I May Be Wrong but I Doubt It isn't a basketball book. It's not really even a sports book, although basketball and sports are the vehicles I'm using to generate a much broader discussion, and are the things I am most intimately familiar with. There's been increased criticism of athletes, sometimes by people in the news media and sometimes by activists, that we run away from dealing with serious social issues, like poverty, racism, politics and education.

Not only am I not running away from these discussions, at this point of my life -- approaching forty years old and two years into retirement after a sixteen-year career in the NBA -- I usually prefer them. I'm tired of talking about stuff that doesn't matter. I'm tired of "Charles, tell me which coaches you hated during your career," or "Charles, let's talk about which players in the league you don't like," or "Let's talk about groupies."

Most reporters, I can't even convince them to talk about any serious topics, which I'm happy to have the chance to do now. If the topic is groupies, guys will blow my phone up. That's easy. If I want to say something bad about anybody, reporters will hang on every word. That's easy. So don't turn the page thinking you're going to read about that, because that's not what this is. I've done enough of that for the last twenty years. What I've come to realize is that I can have some control over this process. I can talk about whatever the hell I want to talk about.

At this point in my life I'm trying to transition from sports into something broader, with wider social implications. I don't know if you can do it when you're playing. Guys get criticized for not being more socially conscious, for not spending more time talking about social issues, and that criticism may sound legitimate. But if you actually take on some social issues, particularly if you take some unpopular positions, you're going to get hammered.

People say all the time they want you to talk about social issues. But if you do, and if you take a position that doesn't go down easy, you're "militant." My favorite one is, "When is the last time Charles Barkley struggled? What does Barkley know about growing up poor?" Well, I do know. Damn, I was poor. I grew up in the projects in Leeds, Alabama.

If I was still poor, I wouldn't have the platform to speak up about the stuff we ought to be confronting. Some years ago, in a Nike commercial most people consider controversial, I suggested that athletes should not be primary role models. I told people to listen to their parents, not to athletes or celebrities, and I got killed for it. Is that bad advice, to say, "Listen to your parents, or your teachers, and not some damn celebrities"?

But that's okay. I'm not overly concerned about people disagreeing with me. I'm concerned with the response in that I want to get people talking, get the discussion started. I'm going to say what's on my mind. Dan Patrick of ESPN, who I like very much, introduced me once as "Charles Barkley, who makes you think, makes you mad, but sometimes doesn't think before he talks." And I said, "Hey, wait a minute. I know exactly what I'm saying. I may say something some people consider controversial or outrageous, but I've thought about it before I said it." I always know what I'm saying, and I'm always prepared for the reaction.

I may ask a dozen people about something, especially when it's a sensitive topic or something that's likely to be explosive. And I like getting input from smart people and people who've experienced things I'll never experience or haven't yet experienced. But ultimately I'm going to make up my mind and say what I really feel. Saying something just for the hell of it isn't worth anything because unless you provoke some conversation, what you're saying is irrelevant. Just because I say something and get a strong reaction or a negative reaction from somebody doesn't mean I didn't anticipate it. I don't like getting caught off guard. Hell, a lot of times I know exactly what's coming and I say it anyway because I feel it needs to be said, or I need to be confrontational on a certain issue. But I've thought about it, trust me.

And I also know people think, "Charles is just saying that to get attention." And, yes, there are times I'll say something crazy or silly because I'm not going to be serious all the damn time. And other times the way to make an important point is by using humor. But when you read my comments in interviews it's not like I was seeking attention. Somebody asked me to sit and talk about something. I didn't go to some publication or network and say, "Hey, I've got some shit to say." They called and asked me to talk about a number of issues. I've started telling people, "Don't ask me if you don't want to hear what's really on my mind, or what I feel is the truth about a subject." Is it okay to express myself only as long as I say what somebody hopes I'll say? Do you think I'm going to say something I don't feel, or just tell people something they want to hear?

In March of 2002 I did a piece for Sports Illustrated with the magazine's longtime basketball writer Jack McCallum, and immediately after it ran I must have had two hundred people come up to me and start to tell me their opinions, what they liked and didn't like. Some people who said they didn't even subscribe to Sports Illustrated said they picked up the issue and read the piece. Most of the media reaction to it had to do with my opinions about Augusta National changing the course, and why I thought they were targeting Tiger Woods. A lot of people come up and say they disagreed with what I said about Augusta National, but I haven't had anybody say to me they disliked the things I discussed in the piece. I would say to almost all of them, "Okay, you disagree with my view on Tiger and Augusta, that's cool. But what did you think of the entire article?" See, it wasn't as important for them to agree with me as to get whoever read it engaged in some sort of discussion or debate about the bigger picture.

I've been criticized for expressing certain views for nearly twenty years. And even though I never minded getting hammered, toward the end of my career I was thinking, "Let me finish my playing career before I start seriously discussing all the social issues of the day. I'll still be in the public spotlight because I'm probably going to be in TV to some extent. Then I'll be better able to handle it." The more serious the subject matter, the more time you need to spend thinking about it and the harder people come at you if they disagree. As I said, I don't have any problem with people who disagree with me because the real reason you take on serious issues is to get some dialogue started on difficult and sensitive topics. But disagreement and ridicule are not the same thing.

Another reason I'm looking at a transition is I don't know that you can give full attention to subjects as serious and as sensitive as race and the economy and education, then just shift into doing all sports. I don't know if the two go together. I've always contended that sports don't help black people. . . . We don't own any of the franchises, don't run any leagues, barely run any teams. You talk to these kids and all they want to talk about is sports, and I guess they don't realize how little other than playing sports black people have to do with the industry. But they all want to play sports. Playing sports is fine, but too often it's all they want to do.

Don't get me wrong, I love sports as much as anybody ever has, and I'll still be doing my work for Turner during the NBA season, which is a lot of fun. But my duties in Atlanta will be expanded to include appearing weekly as a special contributor and commentator on CNN's show TalkBack Live, as well as other CNN programming. And I'm going to take that very seriously because the show deals with serious subjects. The primary reason I turned down an opportunity at HBO is that it would have been exclusively sports. And it was a damn attractive situation. I would have worked on HBO's Inside the NFL -- not with football analysis, because they have former NFL players and coaches who already do a great job of that, but doing interviews. I think I would have liked it.

But I need to transition because there are so many things people don't want to talk or think about, things I think I can get them to think about. Most of the reporters who ask me questions are white; almost all are doing well financially. Most don't want to talk with me, a person they see involved only in the industry of sports, about issues that concern black and Hispanic and poor white people. I don't think they see that stuff as something they can sell their readers or viewers.

How is it possible that 80 percent or more of the NBA is black, and there are still so few black writers covering the league? How is that? How many black writers cover the NFL? It's still a handful from the conversations I've had with my friends in the media. It's a travesty. I know writers and broadcasters all over the country, and I know it's a more diverse group now than it's ever been, and that's really sad because it's still bad. I know a lot of white reporters who are real nice guys and very good at what they do. But many of them just don't care about this stuff and others don't get it. And when the reporter does care, I know for a fact sometimes the boss -- the editor or producer or whoever -- doesn't give a damn and figures the readers don't care. "You think the people reading this sports section give a shit about poor-people issues? Man, you better bring me some stories where the coach is talking bad about the player or the player is talking bad about the coach."

I pick up the very same publications and read columns or editorials criticizing guys for not talking about anything socially significant. And that's true of a lot of guys. But if you ask me, I'll talk about it. And if I don't say it, the guy isn't going anywhere else to hear anybody else talk about it. He's not going to the projects to hear it. The only time anybody white comes to the damn projects is to find a great player.

This is what annoys me about the whole issue surrounding Jim Brown and his criticism of me. I really believe Jim Brown is on the right track on most issues, and I like the way he confronts and deals with difficult stuff. But I think most of the mainstream press loves to hear two prominent black athletes attacking each other. They just love it. I like a lot of things about Jim. But what real substantive reason was there to interview Jim Brown in prison last spring, other than because so many of them knew he was going to say something negative, he was going to take the opportunity to bash Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods?

He's in there for problems of his own, namely aggression and lashing out. Does he talk about his own anger management? No. Did the interviewers who talked to him ask him about that? Apparently not. It seemed to be "What do you think about today's black athlete?" and he just started bashing guys, saying the same crap he's said for the last thirty years, and a lot of it is simply not true, or it was said without any knowledge of the people he's criticizing.

I don't want to hear from anybody that I'm afraid to speak up. But I'm not going to bash guys who don't. Some guys want to and can't, some don't feel they know enough, or they don't want to get ripped for taking a stand. I know this for a fact because when I do something like the role model commercial for Nike, or pose for the cover of Sports Illustrated, symbolically breaking out of chains, I'll start getting phone calls from brothers asking me, "Man, how's it going?" I say, "Sonofabitch, you know how it's going: I'm getting hammered." They say, "I feel you, I want to join you. I want to say something, but . . ."

I got some great advice once from Clarence Thomas: he told me to always try to control your message. So I've learned that. I know sometimes everybody wants to kill me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give them the hammer to do it. I pick my battles. It's just that some of them, like racism and prejudice, are tough battles. Those are battles worth fighting.