Bill O'Reilly aimed his media WMDs at the hip-hop artist Ludacris when Pepsi made him a spokesperson for their soft drink. O'Reilly encouraged all people concerned with Ludacris' unflattering characterization of women as sex objects and his potential to "further negatively" impact our nation's young people to boycott Pepsi. Many of O'Reilly's loyal followers jumped on the "Ludacris-bashing" bandwagon and Pepsi eventually dropped Ludacris as a spokesperson. However, in all my research, not once did I discover that Ludacris was ever sued for sexual harassment or charged with sexual misconduct. The same cannot be said of Mr. O'Reilly and yet he still holds a position as a moral authority with millions of Americans. This episode, once again, showed this country's propensity to embrace an ethnic double standard and a hypocritical use of righteous indignation.

"Sex  & The City," a series that focused, by and large, on the sexual relationships of four white women, was hailed as a powerful demonstration of female camaraderie and empowerment. This show, during its run, was lavished with critical praise and commercial success while hip-hop and rap artists are attacked by the morality police for their depiction of sex in their lyrics and videos. The don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-it appearance of Janet Jackson's right bosom during the Super Bowl halftime show a little less than two years ago, caused more of a furor than the countless commercials (also aired during the Super Bowl) using sex to sell anything from beer to cars to gum. Not to mention the constant stream of commercials that rather openly talks about erectile dysfunction medication. Yet, not a peep or a murmur of righteous indignation.

Let's take a look at a quote made by a certain political pundit: "There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up." This statement was made Rush Limbaugh on October 5, 1995 on his now defunct television talk show. Fast forward to October of 2003 and we discover that Rush was exposed for buying illegal drugs from his former housekeeper.  He had become addicted to a drug called "baby blues" (OxyContin pills), which he started using because of chronic, severe pain. Supposedly, the housekeeper met Limbaugh in parking lots where they exchanged sandwich bags of pills for cigar boxes filled with cash. He then admitted on his radio show that he is addicted to drugs that are usually prescribed for pain.  Besides OxyContin, the drugs in question also include Lorcet and Hydrocodone. Mr. Limbaugh has since completed a 30-day treatment program. His minions, who had castigated and ridiculed others who were bound by addiction, staunchly stood by him. The Limbaugh faithful continued to look to him as a beacon of political and moral clarity. There was practically no moral outrage from the same people who rarely passed up an opportunity to bash low-income and minority addicts. Rush escaped the judgment of righteous indignation - and according to Rush himself he should have been "sent up."

Finally, as we embarked upon this new NBA season the media had been all-abuzz with the NBA's new dress code - no t-shirts, no jerseys and absolutely no bling. This new approach to attire in the NBA was said to be a mandate from corporate sponsors who believed that professional basketball was badly in need of a facelift to give it more respectability. Last season's melee in Detroit not withstanding; is corporate America really the one that NBA should be taking its moral cues from? Did the business attire of certain TYCO executives make their embezzlement and mismanagement of funds any more acceptable? Ask the shareholders of now-defunct ENRON if the loss of their hard earned money was easier to swallow because those guilty of squandering and pilfering their life savings were wearing three-piece suits. Martha Stewart has done more prison time than Ron Artest, but let's just take a wild guess as to which mainstream America deems a more suitable choice as a paragon of virtue.

One of the aspects of white privilege is to have immunity or special freedom from some liability or burden, which Blacks and other groups are subject to. By this I do not mean that whites are not punished for crimes or are totally exempt from hardship. However, when a white person is found guilty of a crime, they as a group do not carry the stigma of that crime. When a white person displays what might be considered negative or anti-social behavior, it is usually that person's burden to carry alone and not seen as endemic "white" behavior. These perceptions are entrenched in the practice of minimizing and/or excusing the faults and flaws of those in the privileged group, while simultaneously magnifying and vilifying those same faults and flaws in people of color.  This article was not written as a proverbial tit-for-tat piece, but rather as a means for us to examine the continuing inequities in how people of color are perceived in comparison to their white counterparts. Until those who practice it abandon this double standard, we are only paying lip service to the ideas of equality and justice. In the final analysis, the practitioners of this most destructive hypocrisy only prove that their indignation is any thing but righteous.

President Bush, during a recent speech to a predominantly white audience, voiced his concerns about the state of affairs in American white communities. "The epidemic of whites involved in drunk-driving fatality accidents is deplorable," President Bush said. He cited the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 2000 statistics that showed that white male drivers between the ages of 21-34 constituted the largest percentage of drunk (or impaired) drivers in fatal crashes and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Prevention Research Center's 1999 findings that of the 91,248 alcohol-related driving fatalities, 65,309 were committed by whites.

President Bush also took aim at the violence perpetrated by whites in school: "White school children killing other school children must stop. The senseless and barbaric school shootings in Pearl, Miss.; Paducah, Ky.; Jonesboro, Ark.; Edinboro, Pa.; Springfield, Ore.; and Littleton, Colo.; serve as chilling reminders of what happens when there is a failure of leadership in the white family." The president referred to his speech as a wake-up call: "We can't hide behind the stereotypical image of the Black and Hispanic violent criminal anymore. Before there was 'gangsta' rap you had Martin Scorsese, Brian DePalma and Francis Ford Coppola winning award after award and Oscar after Oscar for their films filled with whites committing brutal acts of violence. What type of message does that send if we reward movies that depict such brutality? The Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas, Scarface, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction. These movies have all contributed to a culture of white violence."

"Do you realize that nearly 70 percent of those serving time for violent crimes against children are white," Bush said as he cited the U.S. Department of Justice's 1996 report, What are we doing to ourselves? "Susan Smith, Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney represent a frightening pattern of murder and neglect of white children by white mothers…. And do they take responsibility? No. They either blame it on some phantom black man or say God made them do it."

The president later turned his focus on white youth and drugs, "It's the same story for young adults. Whites are 66 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds and 70 percent of drug users that age. Blacks are 13.5 percent of persons in that age group and only 13 percent of young adult users, while Hispanics are nearly 15 percent of that age group, but yet comprise only 12 percent of drug users 18-25. According to the Justice Department, drug users tend to buy from same-race dealers. So the nearly three-quarters of users who are white, mainly rely on white drug dealers, not the Blacks or Hispanics of accepted imagery. When it comes to drugs like Ecstasy - a hot product in suburban America - the dealers and users have long been known to be mostly white, middle-class males between 14 and 32. American society doesn't want to face the fact that white kids deal and use drugs. They simply can't look in their faces and see that a nice-looking white kid is selling drugs to their kids, because that would mean that their kids could do this too.

Let's think about it, when the tragedy at Columbine occurred there were literally hundreds of news stories asking the question: "Why are our kids becoming so violent." Not why are white kids becoming so violent, but "our" kids. Now let's contrast that with what happens when a black child is killed in a predominantly black community. The headline more often than not has read something like this: "The problem of black-on-black crime" or "Violence amongst black youth." There are two scenarios taking place here: 1. De-emphasizing or minimizing ethnicity. When the crime is perpetrated by white youths color is not the issue; the issue is "our" children and violence. 2. Emphatic emphasizing and alienation when black youth are deemed the culprits. It is no longer "our" kids; it is "black" kids or youth. Can you, will you, see the difference?
 
 Our need to examine these inequities is exacerbated by CNN’s announcement that they are adding Bill Bennett to their on-air roster. This prolific slap in the face cannot be appeased by Bennett’s continued pronouncement, that his words were taken out of context and that he preceded his ominous statement about the abortion of Black babies to lower the crime rate with: "it would be reprehensible." The fact that he went straight for the Black population speaks volumes of his deep-seated prejudices. Why mention Black babies at all? In light of all the statistical evidence presented here, Mr. Bennett’s assertion about aborting "every Black baby" would not make a dent in certain crimes. It certainly would not make much of a difference in corporate or white-collar crime, which is still very much white-male dominated and rarely discussed in the on-going dialogue on "crime." Wouldn’t the drop in crime be significant if we aborted "white male babies" (if we were to stay with Bill Bennett’s rationale for his hypothesis)? Furthermore, a distinction has to be made between criminal activities and those convicted of a crimes - not everyone who commits a crime is convicted.