LaVar Ball is Back at it Again

He’s back in the headlines. Lavar Ball has touted his son(s) as the best player(s) in the world. His outspokenness has begun to strike an unfavorable cord with the public. Some would say he’s doing too much and is only hurting his children’s future. While others praise his dedication to his brand and energy he spends on his sons.

On The Herd, Ball is being interviewed by Colin Cowherd. While discussing his Big Baller Brand and the number of shoes sold, co-host Kristine Leahy was sure to voice her displeasure with the brand. Leahy gave her great advice that “…in order to have a successful company, you’re going to have women who like your brand,” and Lavar was ready to respond with “…yeah if you have a women’s company.”

Of course, after his comments the internet made their own interpretation that Lavar is being “disrespectful to women”. I don’t think Lavar was disrespectful at all. Women may just not be in his target demographic. What’s wrong with that?

People these days are uber-sensitive. So sensitive that it’s rubbing off on our sports. Basketball these days is a watered down version of what he was accustomed to years ago. Same could be said for a lot of things.

Many people don’t like the ones who are candid and forthright. Let’s water down how we think so it’s easy to digest. Lavar Ball is many things. He’s obnoxious, he’s arrogant, he’s outspoken, and there’s no question that he loves his children (even if it’s in faux-Joe Jackson type of way).

Let the man sell his brand. Everyone wants to feel included, but life isn’t about “inclusion”. We live in a world where there’s supposedly hundreds of genders and the “Woman of the Year” was born a man. That’s pretty much why ~~Bruce~~ Caitlyn Jenner won the award. It’s a confusing time to live in.

Get off Lavar’s back. I’m pretty sure if the tables were turned and a woman said that her company “wasn’t for men” there wouldn’t be much of a problem. But, because he’s a man and is not including women in his target market – we have a problem.

I think the real issue here is that the man is selling a $495 shoe for a player who has not stepped foot in NBA. He hasn’t even been drafted yet. Who knows if Lonzo Ball is the second coming of Darko Miličić or the next Jason Kidd? That seems to be the only issue here.

There’s No Loyalty in Today’s Employment Game

We all want loyalty. Loyalty from a friend, a pet, family and maybe even your job. It’s something that we want. Having this allows us to feel at ease. Comfort.

We hope that we can find a loyal friend or pet. We hope that our family is loyal to us. Jobs assert that you stay loyal to them. “Be a loyal and hard-working employee”. It’s funny that employers want us to be loyal to them while their loyalty remains to be focused on the company’s capital.

Employers select the perceived “perfect” candidate and assimilates them into their team. You are expected to be hard working, dependable and ultimately a loyal member of the team. Like most, my hard working and dependable qualities will shine despite my loyalty to a company. But how can we be loyal to a company that we’re only a number to?

Jobs are hard to come by. It’s an employers playground. Hundreds of people apply to these jobs thanks to the job shortages (jobs that actually pay a living wage). Employers go through these applications and resumes and pick the best candidate or the candidate that has an “inside connection”. You work and they demand you to give your all to the company. Dedicate hours of our precious time for the good of the company. Although, letting people go does cost the company money, they are just as willing to dive into the plethora of resumes of eager applicants who would jump at the chance to hop on the team.

We are more or less a number, especially when working with big companies. Their capital is their only focus. Some companies fail to realize that their employees are essential to their success. They are quick to replace, yet demand you dedicate your life to their company when you’re only a body to them. How can you be loyal to a company that cannot guarantee the same amount of loyalty back?

I’ve witnessed this first hand. I watched as co-workers were replaced as quickly as they were let go. When co-workers pass away, we share the news and get back to work. Less than 8 hours later, we forget all about the passing away of a co-worker. Almost immediately that spot is filled and the person whose spot was vacant due to their untimely death is forgotten and it’s business as usual.

We must evaluate our importance to our company. All of us work for different companies with different views. Some companies MAY be loyal. A smaller company with a more personable presence will most likely be more loyal than these large companies. They shell out low pay rates and expect you to give your all. Pay rates will be my focus on the next article as those are subject to debate as well.

We all need sources of income to get through life. It’s inevitable. Which means we need jobs and our loyalty to the company needs to be perceived by the employer. These jobs are a necessity, without them we are no longer bringing in an income. We’d be broke without these jobs, so we must stress our allegiance with the company to stay aboard.

That’s why we see an increase in start-ups and small companies. Nobody wants to work tirelessly for years and not receive their just due. You toil for a company for years and may get a farewell party and possibly a plaque. That’s all good and well but that only applies to a select few. Once you’re not apart of that company, it’s “ASTA LA VISTA”.

This is my opinion to the subject. There may be others who feel opposite of how I feel. However, one cannot deny that the average employee is just a body in this big corporations. They have hundreds biting at a chance to take your position. A screw up will just mean the next man (or woman) is up. It’s like the turnover rate is non-existent.

So before you give your all to a company, determine if they are loyal to you. But we all know we can’t just up and leave a company merely on their lack of allegiance. We need that paper. Dinero. Mula. Pesos. CASH! Having established that it’s a difficult decision to make. Ultimately, we need to show these companies that they need us just as much as we need them and that we expect them to be just as loyal to us as we are to them.

featured picture: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwiCj6bh8rzRAhUl0IMKHSvWAjoQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inc.com%2Fjeff-haden%2F6-qualities-of-remarkably-loyal-employees.html&psig=AFQjCNG7aNPHM1l7_XesELNRLpTkDfRr6A&ust=1484320455248436

Now That That’s Over…

The most heated and anticipated election has finally come to a close. It didn’t go without wild antics, personal insults and scandal. In the end, Donald Trump is able to say that he’ll be the 45th President of the United States.

The 2016 election was marred with inept candidates. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were bottom of the barrel picks. We were forced to choose from vomit or diarrhea; both options stunk. However, that ship has came and sailed. We can’t rewind time and re-select the candidates. There’s no going back.

Trump’s antics ~~were~~ are outrageous. I think most can agree with that. Those outrageous antics, fear tactics, blunt unfiltered views and separation from being a politician were probably reasons for his triumphant Tuesday night/Wednesday early morning.

Now we’re faced with the question of “What Now?” It’s the same question we would ask ourselves if Hillary was named the winner. We can all concur that the next four years will be interesting to say the least.

What now? What’s going to happen? Many minorities are already fearful of the repercussions of Donald Trump becoming president. With his disparaging comments towards Hispanics and Muslim Arabs it’s obvious why they are fearful. Trump’s support of the Stop-and-Frisk proposal, which (in my opinion) is an indirect way to racially and even class profile. His support of this proposal, alone, is grounds to be wary of the new POTUS. African-Americans will be targeted, let’s just be honest. Arabs, Hispanics and even those people who are of the low income class will be profiled.

I think the realization of the election hits minorities much differently than to whites. We cannot say for sure, just yet, if Donald Trump will go through with all the things he spoke about during his campaign. Think of if the roles were reversed. What if an African-American, Indian-American, Arab-American or Latino-American was campaigning around the United States, speaking illy of whites actually won the election. Whites would probably have a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach the day after the shock set in.

It’s unfortunate that in this day and time, racial prejudice is still a pertinent issue. If things were to get any worse, we’d be inching closer and closer to the 1960s. An era plagued by civil rights injustice. We’ve come a long way since then. Things are still far from perfect, but the times have changed and any indication that we may be heading backwards in ideology is worth being worrisome about.

What people can do, whether you’re black, white, yellow, brown, tan or blue, is come together and let your voices be heard. Destructive protesting and violence won’t solve the problem. Neither will shunning someone simply because of the color of their skin, religion or disability. If those who are against Trump and feel that he is unfit to have control of our control do not effectively speak out and become vocalist for change then we’re stuck with four years of head scratching and “what’s next?” questioning. The only way we can promote change if not changing how things are altogether is to put our First Amendment right to use and speak out. Unless you’re content with the outcome, that is…

Source For Featured Image

Bomani Jones and the Name Game

I woke up this morning and did my daily morning ritual of looking up the sports news from the day before. Bomani Jones, co-host of the Highly Questionable show on ESPN, angered many viewers yesterday with his choice of apparel.

Jones decided to wear a Cleveland Caucasians shirt during the airing of Highly Questionable. People were up in arms over this. Twitter went chaotic, speaking on how Bomani Jones was a racist and his poor lack of judgement wearing the shirt.

Some argued that if a white man wore a shirt saying “Cleveland Negroes” then it would be lambasted all over the social media world. He’d be automatically labeled a “racist”. Correct? I believe so. But there is a major difference between Bomani Jones’ shirt and a “Cleveland Negroes” shirt.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, Caucasian is “of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features —used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation”. It simply refers to a person of light skin color being of European descent (or of North African or southwest Asian descent). There’s no derogatory history behind the word “Caucasian”.

Now when you try to flip the script and say “What if…” you have to look at the meaning of the words. Let’s be fair. Let’s look into the definition of negro. A negro is “a member of a race of humankind native to Africa and classified according to physical features (as dark skin pigmentation).” Same as Caucasian, right?

The word “negro” has many negative implications throughout American history. Just as the “F-word” is one of the most vulgar words in the English language is basically an acronym for Fornication Under The Crowned King. Even though the word is more-or-less an acronym it is considered extremely offensive and vulgar.

Bomani Jones’ shirt is a parody on the actual name of the Cleveland baseball team, The Cleveland Indians. The Native American namesake or characteristics are a common sight in sports in the United States. There is the Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks and numerous college teams that attribute their name to Native Americans. Granted, many collegiate teams have changed their nicknames but there are others who haven’t.

Let’s be honest, Bomani Jones was not wearing the shirt to show his fashion sense but his intentions were to rile the public. He knew A LOT of people would find the shirt offensive but his point was made. What’s the difference between wearing a Cleveland Indians shirt or a Cleveland Caucasians shirt? The number of people affected.

The Native American population is certainly not as large as the Caucasian population in the states. More noise can be made when something offends the majority rather than the minority. Jones’ shirt was no different than a Cleveland Blacks or Cleveland Arabs shirt. It raised the question of, “is this offensive?”

Personally, I believe naming a team after a ethnicity or race of people is wrong. Obviously, people would be upset if the shoes were on the other foot and their race or ethnicity was being mocked. Don’t you think the Native Americans feel the same way?