A discussion of various thought on issues and subects that cross my mind. This can include: Politics, Economics, Race Relations, Stock Markets, Investing, Music, Poetry, Current Events and probably more. Comments, whether disenting or in agreement, are welcomed.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Remember those before us
As the 4th of July approaches quickly I want to take a moment to simply remember some great people in American history, people that are responsible for Freedom in this nation.
Now some would think I would start my list with George Washington. But this is an honest list. George Washington lost every battle he was in except for Valley Forge. He was a horrible General, but Valley Forge made him famous. So I won’t discuss him.
Some would look to Thomas Jefferson, a great thinker and an architect of the Constitution. Again I wouldn’t include him. He was part of those that agreed a Black man only counted as 3/5th of a man. He maintained slaves, even though he did eventually free them. And he hid the fact that he was an adulterer. Fathering children with a Black slave, he denied it though it was a well-known if not unspoken fact that was resisted until the dawn of the 21st century – hundreds of years later.
Yet some would say that I have to include Abraham Lincoln. And those same people probably have never read the words Lincoln wrote as an editorial 1 week before the Emancipation Proclamation. In that article he clearly outlines the fact that if he could keep slavery and save the Union he would. They would forget that slavery was the 5th most important reason for the Civil War, no matter how many movies and books have romanticized the past. And they ignore the Jim Crow laws and segregation that was accepted in the place of slavery for over 100 more years.
So who do I want to not forget?
The Slaves. Those Africans that were taken from their home in numbers so great it’s believed they could easily outstrip those killed in the Holocaust and if laid down could provide a bridge from Africa to America and beyond. Those Africans that fought in the American Revolution like Crispus Attucks who died in Boston and was the only African American mentioned, in the history books I grew up with, until Dr. Martin Luther King in the 1960’s. [Have history books changed at all in the last 30 years?] Like those Africans that fought in the Civil War, and the War of 1812, and the Spanish-American War, and every single war and conflict this nation has ever known.
I want to remember the Slaves that built virtually every road and foundation in the 13 colonies, especially those in the South and in New York City. I want to remember the Africans that had to give up their names, like Kunta Kinta – an ancestor of Alex Haley (who’s detailed book of his lineage was classified as a fiction in the 1970’s) – and take on the names of slave masters that split families faster than they would split up horses or cattle.
And why must I remember these Men Women and Children?
Because like the Holocaust we should never forget. If we forget we allow the sacrifices made to mean nothing. If we forget we allow the past to repeat itself. Because if we forget, the truth becomes nothing more than a yellow paper.
I love America, and on the 4th I will be celebrating like everyone else in the nation. I will think of those in Iraq and Afghanistan and thank them. I will remember my time in the Marines and those I served with. I will remember my father and the sacrifices he went thru because of Viet Nam. I will remember my best friend’s father and what he did in Korea. I will even celebrate the romanticized histories of Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington.
But today I will simply remember all those that weren’t thought of as important enough to have the freedoms, rights, and opportunity that I enjoy today – in a nation literally built on their backs and bones. Because freedom comes at a price and sometimes that price is remembering the truth.
Senator Hillary Clinton on The O’Reilly Factor discussing America
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.
What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means
Well the Clinton political machine seems to have finally got in a pissing match they could not win. Polispeak aside, the endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan is a massive action. The entire Democratic nomination race may have taken a new direction that no one expected.
The power of the Kennedy family is without question in American politics. They stretch from New England to California. They include Congressmen, Senators, and the Guvernator. Their supporters range in age from the pre-baby boomers to the first time voters that are a force in this election. The name of the family alone has more political clout than most candidates have had.
According to some sources the Clinton machine had been looking to court the Kennedy endorsement. But they assumed too much. With the constant attacks on Senator Barack Obama based on the divisive issue of race, the insult to Dr. Martin Luther King and the slighting of JFK’s role in the Civil Rights movement, and the potential of driving a wedge in the Democratic party separated by race I think the Kennedy’s got fed up.
I have no doubt that all of the above played a part in the decision of JFK’s daughter in endorsing Senator Obama. Then came what may have been the final straw if it’s true. President Clinton supposedly called Senator Ted Kennedy and asked him not to say anything. Which led to 3 Kennedy’s endorsing Senator Obama today.
Arrogance can only take you so far. Manipulation and derogatory comments are only so effective. Especially when the Kennedy political machine spans the nation and decades in public office.
The Northeast is now probably Obama country. California may be a new stronghold. Older Democrats, liberals, poor and all the other categories that the Kennedy name affects, that Hillary Clinton has previously had an edge on, are all in question. The Clintons must be as angered by these events as they are unsure of the win a mere year ago they presumed.
Ted Kennedy’s speech was powerful and clear. He is a Democrat. He will support the nominee of the Party. And he is dedicated to do everything he can to make sure Senator Obama is that nominee.
I’ve said before that I felt Senator Obama might not win. I’ve mentioned that the use of race as a tool to divide the Democratic Party and provide Hillary the win is an effective strategy. I know that the comments by Bill and all the various staffers have angered many. I know the attempts by Bill to minimize the wins of Senator Obama, and a great leader that was Dr, Martin Luther King polarized the Democratic Party. But this was unexpected. This is a wildcard that could be the beginning of a landslide that is enormous.
Will this be close? Of course. Is momentum changing sides? I don’t think it’s stopped since the nominations process started on January 1st. But this is the first time I seriously think that the math and support behind Senator Obama is enough to give him the win.
Regardless of political affiliation or guidelines you may hold, this must be impressive. And you have to say that now, more than ever before, that Rev. Jesse Jackson is not Senator Obama. That 2008 is not 1984. That we may see a Black President and that first Black President will actually be African American.
It’s not exciting because I may or may not agree with Senator Obama, or that I may or may not want/need him to win. Rather it’s exciting because it means that in the highest office, and in the most visceral manner, America is becoming a land of the free and equal. And that is something that I think every American can appreciate and look forward to.
Conclusion on State of Geogia apology - 3.9.2007.3
Concluded from Part 2...
An example is that of Senator Hillary Clinton, which I quote from my previous post, Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech, “when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about.” Or in comments from Senator Obama mentioning that he is “home” in Selma. Or virtually any other politician during Black History Month, on Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday, to humble or humiliate their opponents, or other noted dates of importance to Black Americans. Such comments belittle what was done, marginalizing the acts, and in my mind prove that the connection is real in the minds of all Americans. So why won’t politicians move forward and apologuize at least [other than those already noted]?
I have asked several in the current group of Presidential candidate hopefuls their position on this question. Not one has answered me. I ask all the Pesidential candidates now, will you support an apology from the government to African Americans for slavery and segregation and the various civil rights denials for more than 346 years?
I ask Mr. Hargrove, and Speaker Richardson, to provide me a sound and evidence supported argument that disputes my position. I ask them to show me how America has not benefited from slavery, how that is not connected to today, how there are not Americans alive right now that denied rights to Black Americans, and how the effects of more than 3 centuries of abuse and disrespect do not exist today.
Please help me with this effort. Pass this on to the above mentioned individuals, and every politician in the nation. Post this on the blogs of the candidates for President. Let’s hear exactly why they will not pursue at least an apology, and at best provide some form of reparation for the $9.7 – 24 trillion earned by slaves. Let them explain why they cannot seek forgiveness for the wholesale slaughter of Rosewood, the destruction of Tulsa’s Black neighborhoods in 1921, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and segregation to name a few items.
In a recent conversation I had with a friend, I was told that “no disrespect, but you’re not black.” Now this is a friend and I understood the context in which he was speaking, so I wasn’t upset. But it’s not the first time that I’ve been told this. Considering my Puerto Rican, Irish, Native American Indian and Taino Indian background, I agree that I’m not just an African American. But that isn’t what was meant. It was more in reference to the fact that I do not live in a thug lifestyle, speak proper English, and dress in suits more often than jeans.
But that got me thinking. What is it to be Black, or African American. I mean there is a huge economy based on just that thought. Music videos, rap songs, clothing lines, billions are spent world wide to capture an image that is “black” and “keeping it real”, whatever that means. But can that really be all there is to being black? Is the culture that superficial these days?
Mr. Juan Williams wrote an interesting opinion piece recently, Missing: A black voice for economic equality, that addressed the fact that many are asking about the next Dr. Martin Luther King. In that opinion he mentions the fact that 100 years ago prominent Black African Americans, such as Mr. Booker T. Washington, stated the key to improving the quality of life is self-help. This same message was repeated by Dr. King and Mr. Malcolm X.
Yet those messages have been mostly discarded. What else can be said when the chances of a young Black African American male being killed or jailed by 25 are greater than the chance to graduate high school. That the chance of a young Black African American woman having a child, out of wedlock, by 25 is higher than her chance of getting thru college. Obviously there are problems and they aren’t getting answered.
The insistence within the Black culture on living as thugs is a self-limiting expression. The fact that the youth of today want to be pimps and hoes, criminals by any other terms would make the fore-fathers spin in their graves. I cannot imagine that Dr. King or Malcolm X, envisioned a day were equality was considered the ability to father children without the attempt to take care of them, or the inability to communicate socially with others. In fact by the standards of today both of these men would not be considered black either.
At least in that respect I’m in good company. So what is being black today? Is a rapper black? Is a thug black? What about a stockbroker or a doctor, a sanitation worker or a teacher? Must any professional also be ill-spoken and brutish or risk being a sell-out? Can a person like other genres of music, or styles of dress and still be what they obviously are by birth.
Without opening my mouth, I am Black and Puerto Rican. I look in the mirror and I am just that, so why do some presume that I must also act, speak and look a certain way to confirm what I am. I understand when friends say I don’t match the popular norms associated with being African American. But why should anyone have to match a set of criteria? Is this an isolated thing? I’ve never heard anyone tell a White person that they aren’t White. The same with Asians. So why does this division exist?
Those 2 statment sum up so much for me. It also brings back a question I had in high school, why did black history basically take up one paragraph and a reference to Crispus Attucks and nothing more? My youngest sister (14 years my junior) had a history book that had the equivalent of 1 page, and this is after the strides to make American history more reflective of all the peoples responsible for the creation of this great nation. One page, with little to no mention of who created the number system that is used today [Arabs whom are black or under the classification I learned years ago as being Asian, Causasian, Negroid and Native Indians such as Eskimos] or what is sub-Saharan Africa, or who created the Jenny Coupler, automatic refrigeration system for long-haul trucks, treat ments for glaucoma and rheumatoid arthritis. Or who people like Granville T. Woods were.
The promotion of misconcepts too, such as Egyptians and those above the Sahara all being white and only those from below being black. Or that the reason for the Civil War was due to slavey [it was an economic decision - the U.S. was an agricultural-based economy then and if I recall correctly the south had more people - Slavery was about 4th on the list or lower].
Why is it that the history of Blacks in America is so incomplete? Who was it that thought that the concept of celebrating the shortest month of the year for Black history is enough and nothing else really need be done? Why did (and perhaps we still do, someone let me know) we teach about WW II, the Marines at Iwo Jima, and what happened to the Jews, but can't mention the breakthroughs of Black pilots in that war? Or how about what were black people doing in this nation after slavery but before the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King or Malcolm X? Obviously the list of inventions and inventors mentioned above give some clue that alot was happening.
Obviously alot needs to be left out if we want anyone to get more out of an education than just the history of this nation, as many peoples have helped to create the nation we live in today. That does not excuse the blatant slap in the face given to the millions who have bled for this country, both in war and in building this nation during peace. I don't need a seperate history or a month of sporadic commercials to remind me that my ancestors were here. My ancestors earned the right for me to be told the U.S. history, a history that includes them.
Just a few of the thoughts that the statement by Mr. Morgan Freeman makes me think of. What do you think?
