This is letter to those mentioned in my post What can you do to prevent another Grant, Bell, Diallo, or other police murder?

This letter will be sent to all those named in that post. If you know of other organizations that should receive this, let me know. If you wish to copy and modify this letter for your own use to these individuals, please do.

To whom it may concern,

I am Michael Vass, President of M V Consulting, Inc. and author of Black Entertainment USA. Recently I became aware of the death of Oscar Grant at a BART station in California. This death came at the hands of police - while he laid face down on the ground defenseless, possibly handcuffed, with an officer holding him in place as he was shot in the back - and was video taped and witnesses by a large group of individuals on New Year's Day of 2009.

This news story has been seemingly dismissed by the major news media. I was lucky to notice a 30 second news video by ABC News, that I have not seen since, on January 5th. The national news media has not covered this story beyond that to my knowledge.

The lack of coverage has angered me greatly. I wrote about this tragic event on my blog, and several others that I write for. And I am constantly being made aware that my blog posts of this news event is the first that many people are hearing of this event. Yet in watching the national news coverage I have seen no end to the coverage of the Caylee Anthony case for a almost a year now, discussion on the death of Heath Ledger for a year, and other stories of similar nature. In fact I believe it is easier to know the clothes that Beyonce wore yesterday, how Jennifer Aniston feels about Angelina Jolie, and the new address of Michael Jackson than details in this case.

This is an outrage. The news media has failed America, and the Black community. It is their responsibility to make all law enforcement responsible to the public and to make the public aware of such events. Their job is to represent us when it is not possible for us to be aware of facts across the nation and the world. Their job is to help shed light on events that violate our rights and prevent the abuse of the system. That is not happening.

It is a fact that some news media have made factual errors in their reporting of the case. One such instance is the fact that reports say that only 2 videos of the incident exist. I found in 15 seconds multiple videos of the event from several angles and of lengths from 1 minute to nearly 5 minutes. I have provided some of that additional video on my site. Another fact was the initial statement of the BART police stating that video from the station itself was unavailable, which turns out to be erroneous.

Already we can see that facts are being occluded. Add to this that the internal investigation by police has run into a roadblock. Officer Johannes Mehserle, who fatally shot Oscar Grant while he laid face down, possibly handcuffed, with at least one officer holding him down with a knee on his neck, in his back, resigned. As such I believe that the internal investigation cannot go forward as Mehserle is no longer a police officer. Thus the Oakland D.A. must be motivated to investigate and bring up charges for any justice to go forward.

At the same time Police Chief Gary Gee and others have begun to postulate excuses on how or why this event happened. The most popular excuse is that Johannes Mehserle meant to reach for his taser. A taser is not the same weight, shape, or trigger as a police issue 9mm gun. The time, as seen in several video angles of the event, he took to draw and fire reveal he had ample time to recognize and visually sight the gun in his hands. And beyond all that, there was no imminent life-threatening need to draw any weapon. And that is proven by the 5 or 6 other officers on the scene never drawing or motioning towards any of their weapons at any point in this event.

And I believe that this is a pattern that needs to end. We have seen that more often each year tragic events like this are happening across the nation. Black men killed in a hail of dozens of bullets, beaten by hordes of police officers, abused in police stations, and on and on. More often than not, virtually in each case, the officer responsible never served a day in jail, rarely was fined or disciplined in any manner.

I believe these are connected. If we say nothing, do nothing, then we say to all police officers across the nation that the - in my opinion - outright cold-blooded murder of African Americans is socially acceptable and will not be punished.

Thus I ask you to provide your political and media strength to this issue. The nation needs to be aware of what happened. This should never have happened. This should not go unpunished.

I look forward to your support and the media attention you can bring to this tragic event.

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc.
718-344-6921
info@vassconsult.com

Labels: Al Sharpton, BART, Gary Gee, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Oakland, Oscar Grant, police brutality, race relations, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein

Oh he’s gone and done it now. Rev. Jesse Jackson is scrambling to retract comments he made Sunday, his son is blasting him for those same comments and Senator Obama – campaign and all – are quiet.

What is the issue here? What was said?

Well it’s hard to be sure. What is known is that Rev. Jackson took offense at the speech made by Senator Obama. In a moment where his microphone was hot, and he believed it was off, Rev. Jackson let loose with comments Wolf Blitzer believes he cannot repeat on CNN air. According to Jim Tapper of ABC News the words were along the lines of

“…crude and disparaging remark along the lines of wanting to rip Obama's genitals off…”

Actually finding the remarks, via video or transcript, has proven to be difficult at this point. I have no doubt that they will surface at some point soon though. And I think that is the only reason that today, 3 days later, Rev. Jackson has made an apology.

This is not a sincere apology, it’s polispeak. He is protecting his political clout and image. Were he really sincere he would have apologized Sunday when he knew his comments were heard. The point is that Rev. Jackson does not like Senator Obama. I say that because it was almost 1 year ago when

“Jackson sharply criticized presidential hopeful and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white” in what Jackson said has been a tepid response to six black juveniles’ arrest on attempted-murder charges in Jena, La.”

It seems that Rev. Jackson spares no words or feelings when he disagrees with Senator Obama, which I gather is a common event. Still that did not prevent him for making his ‘sincere apology’



Of course the real interesting point comes from the same source as it did a year ago. Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., D-Ill, had the following to say

“I'm deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson's reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama. His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee -- and I believe the next president of the United States -- contradict his inspiring and courageous career. Instead of tearing others down, Barack Obama wants to build the country up and bring people together so that we can move forward, together -- as one nation. The remarks like those uttered on Fox by Revered Jackson do not advance the campaign's cause of building a more perfect Union.

Revered Jackson is my dad and I'll always love him. He should know how hard that I've worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

Perhaps it’s me, but I think that Junior knows how dad feels and speaks over family get togethers.

Now if you are what caused all this, here you go

"There's a reason why our families are in disrepair," Obama said in a Father's Day speech at Apostolic Church of God on Chicago's South Side. "And some of it has to do with a tragic history, but we can't keep on using that as an excuse. Too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes. They've abandoned their responsibilities. They're acting like boys instead of men.”

Now in my opinion I can understand that Rev Jesse Jackson is upset with Senator Obama. The thunder, and more importantly political clout, he once held is being shifted to the younger, more popular, Senator.

As I said back in September

“And will the media stop saying that Rev. Jackson and Al Sharpton are leaders of African Americans. There was no vote… Some might say that both reverends are the lapdogs of the news media, which is far worse than being accused of ‘acting white’”

I feel it’s even more true today. Unless Rev. Jackson wants to attack Bill Cosby, myself, and dozens of other Black bloggers and individuals that agree

“Too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes.”

The saddest part of this is that the net outcome could be harm to Senator Obama’s chances in the general election. He already has difficulty with older Democratic voters, and if this becomes the story I think it might once the video of his comments is aired, it further damages another segment of the Obama base. Hillary and Bill Clinton must be dancing.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama

As the nation moves on to the news of Bill Richardson endorsing Senator Obama in a move to probably get a nod at the Vice-Presidential I want to step back. The fact is that Senator Obama needs the change of direction to be nominated, but the issue is too important to fade.

The immediate anger that was expressed across the media, and the nation via poll results, makes it clear that America has issues with people of color. When a couple of words, spoken by someone other than Senator Obama, creates a furor it is obvious why. And let’s get the facts straight.

Rev. Wright was a pastor for 35 years. He has made perhaps thousands of sermons in that time, each perhaps 1 or 2 hours long. But the media was able to find roughly 5 sermons, and within those sermons 1 or 2 snippets of 10 seconds each, to crucify the entirety of his career. And what was so objectionable in those 10 seconds of commentary without context? That America is run by White Americans, that Senator Clinton has never been called the N-word, that American government did nothing to retard crack until the drug spilled over to White neighborhoods, and so on. In effect, many got angry over hearing truthful comments – and to be fair there were a couple of 2 second blurbs that were a bit harsher that I did not agree with, from my own research.

Then Senator Obama was forced to respond. Though the media did not provide coverage of what was said by the pastors of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, or any other elected official. Not even the most recent and current comments. Because they were fine – at least we are lead to believe so in the absence of coverage.

So Senator Obama made a speech about race. And it was a good one. And the nation was astounded, it would seem, that the Civil Rights movement did not resolve every issue for people of color any more than the Equal Rights movement for women resolved issues of pay or treatment. And as the conversation continued it was warped.

I have already had several personal conversations where the actual words of Rev. Wright or Senator Obama have been misquoted towards a more racial bent. Some are angry at what they chose to hear, and not what was said. And the Clinton campaign delighted as they finally achieved a goal they have struggled to employ for months. The polling for Senator Obama dropped.

Then Senator Obama made a reference to “a typical White person”. Oh, the outrage. How dare he lump White Americans like this. I mean the fact that television and movies are dominated, as they always have been, with these amorphous amalglamations of society is not important. The fact that across the country people of color can tell the same exact kinds of stories of racism, prejudice and hate is not important. The fact that the deaths and beatings of people like Diallo and Bell are so similar to deaths and beatings in California like Rodney King is just a coincidence I suppose. Actual acts against me personally based on race are just an oddity, though I cannot count the number of people of color that have had the same experiences across the nation over the last 40 years.

Nope, it is just a horrible thing to point out truth in America. And responses like this one are seen

“Poor guy – whose middle name and lack of executive experience we’re never supposed to mention, and who was not aware of the insane, anti-American, racist rantings of his spiritual advisor of 20 years – now blabbering incoherently about “typical white persons,” simply needed a little shut-eye.

Perhaps Sen. Trent Lott was tired when – at Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party in 2002 – he paid Thurmond an innocuous off-the-cuff compliment by mentioning the aging senator’s run for the presidency more than a half century earlier.

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him,” Lott said. “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

Lott’s statement meant absolutely nothing. It carried no weight. It wasn’t meant to. It was simply an innocent “attaboy” for an old man who was at the end of his career and nearing the end of life.”

This was in response to the typical white person comment of Senator Obama. The above quoted writer is obviously upset. And a bit obfuscating of the truth.

The reason that Senator Obama’s middle name is an issue is that – 1. none of the other middle names of candidates are ever used, 2. His name is used in a manner to imply and provoke fear in those less educated and more prejudicial in America.

The experience issue is commented about constantly. By and about both Democratic candidates. Neither has experience. And every one mentions it.

As for Rev. Wright, he is far from insane (just like Jerry Falwell, Robert Grant, or Pat Robertson), was American enough to fight in the Marines, and never made a disparaging comment about race or gender to my knowledge. That fact was apparent when Greta van Sister of Fox News was challenged to find racist comments while in an interview with Rev. Sharp ton, and 24 hours later was incapable of doing so.

And the comparison fails with the comments supporting the Senator best know for his racist stance for the last half of the last century. Sen. Strom Thurmond’s Presidential bid was hardly nothing or innocent. It was an attempt to support and reinforce segregation. That is a historical fact (which the writer touches on briefly) as is the fact that Sen. Thurmond changed his stance after privately coming to terms with his illegitimate Black daughter.

The point is that America wants to hide its head in the sand, and deny any negative about race in current days (let alone the past). This is the real 3rd rail of American politics, and potentially Senator Obama’s biggest hurdle.

Is it important that Gov. Richardson endorses and/or joins Sen. Obama on a Presidential ticket? Sure, because it’s about race. Getting Hispanic/Latinos to be active in his campaign. Because the Clinton campaign assumes they are already going to get those votes, as they assumed they would get the Black, White male, and college educated vote. But if you say that this vote is about race, prepare to be shunned.

Because I cannot tell you how many of the “typical White people” that I know who have come to me and are upset about Senator Obama’s comment and Rev. Wright. How often they misquote both, and how few actually ever heard of Rev. Wright before the mishmash of videoclips. Nor can I tell you how many of these same people cannot understand the privilege and advantage they enjoy simply because of the color of their skin. But I can tell you, that long before this current debate over my 40 years of life, maybe 10% of these same people have confided in me that they do act in exactly the same manner as Obama’s grandmother from time to time. It’s just the fact that it’s being brought into the light that is the problem I suppose.

So let’s do this. Accept that race is a continuing issue in America. It has been since the 1619 and it has not ended though the degree and manner has changed. And because of that White Americans are not the shining images that movies and television wishes to portray. Equally people of color are not without fault either, and they are not the images of poverty, violence and anger that television, movies and the news media try to convey to the world.

Given that, this election should not be about the race or gender of the candidates. It’s about what is best for America. Issues like oil dependency, pollution, Social Security, mortgages, the economy, jobs and others are all colorblind. Only the best choice for America will resolve even some of these issues.

If we focus only on the least important factor of the candidates, we may lose as a nation. So vote, not for your race or gender, but for the best choice for America. And if that vote is for a non-White male, so what. America is neither one color (no matter what the media portrays) nor gender. If we remember that we remember that we are the greatest nation in the world because of that fact.

Vote and keep America great. Vote and pick the best choice for the nation’s path to the future.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Civil Rights, Fox News, Gov. Bill Richardson, race in America, racial controversy, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama

**A fictional press release**

Major City in America – A date some time between 2009 - 2012 -- America still reeling 3 days after the shocking assassination of its leader.

On the 1st day after the assassination of President Barack Obama, by at least 3 men from a fringe radical group, America is still in turmoil. Across the nation riots continue to encompass most of the major cities. New York, Los Angeles, and D.C. are all in states of emergency as huge crowds of African Americans continue to express rage at the murder of the nations first Black President.

The riots started shortly after President Obama was shot while addressing the nation, offering an official apology from the United States Government to all the descendants of Africans enslaved in America from 1619 to 1865. The apology was a huge political hotbed of debate prior to the speech, with dozens of legislators and governors of both political parties publicly disagreeing with the President’s intent to issue the apology. Several hate groups had been actively suggesting that if the apology were made that it was the final straw and that action would need to be taken against President Obama.

While President Obama had encountered consistent death threats since his election win in 2008, and 2 prior attempts on his life, he had stated that he would go through with the speech. Even pressure from within his own political party was not enough to sway his determination.

“There has been too much time that has passed without acknowledging the contributions and sacrifice these founding Americans made for this nation. While they were taken from their homes and families against their will, they helped to create the nation we have today and their progeny stand side by side with Americans from every race, religion and country in equality and peace. It’s time we say that America made a mistake then, and that we can now look forward to a future no longer marred by the past we so long refused to speak about.”

Shortly after beginning his speech to the nation, at least 3 men fired on the President. Two of the men were in the large crowd that had gathered for the speech, armed with 9mm pistols, and another was inside an office building with a rifle, of unknown power and make at this time. The President was struck at least 5 times.

The 2 men in the crowd were apprehended quickly after being shot in an exchange of fire with police and Secret Service agents. One died on the scene, the other is in critical condition under guard in an undisclosed hospital in the area. The third suspect was caught in the resulting dragnet of the city 4 hours later. It is unknown if there were any other individuals involved in the assassination.

Within minutes of the senseless murder of the leader of the nation, several racist hate groups denied involvement in the attack. Also videotaped denials were released by the current leader of Al Quida, refuting early claims that the assassination was retribution for the successful end of the Iraq war and the death of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was killed in the waning months of the Iraq War, trying to re-enter Pakistan in a firefight with U.S. forces that attempted to capture him and his small entourage of terrorist supporters.

Riots broke out around the nation within minutes of the announcement that President Obama had died while doctors were operating on him to save his life. The President had been undergoing emergency surgery for 2 hours after being shot, and the doctors performing the surgery stated that the damage inflicted was just to severe to counter.

The worst of the riots are in the renovated sections of New Orleans and Chicago where the President previously called home prior to his election, and where he served as an Illinois Senator.

World leaders continue to issue statements of remorse, and call for peace in this distressing time in America. Several nations have voiced concern over the control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and the military which has also reported several events of fighting and disturbances at bases across the world. While there has been no sigh of a breakdown of nuclear control, or fractioning of the military, international tensions have increased significantly.

Religious leaders of all faiths, particularly Civil Rights leaders Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton and even the controversial Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, have all called for calm. So far these calls have gone unheeded.

It is unclear how long this unrest will last. Few imagined that the possibility of an apology for slavery could cause such chaos. But the whole world is paying attention to what the former Vice-President and now President will do.

President Obama will be known for his winning of the nearly decade long Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the virtual elimination of the terrorist organization Al Quida, the continuing fight against the ‘Gods Arm’ terrorist organization that replaced Al Quida, his quick actions to restore normalcy in the earthquake ravaged suburbs of San Diego, the recovery from the 2 year economic recession of 2008, his work on balancing the American legal systems’ enforcement and punishment and rights of gays, women and minorities.


***The previous is a fictional news release that could happen. There are those in America that fear this becoming a possibility. Many refuse to acknowledge this fear, or even the consideration of several of the events I have described.

I hope to never see such a news release. But it is a real possibility. Yet if this were to happen, and the events I’ve detailed came to pass, what would happen next?

Would America be better for each of these things to happen? And what if the assassination or even attempts never happened? What if these events, enacted by my fictitious President Obama, were done by a Republican candidate, or Hillary Clinton?

The real question here is that there are real issues before America, and the next President will need to address them. Many of the problems are deeper than the mere surface questions debated about currently.

We all have the right to vote. That vote implies many things, and directly determines the direction this nation will take. Don’t squander that vote. Don’t sell it cheaply because of the race, gender, political party, or 30 second polispeak answer of a candidate.

If we all vote, I believe we will select the best person (whomever that may be), and direction, for all of America. The President should have no less in mind, and we should elect that President for no less of a reason.

Labels: Al Sharpton, American Slavery, Chicago, democrat, election 2008, Jesse Jackson, New Orleans, Polispeak, Presidential race, Reparations for Slavery, republican, That's why I vote

So some may have noticed the news today on Reverend Al Sharpton. If you missed it, simply stated it was that the Feds have started an investigation on Rev. Sharpton. Now you may ask why? To check what he did with funds he received while running for President in 2004.

Yes, virtually 4 years after the fact, the Feds now believe there may have been something wrong going on. And they will not stop before they turn every stone, in an effort to find something out of place. I have little doubt that they will in fact find something too. With the amounts of money involved, and the nature of politics these days I’m sure some money was a bit fuzzy. But more on that in a second.

Rev. Sharpton is claiming that this is simply the Government penalizing him for highlighting the failures of the justice system, in particularly with his march last month for the benefit of the Jena 6. I am no great fan of the reverend but I will have to say that in this case, he is probably right. I mean if there was some question, does anyone think it would take this long to find? Considering the nature and background of Rev. Sharpton, does anyone doubt that officials checked every i and t for their dots and crosses throughout his failed campaign?

More importantly I have a bigger question to ask. Where is the Federal investigation into Senator Hilary Clinton?

Perhaps some have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the fact that Senator Clinton took a million dollars from criminal-at-large Norman Hsu. Hello, $1,000,000 that was donated to Senator Clinton from a known fugitive. Any bells going off?

How about the fact that initially the Clinton campaign denied they took money, then found out they took $25,000 which they planned to keep. As there was more news they offered to give back, to the fugitive Hsu, $32,000 he donated. When the media found out it was in fact $1 million, and only then, suddenly the Clinton campaign “found” that they were right and offered to give the entire amount to charity.

I for one have yet to hear the name of the charity the money was given to. Which is important as it was found that Norman Hsu scammed tens of millions from investors, which he gave to Senator Clinton and several other Democrats. Those investors that got bilked want their money back. So does anyone know what happened to the money? Is everyone sure that it’s all accounted for?

Can you really be sure that a candidate that is known for micromanaging every aspect of her campaign, who has been photographed and filmed at functions with Hsu, whose campaign continuously attacks every other Democratic candidate – especially Senator Obama as he has gained in polls – and then apologizes when that attack is received badly by the public. Do you really believe that kind of candidate has no issues in their financing? Especially when that same candidate leads EVERYONE in money from lobbyists and institutions?

So I ask again WHERE IS HER INVESTIGATION? Or are we to believe that the Feds are only capable of recognizing well documented facts and violations of campaign finance laws 4 years in hindsight? If at all.

I truly believe that the only reason more is not being made of the Rev. Al Sharpton investigation is because there would HAVE TO BE a demand that the same investigation be made of Senator Clinton.

You won’t hear of this from Rev. Sharpton. He is a Democrat, and supports Clinton (last I heard). The other Democrats will probably stay quiet as well, lest they draw the ire of ultra-liberal party die-hards. Expect to hear that question LOUDLY from the Republican primary winner, unless they too have a few Hsu’s in the closet.

Either way, the timing and nature of this investigation just tells me one thing. The justice system is corrupt, and it has friends in other parts of the Government that will punish those that bring any light to that corruption. It’s hard not to think that, regardless of the dubious nature and background of Rev. Sharpton.

Now the only question left is whether those who champion election finance reform will stand up and defend Rev. Sharpton, or denounce Senator Clinton. Anything else implies, if not proves, racism and Government supported corruption.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Democratic candidates, Norman Hsu, political finance, Senator Hillary Clinton

Here is something that is a nice diversion from the constant bickering otherwise known as the Presidential primary debates. As the nation is coming closer to the actual primaries, and the 2008 election, odds are being placed on who could potentially be the next President.

Some of the bets placed are obscure, others are downright stupid. A few just have to be a joke. You can see all the odds at Superbook.com. [I must give credit for finding this to Mialka Bonadonna] There are a couple of good ones on the Presidential race.

One of my favorites is Arnold Schwarzenegger at 250-1 as opposed to Rev. Al Sharpton at 500-1. Remarkably Rev. Jesse Jackson is at 200-1. Mind you none of them are actually in the race, so it makes their odds even more ridiculous. Could you imagine how messed up the nation would be with any of them?

On a more interesting, and slightly more realistic, realm are the odds for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Respectively they are 50 and 30-1. Not too bad considering they aren’t running either, they are both Black, and one being a woman. That makes them pretty popular, more than I had imagined.

Thankfully the odds for the actual frontrunners of each party are rather decent. Even Sen. McCain, John Edwards, and Mitt Romney show signs of being pretty decent.

Of course, the current favorites found at my informal poll [it does not include Fred Thompson who was not running at the beginning of the year] shows Sen. Barack Obama with a huge lead on everyone, including Sen. Clinton. Judge that as you will.

Still time to get your bets in if you are so inclined. Don’t forget to share your bet with us here. Nothing like being able to point out your predictive skills in black and white after the election.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, election 2008, Mitt Romney, political debate, Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

It’s amazing what a mere 6 months allow. In this minor amount of time Reverend Jesse Jackson seems to have forgotten, and hopes we have as well, his endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama. That’s funny.

“He has my vote,” the Rev. Jackson told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

“I just have an appreciation of him,” Jackson said.

That was on March 29th of this year. But on Sept. 19th the comments from Rev. Jackson seemed anything but supportive, or the words of a friend.

“Jackson sharply criticized presidential hopeful and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white” in what Jackson said has been a tepid response to six black juveniles’ arrest on attempted-murder charges in Jena, La. Jackson, who also lives in Illinois, endorsed Obama in March, according to The Associated Press.

“If I were a candidate, I’d be all over Jena,…”

Wow. Talk about a reversal of position.

Let’s get a couple of things clear on this. I don’t think that Rev. Jackson really cares about Sen. Obama winning. Jesse Jackson Jr. may but not his father. That presumption explains the comments about the Jena 6 and how Sen. Obama acts.

By the way, Rev. Jackson would be all over the Jena 6 as a presidential candidate, but as a civil rights leader, and a news media declared “leader” of African Americans, he has had virtually nothing to say about this case? I mean though this has finally gotten attention, enough to have been part of questions asked to President Bush in his press conference today (roughly at 11am), it is hardly a new thing. Black bloggers have long been speaking on this, for months. The major news media just ignored all the commentary on the case. And I am unaware of Rev. Jackson, or Rev. Al Sharpton, stepping up and making a national press conference on the matter.

That is not only hypocritical, it’s wrong. Rev. Jackson and Sharpton have the ability to bring many issues to the media that the rest of us have to work 10,000x harder to bring to light. Yet they are quiet on many until they can get the limelight, even if at the cost to others in my opinion. Take the example of Ms. Megan Williams.

I’ve already commented on the horrendous crime inflicted on Ms. Williams. I have already criticized the major news media for their failure to follow this story, especially when they choose to cover nonsense like Britney Spears and every single nuance and footstep of OJ Simpson. I was not alone. Several bloogers, were on this at about the same time and some made similar points about their local and national major news media outlets. I heard nothing from Rev. Jackson or Sharpton. They STILL have not mentioned anything about the case.

So I have to say, with due respect, that Rev. Jackson should stop throwing his stones because his glass house is already massively cracked.

And will the media stop saying that Rev. Jackson and Al Sharpton are leaders of African Americans. There was no vote. No one asked my opinion nor any other Black person in America. The news media made up that claim. The news media wants them to be in the limelight as opposed to others that may well deserve it. Some might say that both reverends are the lapdogs of the news media, which is far worse than being accused of “acting white”.

More on the “acting white” thing.

Labels: African American, Al Sharpton, britney spears, jena 6, Jesse Jackson, Megan Williams, oj simpson, Senator Barack Obama

Continued from Rev Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton...

In Mr. Gibson’s own words, Paris Hilton getting released from prison and confined to a mansion with access to all her friends, family, servants and luxuries is “rich white privilege in action.” That is not to say that if you are African American, or Asian or Hispanic/Latino, and have a lot of money you can’t get the same privilege. It’s about money and not color of skin. Sadly, there aren’t a lot of Black Americans with net worth’s of the amounts needed to get this same treatment. If there were at least then the system would be fairer.

No one can doubt that an African American woman in jail right now would be released to home confinement if a psychiatrist said they were ‘about to have a nervous breakdown.’ It won’t happen. But I agree with Rev. Sharpton in his stated effort to go seek out women under similar circumstances and ask they receive the same treatment. It won’t happen, and thus some judge or law enforcement officer should pluck Ms. Hilton from her cozy mansion and but her spoiled butt back in a cell. As to the women Rev. Sharpton will pick to represent, I would hope they are “white daughters of coal miners” as well as African American and Hispanic/Latina women. The point is about justice, not color.

But be ready for the general news media to spin this in to a race issue. If they do it will divert attention from Paris Hilton to Rev. Al Sharpton. It will obscure what happened with issues that while real, do not apply here. Its smoke and mirrors played in front of televisions across America. And it may well happen.

Actually, thinking about it as I write I have to wonder if that isn’t the real reason Rev. Al Sharpton was sought out for a response. The Hilton family didn’t make and keep all their money because they are all as ‘smart’ as Paris. A diversion could help keep the most publicly recognizable family member out of prison and in her no doubt lavish domicile. If that is the case, then it wasn’t an inebriated exec but a very sober and far-planning Hilton that made the call. We shall see.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Al Sharpton, cable news, paris hilton

Here is a hot match for you. Rev. Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton. Just titillating don’t you think? Perhaps if you don’t you need to chug a 12 pack of beer. For those not inebriated I will continue.

It would seem that some exec over at Fox News, if not several other news organizations, thought that this match up made sense. Between 4 and 6pm there has been footage of Rev. Al Sharpton commenting on the news that Paris Hilton was released from prison and now is confined to 4000 sq. feet at her Hollywood mansion home for the next 40 days. I assume that whoever was the person making decisions on who to interview for an opinion of this news was inebriated. Why else pick Rev. Sharpton.


Rev. Sharpton has a dubious history, and is well noted for championing issues that solely affect African Americans. His efforts have had mixed results, the most recent being the removal of Mr. Don Imus from the public airwaves. That effort was one which I shared his view on. Other views not so much. Yet, the media has titled Rev. Sharpton as a leader of the Black community. I don’t know how he became one, nor do I recognize him in such a position, but the media seems to believe all the same.

Yet, without the sensationalism provided by the newspapers, Mr. Sharpton would probably not have become a known figure. Even with the newspapers influence what has he acheived? Has his presence led to changes in the actions of police in NYC in 1987? in 1989 or 91? Has he helped to create legislation that improves peoples lives? Is he taken seriously politically when he speaks about a subject?

Paris Hilton is a spoiled, inept, seemingly obtuse individual. Oh I forgot to mention that she has a trust fund that has almost as many digits as the national gross product of Belgium. Given that last fact Ms. Hilton has had few people reject her desires to be in movies, make record albums, and generally pretend she has talent. She has far too much money and the family has far too much clout to say no, in most cases. Such is the shame of her life, in my opinion. In my opinion having a lot of money is not a redeeming quality.

I have to say, I hope that Ms. Hilton gets a cell with ‘Shanequa’ and ‘Betty Jean Sue’. Let her think that her name will get her out of cleaning a toilet, and a couple of those rough-neck girls will straighten her out on the real facts of life. Perhaps that will help her get her act right. Or at least let us all have less chances of being forced to see and hear about her antics. Either one would be good for me.

So some executive said ‘we have to hear Rev. Al Sharpton’s comments. Let’s get the African American view.’ Or so I think it might have gone. Ratings numbers on the rise from a racializing [not a word I know] of an obvious miscarriage of justice must have danced before their eyes.

Yet I must admit that Rev. Al Sharpton was correct in part. He stated, this is the “worst example of a double standard…” There is no question of that. Rev. Sharpton went on to state the more racial inequality of the release of Paris, which I find fault with. This is not based on an issue of Black and White. It’s an issue of celebrities [no matter how dubious the claim to fame] and entertainers, in addition to those ultra-rich, being treated in a massively preferential way.

There is no question that the clout of the Hilton family was a factor in the sudden release of Paris. The D.A. was not even notified of the release. Reportedly he found out via the news just as millions of other have. That smacks of politics in action. The kind of response only large amounts of cash and connections provide. In this respect I agree with Mr. John Gibson (The Big Story anchor on Fox News), that it’s similar to the OJ Simpson trial. If anyone, of any color, has enough money and celebrity, they can beat the system. That is more than a shame, it’s a crime.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: African American, Al Sharpton, Don Imus, Fox News, John Gibson, paris hilton

This is a repost of this conversation found at my www.blackentertainmentblog.com - Black Entertainment USA

Ok, I’m a bit behind on this event. What can I say, I don’t like basketball and I don’t listen to either the Imus radio show or the show of Rev. Al Sharpton. As such I only recently found out about the disparaging comments made last Wednesday by Mr. Don Imus. To say I am upset is an understatement.

For those that may be in a similar situation as myself, Mr. Imus called the Rutgers women’s basketball, “…some nappy-headed hos”. This was in response to Mr. Bernard McGuirk’s comment, “some hardcore hos.” By the way, no one has asked for the resignation of Mr. McGuirk, though his comments are no less insulting. Obviously there are a lot of problems here.

Let me start with Mr. McGuirk. The fact that he calls Black women hos is despicable. I understand the argument that calling women as such is common because rappers and hip-hop entertainers do so, but that does not make it proper. I have discussed rappers using such insulting terms to describe women, I disagree with that and I disagree with this. He provided the fuel by which the far better known Mr. Imus created this furor. While I am in favor of severe actions against Mr. Imus, I feel Mr. McGuirk cannot be left out either.

As for Imus, well I’m not surprised. There has been a long history of ill-toned comments against African Americans by him. This is just another example, and furthers the viability of his being removed from the air. I find his apologies half-hearted, motivated by fear of losing his position more than his own true feelings.

Mr. Imus has tried to excuse his commentary, when speaking to Rev. Sharpton, by referring to the fact that other African Americans entertainers and people use this term often. That did not fly with Rev. Sharpton, nor does it with me. That seems to remind me of the comment my mother used to say, “If everyone jumped of a bridge, would you do it to?” To claim that one person should be excused because of the infantile actions of another, when both are acting badly, assumes that everyone involved and everyone listening is stupid. I am not, nor do I believe you my readers are either.

I understand that at 66, Mr. Imus is part of a culture that believe calling Black Americans “colored” or the n-word was a commonplace act. He grew up and was taught that African Americans were second-class citizens at best, and that the need to be separated from them socially and economically was an imperative. I understand that that was the truth of the time of his formative years. Yet that does not excuse his actions. As a seemingly intelligent man, who has worked for decades in entertainment and has lived in the probably most diversified city in the nation, he should know better. He should be capable of understanding that individuals are not stereotypes, and that stereotypes invariably target the worst aspects of any group of people.

An intelligent man does not need to demean women. An intelligent man does not need to comment on a group of sports players based on their hair or its style. An intelligent man does not need to make back-handed “compliments” to be humorous. Most importantly an intelligent man accepts the responsibility and repercussions of their actions and comments, even when this is a detrimental result. That is part of my expectation of any intelligent man.

Pleas that Mr. Imus is a good man are irrelevant. Even less relevant by the fact that it is Mr. Imus making the plea. To speak about the acts of kindness he does for a few does not excuse the damage he does to millions. I don’t care if Mr. Imus despises African Americans. That’s his choice. I do care how he speaks about us in a public forum.

I don’t agree with anyone referring to someone’s hair/hairstyle in a discussion that pertains to anything but that. Hair does not define a person any more than skin color. Does the fact that Mr. Donald Trump may have a hairpiece change anything about him? Does that mean that all men that might have a toupee share his exact qualities? If such an argument sounds ludicrous then the words of Mr. Imus are no less so. What I would like to hear Mr. Imus, and Mr. McGuirk, explain is what makes the Black women of the Rutgers basketball team hos. Then I want to hear what makes their hair nappy. And then perhaps I can hear how either of these comments have anything to do with basketball or the abilities of these women. I would listen to Mr. Imus explain that, and I’d like him to do this in front of the women that he has nationally demeaned. And then he should still be fired. Not resign, fired. He has given up his right to save face in this matter.

I do not often agree with Rev. Al Sharpton, but I find his one comment to be correct, “I accept his apology, just as I want his bosses to accept his resignation.”

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Al Sharpton, college basketball, Don Imus, Rutgers University