eugene whores oprah

for those of you who may not get the Post regularly...

today, eugene robinson wrote an op-ed piece about oprah's much publicized subsidy of a new school in South Africa. it was an oddly anachornistic piece. his problem was not that oprah spent her own money to build a school....this would be beyond reproach. rather his issue was that oprah had made a statement about giving up on inner-city schools in the US - her quote was to the effect of "i gave up on visiting inner-city schools because none of the kids there care about learning, they just want the newest pair of sneakers or an ipod"....note this is a paraphrase of her intent, not a direct quote.

in his defense of trashing oprah, poor eugene made a critical error in citing that suburban kids want the same things as the inner city kids (i.e. all kids want sneakers and ipods). and why is oprah to blame for this? oprah's point was that the South African kids wanted a uniform and wanted to go to school - ergo, in the estimation of the queen of talk, subsidizing education for South African children who are at a severe disadvantage is far nobler than funding those US children who need a better school.

eugene, let's address some realities:
1. oprah can spend her money how she wants. she earned it. and she can make a point with that money. why blame oprah for spending her money on a fruitful endeavour? she is a capitalist (well over a billion in her pocket shows she knows the principles of capitalism) and thusly wants a return on her investment. and she is describing what she feels is a good investment.
2. oprah is not jesse jackson. she is not beholden to the same political pressures as jesse has with the rainbow coalition. if oprah wants to fault a broken system, she, as an american, is completely entitled to this. first amendment ought to be race blind, right? she has no obligation to toe jesse's line.
3. eugene is working for an organization that has run a 7 month series on "life as a black man" which was somewhere between enlightening (in a train wreck sort of way) and blaxploitative - eugene has to slander anyone, particularly a successful black person, that does no subscribe to the victimization politics endemic to the politics in the District.
4. ought eugene fault the advertising establishment for the ipod and sneaker fetish? since all kids, by his estimation, want these material things (white kids, black kids, red kids, yellow kids, you surely get the idea).....is oprah actaully responsible? why not fault apple or nike and their advertising whores? why not hold the advertising establishment at fault?
5. schools cannot force education on children, parents do. education starts and ends at home. if parents don't drive their children to study, then it begs the questions: can a teacher, can a school, can a school system, can "no child left behind"?
6. aid to africa is in vogue at the moment. bill and melinda, warren buffett, brangelina, madonna, etc. aiding a dysfunctional continent, having so very little, ought to be rewarded by dear eugene.

eugene should stay clear of philanthopists' desires to aid the less fortunate. he should be more concerned with the new mayor's, adrian fenty, plan for fixing education in the District. after all, the high school down the road from me (in ward 4 where fenty was the representative before being elected mayor) has plywood covering broken windows. those plywood coverings are at least 2 years old. perhaps eugene should stick to attacking fenty who is DIRECTLY responsible for schools that are falling apart.

but then, how would eugene get a check from the Post if he were to bite the hand that feeds? eugene attacking oprah for stating the obvious underlies how tied eugene is to derivative victimization politics.