So Ted Turner showed up on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News. This might be something that you would expect lots of sparks from. But in fact it was quite civil and perhaps a bit mundane.



One of the things I love to hear is the constant call that Fox News is a far-right network. Given that Sean Hannity is far-right, the network and the bulk of the programs are not. And in this instance, as I have often found, Turner barely if ever watches the network he compares to the Nazi's.

It just cements the concept of most liberals/left-wing these days. You can say anything you want, just as long as it agrees with whatever they believe. Everything else is a horrible right-wing conspiracy to remove freedom and thought. Even if they have no clue what any other thought might comprise.

And Turner was honest that his real motivation was the fact that he knew that all the major media focuses to the left (or far-left depending on your level of honesty) and thus anything neutral or to the right would draw attention beyond anything his network or the others could match. Because try as hard as they do, the nation leans right even with massive media bias.

Of course Turner could not avoid his belief that America is an exploitative nation. Funny how he says that, yet he has no problem accumulating his wealth in and from this nation. Or has he been donating the bulk of his wealth to the Government to lower the deficit, save defaulted mortgage owners, and the poor in general? Has he somehow managed to make donations to programs and organizations of size without Forbes or anyone else noticing? In fact the answer, like with most wealthy liberals/progressives - including Warren Buffett and George Soros - is no.

And the best part is the most stupid statement that the educated and experienced Ted Turner makes.

"If we stop bombing people and sent doctors, scientists, and engineers around the world that we make a lot more progress and wouldn't have near as much terrorism in the world as we do." - minute 3:09 - 3:22

That is a stupid statement in every sense of it. First America has nothing to do with bombings in India based on the differences of religion in that nation and Pakistan. We have nothing to do with bombings in France, England, Southeast Asia and nearly 2/3 of the world. And virtually all of these places have been getting bombed for over 3 decades or more. That has nothing to do with us.

Israel is one place that an argument might be made. And of course Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly a result of our actions recently. Not that anyone could say any Middle East nation was peaceful and calm over the last 5 decades let alone the last 10.

But Turner makes a dumb argument because on top of these facts we spend more money on medical and agricultural aid to various nations than many nations make as GDP. Or has he forgotten the Peace Corps and the various debts owed to America from these nations we have helped. And then there is AIDS.

America has done more about AIDS in Africa than most every other nation combined. That is still far from what I think is adequate or within our abilities, but it is far from the implied thought of Turner that we do nothing. And our work in Darfur is horrendous. But that does not erase all the other good work we have done for many nations in Africa. Still we are losing the edge in helping African nations develop better technology to China, but that is a problem of a different sort than what Turner suggests.

Again this is left-wing polispeak to make things sound worse than they are. Like somehow denouncing our actions makes their even lesser actions look better. I've never known anyone to be motivated after hard work for a good cause by being told what they have done was useless and negligible, and then asked to do more.



In part 2 it gets personal. Hanoi Jane Fonda is in the picture. But first we see what "progressives" like Turner calls himself think. Turner admires Fidel Castro. I think there are a lot of people in Florida that would love to have him explain why.

The argument that Turner makes, and I have heard before is that Castro has done good things in his time so he is a good guy. He built hospitals and makes sure people have nationalized healthcare.

So the fact that Cuba is stuck in the 1950's in virtually every aspect doesn't matter to Turner. The fact that the people have no voice in their Government is meaningless. The fact that dissenters are (or at least were) routinely jailed, beaten and/or killed is ok. The fact that their economy is horrendous is all good. Because the people get free healthcare.

So taking that logic, a nation that builds schools, allows free elections, builds hospitals, creates clean water, improves electricity, invigorates an economy and makes the nation stable is a great nation. Wake up "progressives", I just described what America is doing in Iraq.

But I think Turner would stumble on that realization. He, and "progressives" as he described himself, don't want to see America like that. For whatever reason.

Perhaps the best part of this whole interview was when Ted Turner was asked about his inaction after the Viet Nam protests. He with Hanoi Jane protested the actions of America and supported (her moreso to traitorous levels) the North Vietnamese. When America left Viet Nam due to the political pressure, 3 million Vietnamese were slaughtered. And the "progressives" said nothing.

They in fact did what some say America did to Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated. They forgot about the whole thing. They could care less. If they did care they hid it well with their complete and utter silence for decades.

Hanoi Jane, and Ted Turner, had every opportunity to speak out nationally about the atrocities. They could have brought media attention to the situation at any point they desired. Even to this day they could say something. Yet all you will hear is more silence. How "progressive".

Now considering that track record I have to ask a simple question. If we follow the guidance of "progressives" like Turner, and far-left nuts like Hanoi Jane, and leave Iraq as we did Viet Nam, what would they do if things went bad in that nation? Their actions tell us they would turn a blind eye and deaf ear, which is the absolutely best environment for groups like Al Quida to grow in. And that means we would have future attacks on our soil within 5 - 15 years, en masse.

Can America afford to have "progressives" and the far-left say

"You got me. I really didn't think about it." - minute 3:06 - 3:10

as civilians are killed?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Africa, AIDS, al quida, Bill O'Reilly, Cuba, Darfur, Fidel Castro, Fox News, Hanoi Jane, Iraq, O'Reilly Factor, Ted Turner, Viet Nam war

Well today has been a busy day of video editing. I hope those that see my Youtube channel enjoy it. One of the topics I hit on today is the comments of Ralph Nader.

Nader was speaking in reference to President Obama and likened his Presidency as being either for the people or a sell-out to corporations. It is that sell-out potential that I want to focus on.



The words used to describe the potential that Nader fears was

“...or Uncle Tom for giant corporations” - radio station KTRH

Besides the fact that I take great offense to even hinting that our next President could be an Uncle Tom (which is offensive enough to any Black American) is the precedence it provides. This is a comment that is racially based and negatively at that. Its implication is perhaps the most offensive comment I have ever heard directed towards a President.

The office of the Presidency is an honorable one. It is the highest office in the land. And those that occupy it are the representation of America to the world. As such it demands a level of respect.

That does not mean a President is above ridicule, question, and/or criticism. But the manner in which these things are done should have respect for the office is not the individual. Anything less demeans not only the President but the nation as well.

Nader has in a few words insulted America. He has also opened the door to racially belittle the actions of our 44th President before he has even uttered one word of the Oath. This has never happened before to my knowledge.

So what I take from this is the thought that if President Obama acts in any manner in which Nader or others don’t like its fair game to demean him by calling him Uncle Tom or n-word. I don’t mean the average Joe on the street, I mean in the media, press, and pundits. That this is acceptable is to tell the world that it’s ok to demean the President and every other American in the nation.

Can you imagine President Obama pushing for a law that some group dislikes and calling him a dumb coon because of it, on national TV. Or likening him to an n-word on national television if a controversial law passes? Nader has opened that door.

Already I have received comments at Youtube trying to remind me how much Nader has done for the nation and African Americans.

"...more like a metaphor to the point he's making, uncle tom has different connotations). His point is that obama votes and sides with corporate interest because his campaign was pocketed by them.

...Nader is an intellegent man, a great man who has exposed more ills done to blacks than Obama, he's not a raciest, he didn't call him an Uncle Tom and be very honest, i didn't think the uncle tom thing was that necessary." - thediversion77 on Youtube

That’s wonderful that his past is truthfully impressive. That does not take away from what he is doing right now.

And this is not like calling President Bush dumb. This is like cursing the President out.

No President should be subject to this kind of treatment, especially when they have yet to even utter a word. It is harmful to America, and the office of the President. I cannot imagine any justification for such commentary and I can only see these creating rifts in America so wide as to further damage the nation.

Race is not a criterion to judge anyone on. As such it is not a comment that should be casually used to criticize a potential action of a President. And having a respected past is not justification for such actions.

One other thing I would note is that Sheppard Smith of Fox news was correct in confronting Ralph Nader on this comment. I have my own problems when it comes to Smith and certain issues (like his glee over OJ). But he also rightly challenged Nader and offered him an escape route, which Nader denied.

It seems odd to me that Fox News is constantly criticized for its reporting; accused of bias constantly, but over this entire election it has been the only station that has predominantly avoided blatantly using race and/or active promotion to a particular candidate. And this may be why it quickly and directly has questioned Nader on this issue. Because the ramifications of this will show up over the next 4 years. And it will only get worse.

Labels: Fox News, news media, O'Reilly Factor, President Barack Obama, race in America, racial controversy, Ralph Nader, Sheppard Smith, YouTube

As the hours count down, and over the weekend I hope that tens of millions will be searching the web for information on the Presidential candidates, I wanted to revisit the most controversial point of this election. The deep tan Obama has everyday.



At this point most people know who they will vote for. Already the votes are coming in. But to say that those with an issue on Obama’s race are only Democrats is a misstatement to say the least. Racism is not a political face. As much as many want to isolate the political parties by color the fact is Americans of all walks of life hold views and political affiliations of every type.

That said, I do note that Democrats do seem to love to discuss Obama’s race far more than Republicans. They love to attack him on it (ie. the Clinton’s and their campaign), and defend him from it – even when no one else is discussing the issue.

The big part of the video that I find important are the 30th – 45th seconds. The fact that saying you are not for Obama leads to near persecutions. If you are Black and say this people nearly jump out of their skins, especially if they are a Democrat. Because there should never be anyone that questions Obama – just ask Barabara West, The Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and who knows who is next (besides Fox News of course). And according to the implications of the Obama campaign and supporters they are all racist and anti-Black. Hogwash.

Honestly I don’t see the issue. But because I am Black, and Puerto Rican, maybe that is the reason. After having lived a lifetime of comparing and voting for politicians that are of a separate race voting for a politician of any race is no big deal. They all get to be scrutinized and fact checked. They all get to be considered, and then a choice is made.

Some seem incapable of using their eyes while thinking. You might notice those people as they can’t chew bubble gum and walk either. And they won’t vote for any reason other than race. All they see is skin color, and they will vote for or against just because of that. Most aren’t honest enough to say this, but the few that are get the gold stars among the special ed crowd.

I just have to wonder. How does the color of a person change the person? At what point does a Harvard educated lawyer get less intelligent when viewed by a racist? How does his skin make him less intelligent especially since he has already proven that he is far more capable than most.

Look, Obama is just a man. He is running for President, and he has a set of qualifications. Some would say those qualifications are enough, other don’t (like myself). It is only those qualifications that are relevant. His clothing, the shoes he wears, his favorite television show, his favorite opera or square dancing are not important to whether or not Iran decides to build a nuke. Having a mole on him, going on vacation and getting a tan, having or lacking a tattoo, having a scar from childhood, growing a beard and more could and do not have anything to do with international interest rates, the level of the Dow Jones, or picking a Chief Justice for the Supreme Court.

And if you think, based on his answers and policies that Obama fails to have the right answers, that is not racist. No one should call you such because you made a decision, based on facts.

Being called a derogatory term because of your race and/or the race of someone else has never been fun. Normally it’s been a negative for Blacks, but right now that pressure and resentment is mostly on Whites. While it feels bad, and the irony is intellectually stimulating, it is not a reason to vote for a President. Hundreds of years of Slavery, and over 100 hears of Jim Crow and Segregations, and another nearly 50 years of “red light, green light” with race relations and laws will all not be smoothed over, forgotten, or absolved because Obama is, or is not, President.

Race relations in this nation have yet to get resolved. A President with a tan does not resolve the issues. People talking and confronting the issues resolves race relations. A President resolves domestic safety, energy policy, economic strategies. Voters should not confuse the 2 thoughts.

Ok, the thoughts have gone all over the place on this post. Take that for what you will. And remember to vote!

Labels: Dallas Morning News, Fox News, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Senator Barack Obama, Washington Times

Code Pink must be angry, Moveon.org annoyed, and the New York Times is the usual indifferent paper that is common. Why are all these groups likely experiencing such emotions? Because yet again all their hype has been deflated in regard to Iraq, the Marines, and our Armed Forces.

Haditha Iraq. I’m sure even those casually paying attention to news noted the slew of articles and news reports condemning 8 Marines, alleging a murder of 24 Iraqi civilians. The comments came out before charges were made, and they all made their decision before facts were ever presented. Across the nation ultra-liberals rejoiced, and Hollywood used this story as fodder for its anti-war anti-American Armed Forces rants they called entertainment movies.

Even politicians jumped into the act, half-cocked.



NOTE that Congressman Murtha did not know any facts on the case. When confronted with information that radio communications and drone videos proved the charges false, he ignored it. He nearly implicates the Commandant of the Marine Corps in his lies and illogic. But when confronted on the veracity of what he alleged he admits that nothing like his claims were ever said. He like so many ‘honest’ ‘unbiased’ organizations has twisted facts for their own purposes.

Yet today marks the 7th Marine that was accused and eviscerated by the media and Congressman Murtha that has either had their charges dropped completely or been found innocent.

And for those that never served in the military, a court-marshal or any charges are presumed correct and the defendant guilty until proven innocent beyond doubt. Guilty until proven innocent beyond doubt. And 7 Marines have been proven innocent to date.

But have you seen that reported in the media? Have you seen any of the over 30 articles mentioning the innocence of these men or remorse for having besmirched their names and that of the Marine Corps?

How about Congressman Murtha, who had a lot to say on television and in Congress. What did he say when the Marines were being found innocent of his accusations and false charges?



Now some would say that I don’t know what I’m talking about. That the fact I was a Marine does not count, because I have not been fighting in Iraq. Only a wartime soldier would understand his views. Ok, then tell me why he can’t respond to this man.



Playing to the crowd? How could it not be more obvious that this is what he is doing?

But today there is even more room for the ‘unbiased’ media, Moveon.org, and Congressman Murtha to remain silent and stupid (in my opinion). And the fact that 7 out of 8 Marines have been exonerated beyond doubt has been reported.

Who presented the news that allowed me to share this revelation with you? Fox News. Funny how the one news source I am constantly told lies, is the only news organization that has covered fully the fact that these Marines are innocent. They are the only ones I have been aware of to question the accusations and smears these Marines have endured.

So I have just one question, based on the silence of Murtha and those like him do you think that if (and in all likelihood considering the 7 prior cases when) the final accused Marine is found innocent beyond any doubt they will publicly – as boldly and prominently as when they first opened their mouths without facts – apologize to these Marines and their families?

Labels: Code Pink, Congressman Murtha, Fox News, haditha, Iraq War, Marine Corps, moveon.org, New York Times

Sometimes I find it quite interesting the opinions some have in regards to politics. Even in the most neutral of facts some cannot let go of there own prejudices to evaluate what is before them. The most troubling aspect of that is the fact that these vocal individuals are actively trying to sway voters to their often misguided views.

Case in point, I decided to place a video detailing the electoral map based on where the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates currently stand. This is not a really debatable issue. It’s a snapshot of the then current political highs and lows in sentiment of various states. These are not final votes and will change given time. But it does establish clearly that neither candidate can today state they have a consensus of though in America to their views for our future.

[the Youtube video and comments can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkYcMWKKn0Y]

One of the comments I received was the following,

“Don't believe a word you hear on Fox FRAUDCASTING!! Nothing but Right Wingnut Talking Points. Watch The Daily Show for the truth. Fox Fakes the "news"!!!BOYCOTT FOX FRAUDCASTING!!”

Now I realize that ultra-liberals hate FOX News. It’s irrational to have such a hate but they do. But how does presenting a fluid fact as a lie help anyone decide who to vote for? How does advocating a satirical psuedo-political pusedo-news comedy show prove that one candidate is better than another? One might be a better subject of jokes, but where does that help the nation and economy?

Another comment stated,

“…which leads me to believe that you like many other Republicans follow blindly with a "Mom and Dad are Republicans" mentality. Now I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion but with an election as important as this..It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which candidate will benifit this country but John McCain will get votes and it will somehow again be a close election. By the way, Fox News is hardly "Fair and Balanced." …”

Now I am familiar with many in the Black community across the nation. I have never notice a group of people more likely to vote Democratic (or for any political party) simply because their parents did. I may be naïve, or I may not know enough about the politics of other groups in America. But I can say that in the last 20+ years of following politics I have seen more Democrats, and Black Democrats, vote the party line with less idea of why beyond the general impression that they should and the media assumes they will.

As for a rocket scientist knowing the outcome of the election, it seems that the rest of the nation needs such help. There are massive differences between the candidates and neither candidate has the best solution to all issues facing the nation. So if the election will “somehow again be a close election” I have to believe it’s not that crystal clear or obvious.

Those to the extremes of either party will claim how obvious this election is, but most refuse to give real facts and that means you need to do the homework lest you get talked into buying a bridge.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, Fox News, Presidential election race 2008, YouTube

Before I continue to critique Senator Clinton, her lies and misconcieved half-formed plans I thought I might present her full conversation with Bill O'Reilly. This way I can just go over all the issues at once.

Indiana and North Carolina please keep in mind all my prior posts (which you can get from clicking the labels below) before you go to the polls.












Remember your vote counts.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Democratic nomination, Fox News, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton

Some things in life are just too wrong. It’s not enough that Rev. Wright has made wrong and questionable comments, creating a furor that can be encapsulated in the thought that ‘Obama is too black.’

Because of 10 second clips from a mere handful (5 or 6) sermons out of perhaps 1000 or more in 35 years, made by someone other than Senator Obama, the Senator is now considered radical. His actual voting record is ignored, as are the comments and speeches he has made. I don’t agree with many of his policies and I still think he is being railroaded. Because one pastor said that crack in the 80’s was fought by the government with a campaign slogan of the First Lady. Because he said Senator Clinton was never called the most ugly, denigrating, evil word in the English language that has no equivalent and that is exclusive to one race. Because he said some truthful comments that are not beneficial or conciliatory to Whites. [Let me note that not all comments are ones that I agree with or think are correct, but 90% of what I have found are.]

Because of that, Senator Obama is finally being seen in the manner that all the emails, rumors, allegations and direct slaps in the face that the Clinton campaign could muster. How proud Hillary must be. Having failed with the use of Barack Obama’s middle name and pictures of him in the native garb of African Elders while in Africa (which is common for traveling politicians).And with that pride must be the pride of the majority of Americans at seeing what it takes to win a nomination to become President. Imagine what would happen to become President.

But there are some that have opinions far too the other side. That Senator Obama is not Black enough. As if such a comment is possible or credible.

One such proponent is Rev. James David Manning. And in watching him live on Fox News, at 9:15pm on Hannity & Colmes, I must say he is a racist and bigot in the worst manner.

Rev. Manning stated that his objection to Senator Obama is because he is the union of an African and White parents. He admitted that he has never met the Senator, nor his parents. Yet that gave him no pause in calling the parents whores and trash. He cited Obama’s lie (or misspoken statement) about his parents meeting as the source of Obama’s first wrong doing. In total his only complaint were these to points.

It’s a harsh thing to see a man, especially one of a religious faith, so obsessed with false values. He was so bad as to cause Sean Hannity, a Republican and admitted non-Obama supporter, to directly and clearly defend Obama. He correctly stated that this was a personal attack and had nothing to do with politics. He questioned how any man of faith could blanket anyone as evil solely because of their birthright. And he was visibly disturbed by this message Rev. Manning is trying to spread.

But in checking around I see that Rev. Manning does not feel Obama is alone in being not Black enough. [And Manning believes that if you are not the result of 2 African American parents you are not Black, but some other thing which he implied is evil. Thus I and most African Americans would falter – I suspect that if he is the offspring of slaves he would not qualify either, but I’m sure that he has an excuse for that as do most bigots when faces with a schism in their warped logic.] The NAACP is not Black enough. Any African American that was able, through the efforts of their parents lives, to not be born poor does not understand being Black and implies they are not Black.

Rev. Manning believes there is an identity crisis in the Black community. Because many Blacks supported Bill Clinton. Because many African Americans support Obama. He feels that Blacks are being paid off to rig the Democratic nomination so that Hillary gets the nomination and Senator Obama gets the Vice-Presidential nomination, all arranged by Whites in Hollywood – as stated to John Gibson of Fox News Talk on March 20, 2008. In that same interview he proclaims how the Civil Rights Movement of the last 50 years was “terribly destructive since the death of Dr. King”. This can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygWExq7g2F0&feature=related

But to really understand the anger and bile of Rev. Manning you need to see the following video.



Now perhaps it is me, a man that Manning would call a “good Negro”, but I think Manning is a racist ass. He fears any man with an education, that believe in things that he does not, that is not as dark as him, nor fits his view of the world. In fact he sounds an awful lot like various White supremacists and a certain Nazi leader.

But I am not a “good Negro”. I am proud to be an educated successful Black Puerto Rican. I have never been in jail [which I would like to know why Manning was - and Malcolm X was incarcerated because he was a criminal at the time. A fact he admitted and never tried to glorify] nor do I feel a need to be. I don’t kiss anyone’s ass, least of all his. And I don’t think that living beyond his limited view is the only way to be African American.

If not being Black enough means not living up to the stereotypes of BET, the music industry, and dim-witted fools fearful of any change since 1865, I’m ok with that and glad Obama doesn’t qualify either. If not being Black enough means not fitting into the Rev. Manning’s of the world view on parentage, need for poverty, lack of education, need for incarceration, and lack of a strong will I will do without.

Manning may have the right to say whatever he wishes, but thankfully we have the right not to listen now that we know what he thinks. We have the right to vote (which Manning may no longer have depending on his conviction) and if it is based in the actions, records and apparent capabilities of a candidate then we should vote for them. We should not let racist, mindless babbling wrapped in a cloak of religion dictate our choices for us.

I reject the vile comments of any person, especially those of religious leaders interjecting themselves as politicians. I dispute and reject the comments of Rev. Manning. I find him vile and reprehensible. I find nothing in his own words, found in my own research, that I agree with. I can only hope that his particular brand of poison does not lend itself to the problems in the Democratic nomination process.

Religious leaders may be essential for spiritual direction, but few have ever shown themselves to be effective leaders of anyone. In America we elect our leaders because of what we believe they will do. Don’t give up that right to anyone else. Learn the facts for yourself. Make a choice. Be involved because the result will involve and affect you regardless or age, race, religion or gender.

Labels: African Americans, Black community, Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, racism, Rev. Manning, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

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

Senator Obama has swept even more states and continued his streak of victories with 58% - 41% crushing win in Wisconsin and an embarrassing 76% - 24% clobbering in Hawaii. While the final tally has yet to be finalized Washington State stands at 50 - 47 with 57% of the vote counted. This makes the number of states won by Senator Obama 24 to Hillary Clinton’s 11, and increases his popular vote margin and the delegate count.

As it becomes more apparent that Senator Clinton cannot gain the Democratic nomination, something that far less than a year ago pundits expected to be a given fact, the internet is beginning to rally to Senator Obama. Consistently the internet, along with the predominance of major newspapers and television/cable news, has been quite liberal and Democratic in their political preference. That preference has long held that Senator Clinton must be the choice of the nation. But with the continued inspirational performances of Senator Obama, the tide has changed.

I for one am amazed that it took so long to happen.

Without regard to personal political affiliation or beliefs, Senator Clinton never had a chance of winning a Presidential election. The reasons are tumultuous and towering. Beyond the baggage that is the Clinton Presidency legacy, there are the numerous scandals that Senator Clinton has had individually. Add to this her outright lies (like my favorite – that she has 35 years of experience which is only possible if you co-opt all the years of public service that her husband was elected to) and derisive attacks and you get the reason why Rasmussen predicts an 80%+ chance of Senator Obama winning the nomination. And all of this does not take into account the 47% dislike that the nation holds for Senator Clinton.

At this point only elderly (65 years of age and up) white voters stuck with Clinton in the Wisconsin Primary in any significant numbers. And I expect that even this group will erode from her shortly, because

“Hillary began positively, but the minute she felt the slightest challenge from Obama, she went negative and dirty and then went into denial about doing it and then claimed SHE was the victim of attacks. Worst of all, she used Bill as part of the strategy. Even a hard-core lefty like me is repulsed when hearing Bill Clinton attack people and then act slickly sweet and innocent and paint himself and his wife as the victim.”

Yet this has not prevented Senator Clinton from stating

“I’m not going to just talk about what’s wrong with NAFTA, I’m going to fix it,” she vowed. “My opponent has taken to attacking me on NAFTA. The fact is, neither of us were in the Senate at the time (it passed) and I’ve long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA.”

[In fact neither were in the Senate at the time, but when President Bill Clinton was passing NAFTA then First Lady Hillary Clinton was a huge supporter of the bill and the President. And if we are to go and accept that her time as First Lady is part of her “35 years of experience” then NAFTA must be part of that as well.]

Nor has it prevented the win at all costs strategy that the Clinton campaign is known for.

“On Monday, an aide even suggested going after pledged Obama delegates at the Convention – in other words, directly thwarting the will of the voters.

After a disastrous PR flap, the Clinton camp denied that statement. But it’s fair to draw a basic conclusion: they are getting desperate, and are grasping for any method to win the nomination – whether it is ethical or not.”

This is on top of the fact that the Clinton campaign agreed, with all other Democratic candidates at the time, on the penalties placed against Florida and Michigan in September 2007. But today they are trying to engineer the removal of those penalties to bolster their own flailing hopes.

Given all this, with 2 debates to come and the March 4th Primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island, I have to question why any continue to support Senator Hillary Clinton. Looking at all the comments and facts, without emotion or preference, I am at a loss. Perhaps one reason those 65 and older are voting for Senator Clinton is the fact that she is White and they are part of the generations that lived in a United States that supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. It’s an aspect that I have not heard discussed, for obvious reasons, but it has been a failed tool (race) used since the South Carolina Primary, so it’s worth asking.

For those that still are unsure of whom to vote for in Texas and Ohio (the major delegate states in the next set of Primaries) the question to ask may be one that Senator Clinton asked of Senator Obama

“What has he done? What is his experience?” – as presented in a Fox News clip of Senator Clinton making a speech on February 20, 2008

The same should be asked of Senator Clinton. And when that answer comes up with an equal nothing consider this. She has been in the Senate longer, supposedly with 35 years of experience and has nothing to show for it. Add that to her attempts to break rules she has agreed to, personal racial attacks, her flips on issues important to Democrats (like her vote and support for the war in Iraq), scandals and 47% national disapproval rating.

So I ask, why would a Democrat vote for her over Senator Obama? I’d like to know.

Labels: Democratic Party, Fox News, Hawaii, March 4th Primaries, NAFTA, news media, Ohio, President Bill Clinton, Rasmussen, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

Continued from South Carolina primary debates on Fox News and the potential winner Part 1...

A bit later in the evening the discussion went to the issue of change. It’s a popular polispeak term, which is used now by both parties without signifying anything of importance. That was highlighted best by Rudy Giuliani when he stated

I paraphrase – “Change is not enough. We must go 1 step further and ask what kind of change. When we speak about change on education, taxes, socialized medicine we need to ask is that change good or bad?”

Of course throughout the debate Giuliani reflected on his 9/11 experience and how it gave him an edge the others did not possess. To which McCain responded once that he has been involved in every security issue that has occurred in the past 20 years, in addition to having served and fought in wars for this notion. His time as a P.O.W. in the Hanoi Hilton was unmentioned but obvious.

At the end of the debate the issue was illegal immigration. While every Republican candidate believes in throwing out the 2 million criminal (beyond being in the nation illegally) immigrants, and strong borders (actually just the southern border – to my annoyance no one speaks about the troubled and dangerous northern border with Canada) McCain had no answer on what to do about the 10 million illegal immigrants in the nation now.

Mitt Romney believes we should look at each case though all 10 million must return to their home nations before being allowed back in the nation.

Thompson stated that we need to ensure that employers are responsible in their hiring and that they are penalized for getting illegals. He also advocates the end of sanctuary cities, threatening to end their discretionary federal funding if they maintain their status. This he believes will not only force illegal immigrants out of the nation and prevent future generations from coming.

Paul felt we should enforce the law and stop subsidizing the illegals with free healthcare and education for their kids. He also wants to get the troops back from Iraq and watch our borders.

Huckabee can best be summed up in that he believes the immigrants will go home on their own. He also mentioned his 9 point plan which involves a 120 day period, which he did not elaborate on further.

And when Giuliani was asked if he would allow mayors and governors to act in the same manner with respect to illegal immigrants as he did in New York (specifically the police not asking about immigration status). He refused to answer the question and instead defended his reasoning that the illegals helped to lower crime by reporting it. He also mentioned (which I agree with) that it was better to have the 70,000 kids in school rather than in the streets.

Overall I will say that Fred Thompson won the debate. He was strong and the only person with plans for each issue consistently. He really stood out from the group, and had solid challenges to the other candidates, many of which that went without response.

Ron Paul was ineffective. He had a couple of interesting points, and one or 2 quotable thoughts. But overall he really came off weak and less of an oddball compared to many debates I have heard him in previously.

Keep an eye on John McCain though. I really think he was solid and consistent even though he did not win tonight.

If I had to guess I would expect the South Carolina Republican primary to go in this manner:

John McCain wins
Fred Thompson a strong second
Mitt Romney third
Mike Huckabee fourth
Ron Paul might get a couple of percentage point but definitely dead last

Labels: election 2008, Fox News, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, political debate, Presidential candidates, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, South Carolina

I’m watching the Republican Presidential debate, in South Carolina on Fox News tonight, and a few very important issues are coming up.

Of course the debate started with the question of the economy. Is there going to be a recession (or as Ron Paul stated it’s an ongoing recession with real estate in a depression) and how long will it last? Will cutting taxes help the average American? Do we need to cut government spending?

All of these are important issues. And I would say that yes a recession is probable. No it’s not a bad thing, though it won’t feel good in the short term. Housing is not in a depression (with all due respect to Ron Paul), rate cuts by themselves are not enough, and keeping the Bush tax cuts prevents a de facto tax increase to the American public. Those are my thoughts, though some of the candidates agree.

One of the bigger moments I think that will be talked about a lot is the challenge made by Fred Thompson to Mike Huckabee on his record. The points made, including Huckabee being pro-immigration, and anti-school vouchers among other things, went unchallenged by Huckabee. He deflected the answers and mentioned his 94 tax cuts and work on education. Honestly Fred Thompson won that point and the crowd knew it.

Another big point was the question by the moderator, Tim Russert, to Ron Paul. Paul was asked if he would ask the 9/11 truthers that support Paul to stop their claims. Ron Paul stated he does not endorse the truthers, or their ideas. He refused to ask them to stop advocating it on his behalf though.

When the question of Pakistan came up Fred Thompson had a great reason why we need to be involved. Because Pakistan is a nation with nuclear weapons, and is Islamic. We need to know who has control of those weapons in our own national interest.

On a similar response, asked to Ron Paul later in the evening about electability,

I paraphrase – “Let me see if I can get this straight. We borrow 10 Billion from China, to give it to Musharef (who overthrew a democratic government) who is hiding terrorists, and then get into a war to bring democracy to Iraq? How aren’t Republicans interested? Why couldn’t asking about that make me unelectable?”

John McCain made a good point, when challenged by Ron Paul as I recall, that having a presence in Iraq is

“A question of presence, not casualties.”

He correctly mentioned that we have troops in Germany since WWII, and in South Korea, and even Kuwait. That is not the same as having fighting troops, so a long term plan with troops in Iraq is not a bad thing or a plan without end.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: election 2008, Fox News, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, political debate, Presidential candidates, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, South Carolina

I find it interesting that recent polls in Iowa show that Mitt Romney is slipping a bit to Mike Huckabee. Now you might have thought that such a drop could be attributed to the accusations made by the Rudy Giuliani campaign about Romney’s record on taxes and healthcare while Governor of Massachusetts.

“Romney passed a mandate and tax hike-laden health care plan in Massachusetts which Hillary Clinton's own legislative director said was just like Hillarycare.” - Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson

But that isn’t the reason. It isn’t even close. It’s been stated, and quoted by Fox News at ~7am, that the loss in standing is because of Mitt Romney’s religion. That’s what’s bothering Iowans. Can you believe it?

Of the questions and issues that could be asked of a Presidential candidate, this is the one that is bothering people? Not resolving the millions of illegal aliens in the nation, or the dependence on foreign oil, or ensuring our children will get better educations. It’s that they don’t trust the way he prays.

I find that insulting. It’s as petty to me as saying “I won’t vote for John Edwards because he pays too much for his haircuts,” or even more accurately “I won’t vote for Senator Obama because he is Black.”

I think when you think of it in terms of the second quote the ignorance of the situation becomes more apparent. Because if Edwards started moving up in polls because Iowans questioned the race of the candidates, or gender for that matter, there would be an uproar. Cries of bias and ignorance would run through all the major newspapers and media. Pundits would be amazed that such closed-mindedness still exist in America.

I hope there is any reason other than the one stated above. Because as we get closer to the actual primaries, the real feelings are starting to show. More people are paying attention now after a virtual year of speeches and debates. And if there is a reason for Mike Huckabee the absolute least is religion.

Iowans should be better than that. America must be better than that. And I shudder to think of where the nation will go if we fail to be.

If you are in Iowa, I want to hear what you have to say. Is it true, and if so why?

**I write about the Presidential Race for TV One and Presidential Race Blog as well as here.**

Labels: Fox News, Mike Huchabee, Mitt Romney, religion in politics, republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani, TV One

So everyone is ready for the Fox News and presidential candidate debates tonight. You have heard about this correct? If you have not I will make you aware. The Republican presidential candidates, with the exception of Fred Thompson, will be gathering tonight at eight o'clock to have a debate that will be broadcast on Fox News. This should be quite interesting.

For all the anger and animosity directed towards Fox News the fact is that this one news cable channel is the most watched in the nation, as opposed to CNN which is also more aligned to the left in its political spectrum. This alignment makes this debate, interesting as it will not be similar to prior debates on CNN. In my opinion I would expect it to be a superior debate. More importantly, this debate will do what all debates are supposed to do, present the nation with opinions of the presidential candidates.

The candidates will no doubt be in top form do to the fact that more people will be seeing this then perhaps several of the other debates combined. The questions that will be posed to them, should be far more topical, if not outright controversial than any they have received to date. I expect Fox news to challenge the candidates on issues including immigration, the economy, homeland security, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hopefully this will be an opportunity for the presidential candidates to stand up and give a serious answer to some of these issues. Of course, the debate is structured like all debates these days in that soundbite answers are far more important than actual substance. Yet, if the questions are posed substantively then serious answers should still be presented. The combination of these potentials in one place makes this perhaps the most important debate to date.

The fact that Fred Thompson will not be involved in the debate is a negative. Why he would not announce, running for the presidency prior to this debate bodes ill for his chances, in my opinion. I would have to seriously question his apparent reluctance to engage in debates with the other Republican candidates. The nation needs a president who is willing to stand out on issues of significance, and be honest with the public. Not engaging in debate prevents the public from being able to make an honest choice for quantifying the issues facing the nation in the near term future.

The fact that the Democratic presidential candidates have, to date, refused to join into a debate run by Fox News is troubling. One problem is that the future president needs to be strong enough to stand up to terrorists around the world. What kind of president, would we have if they were afraid of a debate made up of reporters and newscasters in their own home nation? Another reason why I think they should is simply a matter of fairness. Multiple debates have gone on at CNN, which is almost inarguably a left leaning news channel. Most of the debates held on CNN have gotten atrocious viewership numbers. In my opinion, the Democratic candidates owe it to the public to appear on a cable news channel that reaches a wider audience, not just a friendly one. The Republican candidates have appeared on CNN, addressing a questionably unfriendly audience head on.

Regardless of personal political leanings I think it is important for the general public to watch this debate. Hopefully this will add some clarity and direction for the upcoming primaries. I look forward to hearing what you feel was said, was not said, and was said well.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: cable news, CNN, Democratic Party, Fox News, political debate, Presidential candidates, Republican Party

What’s wrong with this – the National Education Association (NEA), NAACP, National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) all invited the Presidential candidates of both parties to speak before them, in each only one Republican candidate appeared. Why would that be?

While each group is considered ‘liberal’ that is not an absolute fact. To take the NEA, it’s 1/3 Republican in its membership. Mike Huckabee appeared and was well received by the group which had 10,000 members attending. Considering the 3.2 membership in the NEA, this was a big coup for Mr. Huckabee and one that no other Republican was able to share in.


Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo was the only Republican to appear before the NAACP. At the NALEO event, Representative Duncan Hunter of California made the only showing. They were the only ones. Why?

I understand that the ‘understanding’ among pundits is that these organizations are all Democrat-leaning and that they are liberal groups. I understand that the focus at the moment is to gain the win at the Primaries of each party. But I have to believe that one of the most important goals for any Presidential candidate is to be able to win the Presidency of the United States. If the public is for a candidate, then what party would stop them from going forward?

I hate to see political math in action. It annoys me. I may have used the recent actions of Republicans here, but the same is true of Democratic candidates in the reverse. All because there is a theory out there that gaining the best electoral math determines the winner. That just makes me come to the conclusion that none of the candidates feels they are strong enough to appeal to the majority of the American citizenry.

I mean, if you believe you have the right position to move America forward, why would you be afraid to explain your plans to those that have a political viewpoint that is not the same as yours, and are likely unaware of your stance on the issues? It’s one thing to preach to the converted, it’s another to convert those that disagree. But a President should be able to do that. At least in my opinion.

I find it insulting that ANY candidate presumes that talking to any group of Americans is a waste of time. If you wish to lead this nation, you must be willing to speak to this nation. The President is the leader, but only so far as the public wishes to go in one direction or another. I think far too many candidates and pundits forget that. The public elects the President (yes, through the convoluted electoral election process) and the public backs the decisions the President makes. For the public to elect the best person we need to know what they stand for and what their plans are.

Dodging this group or that is not Presidential. I see it as a weakness. I said the same of the Democrats that turned down a debate sponsored by Fox News. If ANY candidate can’t answer tough questions for their political opposites, how good could they be at answering Al Quida? Or any nation that opposes the United States? Or achieving the goals they state are their agenda?

Speaker Pelosi is an example of this I think. She talked a great game speaking to her supporters, but due to her failure to convince her detractors the 100 day plan has failed, the Congress wastes time and money on fishing expeditions on matters where no crime exists, and the American public is angered. As low as the President’s approval rating may be, the Speaker and Congress are even lower.

The candidates need to step up. So much has been said about the women’s vote in this upcoming election. A lot is being said about African Americans and Hispanic/Latino Americans as well. Any candidate that assumes that these groups will or will not vote for them, without speaking to them creates a self-fulfilling wish, and that may not be the best thing for the nation.

I would hate to have to write a post 3 years from now saying, ‘I wish so and so stepped up and spoke more about this or that. We might be in a better place today if they did.’ I don’t anyone wants to be living in that situation, do you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Fox News, Hispanic American, Mike Huckabee, NAACP, NALEO, NEA

Today on Neil Cavuto’s show (on Fox News from 4-5pm) Mr. Cavuto had on a guest, a professor whose name I did not catch, to discuss a proposed law. I need help on verifying what this law states, but it seems that Home Depot is being required to provide for Illegal immigrants that are looking for day labor in front of their stores.

Again, I need to read this proposed law (someone must be familiar with it and can provide me a link), but if this is the essence of the law, then someone has lost their mind. How can anyone realistically expect a company to provide for illegal workers?

First let’s think this through, which the professor defending this proposed law seems not to have done. In essence it means that if a panhandler is standing in front of your grocery store, as an example, you the owner must provide for that individual. You have a Mime; you need to provide them with shelter, water, restroom facilities, and anything else you would provide an employee. According to my understanding you must essentially take on another employee, that you have not hired, that provides no benefit to your business, which could theoretically sue you if you failed to provide these benefits to them.


Then add the fact that this person is an illegal immigrant (alien) and you have a person that has violated the law pays no taxes, and may well be taking money out of the economy if they send any money to their home country. There is a business plan.

Perhaps I am wrong. The law may not state this. I may be missing something, and I hope I am.

Now some may say this isn’t fair. They are just undocumented workers trying to make a living. That may be true but the document they are missing is a birth certificate proving U.S. citizenship. There is no obligation to take care of them. They have no rights in this nation and are criminals from the second they enter the nation. No matter what anyone may call them this is a fact. Anything done to benefit their lives is a kindness, not an obligation. If that is upsetting to these illegal aliens/immigrants/undocumented workers then they can leave. They don’t even need to sneak back home, the government will take them their, and it’s on our dime. They can thank us later.

Some will say, ‘This is just racism in disguise.’ How? Who is this racist against? I’ve made no distinction on what illegal immigrants I’m speaking about. Nor do I wish to create a system of preference. If you are not a citizen by birth, not naturalized, have no immigration papers or other documents saying the government welcomed you here; you need to be kicked out.

That means if you are from Tbilisi, Milan, Jakarta, Berlin, Tokyo, or Mexico City and you are here illegally the above applies to you. The fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are from a neighboring country is incidental to the above, not because of it. I don’t think most people would allow a neighbor to just walk into their house, take the food out of their refrigerator, order movies on their cable account, and take their movie DVD’s. Then if the neighbor got hurt in your house, you get sued and have to pay the medical bills. Sound like a bright idea? Would you do it? Of course not. It’s the same thing with nations as with people.

Mark my words, if the proposed law is enacted, it will not be limited to Home Depot. The bum on the corner will have the same rights as the illegal immigrant at Home Depot. It’s not about race; it’s about where my taxes go, and the cost of goods. Illegal immigrants make both go up, especially when dumb laws like this are made.

Worse still if, like many other trends, this catches on and several other states start adopting it. I mean this law is based in the same state that recently had a city ban smoking in your own home. Yes, there was a restriction on smoking [to be exact at least in apartment buildings] that applied to every person, even if you are over 21, can vote, a citizen with the right to something… what was it… the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing like being told you can buy a legal item but can’t use it as is intended.

But I detract from the point. This law is stupid as I have come to understand it. If anyone can provide me the exact wording, I’d love to see it. If anyone can explain why I or anyone should be forced to spend my hard earned money on factual criminals, I’d love to hear it.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Fox News, Home Depot, illegal immigrant, Neil Cavuto

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

Continued from Where is the attention focused - 3.28.2007.1 Part 1...

But there is the real supposition that this wasted time is being done to distract from real issues. The more time spent creating laws to correct obvious idiocy (in my view) the less focus is placed on real issues. Sensitive subjects like the huge illiteracy rate (for a first world nation) or the apparent increase in crimes against children (such as the arrest of the husband of Mrs. Wynnona Judd) or offenses by police officers and law enforcement agencies against minorities (as the Sean Bell case exemplifies) are untouched and unspoken. Even the media at large tends to address these issues beyond a cursory manner.

The Sean Bell matter is a great example, using Fox News as one media source. Rather than discussing what lead to this overkill shooting, what the repercussions of it are, or why there seems to be a trend of shootings that involve double digit shots made by multiple officers against unarmed Black American men and possibly other minorities exclusively Fox News just forgot about it. I say exclusively as I am unaware of any White males that have been killed by police or law enforcement officers in a similar manner, ever. When I say they forgot about it I mean that there was the initial day of coverage and then nothing. Not a word. There was no comment on the indictment of 3 of the officers involved. No comment on why a supposed 4th individual that was believed to have a gun was allowed to escape the area. No comment on how an individual in a car, presumed armed and dangerous, left the vehicle as it was being shot – unhurt – and was not pursued by the officers that surrounded the vehicle.

So where is the research on this? The committees to discuss the causes and remedies to such events? The media coverage on the repercussions. The involvement in the nation on an issue affecting millions of citizens, directly and indirectly. It doesn’t happen because of distractions, notably a week of coverage on a mindless argument between 2 celebrities (Rosie O’Donnell and Donald Trump) or 3+ months of coverage on a cute blonde (Anna Nicole Smith). And of course discussion on the obvious.

Legislators, and the media at large, seem obtuse when it comes to a matter of importance. So much energy has been focused on creating stories out of non-events (like the current Mr. Alberto Gonzales ‘controversy’) that real events are obscured. That is not to say that certain events are unspoken. The war in Iraq continues to be discussed, with a bias on both sides. But that is not the only issue of consequence in the nation. It is not the only matter that will affect us for generations.

A law against obvious idiocy should take 5 minutes, and should have a penalty that actually qualifies as a deterrent and punishment. Attention to name calling and legal battles over the death of a celebrity in name only (with due respect Ms. Smith provided no more to the sum total of the nation than any other cute buxom blonde in the nation. In fact I would say she provided less than many that have not had the luck to have a camera on them) or time consuming controversies that have no more impact than allowing one political body the chance to snipe at the other are insulting. Cut out a half hour of coverage of these non-events and congressional time and maybe we can protect our children, or create fairer protection for all the citizens domestically, or educate our kids well enough that we don’t need to create stupid laws in the first place.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Anna Nicole Smith, black americans, child abuses, Fox News, Sean Bell

Have you read the comments by William Arkin? Published by the Washington Post on January 30, 2007, Arkin blathers on with one of the most insulting displays I have seen in quite some time. His comments are disrespectful, ignorant, disloyal, and incendiary. It is comments like this that give me concern both in the next election and the future of this nation.

The words of this individual are crass and smug. Perhaps he thought that only he and his friends could understand his words and their barely implied meanings. Perhaps he felt that those of us that are, or were, in the Armed Forces could not understand his insults. If that was the case he is sorely mistaken.

When he states in his article, “I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army” he either thinks he is being witty or we the readers are not. By making this statement he has implied that he is not for those who are in the military expressing their ideas. He would not have to make the emphasis if that were the case, nor would he exclude the Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force and Navy as well as the related reserves. From this alone he makes his position absolutely clear, and it is far from one of tolerance.

He later goes on to say that soldiers should be grateful that the public “still offer their support to them, and their respect.” He then purports that the American public should not support or respect the Armed Forces because, “through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.”

Perhaps Arkin was never taught a lesson I learned long ago from my father, a Viet Nam Marine, that respect is something that is earned. The entire American military has earned the respect of the citizens in the Revolution, War of 1812, Korea, Viet Nam, World War I and II, Gulf War, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan (it seems that the latter was completely forgotten about) among multiple other engagements around the world. Our Armed Forces have earned respect around the world for protecting the values and goals of our nation, and for defending the Constitution and Amendments that allow Arkin to make such comments. Were this another nation, perhaps like Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) or North Korea or Venezuela, Arkin would have the local secret police drop by and shoot him dead without repercussion or perhaps poison him with radioactive isotopes to keep him silent.

In addition, the Armed Forces are not pillaging rapists Arkin asserts. To my knowledge there has been one such occurrence of the accusations he mentioned, not the hundreds or more he barely implies. In the years of war we have currently gone through, with hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have barely been any incidents that do not express the efforts and actions to improve the lives of the Iraqi and Afghan people. For a purported ‘military analyst’ (that has never served in the military) located in Washington, D.C. I would expect he might have read that, or seen it on the news.

As for, “But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon,” perhaps Arkin failed to hear of the recent protest (where Mr. Tim Robbins and others were at) where protesters did spit on a serviceman [as reported on Fox News]. Perhaps Arkin is unaware of the violent protests at universities by students that have caused the cancellation of Career Days there. In both cases it is violence against the Armed Forces, reminiscent of what was done to our soldiers returning from Viet Nam. In addition even one ‘baby killer’ comment or epithet is far too much in my opinion. Were it not for these men and women, doing a job no one wants to have done and guided by the Commander-and-Chief for the benefit of the whole nation, there would be no such thing as Freedom of Speech.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Armed Forces, Fox News, Hanoi Jane, Iraq War, Viet Nam, Washington Post, William Arkin

Final part of reply on comment...

As to your final point of imposing views. Islam is not imposing anything on America. There have been Muslims in the world long before there was an America. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today (by some estimates) and that number is growing as it has been for centuries. Islam has not changed a single law in America. Actions of a small group of men that have a religious faith have caused change in America. It was not their religion but their actions that created the change. That is no different than Timothy McVeigh (non-Muslim), Eric Robert Rudolph (non-Muslim), or Pearl Harbor (Japan is mostly Shinto and Buddhist and during the time of World War II the emperor was regarded as a religious figure). In each case it was the actions and not the religion that caused change.

But if Rep. Goode is to impose his view then that is a problem. It violates our basic principles. The freedom of religion is one of the founding beliefs of this nation. To say that any religion should be restricted is to violate that principle. If one religion can be restricted then any can be. Why not restrict Jews, or Buddhists, or Lutherans. Where does it end, and who has the right to choose?

In addition Rep. Goode would restrict non-European [non-Caucasian] immigrants to this nation. I’m not speaking of illegal aliens, but legal immigrants. His basis is that too many Arabs and Muslims are entering the nation. He said this in an interview with Fox News on the same day I wrote the original post. That sounds racist to me. That is the voice of fear and stupidity. To my knowledge and understanding Rep. Goode has never met Rep. Ellison or any Muslims, yet he seeks to enact actions against both. Where does that come from beyond fear and ignorance and, I think, prejudice. It seems blatant and wrong. It goes against the principles of the nation and sets a precedence for future conditions by which citizens can be judged. Religious bias leads to racial bias and vice versa. Conditions on, or preferences of, citizenship leads to second-class or non-citizenship. I see that little different that how slaves were seen before and after the 13th and 14th Amendments. That is a road I never want to go down, nor allow my nephews and nieces to see.

Personally Rep. Virgil Goode can believe whatever he wishes. His religion is his personal choice as is the manner in which he acts with people of different races and religions that are not his own. That is a right that America is founded on. But as a representative of his state and a member of the government, he does not get that choice. He must work with all other members of the government to advance America, and not just his personal views. Whether he and any of his constituents like it or not America is made up of a mix of every religion and race and group in the world. That is one of the facts that make us great. The sum of our parts makes us greater as a whole. For Rep. Goode to impose his limited views is to weaken the nation and to reduce what America is.

That is the danger and the problem. Those are the issues at hand. To see it any other way is, to me, subterfuge and denial.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Part 2 Part 2 of reply on Rep. Virgil Goode's letter - 12.24.2006.2

Part 1 Reply to comment on Rep. Goode's Letter - 12.24.2006.1

Labels: 13th Amendment, Fox News, Muslim religion, Rep. Virgil Goode, WWII

I had quite the experience today. The initial action that started of the chain reaction was the news on Senator John Kerry. As long-time readers may guess, I have serious and massive reservations on many Democrats and no love for any politician that degrades the men and women in the Armed services of this nation. Suffice to say I have anger with the comments made by Sen. Kerry.In essences for those that have not heard this yet Sen. Kerry basically said, ‘If you get a good education, study hard, you will do well. If you don’t you will go to Iraq.’

Like many, in service and not, I find those words insulting. It infers that those in the military today are less than intelligent. Perhaps Senator Kerry should have had someone do the research because the facts are that the Armed Services are better educated than the general American public of the same age group. As reported by Fox News and other sources 99.3% of the U.S. forces have a high school diploma or the equivalent, as opposed to the 88% in the general U.S. population age 18-35. In addition 99% of the military officers have had at least some college education, while 19% of the Air Force, 12% of the Army, 6% of the Navy and 3.7% of the Marine forces have at least some college education. This compares to the 56% of 18 – 35 year olds in the general populace. I hardly call that a force of idiots.

In the defense of Senator Kerry, he does claim that his comments were a failed attempt at a joke aimed at the President. I have seen the video footage of his entire commentary, and in my opinion neither his words nor his tone/phrasing gave any impression of a joke. On top of this, Senator Kerry refuses to provide the written remarks he says he misread (which would show it was intended to be a joke) and has refused – publicly – to apologize for his statements. His response to criticism was to say that the President should apologize for having the troops in Iraq.

I do not agree with why the troops were sent to Iraq. I find fault with the manner in which the war is being handled. Yet I would never assume that those who have volunteered to join the military were ignorant. Those overseas in this war made a choice to defend the views and values of this nation, in effect supporting the causes for this action. That takes thought and critical thinking. To confer otherwise is to belittle the sacrifices these men and women have offered to do for those of us sitting comfortably at home. It is this sacrifice, made by all who have served their country, that allows Americans to complain about what the government is doing and the policies of the nation.

And I am tired by the excuse used by many, especially Democrats in office, that they support the troops but not the war and its cause. Those that have, and continue, to volunteer for military service have done so knowing what is the potential cost. In doing so I believe they are standing by the war and the cause, expanding our form of democratic government. So in supporting the troops one is obligated to support the war and its causes. That does not mean agreeing with the current strategy blindly. It does not mean failing to question ways to improve the situation or find a positive resolution. But hiding your head in the sand when things are not going was well as hoped is both useless and detrimental.

Continued in the post Barbershop thoughts...

Labels: Armed Forces, democrat, Fox News, Senator John Kerry

This is a copy of an email sent to Ms. Hill, and Fox News. Previous commentary on this subject can be found at Duke allegations part 1, part 2, part 3. The letter below is uneditied and unmodified as will be any response received.
October 30, 2006

Ms. Hill, Fox News, et. al.,

I just listened to your commentary on the news about the 2nd woman involved in the Duke rape case. I found it lacking and somewhat misleading.

The reason I say so is that it seems Fox News is presenting the information inaccurately. That is that while the woman did say the accuser said “put marks on me. That’s what I want” the context of that statement is in question. As reported by you it would sound as if the accuser was in a grocery store and made these statements to create a false accusation.

In fact, as reported by via Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse ), what the situation was is that the accuser was “talking crazy” and would not get out of the car. The 2nd woman was pushing the accuser to get her out of the car when the quoted statement was made. In addition the 2nd woman mentioned that she was trying several ways to get thru to the accuser.

Given these detail we see a somewhat different view. While it could be a made up situation, as you clearly seemed to imply in my opinion, it can also be taken as a woman in a very unstable condition that could have been caused by a traumatic condition, such as being raped.

Also the fact that the statements made by the 2nd woman have changed multiple times, going from both women being together constantly to being apart several times throughout that night, and the details have been brought into question. Why this is the case, and why she would speak publicly is a question. But you also failed to note the 2nd woman’s concern over how her comments may affect the case. To quote the above mentioned release’ “It's going to solidify their opinions so much, that they're not going to want to hear the other aspects of the case, which I think are just as important.”

Based on your comments and in my opinion anger at the possible “damage to these young men’s lives,” the comments have done exactly what she feared might happen. This is not what I would call fair or balanced reporting. Considering that perhaps millions hear your words and determine the facts of the case based on your reporting, I feel you have done a disservice to this News event. The coverage of this matter demands more than 30 seconds of airtime. It also begs an impartial coverage of the facts as they exist and not a view that implies, presents, and influences thoughts to one side or another.

I, like everyone except those directly involved, do not know what happened. But I do not agree with any broadcaster or organization that directly misrepresents information that is found elsewhere. You should clarify your comments made on October 30, 2006 @ ~11:30. In addition any further reporting on the case should be modified to reflect accurately what was said and not just a catchy phrase and change of context of the information.

You should know better.

I should mention that I am a multiple blog site owner, and I will also post this letter on my blog (mvass.com) in full. I look forward to your response, and will post that response, in full, if and when I receive it.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,


Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
info@blackentertainmentblog.com

Labels: Duke rape case, Fox News, mvass.com, Yahoo News