EMAIL us your comments, insights or whatever

  • NOISportsblog@gmail.com

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Scoop Jackson: The NOIS Interview

As we said in our last post, we have been working on something special for you.

We put together an indepth interview with espn.com Page 2 and SLAM magazine columnist, Scoop Jackson.

We imagine that most of our readers are familiar with Scoop on some level.

As you read this, please keep in mind, that the interview was conducted via email and Scoop answered in caps, very informally.

What we are saying is....kill the noise and complaints about spelling and typos. We could have edited it, I suppose. But why? This was essentially an informal discussion, so we left it in that form.

We hope this gives you a better insight into probably the most maligned personality on espn.com.

Additionally, we think the last answer Scoop gives could effectively be applied to this site.

Enjoy.

And hit us back with your thoughts, impressions and suggestions for future interview subjects.



"hope this works. if you need anything else, let me know. answers are in caps. thanks!!!
-scoop"


1. We'll cut right to the chase. On espn.com's Page 2, you are known for your powerful opinions and are often accused of "reverse-racism". A term developed by the same institutions which, in an effort to perpetuate racism, deny its existence. It's the classic "i'm rubber and you're glue" defense, used by people that don't like what they see when you hold a mirror in front of them and force them to look at themselves. We often get the same response from some of our readers. We liken it to the "kill the messenger" analogy. In our minds, "reverse racism" is a term conjured as a self defense mechanism. Pulled from thin air to be used in instances in which the accuser has been met with an argument in which he is incapable of effectively engaging. It is less than an empty phrase. When you are accused of "reverse racism", does it have any meaning to you?

IT DEPENDS. I AGREE 100% WITH YOUR DEFINITION OF "REVERSE RACISM" BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DO BELIEVE IT EXISTS AND THAT WE (BLACK PEOPLE) ARE CAPABLE OF USING IT, ALTHOUGH OFTEN UNINTENTIONALLY. I'M MORE INCLINED TO GO WITH "GUILT" AS OPPOSED TO "SELF DEFENSE" AS THE MECHANISM USED FOR THE TERMS EXISTENCE. A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE PLACE OUR TRUE FEELINGS AND BELIEFS IN FRONT OF THE COUNTRY THERE IS A SENSE OF "GUILT" THAT I BELIEVE INSTANTLY OVERCOMES MANY AMERICANS BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD TO COME TO GRIPS WITH AMERICA'S PAST WHEN IT CONCERNS US. THE WAY THIS COUNTRY TREATED BLACKS CAN NOT BE DENIED AND THE TRUTH HURTS, HURTS BOTH WAYS: HURTS US TO REMEMBER, HURTS THEM TO BE REMINDED. AND THAT'S WHERE, TO ME, THE GUILT COMES IN. SO WHEN I "HOLD A MIRROR" AS YOU SAID, UP TO AMERICA, I UNDERSTAND THE REACTION FROM THOSE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND OR DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM. I'M COMING FROM A PLACE THAT AT TIMES WILL MAKE THEM FEEL GUILT. AND IF WE ALL STUDIED THE NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS AND HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER WE'D KNOW THAT ONE OF THE NATURAL REACTIONS TO GUILT IS DEFENSE... ESPECIALLY IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE NOT DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHY THE GUILT EXISTS. AMERICA WANTS TO AND TRIES TO DISCONNECT ITSELF FROM IT'S PAST WITH US. THAT'S WHY YOU ALWAYS HEAR "WHY CAN'T YOU ALL GET PAST IT, YOU HAVE OPRAH, MICHAEL JORDAN, TIGER WOODS, KEN CHENAULT IS RUNNING ONE OF THE MAJOR COMPANIES IN THE WORLD, A BLACK COACH JUST WON THE SUPER BOWL, OBAMA IS A GREAT LEADER AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR YOU ALL, ETC." BUT THEY NEVER TAKE INCONSIDERATION THAT EACH ONE OF THE PEOPLE THEY MENTION IS ONE, NOT SEVERAL. AND IN THE SEARCH AND NEED FOR SOME FORM OF EQUALITY, ONE DOESN'T EQUAL MANY. FOR EVERY ONE AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADER THAT IS THROWN IN OUR FACE TO FOLLOW AND BE SATISFIED WITH, THERE ARE 35-50
OTHER NON-AFRICAN AMERICANS THAT COUNTER THEIR PRESENCE AND EXISTENCE. YEAH, OBAMA IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, BUT HOW MANY BLACK GOVERNORS AND SENATORS DO WE HAVE IN AMERICA? SEE WHAT I'M SAYING OR TRYING TO GET AT? BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY, THEY SEE IT IN A WAY THAT "WE SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH OBAMA AND THAT'S IT. BE HAPPY THAT WE HAVE OPRAH, AND THAT'S IT. BE HAPPY THAT DENZEL HAS TWO OSCARS, AND THAT'S IT. AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH, OR AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE REACTIONS AND RESPONSES I GET FOR WHAT I WRITE. I TRY TO BE VERY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDING OF PEOPLE'S RESPONSES WHEN THEY SAY I USE "REVERSE RACISM" TO GET MY POINTS ACROSS, BUT I'M NOT ALWAYS ACCEPTING OF IT. BUT JUST LIKE I WANT OR HOPE THAT PEOPLE SEE THINGS FROM MY VANTAGE POINT, I TRY TO DO THE SAME WITH OTHERS. I MAY AT TIMES WRITE THINGS THAT WILL UNINTENTIONALLY UPSET AND IRRITATE SOME PEOPLE AND ONCE I GET RESPONSES I TRY TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND SEE WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM AND SEE WHERE THERE MAY BE SOME VALIDITY FROM THEIR VANTAGE POINT AND IN WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE TO STAY GROUNDED IN THE ORIGINAL BELIEF OF WHAT I WROTE. I KNOW IT'S NOT RIGHT, BECAUSE AS A JOURNALIST I'M SUPPOSED TO BE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE TO EVERYTHING, BUT I DO WRITE WITH A MINDSET OF WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BLACK PEOPLE. THAT TO ME IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE MY OBLIGATION. SO WHEN I HEAR "REVERSE RACISM" I UNDERSTAND WHERE IT COMES FROM AND SOMETIMES - EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT DISAGREE WITH IT - I SEE WHERE THOSE THAT CLAIM IT CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION. BUT FOR ME IT'S BETTER TO NOT BE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE THAN TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS. LIKE EVERYTHING IS ALL GOOD. THE PLAYING FIELD IS NOT THAT LEVEL.


2. We notice in the comments section, and have seen on threads on a message board called sportsjournalists.com, complaints that you are a poor writer. For example, in your most recent column, you capitalized the 'c'in the word 'common' at the end of the sentence. This was obviously done as a reference to the popular musician, Common. But a lot of folks that read your columns don't understand your references, assume you made a mistake, and label you ignorant. Do you get any pleasure (we do) from knowing that those critics are unknowingly, yet overtly displaying their own ignorance -clearly showing that you are writing on a higher plane than they are capable of understanding?

THERE'S NEVER A PLEASURE WHEN PEOPLE THINK YOU ARE IGNORANT AND THERE'S NEVER A PLEASURE WHEN PEOPLE DON'T GET IT BECAUSE AS A WRITER YOU'D LIKE FOR THEM TO GET IT SO THAT THEY CAN ENJOY WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WROTE OR WHAT YOU WORKED ON. LIKE THE COMMON THING IN THE BONDS COLUMN THE OTHER DAY. THE SENTENCE WAS "...NOTHING TO STOP HIM FROM FINDING FOREVER IN THE NEXT NUMBER. I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN HER MIND, WE HAD THAT MUCH IN COMMON." NOW COMMON'S NEW CD IS ENTITLED"FINDING FOREVER." SO OF COURSE FOR ME, AS A WRITER, I THOUGHT THE SENTENCE WAS SLICK, LIKE A CLEVER RHYME VERSE. BUT THERE WERE THOSE WHO GAVE ME SOME HEAT BECAUSE OF THE SPELLING OF COMMON BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE CONNECTION TO THE 'FINDING FOREVER" OR DIDN'T KNOW THAT HIS NEW CD WAS COMING OUT AND THAT WAS THE TITLE OR THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHO HE WAS. EITHER WAY, THEY DIDN'T "GET" THE WORD PLAY AND BECAUSE OF THAT TAGGED ME AS BEING "IGNORANT" AND A POOR WRITER. WHICH TO ME, I GET NO PLEASURE OUT OF BECAUSE THEY "MISSED" WHAT I THOUGHT - STILL THINK - IS A CREATIVE PART OF THE STORY. IT'S LIKE MISSING THE PUNCHLINE OF A JOKE. I GOT THE SAME THING WHEN I USED "BEAUTIFULLEST" IN THE TITLE OF ONE OF MY COLUMNS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. GOT ALL TYPES OF EMAILS TALKING ABOUT HOW I "BASTARDIZED" THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. AND SOME OF THOSE EMAILS CAME FROM PEOPLE WHO KNEW THE CONNECTION TO KEITH MURRAY'S SONG (THE MOST BEAUTIFULLEST THING IN THE WORLD), BUT STILL THEY DIDN'T CARE. THERE ARE TWO ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTION, ONE - AND I'M BEING VERY HONEST HERE - I THINK I AM A GOOD WRITER, BUT I AM A POOR TYPER. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. (AND I'M NOT THE GREATEST SPELLER EITHER)IF YOU TALK TO THE EDITORS AND EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT AT ESPN THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT SOMEONE'S NAME WILL ALMOST ALWAYS BE MISSPELLED IN EVERY COLUMN I TURN IN. AT TIMES I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW IT HAPPENS BUT IT'S ALMOST BECOME STANDARD ON MY PART EVEN WHEN I DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO AVOID IT. IT'S LIKE A CURSE. AND IT'S SOMETHING I DETEST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S DISRESPECTFUL TO THE PEOPLE I'M WRITING ABOUT AND TO THE EDITORS WHO ARE WORKING ON MY COPY. IT'S REALLY SOMETHING I NEED TO DO A MORE THOROUGH JOB OF EXECUTING, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR A WHILE. THAT SAID, TYPOS AND MISSPELLING THINGS IN TEXT ARE A PART OF THE GAME. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY WRITTEN COLUMN OR STORY. WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE EDITORS, MANY OF THEM. AS WRITERS OUR JOBS IS TO CREATE AND OFTEN WE HAVE TO CREATE UNDER SERIOUS DEADLINES, SO IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE AND WORTH, WE MESS SOME WORDS UP OR SOME FACTS. EDITORS ARE THERE TO CORRECT THOSE BEFORE THE COPY GOES TO PRINT, PRESS OR POST. NOW MUCH LIKE WRITERS, THEY ARE WORKING ON CRAZY DEADLINES TOO, AND MORE THAN OFTEN WORKING ON MORE THAN ONE STORY AT A TIME. BUT IT'S THEIR JOB TO FIND THE FAULTS IN WHAT WE WRITE AND MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES, AND JUST LIKE US, THEY ARE NOT PERFECT... EVEN IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE OR TWO THAT EDIT STORIES. WHAT'S FUNNY TO ME IS WHEN THERE'S A TYPO IN A COLUMN OR SOMETHING IS MISSPELLED HOW I, THE WRITER, GETS BLAMED AND CALLED "ILLITERATE" OR"IGNORANT" OR "A HORRIBLE, UNEDUCATED WRITER" AND SEVEN TO EIGHT OTHER PEOPLE READ AND CHECKED THE STORY/COLUMN BEFORE IT GOT POSTED BUT NONE OF THEM CATCHES ANY HEAT. NO FLAK. THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH. WHEN PEOPLE READ SOMETHING THAT I WROTE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE AND ACT LIKE I JUST WROTE THE COLUMN AND IT WENT DIRECTLY FROM MY COMPUTER ON TO THE SITE. BUT IF PEOPLE WANT TO CONCENTRATE ON THAT AND NOT LOOK AT THE CONTENT OR PAY ATTENTION TO THE OVER ALL MESSAGE OR HAVE HANG-UPS ABOUT THE DETAILS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IS THE OVERALL CREATION OF THE COLUMN AND WHAT IT'S ATTEMPTING TO SAY, THEN SO BE IT. THERE'S NOTHING I CAN REALLY DO. I DO THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE. IT'S LIKE RUN'S LINE IN "KING OF ROCK" WHERE HE SAID, "THERE ARE THREE OF US BUT WE'RE NOT THE BEATLES. "NOW WE ALL KNOW THERE WERE FOUR BEATLES, BUT SHOULD THAT ONE MISTAKE TAKE AWAY FROM HOW GREAT THE SONG WAS? I WOULDN'T BECAUSE I'D RATHER CONCENTRATE ON THE GENIUS OF THE SONG THAN FOCUS A SMALL MISTAKE THAT TO ME DOESN'T TAKE AWAY WHAT THEY WERE TRYNA DO. THE OTHER COMPONENT IN THIS IS THAT I HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT USED TO SEE WHAT I DO IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE IT IS PRESENTED. JOURNALISM HAS NOT BEEN THE PLACE FOR CREATIVITY IN WRITING THE WAY I SOMETIMES PRESENT IT. BOOKS, PROBABLY. POETRY, PROBABLY. BUT IN MAINSTREAM JOURNALISM AT THE LEVEL OF AN ESPN, IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN SEEN, NOT EVEN WITH THE OPENNESS PAGE 2 HAS DEVELOPED ON ESPN.COM. SO WHEN I GET SOME OF THE RESPONSES I GET I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF IT COMES FROM WHAT I WROTE NOT BEING THE "NORMAL" PLACE WHERE THAT STYLE IS ACCEPTED OR BETTER YET SEEN. I GET TOLD ALL OF THE TIME, "LEAVE THAT --- AT SLAM, ESPN IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THE WAY YOU WRITE." IN THEIR MINDS I'M SUPPOSED TO CHANGE. MY PHILOSOPHY IS THAT, AND THIS IS AN UNDERSTANDING ME AND ESPN HAD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I AM ALLOWED TO BE ME. IT MIGHT TAKE SOME TIME, BUT IF I PROVIDE REALLY SOLID AND STRONG CONTENT THEN THE AUDIENCE WILL EVENTUALLY COME AROUND. THEY'LL GET IT. IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME.


3. A while back, we interviewed Whitlock on here. In an effort to see how far your differences extend, we want to ask you a question that we asked him. And compare your answers. Which is the best 'cue: Memphis, Kansas City, Carolina or Mongolian?


THAT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER. I SAY THAT - AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I LOVE GATES BBQ IN KC, KEEP A CASE OF THE SAUCE AT MY CRIB (HOUSE)- 'Q IS SUCH A PERSONAL MEAL THAT CHOOSING WHERE THE BEST 'Q IS FROM CAN'T BE DONE. IT'S ABOUT WHO COOKS THE 'Q, NOT THE PLACE. AS GOOD AS SOME OF THE SPOTS IN MEMPHIS, CHICAGO, CAROLINA, GEORGIA, ETC. ARE, NO COMMERCIAL BBQ IS GOING TO BE AS GOOD AS WHEN SOMEONE IS OVER THE GRILL AT A PICNIC OR IN A BACKYARD. I KNOW CATS THAT DO THAT FOR A LIVING THAT DON'T HAVE RESTAURANTS WHO'S 'Q IS BETTER THAN I'VE TASTED ANYWHERE. AND THAT CAN BE IN ANY STATE OR CITY, IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHO THE CHEF/COOK IS. PICKING THE PLACE THAT HAS THE BEST BBQ IS LIKE PICKING THE PLACE IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS THE BEST BASKETBALL PLAYERS. IT CAN'T BE DONE.

4. Are you at all surprised at the vigor with which the federal government has pursued its case against Michael Vick? Particularly knowing that the very same government that is trying Vick for cruelty to animals allows the military to train dogs, with no concern for the dogs well being, to find explosives and fulfill other combat related roles. And dogs have been killed as a result.


WHAT I FIND MORE HYPOCRITICAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE CONCERNING THE VICK CASE IS HOW THE ORGANIZATIONS AND FEDS THAT ARE GOING AFTER HIM - SEEM TO BE ONLY GOING AFTER HIM!!! TO ME, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WELL-BEING OF THE DOGS OR CONCERNED ABOUT STOPPING THE CULTURE OF DOG FIGHTING. THEIR CONCERN IS SINGULAR. THEY WANT VICK. THAT'S ALL. SO TO ME, THERE'S A DISINGENUOUSNESS TO THEIR APPROACH. TO ME IT'S EQUIVALENT TO THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING A WAR ON DRUGS STRATEGY AND GOING AFTER ONE DRUG DEALER OR THE RECORD INDUSTRY GOING AFTER ONE BOOTLEGGER OR THE MOVIE INDUSTRY GOING AFTER ONE COMPANY THAT'S PIRATING FILMS. THE REPORTS THAT HAVE COME OUT CONCERNING THE POPULARITY OF DOG FIGHTING IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE SAID (AND CONFIRMED BY PETA AND THE ANTI-CRUELTY SOCIETY) THAT DOG FIGHTING IS A BILLION-DOLLAR BUSINESS. DO WE REALLY THINK VICK HAS GENERATED CLOSE TO A BILLION DOLLARS WITH HIS BAD NEWZ KENNEL OPERATION? I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT AND NEITHER AM I PROTECTING VICK, BUT LET'S BE CLEAR: YES HE IS A BIG NAME, BUT I NEED TO SEE SOME OTHERS GETTING CRACKED DOWN ON BESIDES VICK TO MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT THE FEDS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE INHUMANENESS OF THE CULTURE AND NOT JUST CONVICTING ONE PERSON OF A CRIME.

5. Donovan McNabb recently took some heat for verbalizing his support for Michael Vick. He essentially stated that he hoped Vick hadn't done what he is accused of, and that he would like to see him back on the field. Due to the media's twisted representation of McNabb's statements, he was forced to clarify the next day that he was not supporting dog fighting.It has to be tempting for you to resort to the same type of tactics that the mainstream media uses (ie, spinning quotes and contexts). How are you able to rise above it and stick to painting an unbiased presentation that stays true to both yourself and reality?


I TRY VERY HARD TO APPROACH THINGS I WRITE ABOUT WITH CONSIDERING THE WHOLE OR AS CLOSE TO A COMPLETE PERSPECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. I'M NOT ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL, BUT I DO TRY ON ALL ACCOUNTS TO APPROACH WHAT I DO IN THAT MANNER. THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A LOT OF US - JOURNALIST, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA, ETC. - DOING THAT. THE CULTURE OF JOURNALISM - BE IT PRINT OR BROADCAST AND ESPECIALLY SPORTS JOURNALISM - NOW IS TO SAY WHATEVER AND HOPE THE AUDIENCE FALLS FOR IT. IT'S LIKE SAYING BONDS IS A CHEAT AND ACTING LIKE NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL IS CHEATING OR THAT THE COMMISSIONER ISN'T AS GUILTY BY DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE KNOWN STEROID USAGE WHEN IT ORIGINALLY BECAME EVIDENT; IT'S LIKE ONLY FOCUSING ON THE STUDENTS AND THE GIRL IN THE DUKE LACROSSE SITUATION AND ACTING LIKE THE UNIVERSITY - THE PRESIDENT, THE DEAN, THE CHANCELLOR, ETC. - HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY IN WHAT HAPPENED BY LETTING THE PLAYERS ON THAT TEAM BE AS OUT-OF-CONTROL AS THEY WERE FOR ALL THOSE YEARS; IT'S LIKE THE PICTURE THE MEDIA PAINTED OF THE CRIMINALITY DURING THE NBA ALL-STAR GAME IN VEGAS WITHOUT DOING THE RESEARCH TO FIND THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS ON PAR WITH WHAT USUALLY GOES DOWN IN VEGAS WHEN BIG EVENTS COME TO TOWN OR ON NEW YEARS EVE; IT'S LIKE BLAMING KOBE BRYANT FOR THE SITUATION THE LAKERS ARE IN AND NOT CONSIDERING THAT A BIG PART OF THE ORGANIZATION'S DOWNFALL IS BECAUSE THE OWNER AND GM TRADED SHAQ AWAY WITHOUT GETTING AT LEAST ONE ALL-STAR IN RETURN. I COULD GO ON AND ON. THERE'S A THEORIST BY THE NAME OF ELISABETH NOELLE-NEUMANN THAT CALLS THIS THE "PILLORY" FUNCTION OF THE MEDIA. IT'S THE FEELING OF BEING SCAPEGOAT'D BY THE MEDIA, ALMOST TO THE DEGREE THAT WE ARE HELD HELPLESS BY THE MEDIA BECAUSE AN ALTERNATIVE OR COUNTER POINT-OF-VIEW IS NON-EXISTENT OR SILENT. PART OF WHAT I TRY TO DO IS NOT BE A PART OF THAT SPIRAL OF SILENCE; TRY TO GIVE A VOICE TO VOICES OFTEN UNHEARD. SO TO "RISE ABOVE IT," AS YOU SAID, I TRY TO RISE ABOVE IT BY LOOKING TO SEE IF THE TOTAL PICTURE IS BEING PAINTED OR IF THERE'S A PERSPECTIVE TO A STORY THAT'S NOT BEING CONSIDERED. OFTEN TIMES WHEN I DO WRITE SOMETHING THAT COUNTERS WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN MASSES,PEOPLE THINK I'M WRITING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CREATING SOME FORM OF CONTROVERSY. AND THAT'S OFTEN THE FURTHEST THING FROM THE TRUTH. OFTEN I JUST LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE OF WHAT IS BEING COVERED AND SEE IF THERE IS A VOID IN MY MIND IN THAT COVERAGE. THAT'S ALL. FROM THERE I TRY TO FIND A CREATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL WAY TO PRESENT IT. THE PROBLEM FOR MOST IS THAT I TOO OFTEN HAVE "WE" (READ ABOVE) IN MIND WHEN I DO THAT.

68 comments:

Dave the Wave said...

holy shit.

an even more pompous. more racist windbag than nois.

admit it.

you and scoop spooned after this, didn't you?

racist fags.

J-Red said...

I have a much more favorable opinion of Scoop after reading him without the ESPN yoke.

Jordi said...

Scoop is dead right on BBQ. Although personally I disagree that "NO COMMERCIAL BBQ IS GOING TO BE AS GOOD AS WHEN SOMEONE IS OVER THE GRILL AT A PICNIC OR IN A BACKYARD". Some of the best Q I have ever tasted was at one of those side-of-the-road BBQ pits that someone set up in a tent in a parking lot. So good I almost had to slap my grandma.

ZEKE said...

well, at least we found the one thing scoop is qualified to write about. barbecue.

maybe he will go write for foodtv.com and quit dirtying espn's page 2 with his tripe.

and, nois....maybe you could follow...start a food blog? huh? huh?...waddyathink?

Amphibian said...

I agree with J-Red: Scoop is a much better read outside ESPN.

However, I would like to say that it shouldn't be a surprise that the writer gets the flak for any and all mistakes in the column. Scoop should have a greater interest in ensuring quality than his editor, fact-checker and whoever else because his name is on that column.

If my name was on that byline, I'd be doing everything in my power to put out a quality product.

Oops Pow Surprise said...

Sirs,

An objective reader cannot help but be overwhelmed with lament. It is lament not only for the persecution that Brother Scoop faces from the inside as he tries to put words to truths, but for those who are so blinded with hate and rage and so drunk on anonymity, that they would cut him down in these comments.

Were I only so fortunate as to be able to purchase a Scoop Jackson jersey to wear in support.

Sebastian said...

Nice interview, kudos.

Oops Pow,

Can't lament for Scoop though. I'm laboring in an office, Scoop covers the biggest sports events on the planet. He's out there in front, and God bless him, but I'd trade with him in a second.

I can understand about the need to eliminate spelling and grammatical errors, as long as they're not meant to capture the flavor of the situation. It doesn't mean he's stupid; because he's not. He just needs to proofread and spell check.

And he does raise a good point about Vick. The Feds don't seem to be going after anyone else. It's worth a look to see if there's an increase in arrests and prosecutions since Vick's episodes. It's a big country, and though Vick may be the biggest feather in the Federal cap, I'm wondering what else is going on. In Chicago, we'll hear of arrests for dogfighting every 4-6 months or so.

Burnsy said...

I'm almost overwhelmed by the double serving of wisdom. Now if I could just cover that wisdom with the delicious Maul's Barbecue Sauce from St. Louis then my day would be complete, sirs.

My Hero Zero said...

Just the other day I was listening to NPR (my white, liberal guilt requires this)and was captivated by an interview with a journalist-of-color from the Washington Post. By far the most interesting aspect was the writer's angst regarding the role of the unbiased journalist versus his duty to be an advocate for his people. I thought at the time that this is a topic tailor-made for Mr. Scoop Jackson, and, lo and behold, he addresses it in his usual eloquence in your very interview.

Kudos, sir, for this fine expose of one our nation's most underrated sports writers. One who, I feel compelled to point out, is able to work his craft despite being functionally retarded.

Nathan said...

So... I'm a little confused. Does Snoop think the Duke LaCrosse players were found guilty?

Big Daddy Drew said...

ONLY I, STEPHEN A SMITH, GET TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS, BROTHER JACKSON! I FULLY EXPECT TO REPAID IN DELICIOUS CHEEZ DOODLES WITH ALL DUE ALACRITY!

Dave the Wave said...

" ALACRITY! "

well, now you just caused a short in scoops grey matter.

there will be no cheezy doodlyboos for you.

Malcom Hex said...

"So... I'm a little confused. Does Snoop think the Duke LaCrosse players were found guilty?"

I see the vacant look in your eyes in your pic...but you can't be that dense. Can you?

Big Daddy Drew said...

I find it amusing that neither Scoop nor Dave The Wave understands the concept of satire.

In that sense, you might even call them... Brothers?

Unsilent Majority said...

+1 BDD!

Dave the Wave said...

"+1 BDD! "

oh look, the fag patrol is giving you points....ttttsssooooopppper.

Jack Brown said...

"4. Are you at all surprised at the vigor with which the federal government has pursued its case against Michael Vick? Particularly knowing that the very same government that is trying Vick for cruelty to animals allows the military to train dogs, with no concern for the dogs well being, to find explosives and fulfill other combat related roles. And dogs have been killed as a result."

I'm still laughing, this is awesome. Thank you.

Al_Sharpton's_Banana_Hammock said...

"I'm still laughing, this is awesome. Thank you."

why is that funny?

Unsilent Majority said...

Dave- I could teach you to love again!

Oops Pow Surprise said...

BDD: Deliberately answering satirical questions at face value is meta-satirical. Give Brother Scoop his props.

Jarrett Carter said...

Good read, although the caps hurt my eyes after a while.

Scoop Jackson is what we thought he was, there's no need to put him on or let him off the hook.

josh said...

zeke: You mean Uni-Watch and shit like that isn't tripe? Throw a turd in the sewer and it'll still stink about the same. F a Page 2.

Gary said...

Thank god everyone takes this for the joke that it is. God forbid "people" have to work for a living instead of bring up the past and think that a living is owed to them. Pathetic Nitwits.

ZEKE said...

"Dave- I could teach you to love again! "

Dave, don't sleep on your stomach around this guy.

ZEKE said...

"Throw a turd in the sewer and it'll still stink about the same."

maybe someone will throw you a life preserver.

Steven A's Cheese Doodles said...

"Thank god everyone takes this for the joke that it is. God forbid "people" have to work for a living instead of bring up the past and think that a living is owed to them. Pathetic Nitwits."

yea, god forbid we learn lessons from history.

that would suck.

and, where exactly did scoop say a living is owed to anyone?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Scoop Jackson is what we thought he was, there's no need to put him on or let him off the hook. "

Sir, you've got that right.

We've been fascinated on many levels for a long time by both Scoop's writing (perspective) and the responses he invokes in readers.

You can take this interview any way you want.

All we know is that it satiated our interest in finding out more about Scoop.

And, we also learned that, despite what you think of Scoop as a writer or a thinker...he is both honest and open.

Gotta give him that.

Dogtownsurfer said...

Good Jumping Jesus - not only is it racist and ranting, but parts of it don't even make sense. Dude, when you need 700 words to answer who has the best "'cue" it is just barely possible that you are taking yourself a little too seriously.

The best, though, is when he says "I write from the perspective of what is BEST FOR BLACK PEOPLE". How about what's best for ALL people, eh?

Maybe 'ol Scoop is feeling some of that guilt now - what a fucking windbag.

Purdue Matt said...

The Feds' job is to convict people of crimes, not stop dog fighting all together through commercials, campaigns, and after school programs for troubled teens.

Jordan said...

Dig the interview. I've always wondered about the term "reverse racism" I understand the idea behind it, but technically isn't it just racism?

Dave said...

Did you really just compare the practice of the military using dogs to save human lives with pitting dogs against one another in a fight to the death for sport?

And you wonder why some people just don't "get" what you write?

Bones said...

in qresponse to the second question you asked,

"Do you get any pleasure (we do) from knowing that those critics are unknowingly, yet overtly displaying their own ignorance -clearly showing that you are writing on a higher plane than they are capable of understanding?"

You consider Scoop to be...

"writing on a higher plane than they are capable of understanding?"

...because someone does not know who the Rapper Common is? A higher plane? Really? What percentage of adults in general have any idea who he is? And because i do i am considered more intellectual?

H.N.I.C. said...

"The best, though, is when he says "I write from the perspective of what is BEST FOR BLACK PEOPLE". How about what's best for ALL people, eh?"

Don't worry the white media has all the rest covered. Are you mad that one of ourn takes it upon himself to make sure we are heard as well? Does that anger you? I do hope so.

Mr.Poindexter said...

Scoop should have an editor attached at his hip-the guy is painfully verbose,never failing to use 100 words when 10 would do.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"because someone does not know who the Rapper Common is? A higher plane? Really? What percentage of adults in general have any idea who he is? And because i do i am considered more intellectual? "

Sir, we can remove the burden you try to place upon yourself.

By limiting yourself to the ONE example we gave, and trying to make it the ONE litmus test for intelluctual capacity...

You have effectively proven that you are not suffering from the undue stress of being more "intellectual" than anyone.

Feel better?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Did you really just compare the practice of the military using dogs to save human lives with pitting dogs against one another in a fight to the death for sport?"

Sir, you can't have it both ways.

Either it is wrong to train dogs in a controlled environment, and then send them to face possible death.

Or it is wrong.

See, you can't have it both ways.

It is wrong.

Wanting to justify it by entering the "mitigating" factor of training the dogs to possibly die so that humans can live is simply adding a layer of feel good hypocrisy to your "argument".

Training dogs to die is wrong. Or it isn't.

Pick a side.

Dave said...

Mr. Nation of Islam Sportsblogger-

It is not nearly as black and white (pardon the pun) as you make it out to be.

There is a HUGE difference between risking a dog's life to save the lives of multiple human beings and risking a dog's life for entertainment.

Do you apply the same simple-minded logic when considering whether or not it is wrong to use animals for drug testing? Personaly, I believe that to be a ligitimate reason to endanger the lives of animals, as is using animals to protect our soldiers from danger. Using and tossing aside animals for entertainment? Notsomuch.

Furthermore, you also need to look at the intent, which any freshman majoring in criminal justice (or someone who just watches enough Law & Order) knows is a significant element in any crime. The intent of the military is to save lives, not snuff out the life of another animal.

TuckPendleton said...

And to follow up on Dave's comment:

It is ILLEGAL to train dogs to kill for sport.

It is currently legal to train dogs to work for the military.

Issues of humanism, and wherever you may fall on that spectrum, aside, Vick is being targeted because he broke the law.

I'm not sure about you, but I don't think Vick was participating in dogfighting as an elaborate ruse to point out the (YMMV) hypocrisy of the US government.

Semantics aside, the law is crystal clear on this matter, and when you say 'pick a side' you are asking us to side with legal or illegal.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"There is a HUGE difference between risking a dog's life to save the lives of multiple human beings and risking a dog's life for entertainment."

Sir, there is, if you operate under the hypocritical umbrella that it's wrong to kill animals.....unless YOU benefit.

Personally, we don't have a problem with it.

But, we admit it's hypocritical.

You won't admit it.

Further perpetuating your image as being a creature of convenience. A creature unwilling to stand by principles. And a creature that conveniently shifts his "morality" to concur with whatever philosophical treatise best supports his own interest.

In other words, you are selfish and philosophically and intellectually moribound.

Intent?

We never said what the government is doing with dogs is illegal.

We said it is hypocritical, regardless of intent, to actively train some dogs to die...and actively prosecute others for doing it.

Either the dogs lives are valuable enough to ALWAYS be considered. Or they aren't.

It's not slide rule morality.

The cruxt of the animal rights argument is that they have no choice in the fighting.

We carry that over to the Army dogs. They have no choice.

Either stand by the argument of choice, or abandon it.

But you can't invoke it in one instance, and retract it in another.

It is constant.

Again, pick a side.

Dave said...

Mr. Nation of Islam Sports Blogger-

Just a few more comments to add.

Why do I have to choose a side? More precicely, why do I have to choose one of the two sides that you presented?

Who says that there are only two sides to an issue? In my experience, the only people to do that are the folks at one extreme or the other.

This is a perfect example of what is broken in American discourse today. The fact of the matter is that the majority usually lies somewhere in the middle, but it is the extremeists on either side of an issue that are the loudest and get the most face time.

You seem to presenting me with the option of being a card-carrying PETA member or a founding member of Bad Newz Kennels. I'm sorry, but I refuse to ignore my own thoughts, beliefs and opinions so that I can be neatly lumped into one category or another for your convenience.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Semantics aside, the law is crystal clear on this matter, and when you say 'pick a side' you are asking us to side with legal or illegal. "

Sir, no.

You are CHOOSING to side with legal or illegal.

I'm asking you to pick right or wrong.

Legal isn't univerally moral.

So, please, abandon that argument.

Laws are devised and implement by those in power. And, many of those laws are invoked to protect that power.

You are confused between legal and illegal...and moral hypocrisy.

It's not your fault.

That is what society wants.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"You seem to presenting me with the option of being a card-carrying PETA member or a founding member of Bad Newz Kennels. I'm sorry, but I refuse to ignore my own thoughts, beliefs and opinions so that I can be neatly lumped into one category or another for your convenience. "


Sir, and you have presented NO other side.

You are trying to conduct discourse about something you haven't bothered to introduced.

If there is another side...demonstrate it.

Please.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"one category or another for your convenience."

Sir, the only thing you have done is lumped yourself into the pile of hypocrits.

Hypocrits that try to justify their inability to distinguish right and wrong by denying the existance of wright and wrong.

Malcom Hex said...

"You are confused between legal and illegal...and moral hypocrisy.

It's not your fault.

That is what society wants. "

damn, ain't that the truth.

lobbyist buy senators/congressman to introduce legislation which only benefits their clients (insurance companies, pharma companies, etc)...that becomes law and we, as citizens are instructed that law is moral. If something is legal, then it is "right".

We're cattle.

And these dudes arguing with you, nois, are steers.

Al_Sharpton's_Banana_Hammock said...

"Hypocrits that try to justify their inability to distinguish right and wrong by denying the existance of wright and wrong. "

see what's funny bout these people that want to say "this is right sometimes" and that is "right sometimes"....they are the same ones that REFUSE to listen when the person accused of doing wrong is BLACK!!!!

When a black man is accused of something wrong, people like dave don't come out of the wood work saying "hold on now, let's see if there is another side to the issue"...nope...they say, LOCK THE BLACK MAN UP!

The entire notion this guy is spewing is seething with hypocrisy.

Al_Sharpton's_Banana_Hammock said...

"The Feds' job is to convict people of crimes, not stop dog fighting all together through commercials, campaigns, and after school programs for troubled teens. "


Why not?

They did with the "war on drugs"...

Wow said...

Sir, my only problem with your argument is your inability to even consider the possibility that morality is not as black and white as you, sir, would like.

In your noble efforts to make others feel lesser than yourself, sir, you have managed to oversimplify terms that men (and women) have pledged their lives to defining.

But you do sound like an intellectual. I'll give you that.

Wow said...

P.S. This is my first visit to your sight and I have enjoyed it. Good and brief interview with Scoop. And I mean brief in the sense that you had few questions, though he chose to load up on the answers. Keep up the good work.

For The Love of Sports said...

great interview, i like scoop, but I can't help but to point out something that is very hypocritical and ironic in his answers...
his answer in question five is all about how objective he is and or strives to accomplish... "I TRY VERY HARD TO APPROACH THINGS I WRITE ABOUT WITH CONSIDERING THE WHOLE OR AS CLOSE TO A COMPLETE PERSPECTIVE AS POSSIBLE."

Yet in question 1 he basically tells us he has a massive bias... " I KNOW IT'S NOT RIGHT, BECAUSE AS A JOURNALIST I'M SUPPOSED TO BE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE TO EVERYTHING, BUT I DO WRITE WITH A MINDSET OF WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BLACK PEOPLE."

Why can't he write about what is in the best interest of everyone (who is intellegent...i know there are a lot of racist assholes out there who are just stupid and thoughts are totally irrelevant)... or write about what's in the best interest of reason, evidence, what's right, humanity, or objectivity. I mean if anyone said they were writing in the best interest of white people, they would sound like a total dick (and probably are), so why when scoop says this for blacks he isn't be held to the same standard... sorry man... I like Scoop... very good interview

TuckPendleton said...

"You are confused between legal and illegal...and moral hypocrisy."

When your best counter-argument is that the US Military also trains dogs that MIGHT be killed in the line of duty, I'm not sure you have the grounds to determine where the line is drawn for moral hypocrisy.

Are you telling us that you find dog fighting moral on any level? I know this can't possibly be the case, given the usual high level of discourse here, but that is the corner you are painting yourself into. That you truly can't decide if it is right or wrong?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"In your noble efforts to make others feel lesser than yourself, sir, you have managed to oversimplify terms that men (and women) have pledged their lives to defining. "

Sir, interesting.

You give no specific terms. And no specific definitions.


That is a void.

You have contributed a void to the discussion.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Are you telling us that you find dog fighting moral on any level? I know this can't possibly be the case, given the usual high level of discourse here, but that is the corner you are painting yourself into. That you truly can't decide if it is right or wrong? "


Sir, we've painted ourselves into no corner.

We said early on that we found killing animals to be objectional.

We also said that we found the Army training them to be put in death situations to be objectionable.

Where's the conflict in what we have stated?

The conflict is that you and dave have made it clear that you believe that it's wrong to train animals to fight each other to the death.

And that it is ok to train them to go into combat (to the death).

That is the only conflict of morality that we can see here.

Additionally, PETA, et al use the notion that the dogs trained to fight to the death have no choice. That the huge issue of why it is inhumane and wrong is that the dogs have no choice in the life vs. death activity.

Unless we are wrong in this assumption....the Army dogs have no choice in their life vs. death activity either.

Be careful. The paint on the floor is wet, in your corner.

Dave said...

(A Different Dave)

I find it difficult to swallow the argument saying training dogs for security purposes is the same as training dogs for dogfighting. To say that intent doesn't matter seems to be too narrow a viewpoint. Not that the ends always justify the means (that may be too outwardly utilitarian), but I think viewing things by the principle of double effect clears things up.

In military uses, the primary effect of training dogs is to protect others' lives. Of course the dogs have no say in that, but the few that are killed are (this may seem harsh) unfortunate collateral damage. Dogfighting, on the other hand, has the primary effect of killing nearly half the dogs that participate. Whereas the death of military dogs is an unfortunate second (or double) effect. And certainly no enjoyment is the product of a death of a military dog. That is the cruelest part, in my own opinion.

Dave said...

By the way, enjoy what you do here. I don't always agree, but at least it makes me think. In that respect, at least, I believe you are doing the Internet community a favor. Thanks.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"I find it difficult to swallow the argument saying training dogs for security purposes is the same as training dogs for dogfighting. To say that intent doesn't matter seems to be too narrow a viewpoint. "

Sir, the dogs don't have a choice in either case.

Is it the dogs' war?

It is more noble to train a dog to die, in for a cause that is not of his doing or concern?

Particularly, when you get to the root cause of war.....economics, resources.

Either way, the dogs are dying so someone, somewhere can make money.

dakuwanga said...

Training of dogs to fight against each other and in the military are both objectionable. You have to look at the sensationalism, however, created by the media. Tell me, where in the military (besides the Navy and Gitmo) are there rape stands, mass graves, death by electrocution, and whatever other image of death and torture used as a carrot to lead the masses in disgust toward Mr. Vick? The media elevated this whole issue above right and wrong, and although the training of dogs to die for the military and police is just as objectionable, no one (that is, of any importance) will see it as the same thing in any way. I guess you can say it's America. Sucks.

Also, one more thing. I remember watching some special where a cop had a dog for his partner who saved his life, and ignoring the beastial-home-erotic undertones throughout the program, I actually had the sense the dog was willing to give it's life for that man. My dog? Fuck, my dog would sell itself to the tastiest treat and piss on me.

As for Vick, I'll be playing him in Madden 08 tomorrow. Fuck the Man, I live in a video game world anyway.

rstiles said...

YAWN!!!....I"m tired of reading about race all the time...

Sir, let's talk sports!!

Nathan said...

"WHAT I FIND MORE HYPOCRITICAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE CONCERNING THE VICK CASE IS HOW THE ORGANIZATIONS AND FEDS THAT ARE GOING AFTER HIM - SEEM TO BE ONLY GOING AFTER HIM!!! TO ME, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WELL-BEING OF THE DOGS OR CONCERNED ABOUT STOPPING THE CULTURE OF DOG FIGHTING. THEIR CONCERN IS SINGULAR. THEY WANT VICK. THAT'S ALL. SO TO ME, THERE'S A DISINGENUOUSNESS TO THEIR APPROACH."

Does Scoop honestly think that Vick is the only one who's been arrested for dogfighting this year or something. Dogfighting arrests are pretty common. It's just usually one of the guys arrested isn't a famous qb.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Dogfighting arrests are pretty common"

Sir,that's an entirely arbitrary and uninformed statement.

While it is true that arrests for dog fighting are somewhat common on the LOCAL level; federal prosecution is RARE.

In fact, here is a quote from an animal rights lawyer from the Animal Legal Defense Fund:

"While the federal dog fighting law was updated a bit in May of this year, it has been around for years, yet I found only 1 reported appellate case involving this law being used by federal prosecutors; 3 others discussed whether this federal fighting law preempted state anti-cruelty or fighting laws, and in all 3 cases the courts ruled it did not (an interesting idea for the local DA to consider…). Nearly all animal anti-cruelty laws are state laws tried in state courts. Thus it has been particularly difficult for ALDF to get federal prosecutors, who are generally inexperienced in animal cases, interested in any animal cruelty matter that occasionally does come under federal jurisdiction by virtue of either happening on federal lands or being prohibited by a federal law. Years ago we tried to get several U.S. attorney offices interested in shutting down and prosecuting those responsible for “crush videos” (made underground for fetishists who enjoyed watching small animals or birds being crushed to death by a woman’s high heel) after the federal law was passed making them illegal. We got few takers."

So, let's not pretend that the federal govt. prosecutes dog fighting on a daily basis.

It doesn't.

This is a career making case for the federal prosecutor.

Sebastian said...

NOIS,

Yes it's a career making gift for a Federal prosecutor. It's also a gift from Michael Vick and the morons at Bad Newz Kennelz.

Dave makes a good point about a third way. I see your argument about, and we do suffer from a lot of the polarization stemming from that argument. But life is too fast and malleable to reduce a lot of it to good v. bad. Most things are easy, like choosing to participate in dogfighting or not. Youdo and take the chance of prosecution. You don't and there's nothing to worry about.

But other things are much more intricate and nuanced. Don't expect you to agree, because your way works for you. But it is the way things work for most everyone else.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"But other things are much more intricate and nuanced. Don't expect you to agree, because your way works for you. But it is the way things work for most everyone else. "

Sir, as we stated early to "dave":

We are willing to accept the notion of a "third way".

But, what is it?

"dave" never bothered to introduce a third perspective to the conversation.

He simply said that we were unwilling to accept one.

Huh?

How can we deny entertaining a notion that has not even been specifically introduced as anything other than a concept?

What's the third way?

trentsim said...

The armed forces uses dogs to save human lives -- some die, which is tragic. Do you think Vick viewed any of his dogs' death as similarily tragic?

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Do you think Vick viewed any of his dogs' death as similarily tragic?"

Sir, we aren't pretentious enough to speculate on how another would cope with such a thing.

Sebastian said...

Here's a third way that would have helped Vick. Just bet on fights, don't finance and create a business on your property. Severely lessens the odds of going to jail.

Here's a third way for bomb and mine-sniffing dogs, which I do not condone at all. During the Iran/Iraq War, select children were indoctrinated to believe that Allah would save them if they walked across minefields, showing the clear path for troops.

Here's a third way for abortion, since we're in the land of black v. white. A complete overhaul of the foster care and adoption systems. There's no reason people need to go overseas when there are perfectly good kids here. Plus you'd need to stop the demonization of women who end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Nobody gleefully signs up for that duty. The demonization leads to bad decisions. If adoption and foster care were transparent, economical, and safe for all involved then I guarantee you'd see the abortion rate plummet.

Theres a third way on taxes. Instead of giving the money to the people least likely to spend it, the rich; give it to the middle class. In a consumer economy it's the most efficient level to administer the relief and guarantee the money gets pumped back into the economy the fastest

Third way on drugs. Treat it as a public health epidemic. The option doesn't go over well with the law and order types, but it's more apropos for what were facing. There'd still be plenty of opportunity to put people away for awhile.

There's lots of third way's, you just have to be willing to look for them.

Mr.Blackman said...

Scoop is ALWAYS a good read. We need more brothas like this.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"There's lots of third way's, you just have to be willing to look for them."

Sir, ummm...yes.

But, wasn't the question involving right and wrong?

The criticism was that there isn't necessarily just right and wrong.

Not that there aren't a bunch of ways to do things.

Al_Sharpton's_Banana_Hammock said...

"Scoop is ALWAYS a good read. We need more brothas like this. "

scoop is the poop.

i mean that in a good way!

Iheartdiversity said...

scoop is one of the most racist individuals I have ever heard. He is so prejudiced I can predict what he will say before I even read his columns. If he were white he'd be wearing a white robe and riding a horse through town.