Back in the far reaches of time there was a prisoner that no one knew. Well at least in America. Back in 1962 a Black man was thrown in a jail (with the help of the CIA) because he wanted freedom. He wanted a say in his government, he wanted to be equal to those around him. He wanted an end to the poverty that was focused on ever other Black in the nation. He was a visionary, and that vision was enough to have him locked up for 27 years.

Back in the 1980’s people like Rev. Wright realized that this man existed in a tiny jail cell. They realized that what he wanted was an inalienable right. They realized that no nation should ever rule over its people in such a manner.

That nation was South Africa, the rule of law was Apartheid, and the man is Nelson Mandela.

Throughout the 1980’s and afterwards America woke up to the fact that a modern day slavery existed in the world. It was something the nation stood up and rejected, though not without resistance in some parts. But eventually the nation refused to do business with South Africa, hitting them in their pockets hard. We protested and held rallies. We politically turned up the heat internationally. And in 1990, Nelson Mandela saw the light of day as a free man. In 1994 he became the leader of his nation and abolished all vestiges of Apartheid. He led his nation to democratic rule, and improve the lives of millions of Africans in the process.

Today that man is 90 years old. An age many never envisioned him reaching in 1980. And his message today, though retired from elected office and generally from public life, is as strong as at any point prior. He seeks peace in Zimbabwe, as well as social and economic reform. He has fought to gain international attention to AIDS in Africa, and is a Nobel Prize winner. His words resonate as strongly in the world as almost and current national leader.

And I have to wonder. America woke up to Africa in 1980. For a brief moment the nation paid attention to a land filled with Black people, and the injustice being wrought by the Whites in power their. And then we walked away.

Today there is a genocide raging in Africa, and America does nothing. We don’t even discuss the atrocity on the nightly news. There are nations in unrest, and the majority of Americans can’t name 3 countries in the continent. [Most just refer to Africa as if it were one nation instead of multiple nations on a single continent. That’s not just rude, it’s stupid.] There are those starving, and those striving to survive, and America imagines the continent to be a big jungle filled with savages – even in the 21st Century.

“It is Not On Our Watch that again did something our nation seems incapable, or unwilling, to do. Today they gave $500,000 to the World Food Program (WFP) of the United Nations. The WFP has been providing food and support people in Darfur for years, in fact 70% of it’s aid goes to this area alone.”

Has America acted to help all the African nations? A bit. There is of course Somolia, and various donations of food and money given by individuals and a touch by the government. But that’s all the political polispeak of it. We aren’t involved in Africa. We don’t care what happens there. Because if we did all the African nations would be different today.

“America has become a policeman of the world in my lifetime. We have entered multiple nations as a peacekeeping force and in wars. Yet, for some reason America has turned its back while the equivalent of Orlando, Florida (or possibly Cleveland, Ohio – the exact number is unknown) have been killed since 2003. Let me make this clear, that’s between 200,000 to 400,000 men women and children that have been killed and counting.”

China is the leading investor in the African continent. America openly does business with, and therefore funds, the Sudan – funding the murder of children and women every day. I have spoken about HR 180 IH, and the presidential candidates won’t. Congress fails to act and the news media ignores it.

“When I think of Darfur I am reminded of a quote,

“Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” – Dr. Martin Luther King.

Back in June I noted that there had not been a single candidate that had spoken about the atrocity in Darfur. Today that genocide in Darfur continues, Congress has not acted, and the Presidential candidates continue to turn a blind eye…”

But how much money has America poured into Serbia? How many laws were enacted to resolve that conflict? How many soldiers did we send to help end that genocide, which was discussed at least weekly on the news? And yet we can’t even pass one law to limit the money going to the Sudan from our government to say nothing of businesses.

Nelson Mandela is a great man. He has lead a life worthy of notice and remembrance. At 90 he continues to call out to the world to do the right thing. And America has gone back to the deaf ear it had the day the jail cell doors closed on Mr. Mandela.

We can do better, we can be better. And all the polispeak from both political parties is not enough to hide the fact that America treats all the African nations like they were in a Tarzan movie.

You can write to Congress to request action in preserving the lives of thousands of women and children via your local Senator or Congressman:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

Or

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Labels: AIDS, Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, Don Cheadle, HR 180 IH, Nelson Mandela, Polispeak, South Africa, United Nations

Well the first part of 4 videos on Bill O’Reilly and Senator Hillary Clinton is now done. It’s taking forever to get all the videos downloaded to YouTube.

Here is the first part of their conversation



Now here are my thoughts:

One of my biggest problems with what bill O’Reilly didn’t ask, in any point of the interview, is why Senator Clinton lied to the American public. I am directly referring to her lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, and her lie about being a key figure in the Ireland Peace talks. In both cases her every utterance was a fabrication intended to puff up her abilities, create an impression of experience, and gain voters that do not follow the political news as much as someone like myself. And in each case her lies were refuted by first-hand witnesses of high regard.

Another point that I thought should have been brought up was the fact that Senator Clinton has been more than happy to take advantage of the Rev. Wright media barrage leveled against Senator Obama. Yet she was given a pass on a far more serious issue. That being her association with a known criminal, Norman Hsu, and her campaign’s acceptance of $1 million that was stolen – which her campaign tried very hard to not give back. If an association with a pastor that has no political power, and is not up for election, is significant how is it not important that she received stolen monies and harbored a fugitive?

I know that these 2 items are constants in my conversations about Senator Clinton’s nomination run. But I find them critical indicators of what kind of President we can expect her to be. And in both cases we do not see an equivalent, relevant action or situation among any of the other Presidential candidates.

But directly pertaining to the video are the following:

First is the “sudden” decision to appear on The O’Reilly Factor. There has been an open invitation to all the Democratic candidates to appear on the program since November 2007 as I recall. They all denied to appear, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich (which might have been on Hannity & Colmes I’m not sure).

But with Senator Obama currently reeling from the major news media motivated (led by Fox News) Rev. Wright debacle, and Clinton emphasizing the racial aspects of the Democratic nomination since November, she decides to make the move. Remember that she contacted O’Reilly. If this is not an example of counting polls and being calculating I don’t know what is. And it’s completely in line with her past actions (ie the Hot Coffee bruhha) of jumping into headlines for the sake of self-promotion.

But since Rev. Wright is a personally important issue for Bill O’Reilly, which I continue to feel has minimal importance to the actual issues a President should be voted for, this was the first question. And Senator Clinton was allowed to not be asked why some of her prior pastors made similar comments to some of those that Rev. Wright has made. Or why she has not had a pastor or church since Bill Clinton left the Presidency. That kind of makes her opinion on being in a church (the same one for 20 years) moot.

She also mentions that she does not believe the US could be behind AIDS. While I do agree, I am not 100% on this. And no reasoning American should be. Why? Because America has done a similar thing in the past. Tuskegee Experiments. 2 words that no White pundit or politician wants to utter.

The fact is that America harmed African American men, and the Black community, for 4 decades. That’s the equivalent of my lifetime. The end of this human experimentation, something that is universally denounced among nations across the globe, was a mere 30ish years ago. And if America could do this in my lifetime once, potentially affecting the fathers and grandfathers, uncles and/or brothers of you my readers, why would they not do it again? Some of those involved in running this ‘experiment’ are still alive and could influence policy. Were it not for the whistle-blowing on this, America would never have known. What prevents the Government form doing this secretly again, and this time keeping quiet because of the devastation? America dropped the 2nd H-bomb on Nagasaki after seeing the horror of Hiroshima, partly because the Japanese were ‘nips’. Thus how can anyone say that AIDS was 100% not possible in a nation that has shown what it can do to those not exactly like the majority?

For Senator Clinton, this is 100% impossible. And you know it must be true because she loves to make speeches in front of African Americans on Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday. Though she does nothing to denounce the racially motivated and incendiary comments of her husband. I wonder what influence he has on her views of Black Americans and why she hasn’t distanced herself from him?

[By the way, the latest Rasmussen poll shows that ‘surprise’ Senator Obama is seen as sharing the views of Rev. Wright – at least in part. But pundits are amazed as everyone, regardless of political party, agrees that there is no evidence in his voting record, actions, or conversations. Yet it is the major news media that has plastered nothing but Rev. Wright for 3 weeks now. That wouldn’t influence voters, could it?]

Moving on we come to oil and energy. In particular the fact that Senator Clinton has jumped on the bandwagon created by Senator McCain. Shocking that she would approve of a plan someone else made that has polled well. Suspending the 18 cents federal gas tax is popular, and hypocritical.

Senator Clinton has shot down drilling in ANWAR, which would have at least lessened the current problem had we done this years ago. In addition Senator Clinton is anti-nuclear power (voting against it 7 times). Considering that she is against these alternatives, and promoting ethanol - which is less effective than gasoline, increases the cost of food globally, and potentially is polluting the Gulf of Mexico not to mention unavailable in about 45 states in the nation – one has to wonder how committed she is to fixing the energy crisis.

Of course this was a wonderful time for her to jump on the “oil companies are bad” stump polispeak. One of the mantras of ultra-liberals all big business is bad. They make too much money and need to be penalized. So much for the American dream.

Senator Clinton does not mention the fact that the profits of oil companies fuels this economy. From jobs, retirement funds, mutual funds, the stock market, and the value of the dollar oil companies are a big part of a stable economy. Take away their money and you hurt America directly. But that’s something anyone who has run a business might understand – Clinton has never run anything.

That say nothing of her thinly-veiled intent to socialize business in America. If she were to take money from, or cap profit of, oil companies what industry is next? And what level is the limit? It’s a slippery slope that ends with businesses essentially being employees of the government – that’s called socialism and in its most extreme communism.

Lastly in this segment we go to healthcare. Universal Healthcare is again her big issue. Senator Clinton failed to get this passed the last time she was around the Oval Office and this is her mulligan try. In her explanation to Bill O’Reilly Senator Clinton has left out a key component of her plan. Everyone pays for Universal Healthcare, it’s free to no one. And if you don’t pay you will be penalized. Thus it is very realistic that those who need the most help will not only still be unable to afford it, but that they will owe money because of the penalty for not having healthcare insurance. Nice plan, huh.

Another question that was not addressed well is her response about running this program. She avoided the fact that already California and New York States are in debt some $20 billion mostly due to healthcare costs (minus a hefty 20% discount for fraud which is more than believed actual). This is inefficiency of the Government as much as increased costs. And Senator Clinton had no answer.

The Government cannot run the Post Office efficiently – and it’s cost goes up routinely without an increase in performance. The Veterans Administration is so bad it would be laughable were it not so sad. Name a DMV that you think is either efficient or inexpensive. And let us not forget that the Government routinely buys hammers and nails for in excess of $500 each (and I do mean each nail) and has not run a profit in decades. [By the way, the profit that was claimed by the Clinton Administration was a lie of fuzzy math the Government employs. What was done was that the Clinton Administration valued the growth in the stock market, averaged it, and projected it forward 5 years. Based on that math the Government was in a surplus by the end of the 5 year figures, and they spent money based on being even at the end of 5 years. Of course the bursting of the bubble led to the “sudden” deficit that happened instantly as Gore lost the election. Try to run your business like that.]

So given these everyday facts, and that Senator Clinton promised Upstate New York the creation of 200,000 jobs yet provided a net loss of 30,000 since being elected Senator, do you think she can manage costs? Do you think a(nother) Government run program will be cost effective?

Yes Senator Clinton spoke well. Yes she kept composed under the pressure that Bill O’Reilly provided. But if you listen to what she said, understand the environment in which she said them, and facts she avoided mentioning you might come up with a loss. American needs a President that is cool under pressure. But we also need a President that has a plan that IMPROVES the nation in more areas than not. This first part of the interview does not encourage me to believe Senator Clinton has that plan.

Do you agree?

Labels: AIDS, American economy, Bill O’Reilly, Dr. Martin Luther King, Polispeak, President Bill Clinton, presidential election, Rev. Wright, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Tuskegee Experiment, universal healthcare

Recently I was speaking with a friend of mine, I’ll call him Bob. We were discussing my effort to regain the 6 pack abs I had back in my 20’s. Bob is a former military man, and used to also be in far better shape. Bob is now a pretty average 43 yr old, with a decent middle that is not uncommon for most men his age.

While discussing the gym I had chosen, the conversation hit upon my annual physical. Surprisingly Bob has not been to a doctor for a physical in over a decade. That’s 10 years without any check-up, simply because he doesn’t like doctors. While I agree with his dislike and distrust, I was surprised.

For the past decade Bob has paid into his health coverage plan. Let’s assume that the family plan costs $253 per month, which I have been told it costs some. That’s $3036 per year or $30,360 over the last decade. That’s no small amount of money. Even if it’s half the cost that’s still $15,180. And it’s being wasted.

For me it costs over $1200 for me to get a physical. That includes testing for diabetes, prostate cancer (essential for Black men over 35), HIV/AIDS (everyone should test for that – that isn’t married), and the regular battery of tests. It’s at least $80 just to wak into the door of my doctor. That’s life without medical coverage (I am self-employed). Bob pays a fraction of these costs per visit.

I know that many men are like Bob. We all hate doctors, and consider taking pills or medication a sign of weakness. I have no desire for it either. But if you don’t there are consequences.

I mentioned to Bob what happened to my best friends father. He was a Korean War vet, in great shape, no smoking or drinking, that died due to Prostate cancer. By the time he went in to check out the pain he was feeling, it was too late. He was diagnosed with late stage, terminal prostate cancer. He had waited for years before going to the doctor. Who knows how long he may have lived if he had a regular check up and caught this early. I do know that his grandson wanted him around longer than he was, as did my best friend.

Being fit and healthy does not mean we have to become vegetarians. We don’t have to give up every vice we have, nor ever pleasure. But it does mean moderation, and it means we have to be aware of where we are.

Doing the exercises and eating a good balanced diet (and cutting back on the cigarettes and beer if you are like me) is half the battle to becoming healthy and fit. Getting regular check-ups is the other part. You are probably paying for this anyway, so why waste the money you work so hard for. Get your money’s worth, see a doctor and get a check-up.

The life you improve will be your own. The lives you will affect are your wife, kids, children, grand-children and loved ones. I dare you to explain how that’s not worth taking a few minutes out of your year, on something you’ve already paid for.

Labels: AIDS, diabetes, health coverage plan, HIV, male health, medical coverage, prostate cancer

Continued from Preparing for the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum Part 1...

What do I expect the debate to go over today? I think that most people are more concerned about education for their children, the economy continuing to be stable and prosperous – so they know they have job security, illegal immigrants – taking away jobs and receiving benefits funded by taxpayer money (including income taxes which illegals don’t pay). Not necessarily in that order.

Lower on the list are issues like race relations (the inequalities in the law enforcement and justice system that plague minorities as seen via Sean Bell, Megan Williams, Genarlow Wilson, and the Jena 6 as recent examples), anti-terrorism actions to keep us safe in this country (the Canadian border is still my biggest issue), and entitlement programs (like Welfare though not necessarily including Social Security). Again that is not a guarantee they are in that order of preference.

I base this on my conversations with people across this country. Friends, associates, clients, blog readers and authors, as well as polls found on my blogs and corporate website. That is what I think the real America wants to hear answers to. Yet pundits and candidates of both parties have given short shrift to these issues.

Think about it, other than one question in one debate, I don’t recall any candidate speaking about their plans to ensure our kids graduate high school, and are able to read. Yet in the African American community alone dropout rates exceed 50%. I recall one question, early in 2007, that dealt with AIDS and HIV, yet a recent announcement states that AIDS cases in kids 15-19 are up 20%, and those 20-24 are up 22% (according to 2005 numbers which are the most current known). The numbers for African American youth are appallingly higher.

That says nothing about youth pregnancy (in the Black community up an estimated 60+%). And what about other issues that are not as close to home as the abovementioned? Like the Child Soldier Act (which Congress seems determined to ignore) or HR 180 IH which deals with Darfur (now nearing its 5th year of genocide). No, but there has been plenty of talk about green energy (which most regular people don’t even think about as far as I’ve heard) which we could not resolve immediately even if there was an energy source that we could use effectively right now.

I hope that when these serious issues are asked by the regular people in the audience (hopefully not planted by the Clinton campaign which seems like a common practice for them based on recent revelations) there are full real answers.

But don’t be surprised if you only hear 30 second soundbites that sound motivating but answer nothing. I mean I’m not running for any office and this quick recap takes about 5 minutes to read in full. When was the last time any candidate actually took 5 minutes to explain 1 issue without going off on a tangent, blaming Congress or the President (or both), or sliding the discussion into a completely different direction altogether?

But we will see.

Labels: AIDS, Black community, Darfur, HIV, illegal immigration, Megan Williams, political debate, presidential cantidates, race in America, TV One

This is turning out to be quite the Presidential race. With this early start we the public have been given the opportunity to delve deeper than ever before about each of the candidates. The news media have taken time to make sure we know exactly what is going on.

So far we have heard hard hitting news on hairstyles, best television episodes, and suntans at the beach. We have been reminded of how many times a candidate has been in drag, who is quitting smoking, and who won’t win at American Idol.

The depth of what we know is massive.

Yet who can tell me what exact plan each, or any candidate has to exit Iraq (or to stay there)? What coverage has been heard of exactly who will pay for national healthcare, or how the pharmaceutical industry will remain motivated to seek out new drugs to cure diseases plaguing our aging populace? Where did the Presidential candidates outline their planned efforts to manage the economy?

I can tell you how much the various homes of the candidates cost, how much money they have raised on the internet or by corporate donors, and how much of a carbon footprint their private jets leave.

But what do we know about HR 180 IH? Has one candidate even mentioned it? For that matter, how many things that affect the daily lives of Americans have actually been mentioned by the candidates? I don’t mean the recent (they all started talking about the environment about 1 month ago, just as it got more attention in the news media) hot topic, I mean how schools will be improved. How about transportation to get you to work, or infrastructure that will get cheaper, higher quality cell phone service to those in Middle America where it doesn’t exist. What about ensuring that terrorists are assuaged from entering the nation from our northern border that never gets discussed.

With all this extra time, to find out so many details, why don’t we have actual answers? Why is it that we have plenty of pat, rote, 30 second soundbites that are virtually the same along party lines for each candidate?

"If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country."

Nice line. Really pumps up people. Of course it was only mentioned to a specific target group, and does not answer what to do about the problem. Why do the candidates, with all this extra time, not mention a plan to resolve these issues. The above quote could have been made to the public, in one of the various interviews or via the internet (like on YouTube), so that Primetime America could hear that HIV/AIDS is still killing people in THIS nation. A plan could be outlined saying that X dollars could be spent to organize a governmental directive to lower the number of new cases by year 200X. That nothing less than reducing the 1.3 million cases known in this nation to 1 million in 2 years was a goal. That protecting the nation from diseases like this is why we need national healthcare.

Any one of the candidates could have said that. None have. None have said anything effectively. So why all the extra time.

If the Presidential race is only about who was divorced, who got cheated on, who looks good, or who can rattle off the most effective 30 seconds of fluff, WE have the wrong candidates. If the election is about the improvement of the nation, backed up with plans and goals, then we will have a better America.

Don’t you think so?

Labels: AIDS, american idol, HIV, HR 180 IH, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential election

In the recent Democratic Presidential debate held at Howard University, an interesting question was brought up. What are the candidates going to do about HIV/AIDS. The question was posed to specifically address the fact that it is the leading cause of death for Black women age 25-34. But considering roughly half of the estimated 1.3 million people infected in America today are not African American it is a question that EVERY American should be concerned about.

With over a decade of knowledge and research posed on this one subject, most would expect that the government would have a defined plan in place. Goals and targets set, with periodic reports of status towards those goals. Yet none exist. Nor does a single candidate of either political party have an answer.

Probably the most powerful comment came from Senator Clinton

“If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country.”

That may be a true statement, but we have learned a few things. HIV/AIDS is not a gay issue, nor an African American issue. It’s not something that is exclusive to the poor or uneducated. This is a medical problem that affects the lives of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children. That does not even touch upon the epidemic nature of these diseases in the rest of the world.

If we compare it to Viet Nam, which affected the entire nation, and is often quoted as affecting every 5th American in some personal manner, there were 58,209 reported dead, 305,000 reported wounded and 2,000 still considered missing. Right now there are at least 500,000 that have been killed and 1.3 million infected today. Viet Nam tore the heart out of America, and HIV/AIDS is killing us.

The fact that not one Presidential candidate has a plan, of any type, is remarkable and incredulous at the same time. This is an issue that does not go away in time or if we do not speak about it. If we do not act on this in a structured manner, it will grow and become more of an issue. If I were to compare it to a cancer, if you do not do anything about it it will kill you.

It’s not enough to hear a nice soundbite, that grabs our emotions on this issue. It’s not enough to make a statement that everyone can agree is true. We need a PLAN. We need LEADERSHIP. Isn’t that what the Presidential candidates are supposed to be presenting in these debates?

I’m glad that the issue of HIV/AIDS is more understood today than it was in the past. I’m happy that the rampant fear that came with the recognition of the disease has toned down a bit. But I’m not happy that there is no leadership in place, or seemingly forthcoming, to deal with this disease. Hiding our collective heads in the sand is not an answer.

Speaking in a Presidential manner is great. Looking Presidential is wonderful. Being a leader that can hold the position of President of the United States requires a bit more. Part of that is having plans for issues that affect 1 in every 300 Americans, and potentially could affect 1 in 10. And for those that think it’s not so bad the National Cancer Institute believes there are 8 million Americans with cancer today, that’s roughly 1 American in 150, and the second leading cause of death in America.

Don’t you think that an issue of such a magnitude deserves attention? Shouldn’t any potential President of America not only be aware that this issue exists, they should have a plan. One that takes more than 30 seconds to explain and get cheap votes on?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, AIDS, cancer, HIV, presidential candidate, Viet Nam

In reading about the candidates I came upon an article from the Southwest Nebraska News that discussed the Presidential candidates’ position on AIDS and other infectious diseases. The subject has recently become more of an issue with the attention that Mr. Andrew Speaker brought in his trans-Atlantic flight while having tuberculosis.

I do not recall any of the candidates speaking on this issue, outside of condemning the actions of Mr. Speaker. Yet this is a major issue not only to the American public, but the world at large. Millions across the world are at risk from not only AIDS and tuberculosis but malaria, bird flu, and other diseases that the average American will most likely never get. That is until the day that we do, and on that day we have the potential for hardship on epidemic levels. Addressing these diseases in other parts of the world helps us protect our own nation, and as Mr. Speaker made clearly apparent that can protect us as well.

But the part of the article that really got my attention was the comment that 68% of Americans polled were concerned about health issues, AIDS in particular. While that would be a great thing, it’s not what I have noticed in my own polls.

In my poll (found at www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html) I see that the leading concern at this moment is the economy, at 17%, followed by national security, education and anti-terrorism efforts all tied at 13%. Now I must admit I don’t have healthcare (national or otherwise) on my list of choices, but I have not received any comments stating that it is a major issue. To further defend my lack of listing healthcare, I felt that social services and foreign policy covered them both (each at 9%).

While pundits and Presidential candidates are mentioning a nationalized healthcare system, I’ve notice most people are worried about making more money and maintaining their lifestyles. I know of no one that wants the government to provide health services, the general consensus being that it would turn into a DMV or Post Office clone. Even less thought has been voiced, by those I know and interact with, on the question of what aide is being given to combat AIDS and other diseases in other nations.

Perhaps more attention should be paid to these items. I agree that improving healthcare is a vital requirement for the next President, and those that follow. I cannot say that I feel it is the most pressing issue though. I also do believe that most Americans share my thoughts. The downside of this consensus is that AIDS and other diseases plaguing the rest of the world are not getting combated as they should. Of course without a strong economy, good national defense, and limits of illegal immigration we can’t help anyone else either.

Am I right? How important is healthcare, national or otherwise, to you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: AIDS, Andrew Speaker, national healthcare, national security, presidential candidate, presidential election, tuberculosis