said, “That is [McNabb’s] opinion.  I really feel that myself, black or white quarterbacks, we all go through something because that is the life of a quarterback.”

 

Kornheiser and Wilbon reacted this way on the September 20th edition of PTI:

 

WILBON: “I’m glad.  Grateful.  That Donovan Mcnabb had the guts to stand by his statement.  To back it up and say, ‘Here’s what I think.’  Because these other two kids [Young and Campbell] are in their early 20s, okay?  And we know what happens with youngsters of that age now, regardless of whether they play sports or not.  Theyknow what happened today.  And apparently, Vince Young, who also said that “this is not my fight to fight” –really now?  No, it isn’t your fight to fight.  Because guys like James Harris, and Marlon Brisco, and Joe Gillam, and Doug Williams, and Warren Moon—they fought the fight so that you—you self-absorbed, young punk—don’t have to fight the fight.  So even if you have to say, ‘You know what, I haven’t had this treatment, but I acknowledge what came before me—I want to hear that from the young quarterbacks.  And they’re great players, they’re great talents.  I want to hear a fuller conversation, and thankfully, Donovan Mcnabb started it.”

 

KORNHEISER: “Yeah….  Operative word, young quarterbacks.  Theymay not know all these things; Donovan Mcnabb, in his early 30s now, knows all these things.  I agree with Donovan Mcnabb about a higher level of scrutiny, but not in all cases. . . .”

 

WILBON: “But here’s what I’m more concerned about: I want the young quarterbacks, because they’re the future of this league, black or white, black specifically—they have an obligation, okay, not to anyone else but the people who came before them, Tony.  So I don’t want to hear Vince Young say ‘It’s not my fight to fight.’ ”

 

KORNHEISER: “Here’s what I suspect: That by tonight, somebody will help them with that education.  And by tomorrow, they’ll be a little bit more appreciative of the people who went down that road before.”

 

WILBON: “Good, because that’s all, I think, that Donovan Mcnabb wants.  And by the way, I’m glad there’s so much progress that they haven’t faced it.  But know what came before you.  That’s my real issue with this.”

 

Maybe I’m not old enough to understand, but where in that entire exchange did either Kornheiser or Wilbon address McNabb’s accusation that modern-day media criticize black quarterbacks more than white ones? How was he trying to pay respect to oppressed black QBs from decades past by accusing the current media of being racist?

 

The rationale behind this defense of McNabb’s comments is perplexing.  It would be like defending a Jewish person’s accusations of mass media being anti-Semitic—mostly to honor the memory of any Jews who were unfairly treated in the past.  There is no logical connection, and it is wrong to assume so much on such little evidence.

 

Long story short: Kornheiser, Wilbon, Mosley, Whitlock, and most other mass media so far—are McNabb apologists.  There exists a double-standard here, and the media cannot bring themselves to admit it, or else they’re blind to it.  I’m not suggesting Donovan McNabb is a racist, but his comments were just as racist—if not more so—than Rush Limbaugh’s comments in 2003, but with not even a speck of the same media outrage.

 

Let’s be clear.  McNabb may not have directly called the mass media racist, but the actions he accused them of utilizing are racist in nature, and therefore the connection is implicit, but unambiguous.  Yet the National Association of Black Journalists, who represents those whom McNabb charged with racism, are conveniently silent on this matter.

 

Rush Limbaugh’s January 2005 comments were accurate, as evidenced by the fact that just last year, the biggest story of the Super Bowl was that it was head-coached by two black men.

 

(In fact, somewhat ironically, both Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning have black head coaches.)

 

By McNabb’s rationale, white NFL running backs (Mike Alstott and...?) face the most pressure and scrutiny because there are only a few of them.

 

No celebrities face more scrutiny than black, conservative political figures.  There needs to be more attention paid to this overt racism than to McNabb or Limbaugh.  But if you are going to hold one person accountable for something, hold the other one accountable for the same--if not a worse--offense.

 

I lost some respect for the Eagles QB with these latest comments because he revealed himself a hypocrite.  Remember, McNabb was the one who said back in 2003, “It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal.”

 

It’s still sad, #5.

God Bless

Forever in our hearts and prayers.

Imus In the Mourning

I may have listened to Don Imus's radio show once in my life.  And if I ever have listened, I guarantee it wasn't to the whole show.  That said, Don Imus did not deserve to be fired from his radio show.

I know he's done lots of philanthropic work throughout the years, especially for underprivileged children.  I also know that he's made off-color comments before, including those about race.

But Imus's show is, and always has been, known for provocation.  From examples I've seen in recent days, the "nappy-headed hos" comment is far from his worst ever.  Yet while known "shock jocks" like Howard Stern continue to feature skits like "Black Jeopardy" (where random black contestants have to answer trivia questions by first saying, "What am"), Imus is fired in alleged public outrage.

Another reason a double standard exists here is because Imus is being censured by those with whom he'd so often ideologically agreed.  Most of those leading the charge against Imus were those leading the charge in defense of Howard Stern, and against the FCC for tough regulations after Janet Jackson's boob performed at the Super Bowl.

But apparently Don didn't go down without parting words.

According to AOL News (4/12/07), Imus said on his last broadcast with CBS earlier today that Al Sharpton should apologize to the recently exonorated Duke University lacrosse players, whom Sharpton chastised publicly and nationally last year after allegations of rape were charged against them.

Don't hold your breath, Don.

Approximately one hour ago, it was announced that Imus will meet with the Rutgers University women's basketball team tonight.  I wouldn't be surprised if, after this meeting, the team supports him and leads the call for someone to give him a second chance.

And within a year or two, a women's basketball scholarship will probably exist at Rutgers University in his name.  Or maybe a foundation.  Or something.

And someone will give him another chance, like maybe XM satellite radio, or even a major affiliate. 

(And his studio will be at the Rutgers campus, of course.)

It's just strange enough to be possible.

But while networks (yes, owned by the same companies that produce rap albums) say their reasons behind the firings were because of "the people" and not because of the withdrawn advertising dollars, we know better.

And we also know better than to think justice has truly been served in the firing of Don Imus.

Oh, that wacky liberal media bias

As I write this, at this second, the AOL Welcome menu contains a picture of Al Sharpton, to further remind members of the story about how former senator Strom Thurmond's ancestors owned Al Sharpton's ancestors (as slaves).  That story broke roughly one week ago.

That story was also on the Yahoo! News front page, the nightly news shows, and even made the front page of many major newspapers across the country.

Yet here's a headline/story that I accidentally found yesterday, buried in page SEVEN of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, obscurely placed in the corner of the page:

Obama's ancestors owned slaves, genealogical researcher claims

So why did the media consider the Sharpton/Thurmond story MUCH bigger news than a similar story regarding a presidential candidate for 2008?

Why didn't Yahoo! News have this headline on its front page?

Why didn't the AOL Welcome menu even have this for a headline, let alone on the front page?

In fact, why does the AOL Welcome menu STILL have a feature of Sharpton's story instead of this news?  How newsworthy was the Sharpton/Thurmond story really?  If anything, it was interesting -- and not major news.

But the Obama story is major news.  Barrack Obama, and even other candidates, will still have to discuss issues like racism, progress since slavery, and mixed-race marriages -- and this story could serve as a suitable backdrop. 

The Sharpton/Thurmond "news" is hardly more than trivia fodder.

Another major headline from yesterday's news outlets (including AOL's Welcome menu and the Yahoo! News front page) was this:

GOP Candidates Criticize Coulter for Slur

The first thing to notice is that THIS story is actually datelined, and written by a journalist from a major newspaper.  (The Obama story was merely a blip off the AP wires.)

Here is the excerpted third paragraph of the article:

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

Now here is the following (fourth) paragraph of the same article:

Mr. Edwards's aides responded with an e-mail message that attacked Ms. Coulter and urged supporters to donate to Mr. Edwards's campaign. "John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power," said his campaign manager, David E. Bonior. "Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter's resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion."

First of all, Coulter is a much better writer than she is a public speaker.  What she said here, while I chuckled in private, was wrong to say in public, especially at a GOP-representative event.  What annoys me most about this is how Coulter lowered herself to typical liberal standards of name-calling and then skirting the fact that she did so.

But all that considered, the Edwards campaign response was downright embarrassing. 

Bet on this: Coulter's comments against Edwards will be media-covered much more than was the story of Edwards's former campaign bloggers spewing hate speech to Christians several weeks ago.

In fact, don't be surprised if John Edwards plays the "victim" from this story, to try and salvage his tarnished image from the blogging scandal.  I can see him now, responding to the questions about that incident something like this:

"Well, I try to learn from everything that happens in life.  I've learned from my experiences helping people against medical wrongdoings and corrupt insurance companies.  I've learned from serving the great state of North Carolina in the United States Senate.  I've learned from the tragic death of my son and personal hero.  I've learned from traveling across America and meeting so many diverse and wonderful people in this country, like Grace Jones of Huntsville, Alabama, who suffers painful dialysis because she can't afford medical costs and prescription kidney-aiding drugs.  And I've even learned from people like little Joey McDonald, who raised money at a lemonade stand to support John Kerry and myself in 2004.

"But I also learned from the mistakes.  I learned from 2004.  [Notice no acknowledgement that it was a defeat, a loss, that America didn't vote for him.]  And I learned from the unfortunate incident several weeks ago, concerning the bloggers we had to let go due to unacceptable behavior, which I do not condone, and never supported.

"I also hope other people can learn from that.  People like Ann Coulter.  And I hope they can realize that this language is wrong, and that America can do better than stoop to that type of dialogue.  I learned from my mistakes, I did something about it, and I hope Miss Coulter, and many others, can learn from her mistake, as well."

Does that sound like enough B.S. to be accurate?

To close this entry, here are the other headlines from yesterday's AOL Politics News front page:

*Obama Blames U.S. for Stronger Iran
*GOP Hopefuls Court Conservatives
*McCain Under Fire for 'Wasted' Lives Remark
*Romney Losing Edge in New Hampshire
*Richardson Urges Rivals to Play Nice
*Edwards Apologizes for 2002 War Vote
*McCain Firm on Iraq Despite Cost to Candidacy

Notice a trend?  Six of those headlines make Republicans look weak or inept, while three of the same headlines make Democrats look proactive and conscientious.

This happens all the time.  It's a combination of hilarious, infuriating, and sad.  But the worst part is that it is typical.

Liberal media bias?  Even Stevie Wonder can see it!

(Oh... do I need sensitivity training now?)

My propaganda has a first name... it's O-S-C-A-R...

I'll keep this brief.

Though I have to admit that I currently have on my TV screen the 79th annual Academy Awards, I will write this anyway.

The moment that I've been hoping would come and go quickly finally just came and went; the "Al Gore was and is the greatest politician and overall person on the planet EVER" orgy has ended now that An Inconvenient Truth finally won the "Best Documentary" Oscar.

The boot-licking that took place on stage from the movie's director, in homage to Mr. Gore, isn't what moved me to write this; it's what was said during the walk to the stage, announced by the event's emcee, while the music was playing, that deserves some attention.

I will paraphrase, but only barely.  The message said was this:

"[The director and crew] were scheduled to film in New Orleans the night before Hurricane Katrina struck.  The event helped bring home the threat and the impact of global warming."

No, that was a stunning reminder that hurricanes are real. 

Hurricane Katrina was a Category 3 against New Orleans; the levees that could no longer support the flooded lakes were the real disaster, infrastructurally speaking.  Broken levees have nothing to do with global warming.

The Academy must have been jealous of Spike Lee for being to the first to exploit a misrepresentation of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans; and for his use of cable television to do so.  Thus, not to be outdone, they had to point-blank LIE to the Oscars audience.

Al Gore gave his speech, his second time on stage receiving gushing accolaids already, to rousing applause.  He said it was a moral issue, not a political one; if that is so, he may want to remind the Academy, or ABC -- whomever was responsible for the emcee narration -- that it is immoral to lie to millions of people.

In closing, the best part of the ceremony so far has been the winner for Best Supporting Actress (the former AmericanIdol contestant, from "Dreamgirls"), who thanked God not only once, but twice.  You go, girl.

How would the first African-American head coach in a Super Bowl feel about an openly gay NBA player?

I'm tired of sports writers and analysts trying to articulate the standard for how athletes and society should treat certain issues today.

When it comes to free speech, most well-known columnists and ESPN figures (including, but not limited to, Tony Kornheiser, Mike Lupica, Michael Wilbon, and Skip Bayless) will almost always favor in side of the First Amendment, whether they understand the amendment's reach or not.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, however, these same names traditionally and predictably act as if gun ownership is inherently irresponsible and irreversibly dangerous; that athletes have no business owning a firearm; and the like.

Now the major hot-button issue is gay professional athletes, particularly male athletes -- especially pro basketball players.  Former National Basketball Association (NBA) player John Amaechi has recently blitzed the media with his "coming out" party, thanks to a new book promotion.  I suppose the book is about being gay while playing pro basketball, based on the focus of every interview I've seen and heard regarding it.

What bothers me about the coverage of this "issue" has been the double standard and duplicity of opinion by columnists and talking heads.  The intial popular reaction to this was generally "Will this book and publicity now 'open the door' for more gay active professional athletes to reveal their sexual identity publicly?"  And almost to a person, the pundits said they hope this exposure helps, even though there is "still a long way to go" before openly gay pro athletes are widely accepted.

So then what becomes the story in the following days?  How current athletes react to the exposure of this issue.  "How would you react to an openly gay teammate?"  This gives an opportunity for media soundbytes and video clips, while reporters and talk show hosts salivate with hopes of something bigoted being recorded; because then they can (1) lecture the public as to how they SHOULD feel; and (2) have something to write and argue about for several more days, if not weeks, or longer.

First of all, why do so many sports writers and columnists hope this new book "opens the door" for openly gay pro athletes?  This isn't an issue in women's sports, where several WNBA players are openly gay, including former MVP and perennial all-star Sheryl Swoops.  But it's apparently a big deal for men, who apparently need to be more sensitive and in agreement with sports writers and other champions of open homosexuality.

The faulty premise of these self-righteous writers and network commentators is this: Sexual preference is one's own business.  Heaven forbid the NBA never has an openly gay athlete because -- of all things -- the person doesn't want his private life exploited by mass media, let alone for political purposes.  If one does not want to "come out," he shouldn't be pressured to do so by critics and analysts who need a further angle to the original story.

Especially when those same media personalities pretend they want someone to champion a morally correct political or social cause.

The latest media-cornered NBA player was Tim Hardaway, who said in the closing minutes of a recent interview: "I hate gay people, so I let it be known.  I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."  While this was a clearly over-the-top reaction, my question to the media is this: Why aren't you advocating his free speech rights now -- especially after you forced the issue upon him to begin with?

I watch "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN when I can, and I generally like both main hosts of the show, even if I probably share opposite political views most of the time.  But one thing I haven't liked of late is how, twice, they've added a segment where they've criticized Rush Limbaugh for "race baiting" -- while they themselves promote homosexuality/homophobia-baiting.  One example was their criticism of Lebron James's comments, in response to a reporter, about how he thinks gay athletes should tell their teammates of their sexual orientation.

Michael Wilbon dismissed the comments as Lebron not being old enough to know the magnitude and relevance of the overall social issue.  Tony Kornheiser said that this type of fear/homophobia is too common with the pro athlete culture.  But the whole time they were lightly criticizing Lebron James, they themselves were implying that an athlete shouldn't have to tell his teammates if he doesn't want to -- and shame on silly, inexperienced Lebron for suggesting gay teammates should divulge such info.

But wait a minute.... 

I thought we want that door opened for an active, male pro athlete to be openly gay.  I thought that was the goal toward which we still have "lots of work to do" or "a long way to go" before achieving.

Yes, folks.  That is a double-standard and a mixed message.

The same thing happened during Super Bowl preparations, when Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy became the first African-American/black head coaches to coach in a Super Bowl (the National Football League's chamipionship game).  After the game, Tony Dungy became the first African-American (black) head coach to win a Super Bowl.

Moments later, Tony Dungy became the first African-American head coach to say he was going to Walt Disney World in a post-Super Bowl TV commercial.  Lovie Smith became the first African-American head coach to lose a Super Bowl game.  That still leaves open the possibility someday for another to become the first African-American head coach to tie a Super Bowl; the first African-American head coach to coach a Super Bowl in overtime; the first African-American head coach to beat a Caucasion-Anglo-Saxon-American head coach in a Super Bowl; and the first African-American head coach to turn down the Walt Disney World ad after winning the Super Bowl.

First of all, I have utmost respect for both Dungy and Smith.  And I love how they handled the media blitz that focused so much on their skin color (while the media simultaneously claimed it was with interest of eliminating people from focusing just on skin color in the future).  Both men are brilliant, classy individuals, and great head coaches.  That said, both coaches stressed how one day, they'd love for it not to be a big deal that a coach is black; ironically, they had to say that over and over again during the two weeks leading to the big game.

The bottom line is this: I don't care whether or not there will EVER be an active, openly gay, male athelte in major American pro sports.  But I'm tired of the moral high horse that sportswriters and pundits already ride from column to column, camera to camera (let alone while criticizing conservative others for allegedly doing the same thing), trying to influence the general public.

They are sports writers.  Not ambassadors.  Not elected political figures.  They're not even the Pope.

So if a gay, professional male athlete in America wants to expose his sexual preference publicly, that's fine.  I just hope he doesn't let the media exploit him in the interest of anti-exploitation.

And I hope he has a few guns, too.