Why don't some black athletes do what the libs want?

Hello again, blogfan!

I listen to a lot of sports talk radio, so I hear frequently from listener-callers about how they wish Tiger Woods and/or Michael Jordan would speak out about social issues. Jim Brown, the best running back in the history of football and notorious advocate for social change, has mentioned this, most recently in an interview on the Jim Rome show. Brown basically wished out loud that either Tiger, Jordan, or both would use their considerable sway with the public to elicit change in public policy.

So, why don't they do it?

Well, obviously liberal agents of change ASSUME that black athletes like Jordan or Woods would trumpet the "party line" and sing for Obama-esque change; more government assistance, affirmative action, and government control over whatever CAN be controlled by government. However, what would happen if their assumption is wrong? What if Woods and other insanely rich black athletes would take a conservative stand and ask people to assume personal responsibility for their own well-being? Not only would that be treacherous to "their roots" in the eyes of the libs, but it would severely undermine whatever credibility they enjoy in African-American culture, or at least the liberal version of it.

Maybe Woods and Jordan know this and therefore refuse to say anything at all! At least they don't risk the ire of the community that hold them up as examples of success by not speaking out.

How ironic would it be if THAT were the case?