This is a response I made to a comment recieved from Logan Calder on my post America is still America. I felt this deserved to be heard on it own as well.

Logan,

I love involved comments that reflect when someone has read what I have written. Thank you. I will try to respond as clearly as I can.

The question of why so many, including myself, have said “I never thought I would see a black president” is pretty easy. It comes from the fact that for some 400 years African Americans have been in fact or in effect second class citizens. For those that are old enough, basically my mothers generation or older, to have lived in segregation the thought of a Black President is hard to conceive of when you can recall water fountains being segregated. For those in my generation, roughly 45 – 30, the memory of blatant discrimination provides the same disconnect. Perhaps the only generation that is oblivious to blatant daily discrimination would be those 20 and under now, though it does happen via television and movies everyday as I have often mentioned.

“Does this suggest that the country is not as racist as they believe??, or do you think that it is simply dramatic behavior?? or something else??.”

No the country is definitely as racist as it has always been in my life. The means by which that racism is enacted or portrayed has changed though.

The 200 incidents of nooses reported in 2007, an act that was unreported prior or since the Jena 6 issue hit the major news media – after 6 months of having been on-going, is one example. The singular consistency of police across the nation to overkill unarmed African American men, ONLY, and the fact that national news media avoids reporting this while relatively trivial news (Anna Nicole Smith's death, the Casey Anthony case, ect.) is followed every day for a year is another example.

But it must be said that President Obama was elected by a majority of all Americans. So there is a change in acceptance. I know of many people that voted for Obama because of retribution against President Bush (which is stupid since he wasn’t running). Others voted against the Republican ticket and the ridiculous adage that Democrats used to great effect – “a third term of President Bush”. And more than a few people were swept away with the thoughts of “change” (which is unspecific and dumb), an end to the Iraq and possibly Afghanistan wars, and/or receiving another stimulus check (which will not happen according to comments on the next stimulus package which I believe will fail miserably).

But for all the reasons Obama was elected there was a clear and steady voice of about 10% of the nation that vocally stated they would not vote for a Black President. If that is an extreme, which I think it is, then on the sliding scale to those that would vote for a Black President we must cross a percentage of Americans that might vote for a Black President under certain circumstances only, and those that would vote for a Black man because they felt peer and/or media pressure to do so, as well as those that did not vote for President Obama but were unwilling to be vocal about it. Put together that is a scary but illustrative number of Americans.

Still there is no question that the media made this election incredibly dramatic. The news media swooned over President Obama back in October of 2007 and never stopped to this point. It was so bad that the media had no choice but to admit their partisan manipulation of information about the election – though they waited until after the election to admit it.

So there are a number of factors that came together to get President Obama elected. Blind Democratic voting blocks, historical passion, a mood of change in the public attitude on key issues, an unpopular war, economic disappointments, a less eloquent and less attractive opponent, the age and health factors, news media bias, and the introduction of the internet as a new medium of great power. All of this combined led to President Obama’s win.

“1. Most white people that I talk to voted for Obama and felt, purely from a political standpoint that he was the best candidate.”

Most people in America right now expect another stimulus check from the Government, though it has been directly and repeatedly stated that it won’t happen. Most people hear and believe what they want to based on 30 second soundbites they watch on television. They infer policy from polispeak, and invariably get it wrong.

There are dozens of reasons to question President Obama’s politics and economic views. One of the most unrecognized is the fact that every economic policy President Obama advocates has been proven to not work in the past. These are not new economic plans, and they have never worked in the past – why do so many believe it will work in the future?

One great indicator of what business believes is the stock market. It is a forward indicator of the economy. While moved dramatically by emotion it is always based in the expectations of success or failure of economic plans.

Thus a positive expectation will cause a factual 10 point move to be a 100 point move, and conversely for negative indicators. The market has lost some 12% as President Obama has been revealing more of his economic intentions. That does not indicate the best political standpoint to me.

“2. I heard several times that “they would never let him win”…”they” obviously refers to white people. And since he won, and received massive support by whites, does this play into the original thought of racial paranoia??.”

Yes the “they” refers to Whites. And yes that is based on the legal, social, and media disparities that exist in America at this moment as well as the last several hundred years.

But again I refer back to what I have said before. The win by President Obama is a culmination of multiple factors. While race was one of those factors, the economy, the wars, and other immediate policies were of far more concern than race. Which is a positive in some respects, and very sad in others. Still there is a bit of paranoia in that as well, just as the scale reflects the racism of some in this nation.

“3. Is there a silent feeling of “wow, I didnt expect that…now what do we do” among blacks that are most likely to use race as an excuse for failure?”

Failure for a President has nothing to do with race. Which is an unfair statement because we have never before had the option to prove that point. But I believe that if President Obama is successful his race has nothing to do with that. Yet considering the nature of the media to emphasize negative racial stereotypes (when the media bothers to cover non-Whites at all) a failure of President Obama will likely be framed in Black and White. That is just an honest observation.

But I believe the nation as a whole is just now starting to ask the question that Democrats avoided throughout the Presidential campaign, ‘what does change mean?’

From a Black perspective, speaking for myself based on my views and those I have heard, there is no expectation of failure for President Obama in the Black community. And were he to fail, that is not about his race but his politics. Yet I again state, the media is more likely to create an issue of race motivating blame than any American. And once the media does so, the nation will likely be engulfed by the issue. Which ultimately helps the media make more money.

“4. Last, do you think that a large portion of blacks are silent about, but resent, the fact that Obama is half white. And could be just as easily (and fairly) called white…if the thought of calling him white is offensive, then you would be a racist, in my opinion.”

I personally could care less. There are millions of African Americans that are mixed with some other race or nationality. In fact most Americans whose family goes back to 1865 or earlier (as mine does) have a mixture of White and Black blood. It may not be spoken about, since much of that mixture from that time was the direct result of White slave owners committing rape – but not always as seems the case with Thomas Jeffesron, a rarity indeed. So President Obama’s heritage is about as important as that of President Bill Clinton, President Bush, President Roosevelt, President Lincoln, President Washington, and so on.

At the same time I must correct a thought you have. Race has always been a factor of what people see in this country. If you have dark skin you are presumed to be Black. You could be Hispanic, African, Arabic, Indian, and so on but you will be seen as Black at least initially. Just as every person from any Southeast Asian nation is considered generally from the same nation. It is an attitude that America has maintained since the days of slavery.

Any non-White is generally regarded as a lump of people of the same color. And because there is a visible difference there is a discrimination placed upon them, historically. Thus President Obama would and will never be called White, though he is a 50/50 mix. Because when those that care about such things look at him they see a Black man.

But I doubt many in the Black community care about his mixture. Because most African Americans can trace a fair amount of White ancestors to their family. There are always extreme views of course, but that is the exception and not the rule. But again the key here is the media.

The media has the unique ability to focus on the issues they wish, in a manner that emphasizes what they wish to convey. Right now the Casey Anthony case in Florida has been on national news programs for about a year. To my knowledge only Bill O’Reilly (for 4 minutes) and ABC News (for 30 seconds) have covered the Oscar Grant case. Exponentially less time has been focused on the 2 other Black men killed by police on New Year’s Day, while unarmed, one also on the ground and the other shot in the back 12 times.

Of just these 4 items of news, which do you believe has a greater impact on the society, and make a more clear statement about law enforcement? What is more worthy of coverage; the abuse of power by police on a seemingly national level or the question of what one deranged mother might have done to her own child that has no effect on anyone else in the nation?

Thus I expect that if the question of how African Americans feel about President Obama’s lineage comes up, it will be due to the media. The answer will reflect what they wish to promote. It will likely have nothing to do with what the majority of African Americans believe. Though it will be promoted as if the Black community was speaking in a consensus. Something that I have not seen since the Civil Rights Movement, other than the election of President Obama.

I hope I have covered all your questions. If not please do let me know.

Labels: 2008 election, African Americans, Iraq War, news media, Oscar Grant, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, race in America, race relations

Well it has to be said by someone. I know the hate mail will flow.

I understand, and am gleeful, about the history being made as President Obama becomes the first Black man that is President of the United States. It is a moment that I never expected in my lifetime.

That said, I have to wonder and comment on the way the media and many people are treating this as if the world has instantly changed. It is as if suddenly every wrong in America has been wiped away. Or so the media would like many to believe.

I recall a recent television commercial on BET that I caught as I was flipping channels. It had a little girl trying to watch the inauguration, but was far too short to see over the crowd. Then Dr. Martin Luther King comes and lifts up the girl so she can watch the Oath of Office. The commercial ends with the words, The Dream Achieved.

Hogwash. The television commercial is inspirational, but the message is false. President Obama is not the fulfillment of the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King, and to suggest as such belittles what he strived for. The Civil Rights Movement was not about just gaining political stature, or a title. It was about the understanding of the fundamental rights of equality that Government and society needs to recognize.

Yes, President Obama is one aspect of that realization. But that does not mean America has reached a point of equality. Oscar Grant was murdered after Obama was elected. Millions of African Americans are drop-outs, and single parents. The pay rates of African Americans still lags that of White peers. The stereotypes of African Americans being criminals and/or violent still permeates music, television and movies (when we have the chance to be seen) by and large. Drugs are still allowed to enter Black and poor communities. The dream is not achieved.

President Obama is just one man. He has entered one position, powerful as it is. And it is worthy of acclaim and celebration. But we should not distract ourselves from the reality that exists before, during and after this moment.

Racism and prejudice still exists in America. It is part of the legal system at every level. It still unbalances the opportunities African Americans (and all other 'minorities') experience in this nation.

10% of this nation vocally stated that they would not accept a non-White president. That is huge. Who knows how many were unwilling to make that same statement publicly. Obviously not enough to prevent President Obama's election, but far more than enough to put me at unease.

There is still only 1 African American in the Senate, a mere handful in the House of Representatives. There are few Governors and Mayors that are African American, or just non-White. There are far less than 1% of major CEO's that are 'minorities'. Even in the far-left, politically highly liberal, halls and studios of Hollywood there is barely more than a scattering of non-Whites in front of or behind the cameras.

It took 14 days for the ex-cop who murdered Oscar Grant in cold blood to be arrested. Protestors of the inaction of police in Oakland were arrested the day of protests. National news media coverage of the murder spoke only to the riots and lawsuit the murder provoked. And virtually nothing was said of other acts of police abuse in the nation at the start of the new year.





The dream has not been achieved, yet.

I am exuberant about President Obama's accomplishment. But the world has not changed this second. Racism has not died. Prejudice has not faded away. The ills and wrongs of this nation have not been wiped clean. The slate is still filled.

Rejoice today because it is a day worthy of celebration. But let us not be distracted from the truth that is daily life. President Obama may change many things, but it won't be tomorrow. He has become a symbol, but action still needs to be taken. Millions will remember this day, but it is only one day.

President Obama is not THE answer. He is not THE only change. He is one part of a huge goal that was hoped for by millions of Americans, including Dr. Martin Luther King. But he is not the end of the road nor the ultimate answer to the challenges before us. The dream is still a dream. And we must still strive to make it a reality.

But thankfully we are one step and one day closer to that reality. Let's just not lose focus.

Labels: African Americans, Congress, Hollywood, news media, Oscar Grant, President Barack Obama, race in America

In general Presidents have their scandals some time after they have taken the Oath of Office, but I find it odd the number of things being thrown at President Obama before we have even gotten into the new year. I can't recall another President that has ever been faced with so many issues, before day 1.

Part of these problems are issues that come from the departing Administration. President Bush has left a minefield of economic missteps that need to be hurdled on day 1 running. The continuing requests of bailouts from various industries, and Congress' far to eager shoveling of public funds to them adds to that burden. And lest we forget, there are people out in the world that just want to see America burn, regardless of who is at the helm.

But there are a great many other issues that stem directly from President Obama, his Administration selection, and/or his past. Conflicts with Vice President Biden are anticipated, as is head-butting with Secretary of State Clinton. Rahm Emanuel is about as partisan as a skunk smells sweet, and I won't even get into the Mark Rich pardon fiasco.

Bill Ayers is regurgitating his old books that dote on a revised version of history that makes him and other terrorists seem nicer in retrospect. And he is starting to churn out more books to capitalize on the favor he provided President Obama by introducing him to politics in Chicago.

Now Gov. Rod Blagojevich is causing his own stink. So far it does not track back to President Obama, and if he is to be effective at all it must not. It's one thing to have Gov. Blagojevich sell the open Senate seat to the highest bidder, but if Tony Rezco is connected to the shadier dealings the Governor has made in the past, President Obama is sure to be dragged through that mud.

And long-time supporter Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is about to learn the harshness of the media and Illinois politics under the bright national lights. I believe he may be innocent, as everything revealed so far shows no direct connection. But noting politicians of both Party's these days I wouldn't go to Las Vegas and make a bet on it.

In the past the media at least waited a little while before sniffing at the heels of a President. And it was the media's major help (or lack of investigation if you prefer) that fueled the win President Obama enjoyed. You would think they would give him the same kind of leeway they gave President Clinton and Hillary with Whitewater and the numerous other allegations (women) that dogged his Presidency [at least at first].

President Obama was elected under the banner of change. A change of entrenched politicians that do politics in the old-fashioned way - which has led to an Administration that is comprised of the people he rallied against. A change in the policies that we have followed for some time - to which we have proposals to increase the direct ownership and intervention of Government in private business at unprecedented levels. A change in taxation, leaning on the undefined rich more and bashing the oil industry - none of which will change at all. And most of all a change from a President that is seen as having interests opposed to the public at large - and we have gotten a look to the past and political influences of President Obama that could be far darker than what we have had before.

We have all this, and the Oath of Office is still over a month away. Somebody needs to give the man a little slack. Because he never championed, nor wanted, the media to change the way it attacks the President. He deserves the chance to prove himself, either the dream some believe him to be or the mistake others are stuck with.

Labels: Bill Ayers, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Jesse Jackson jr, news media, President Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Secretary of State Clinton, Vice President Biden

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

The eve before the Presidential election. And the media is losing it’s mind.

As I was playing in my Monday night 8-ball pool tournament (I’m currently 12 for 12) and happened to look up at the television. It was about 7:30 and on ABC News there was George Stephanopoulos and a reporter. The 2 were discussing projections of who will win the Senate races in various states. This is a day before anyone has voted!

Tell me how ABC is not influencing voters a day before they go to vote. All of this ‘projection’ was based on the early votes made so far. And the early vote is never the majority of a State’s vote. Just doesn’t happen. So they are telling the public what might well amount to blatant lies once votes are done on Tuesday. Unless they influence the voters to not show up, since the outcome has already been decided – by that news media organization.

While ABC News is busy trying to garner Democratic votes, in an act that has never occurred in an election ever before, there is more news hitting the air.

Senator Obama has apparently stated that he will bankrupt coal power plants. This of course will drive electricity costs through the roof and leave tens of thousands unemployed. I’m shocked that this has been so well hidden up til now.



This goes along with the plans of Senator Biden to end coal power usage



The defenders of Senator Obama will rant away about Fox News publishing this video and how not to trust Fox News, but those are Obama’s words coming out of his mouth. The same is true of the video of Biden.

I have raised these issues before over the summer. This is not new information. But for some reason Senator Obama was never connected with what he has said.

Under an Obama Administration the American public will pay more for electricity, as a punishment and a means for reducing energy use. In the next video you don’t need to pay attention to the editorial words added, just listen to what Obama says.



Again these are the words of Senator Obama.

When you go to vote tomorrow remember these facts:

• Obama is in favor of higher electricity prices to force people to conserve energy
  
• Obama is aware that his plans could cause higher unemployment and difficulty for Americans
  
• Obama is aware that the higher costs would be felt directly by Americans and not corporations
  
• Obama promises to raise costs of corporate taxes, but does not believe this will be passed on to the public
  
• Obama does not believe that the higher unemployment will affect America negatively since he will take money from Americans to give to Americans he chooses
  
• Obama disagrees with secret ballots, at least when it comes to unions
  
• Obama supports spending more money the Government doesn’t have to create another stimulus plan (Nancy Pelosi’s idea, cost $300 billion and increasing, did you notice how well the last one worked, and you will pay for that from taxes)
  
• Obama defends Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the others responsible for lying to the public in July about how safe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were – the failure of which led to the bailout you will pay for in upcoming years
  
• Obama’s foreign policy plans are disputed by his Vice Presidential pick Biden
  
• Obama voted in March 2008 to raise the taxes of every American making $31,850 or more
  
• Obama believes the Government that can’t run the post office or the VA can make better healthcare decisions than you can
  
• Obama believes the Government can run a healthcare department efficiently, yet there has never been a department or agency of the Government that has cost less than the year before in 40 years – paid for with your taxes
  
• Obama has never explained his relationship with the self-admitted terrorist William Ayers – who helped launch Obama’s political career
  
• Obama and Biden routinely punish news agencies that ask questions they don’t like – Florida television, and newspapers alike can’t ask questions any more even if you want an answer to that question
  

Every item is something I have covered about Obama since 2007. Every item can be found on my blog, or you can search the net and verify it yourself. Every single item is an important issues for the next President of America.

Are these issues you can live with?

You get one vote, make it wisely. Be informed.

Labels: ABC News, George Stephanopoulos, news media, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden

For as long as Democratic candidates have been mentioning their desire to run for President most of the major media has been promoting them. Going back as far as 2006 the media was virtually guaranteeing Senator Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the nation. Once Senator Obama took the national attention they began they love affair with him.

While that is not as important a reaction when we are speaking about bloggers, though many of my colleagues are more than capable of swinging independent votes as I believe I am, the major media is meant to be independent. It is the purpose of the media to ask questions, tough questions, of the potential candidates. It is their purpose to inform the public of facts and comments of note by the candidates. It is the fact that they receive more attention and response than bloggers of most any size that we rely on them.

But the media has been remiss in their responsibility. There is no question about this. From the New York Times refusing to allow Senator McCain to write editorials, while approving 8 of Obama’s, to the failure of the media to investigate the relationship of Bill Ayers, the media has failed America.

Gov. Sarah Palin has had her kids, her husband, and her friends investigated by the media. Senator Obama has yet to have his friend Bill Ayers confronted. Yet audio tapes of Ayers decry his belief in anarchism, and interviews has clearly stated his lack of remorse and desire to have inflicted more terrorist acts against America. All of that while he served on a board with Senator Obama, and while he was supporting – if not creating – Obama’s political career.

We have heard about every aspect of Senator McCain’s health. His reports have been reviewed and questioned multiple times. So we know that he is in excellent shape for a man of younger years than he is. But there was no question asked of Senator Biden, who denied to present information about his health which is important because of his past health problems.

And just this week Senator Biden directly stated caution if Senator Obama is elected President. He directly stated that Obama, AND ONLY Obama, would be challenged on the international stage because of his inexperience. He further went on to state that the response of Obama would look inappropriate or bad initially. He even went as far as to say that there are 4 or 5 scenarios that could happen.

The major media failed to ask what those potential national threats might be. They failed to ask how America might protect itself, regardless of who is President. They even failed to notice this dramatic and important fact. Because they don’t want to affect those that might chose to vote for Obama. So they would spite America to satisfy their own wants.

In fact, in a moment of honesty, while interviewing Gov. Sarah Palin one of the few honest views on this matter was recorded.



So think of this. What else is the media not telling you about on the Democratic candidates. What other facts that are they withholding because it can affect your vote. What gain are they expecting in return for their targeted help and support of Democrats?

When the media is willing to ignore facts, and report polarized views, how is the public served? And where will it end? Will they ignore important facts about laws that Democrats want to pass that the public may not support? Will they gain tax or other incentives for their support? Are they being bought or allowing themselves to be compromised?

Most importantly, is Senator Obama and Senator Biden really the best choice for America if the public is not being told all the facts? Or are they the best choice for selected groups with targeted agendas that can mold public thought through deception and omission?

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, media bias, news media, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator John McCain

It was interesting to listen to Senator Obama just now. He was speaking at 2:57pm, and it was televised live on cable news. Of course he was speaking in reference to the falling stock market with the Dow Jones trading down 220 points. He made absolutely no reference to AIG or the bailout made by the government.

But Senator Obama did state

‘John Mcain says he will root out the old boy network. The old boy network? In the McCain Campaign it’s called a staff meeting.’ [paraphrased due to lack of transcript]

Now that was said because Senator McCain has been in Congress for the last 22 years.

Of course Obama failed to remind the crowd that his Vice Presidential pick (Senator Joe Biden) has been in Congress for the last 26 years. He is in fact the 4th longest serving Democrat. He is as responsible for any failed economic reforms, energy policies, or whatever else Obama would like to claim along with McCain – if not more. If the old boy network is in McCain’s campaign, what the hell does Obama call the CEO of the network that is his second in command [who does not agree with Obama, nor thinks he should be President]. It would seem that if nothing else the men and women in the McCain campaign are unified – Democrats can’t say that.

Senator Obama went on to say

‘We don’t need a commission to get us out of this mess.’

Actually yes we do. The fact is that while Obama thinks he understands how this all started, he obviously doesn’t. If he did he would acknowledge that this started from the Clinton Administration. The fault started with the failure of President Bill Clinton to prevent or burst the internet bubble. Because he allowed it to happen, it led to this current crisis. In fact this is just a continuation of that original problem.

But since we can’t go back in time we have to focus on the resolution of the problem in the future. Senator Obama believes that raising taxes will resolve the problem, with the addition of creating new sources of energy without additional drilling.

Obviously he need some advice here. He is stating that he wants to take more money from companies (of all sizes) while they are scrambling to raise cash or meet loans. This is while they are receiving reduced income from sales. There is a good plan.

And he intends to make sure that companies receive less funding. All companies. But he expects that these companies will find money, obviously not from financial companies that need to lower their credit risk nor from investors that will have to pay more money on their investments and taxes, to invest into research to create alternative energy sources.

They will have to make money from thin air, to pay his higher tax rates, and increased worker costs, to lose money in developing biomass converters, wind tower generators, and advanced solar cells – none of which exist in any productive manner today. And don’t forget they need to create factories and distribution lines besides the engineering. And that is while energy costs fluctuate higher over time, further reducing every shrinking revenues.

And all this will help improve America. Obama doesn’t need a commission, or advisors to help him? I think I can give him a bit of help and it will be free. Get a calculator because the math you are doing in your head wouldn’t keep a lemonade stand running.

I wonder if he did not mention anything about AIG directly because he doesn't understand why the Government was forced to bail them out? heis comments would lead me to believe so.

Labels: AIG, American economy, cable news, news media, Senator Barack Obama, tax policy

So we are in day what 6 now of the John Edwards sex scandal. Almost every angle of this story has been covered by the media by now, except one. One particular aspect of this case kept bugging me until today I noticed what it was.

The bias of the major news media.

Forget the fact that the 24-hour nature of news today means that cable news is more about a rush to ratings than journalism. Forget that a sex scandal is primetime news. Even forget that some Clinton supporters are trying to use their best polispeak to spin the idea that had this come out during the primaries Senator Clinton would have beat Senator Obama (a fallacy proved incorrect by polls showing an overwhelming number of Edwards supporters – then and now – prefer Obama).

The bias is of the major news media to protect and fail to report negatives of Democrats and Liberals, and to highlight the same type of actions of Republicans and Conservatives.

Senator Obama is unquestionably favored by the major news media. He has been since at least January of this year. And the news showers praise on his every move, covering his actions better than our current President in some instances. And the tone of all the coverage has been overwhelmingly positive.

But John Edwards was a liberal and Democrat as well. And his press was very good for quite a while. And to preserve the image of all liberals and Democrats the major news media ignored the news we now know to be true. It took the National Enquirer to break the story – though the rumor was around for months at least.

Think about that. All the news media knew of the rumor. Not one media outlet, except the Enquirer, bothered to follow-up anything, accepting the denial of John Edwards verbatim.

Yet the New York Times was more than willing to run a story alleging that Senator John McCain was cheating on his wife, without proof or even a rumor. Without anything to back up the story they sought to destroy the career of one politician while at the same time protecting another.

That’s not reporting, that’s creation of news. That’s manipulation of facts. That’s yellow journalism. And it’s an attempt to coerce voters to make a decision that the media industry prefers. So much for the rights of the public.

And the bias has more ramifications than just that. The major news media is effectively admitting that it changes the truth to suit their ends. So how much can you believe about what they have said about Iraq, Afghanistan, or nationalized healthcare? If they would bias the public to a position they prefer in one story, why not another – or a dozen?

Do I mean that there is news about Senator McCain or Senator Obama that we don’t know about right now, or that has been altered to fit their desires? I can’t say with 100% assurance. It is quite possible that the facts reported in the polispeak 10 second soundbites the media loves is accurate, or not even close to the truth. So we have to ask what is probable.

Well it is fact that the media loves Senator Obama. And his own words and speeches do sound quite good – in a general, unspecific, ultra-liberal manner. But given their bias as displayed by the disparity between similar accusations against Senator McCain and John Edwards I must pause.

Ask yourself these questions:

What has Senator Obama done to show he is a bi-partisan politician? Pundits laud his ability to work with Republicans, but where is that in his voting or Senate record?

What plans has Senator Obama actually provided on issues like funding for national healthcare, funding for Social Security, the consequences of leaving Iraq without a victory under preset timetables? The media has lauded that he is for all these items, but not mentioned how he will do them or what the effect will be.

The media has followed Senator Obama for months, like puppies around their master, but when was the last time he had an interview that seriously questioned any policy he has touched on? How many news organizations have pursued answers on issues that will affect America, like they have with Senator McCain?

I’m not saying that Senator Obama is a bad choice for President. I am saying that relying solely on the major news media to give an unbiased presentation is like handing an alcoholic a bottle of vodka and expecting them not to drink it. They might not, but I wouldn’t go to Las Vegas and take odds on it.

Labels: cable news, John Edwards, media bias, New York Times, news media, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama

Senator Obama better be careful, his campaign is forgetting a basic rule of modern pop culture – too much is as bad as too little. I’m speaking about the non-stop media blitz that has been Senator Obama in the media since February. It’s starting to have a negative effect.

According to the Pew Research Center a poll taken between Aug 1st – 4th of 1000 adults showed the following

Democrats:


• 34% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 26% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  Republicans:
  
  
• 67% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 52% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  Independants:
  
  
• 51% of Democrats feel they’ve heard too much about Obama
  
• 41% say they have not hear enough about Senator McCain
  
  
• Overall 48% feel that they heard too much about Obama vs. 26% who feel they heard too much about McCain.

Well that says a lot. It means that Senator Obama has not imparted the American public with enough substantive information on his political policies, if the poll numbers are correct. He had been all over the news for reasons that really aren’t translating into a reason to vote for him as President. But he’d win the political rockstar Hall of Fame in a heartbeat.

Perhaps the problem is that it’s difficult to explain to America how he won’t raise taxes on the average citizen while increasing spending for programs like national healthcare, and raising costs for energy. I still don’t understand how that will be done and I follow politics more than even some pundits.

Perhaps the problem is the racial factor. It is a fact that America is still uncomfortable with the issue of race, and the past of the nation. That was made obvious when the House of Representatives released an apology for slavery, that was quickly buried by the major news media, yet the Senate would not even vote on the resolution.

Add to that the delicate line of what is abusing the race issue, or using it as a weapon. I tend to think the line is a bit more defined than what the pundits proclaim – then again I’m not fighting for ratings. Senator Clinton, and former-President Bill Clinton, made it pretty obvious during the Democratic Primaries. Polls from states like West Virginia were very definitive as well.

Either way one thing is clear. Polispeak is a tool every politician wields, but the Obama campaign better start using an even more effective tool, declarative statements about policy that will improve the nation – if he has any.

Labels: cable news, news media, Pew Research Center, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain

There is an international shit storm about to hit the U.S., and the American media is eating it up. The storm comes in the form of a video released to the Canadian government of detainee Omar Khadr. Omar Khadr is currently held in Guantanamo, after being captured in Afghanistan where he is alleged to have killed U.S. Sgt. Christopher Speer and blinded another with a grenade.

Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen. He is the son of alleged Al Quida financial supporter Ahmed Said Khadr, his father. He was captured when he was 15, six years ago. Canada has not tried to get his release, and continues to make no efforts to regain him. He is facing life imprisonment in October.

The following video is the longest version of the video released to Canada, that I have been able to find so far. It is 5 minutes of 10 that exists. This snippet of video is the material being used by Canadian defense lawyers on behalf of Khadr.

When I say snippet that is because there is in fact 7.5 hours of video. The defense obviously used the most beneficial minutes for their cause. Part of what was excluded was video showing Khadr denying the existence of his family, and urinating on their photo.

I will comment further after the video



First let me say that I am a supporter of the Child Soldier Act [also see here What's better a laptop or food?]. I believe everything possible to prevent children from engaging in war should be done. The U.S. government (at all levels) has dragged its feet in this matter.

Now as for the video, it’s not horrendous. It does show that he is being treated like an adult though, which is illegal for a U.S. citizen child. He is Canadian. I cannot comment on international law (I don’t know it I’m not a lawyer).

The interrogations are being done by CANADIAN agents. They were involved lock step with his American detainment. The Canadian government was directly aware of what was happening, and they felt it was appropriate.

He was deprived of sleep, that is illegal mental torture. But he was given food and rest as the video clearly states.

The wounds he wants to receive pity for were inflicted (as reported by Rolling Stone in the most anti-war form) from the grenade he used to kill a U.S. soldier. [I have seen one news item stating the chest wounds were from gunshots – it is not made clear how he was shot in that same article] That grenade injured his eye and chest. And as noted in the video and the fact he has lived for 6 years he received adequate medical treatment, which the Canadian government was aware of.

These are facts we can determine from what is known. Anything else is subjective, and based on the views of the viewer. And the media is definitely against Guantanamo.

The first sentences of several media news releases says it all.

AP via Yahoo – TORONTO - A 16-year-old captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay sobs during his questioning, holding up his wounded arms and begging for help in a video released Tuesday that provided the first glimpse of interrogations at the U.S. military prison.”

Newsblog - “A 16-year-old sobbing teenager is not, needless say, the image the Pentagon would like you to associate with its infamous destination for "enemy combatants".”

Rolling Stone – “At that moment, Omar entered the extralegal archipelago of torture chambers and detention cells that the Bush administration has erected to prosecute its War on Terror. He has remained there ever since.” [3rd paragraph]

Leader-Post – “Canadian Security Intelligence Service officials "callously disregard" everything terror suspect Omar Khadr had to say during an interrogation when he was 16 years old, according to the Guantanamo detainee's two lawyers.”

And it just goes on.

But let me refer back to something. Ahmed Khadr trained his son to be a fighter. Ahmed Khadr placed his son in a war zone to kill Americans for Al Quida. Omar threw the grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer.

It’s one thing to be against recruiting children into a military, or to force them to fight. It’s quite another to defend yourself as the child tries to kill you. Successfully at that.

In that video, did you hear remorse? Did you hear any argument that he did not kill Americans? Did you note him being upset that his father placed him in the situation he was in? NO, I did not.

You heard a child that wanted sympathy for the consequences of the actions he took, and his father wished him to live. You heard a child (whether he states, Kill Me or Help Me) that realizes that he has done a wrong and is being punished. You hear a trained assassin that is seeking means to circumvent any legal reprimand for his actions.

Are those my opinions? Yep. And of his Canadian government.

So while the media may want to focus on the fact that this murderer, active in a war zone, was a child and was treated, admittedly, badly stop. Before you give him pity stop. Before you hear the roaring tide of liberals saying that war is bad, stop.

Before Omar Khadr threw that grenade he had a choice. While in interrogation he had a choice. Before he urinated on the picture of his family he had a choice.

The lawyers from his defense team had a choice after viewing 7.5 hours of video tape. They chose the most sympathetic 10 minutes. What happened in the remaining 7+ hours?

The news media at large had a choice in how to frame this video. They could present facts, or color the presentation to increase exposure, gain sympathy, and support their political views. Call me old-fashioned but I believe Edward R. Murrow was in favor of facts.

Is his incarceration fair? Not entirely. But then again many nations incarcerate minors that commit murder, some less Westernized nations kill them.

Was his interrogation and torture fair? Who are you asking, me, yourself, the members of SGT. Speer’s unit, or the family of Sgt. Speers? You might get different answers from each, and every one of them is valid.

War is not without its mistakes and over-reactions. It is the single worse state of Mankind. But it is also a reality that has existed for as long as Mankind.

In the end this particular story does not reflect on Guantanamo, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Oil, Terrorism, America or Canada. It is a very small piece of war, and it is sad. Any other thought is what you bring to it, just as I have and the news media in general have not.

I would have to believe that overall we all would agree that this was not a shining moment for anyone involved, but that it is part of the price of war. It’s one outcome in a sea of tens of thousands of outcomes, just as occurred in Viet Nam, World War I, the Spartans last stand, the Crusades and every other conflict known to Man.

So what do you think? Not what the media, or fanatical political or religious groups want you to think, but your thoughts?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Associated Press, Canada, Child Soldier Prevention Act, Leader Post, news media, Newsblog, Omar Khadr, Rolling Stone

So after the ABC Democratic Presidential debate we are left with less useful information on the candidates and their plans for the nation. Many have made comments about the fact that it took 63 minutes before the first question of substance occurred. I believe George Stephanopolis stated

‘Perhaps the most important question on the minds of voters is the economy…’

The most important question on our minds, yet asked 16th for the debate. Obviously ABC felt that style is more important in this Presidential election, and I would say most of the media agrees.

Since the first presentation by Fox News of the highly edited controversial comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there has been little in the way of issues covered on the Democratic race. Discussion of hot topics about huge Liberal and Democrat issues like the war in Iraq, unions, illegal aliens, and the aforementioned economy were all essentially avoided. The Democratic race has devolved into a mud-slinging, name calling match of who is more likable or a pissing match over what minority is more in need of being the first to run for President.

Now I do agree that if it can be shown that the actions of Senator Obama have been, or are being, affected by Rev. Wright it is a problem. I agree that pittances of the comments by Rev. Wright are objectionable. I have no problem with Rev. Wright, now in retirement, moving into a $1 million home, that home being on a golf course, or that the location is predominantly White as some, notably Bill O’Reilly, seem to have issue with. Rev. Wright spent 30+ years building a successful and strong church. His retirement reflects that, and I don’t know why some feel that a Black man loses their credibility, or the weight of prejudice, because they become successful leave the cities and enjoy the fruit of their labor. But that is a subject for another post. Essentially there has been nothing that connects the voting or comments of Senator Obama to Rev. Wright so it is a non-issue for the election.

I also agree that Senator Clinton’s lies about her political influence and experience are important. Lying to the American public is more than a character issue; it is a vital indication of the potential actions of the Commander-and-Chief in 2009. Bosnia is not a misspoken comment, but a blatant lie made to buy votes – proven a fraud by 1st hand witnesses and video tape of the event. The actual negotiators of the Ireland peace process debunked any attempt to grab headlines due to her serving tea outside of the actual talks. This is a real issue because of the lengths used to obfuscate the truth and gain political advantage.

But these are not issues that demand 2 weeks of attention. How many U.S. Presidents never wore a lapel pin during wars, and yet served America with honor and pride? How many Presidents grew up with, and/or knew less than immaculately impeccable people? How many Presidents made more or less money, gave more or less to charity, were older or younger than competitors, or had religious figures and/or friends that made comments some portion of this nation objected to?

Now consider this. How many Presidents have raised taxes during difficult economic times, and how often has that plan worked? How many Presidents allowed America to run from a battle, and what has been the long-term effect on America from that decision? How many Presidents have failed to act on illegal drugs entering the nation, failing to fund education, allowed divisions based on race or religion; and what has been the popularity, effect on the nation, and response from the world?

Those are questions we need to hear answers to. Listening to politicians’ polispeak their way out of media generated snafus could be fun, if it were not for the fact that in avoiding real issues we endanger America. That doesn’t matter if you are Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. The lack of choice and facts limits the options for voters and therefore America.

If I want to be entertained, there are a boggling number of venues on the idiot box that will gladly sap away my brain cells as fat deposits melt me into a chair. Even if I want to get political parodic commentary and polispeak spin I need only reach for my remote, or type up youtube.



Pennsylvania voters have an obligation to the nation, one that but be paid in full on the 22nd. They must ignore the people not in the race. They must avoid the ratings oriented media. They need to look at the actual issues the nation faces and vote for whomever they believe has the best answer for America. Anything less, anything altered because of a personal bias based on race, gender, or regional preferences is un-American and a disservice to the nation.

The news media is a media outlet first. They want to get ratings, and every news organization on television regularly edits, modifies, and ignores newsworthy stories solely with the goal of ratings in mind. That can be easily proven by numerous stories I have covered that they have ignored or glossed over in the past 3 years. If you don’t believe it just look at the cover of TIME magazine.



I have spent over a year covering various aspects of the Democrats, Republicans, and issues in this Presidential election. I am not alone in that. But unlike the major news media, I am not doing this because I expect to get a greater share of the internet audience, it’s because I believe we all deserve a better America. And if anyone in Pennsylvania votes without that in their mind, they are wasting a right that untold numbers of Americans over centuries have died for.

Freedom is not free; making a vote based on the issues is the least one can do as payment.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Bosnia, Democratic Presidential candidate, education, illegal aliens, news media, Pennsylvania, Polispeak, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton, Time magazine

I recall stating in recent weeks,

“I have yet to hear any of the sermons of the religious leaders of the churches of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, President Bush, or anyone else.”

It was a comment that reflected the fact that the media focus on 30 second soundbites – compiled from 5 – 10 second clips of 5-6 speeches made by Rev. Wright – of polispeak are being used as a tool to deter voters from joining the Senator Obama camp. My conclusion was that the comments were not friendly to Whites and the American Government, but were taken almost completely out of context. The media molded an impression of the words of Rev. Wright, and then extrapolated that impression onto Senator Obama and the entirety of the impetus for this was based in race and prejudice.

But the real stark fact was that the media, that sought out the videos and slips of words of Rev. Wright, made no noticible effort to cover or learn of the comments of the pastors of any other Presidential candidate. There is the bias. If the views and comments of a religious leader is important for one candidate, then it must be important for all of them. Yet only the African American pastor and candidate have fallen into this skewed interrogation.

That is until I found this information recently.

It seems that Senator Hillary Clinton’s former pastors have had a few things to say. Now you may wonder why they have made comment and what they had to say – as well as the reason why the major media threw a wet blanket on these relevant and newsworthy comments.

By the way, Senator Hillary Clinton has not been a member of any church for 16 years. That matches the time that she has been out of the White House. Thus there is no current pastor to listen to for her, nor is there a church for her to leave as she stated in this quote

“He would not have been my pastor," Clinton told a gathering of the campaign press corps, repeating a line she used earlier in the day on a Pittsburgh radio program. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” – Speaking about the video clips of Rev. Wright used by the media.

So for the religious that think Senator Clinton reflects their faith or is setting a morale stance, keep the facts in mind.

But of the pastors she did have while her husband was President and watched every Sunday have made comments.

Dean Snyder, senior minister at the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington D.C. - which the Clintons attended while in the White House – stated,

“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.”

Reverend Edward Matthews, who opposed both Iraq wars, supports same-sex marriage, opposes the death penalty, and has been a passionate critic of American foreign policy, served as pastor of First United Methodist from 1990 to 1998. The Clinton’s attended his church for the last 2 years prior to entering the White House. First United Methodist remains the only church of which Mrs. Clinton is a member.

He also attended prayer meetings at the White House while they were there. In addition to that he campaigned with Senator Clinton prior to the Iowa Caucus, and made a video testimonial for her. And he has said that at one time he even shared the views of Rev. Wright.

Rev. Matthews has actually heard a sermon of Rev. Wright. His comment on that was,

“If you are very close-minded, you would have gotten up and walked out of that. But I appreciated what he was saying." Rev. Matthews said. "I wouldn't have said it that way. I wouldn't have been so animated.”

As for whether she would leave his church because Senator Clinton disagreed with Rev. Matthew’s position on same-sex marriage, the death penalty, the Iraq War, or supporting Isreal he stated,

“She's disagreed with me on several things, but she remained a member of the church. We've remained close friends”

So it would seem that those preachers that can be identified as knowing Senator Clinton have made themselves clear. They support and defend Rev. Wright. To varying degrees they agree with him. They, in degrees, disagree with Senator Clinton’s political views. And she has not disavowed any of their comments in the past or present.

Thus I have to ask where is the major media coverage of this? Where is the controversy of the comments that Rev. Matthews made about America during the Viet Nam war? Comments that would have been viewed as strongly as those of Rev. Wright today. Where are the questions about how these pastors affected the politics of the Clinton’s?

Where is the investigation into the comments of Senator McCain’s pastor?

I am left with a single thought. This is all polispeak, meant to obfuscate the reasons to nominate Senator Obama, and assured to be brought up if he gets the nomination. It is racism under the guise of religion – 2 areas that are mostly taboo to question unless you are African American it seems.

There is nothing that justifies the manner and degree to which Rev. Wright has come under fire. Nor is there a reasoning, beyond that which I have mentioned, to attribute those misquoted, out of context, 2 – 3 word video snippets to the politics and character of Senator Obama. Thus anyone that would alter their voting due to all of this should also alter their voting for Senator Clinton, and perhaps Senator McCain. In effect none of the religious leaders for any of the candidates, as can be ascertained, are above reproach or question.

This is well disguised racism and prejudice. America should not have their votes determined by such paltry, disgusting, and meager reasons.

Vote for the nominee you believe in. Vote for the President you think is best for America. Vote because it is your Right, and far too many have died and bled for that Right. But don’t vote because someone, other than the candidates in question, spoke 3 words that by themselves sound uncomfortable to you.

Labels: Freedom of religion, news media, political bias, Presidential candidates, presidential election, religion in politics, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Wow. The media has finally gotten something that they have been waiting over a year for, and they are feasting. I’ve rarely seen such a universal and demostrative move by all the major media in the same direction.

Of course this is all about Rev. Wright, the former pastor of Senator Obama. It is the first time that there has been an issue placed against Senator Obama that has stuck, and there is no question this is not going to be let go. I’m sure Senator Clinton is gleeful.

Regarless on how you feel about the Democratic Party or candidates, you have you see that right now the media is jumping on this like white on rice. I have seen more 5 and 10 second clips of Reverend Jeremiah Wright than any other single issue ever. And in fairness, no one can be represented in 5 or 10 second clips of conversation. Thats a fact no matter what those 10 seconds of conversation discuss.

I will add that I have reviewed a full 3 minutes of one of the sermons that Rev. Wright made and has been used often in news media. And in that 3 minutes there was roughly 15 seconds of material that was questionable and worthy of refutation. Of course review of one piece of controversial material is hardly a means of making a conclusion. But neither is the multiple 10 second clips without context, though media would like to portray that.

What I am seeing is something that Senator Clinton has been attempting to do since November of 2007. Making the Democratic nomination a matter of race, and banking on the fear of African Americans to ensure a win.

The Clinton campaign has approached this through multiple means, from rumor emails to photos of Obama in a native African garb. In each case she and her campaign have been shown for what they were doing. Race baiting and using deplorable tactics to fuel her raw ambition for power.

This is differnt though. It’s an independent source, and a lot of them. Yet the question is how much of what Rev. Wright says is really wrong, or different than what African Americans (or just all Americans) think.

As I have stated, Hillary Clinton, and former-President Bill Clinton, don’t know what it is to be poor and Black. They have not had cabs refuse to carry them or been called the most disgusting, insulting, and derogatory terms in the english language. They have never been called traitors to their race while being called too aligned with their race. And every video clip of Rev. Wright saying so is just factual, if a bit uncomfortable to White voters.

But comments stating that the America created and spread AIDS, or that we caused the attacks on 9/11 are blatantly wrong. They are deplorable and insulting. Most importantly they are wrong.

But does any of this have anything to do with Senator Obama’s politics? I have yet to see a connection made between the objectionable comments of Rev. Wright and a pattern of voting by Senator Obama. In the frenzy to finally have a negative that can be used against Obama, no media source has shown a connection that makes this a valid concern. I find this no better than what was done against Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith.

Show me the connection. Show me where religion intersects with politics and I will call for any politician to be removed. Especially if those remarks infringe on the rights of an American citizen. But at the moment there is only video clips that last 10 seconds.

Senator Obama has served on the Illinois State Senate, and was elected to the federal Senate. Rev. Wright has been a pastor for 20 years. I’ve heard no connection to problems with the pastor up until about a week ago.

I have heard that Rev. Wright was in the lead against Apartheid when few were willing. I’ve heard he was an advocate of gays. I’ve heard he’s done many positives. So in combination with his negative remarks I take him to be just human and flamboyant. But I have yet to find him influential. But I can name several White Christian pastors and preachers that are more flamboyant, vocal, political, and questionable that are not given this same treatment.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell are but a few of many popular names that have been promoting political ideals and laws since at least the mid-1980’s. Several have made scandalous statements repeatedly. And Republican candidates are loathe to confront or refute their comments lest they lose these votes. Yet I have never noted a day filled with videoclips of portions of their sermons.

I am not standing up for Rev. Wright. But I am noting the diametrically opposed manner in which he his suddenly being treated and Senator Obama along with him. And I have to question why, after over a year of campaigning and 2 decades of sermons, is there such a furor now? What suddenly changed that every media station is suddenly learning this information that Chicago and Illionois have know for years. That have been available since the day Senator Obama announced his run for the Presidency?

The only reason I see is the most sad and deplorable. This sudden focus and negative attention is because Senator Obama stands on the threashold of running for President, and because he is Black many are getting scared.

I knew America is still racist in areas and in legal matters, but I thought this was still fair game. It would seem I and many were wrong.

Labels: Democratic Party, news media, race in America, racial controversy, religion in politics, 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

And the political games go on. It’s a toss up between religion and money. Seriously, that’s what the Presidential candidates are selling, and your vote is the purchase price.

On the Democratic candidate side we hear so much on how to fight the impending recession. There have been stimulus plans offered by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama that are all about money. The plans are very similar, Obama offering $250 and Clinton $500. Sounds great right?

If you vote for either of those candidates on that basis, I am deeply offended. It’s one of the cheap tricks that politicians use to get a vote. In effect they offer nothing and hope to gain a lot.

What the offer amounts to is a rebate on your taxes, one time. Sounds nice right. An extra $500 in your pocket. Except that it won’t stay in your pocket long. The hope is that you will go out and spend the money on buying something, thus helping the economy. But I think most Americans would rather spend the money on paying down on the car, mortgage and/or credit cards. You want to clear your bills, especially when the economy looks shaky and your job is questionable.

So that won’t help the economy, your job won’t be more stable, and you end up with the same bills the next month. An example is say you own a home. You are behind on the heating bill, because of the huge increase in oil prices. You spend the money on the heating bill bringing you even, until next month when you have another high bill to pay. That rebate was a waste.

Now if the stimulus plan was really meant to help you, you would get an extra $50 a week from your paycheck. That would likely mean a tax cut. You never hear that term from Democrats because it means less money for social entitlement plans. But if they did you would get an extra roughly $200 a month or roughly $2,500 (taking out a 2 week vacation). Which would help you more? Getting an extra (assuming the average American income is $27,000) 1.9% once, or 9.3% over a year?

Mind you that this is simply a plan. Once elected there are innumerable reasons why the plan will not actually happen. So not only are you betting on the candidate winning, you are betting on them giving you a pat on the back versus actually helping you and the economy.

Oh and if you think this is a new idea look back on any election year with a possibly bad economy and you will hear it. Even as recently as 2007 Senator Clinton came up with a cheap vote plan that got her some quick television advertising and fell of the earth as soon as she didn’t need it. You do recall that she wanted to give every child in America a college bond of $5,000 right?

“Fifth, if the average college tuition is $22,218 (private) or $5,836 (public) and we assume 10% annual growth for just 18 years that means (forgive my math it’s been a while) $98,973 and $32,380 respectively. Taking $5,000 for 18 years at 10% (current rates are 4.75%) then Senator Clinton’s generous gift of your money generates $27,936. Now if my math is correct (which I’m sure I will be told if I am not) and interest rates go up to and stay at 10% (not going to happen) there is still a shortfall of $4,444 just for public school.”

Of course the Republican party is little better. We are watching as every candidate is trying to implore to us that they are more devout than the other. They want us all to believe that their religion is a cornerstone of their moral base, while at the same time denying it could have any impact on how they would run the nation.

Hogwash.

First of all since when is religion of a candidate a factor in the qualification of a Presidential candidate? Besides the huge question posed to President Kennedy when else has it been an issue? Where do they connect?

When you have a President you have a leader of a nation of dozens of religious faiths. He cannot favor one as that would alienate a swath of the nation. And it’s not his job. His job is to ensure the safety and prosperity of the nation. The spiritual health of any individual citizen is their own issue.

I mean seriously, if candidate X can quote a religious tome does that make them any smarter? Will they be able to avert a mortgage crisis any better? Will they prevent the loss of jobs overseas, or prevent illegal immigration any better? No.

The reality is that while we may be sure that candidate X may be more spiritually at ease with themselves it gives us no guarantee they are a good person or effective. To presume that a religious belief confers such is idiocy in my view. It just gives away a vote for nothing.

I mean how do we know that because candidate X was in a church on Sunday, or whatever holy day applies, that they were devout? That they truly believe. That they weren’t just hoping, and planning, on a bunch of television cameras to be outside the event waiting for them to exit. That they didn’t take a nap during the religious on-goings.

Cheap attempts to get your vote are popular, moreso now with 24 hour news and cable networks in the hundreds. There are so many opportunities to showcase an act that looks good but equates to nothing that deals with the actual function of the nation.

I don’t dispute the religious belief of any candidate. In fact I discount all of their beliefs as I an not capable of understanding what they believe in their core. In addition, with the seperation of church and state in this nation, their religious faith is without any importance to their actions if elected.

So when you think about it, there are many attempts to gain your vote on the cheap. Realize that and instead consider the actual plans, comments and history of each of the candidates. Race, gender, age, are all irrelevant factors. What they have done, and spent their lives doing is.

Labels: cable networks, cable news, Democratic Party, news media, Presidential candidates, Republican Party, Senator Clinton, social entitlement

Continued from The Black middle-class is not better than 5 years ago Part 1...

The point of this is that while one part of our society is extolling the perceived improvements in our society, the other part is reeling from the reality. Is there any wonder why inner city schools are not getting additional funds they need. Or that police departments are still biased in their actions or that hate crimes are increasing yet hate crime statutes are unevenly applied?

Something needs to be done. The facts are out there, but without action the numbers will just continue to degrade. That action must come from both sides of this disparity. Just as no one side is singular in fault, no one side can fix the problem.

I say we need to remove the welfare system. Its inception, in the current form, has created benefits only to single parents with multiple children. It has enforced the single parent household, and is a malaise in the Black community. In its place I say we go back to the original concept from the depression era. Everyone works, no matter how trivial the job, and for that they get a wage.

I suggest that ½ of all police officers must come from the communities they patrol. Only those with a connection the citizens they protect do so with an even hand.

I suggest that inner city schools are the priority in getting funds. Every school must have enough books for all the students, and those books should be current to within the last 5 years.

I suggest that we hold the media accountable. No longer will music videos depicting violence, degradation of women, drug use and sale be allowed on the airwaves. I respect the right of artists to be free to express themselves, but at the same time the public has the obligation to not be shown promotions of these base acts.

I suggest that major news media becomes more responsible. An even hand and fair reporting is more essential now than ever. Rather than consistently showing only minorities every time a negative trait in the nation is discussed balanced images should be shown. Instead of 95% of all Amber Alerts, and missing persons reported on the news being only Whites, a fairer look should be done. Black children are missing too.

News stories involving African Americans deserve airtime too. The Jena case did not just happen; it’s been discussed for months by bloggers before the media bothered to pay attention. The Megan Williams case, which has been ignored, is more important than 2 days of discussion about Ellen DeGeneres losing a pet.

These may be small steps in appearance, but they are answers to the roots of a problem that has been ignored for too long. They are simple steps. They are responsible acts. And they will benefit the nation. But to continue in the manner we have will result in steps backwards to a time and acts some assume only existed in the shadowy past of America. But all shadows never disappear completely, and given time they can grow long in their reach.

America cannot benefit from 70% of a class of its people being unable to attain the same or better than their parents. America should not have such a situation to contemplate. We are better, and we can do better. All of us.

Labels: African American, Black community, education, Ellen DeGeneres, inner city schools, jena 6, music video, news media, welfare

Concluded from Facts are not as important as myths Part 3...

Does the Black community have problems? Of course we do. So does every community. But the press is all over every misstep and poor decision of Blacks. It’s so extreme that similar crimes, executed or reported at virtually the same time, are not discussed by the major media in equal amounts of time. The African American suspect is featured overwhelmingly, even if the White criminal is red handedly guilty.

Given the facts of the numbers what can we conclude by the actions that happen daily in this nation? That there is a prejudice that has never gone away; but has evolved to present itself in quiet and somewhat more subtle ways. Since the first slave boat arrived in the colonies, Blacks have been seen as dangerous and wild. Today we get the same almost subliminal message. And some wonder why there are tensions between races.

Let me be clear. I am not denouncing Whites. I am not absolving African Americans. I am not saying more than what I have observed and the numbers state. I am constantly questioned how I can claim the media, or the legal system is bias. I am confronted when I comment on the absurdity of White privilege. I am insulted when I point out observations that run counter to historically held ideals.

But I merely state what I notice. And I will continue to do so. I love America, even with these flaws. I stand by this nation, right or wrong. I will defend this nation, even when it wrongs me. I do this because it is the greatest nation on the planet, and it is capable of becoming even more. But you cannot become better without effort and pain. If what I have written makes some uncomfortable, if that discomfort leads to a better more equal America, then I am happy. That is my intention.

But what do you think?

Stats are from:

• 1.http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm



• 2.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

Labels: American Slavery, Black community, legal system, news media, racial controversy

Continued from Facts are not as important as myths Part 2...

Michael Richards went into a racist rant, and was only covered in the news after 2 ½ days of the video being at the top of YouTube. Within 24 hours the story was turned into how this might affect DVD sales of the Seinfeld show.

Don Imus took 3 days before it reached the major news airwaves. Within 2 days after that the question from pundits and news anchors was why certain words were promoted by rap artists. The questioning never addressed the fact that there have been constant debates, arguments and articles against the use of these words for over a decade. The questions also failed to address that corporate executive’s greenlighted the marketing and solicitation of a specific type of music that contains only these words, and that they virtually removed artists that promoted any other form of the genre.

I can go on. There is the month long attention to the death of Anna Nicole Smith, and the scant attention to the death or month long delay of the burial of James Brown. 2 days of conversation about Ellen Degeneres whining about a pet vs. coverage of the above mentioned Megan Williams. I’m just picking major stories; I have discussed all of these individually in blog posts.

The point is that there is a bias in the media. I’ve said it over and over again. The result is that there is the image of all African American males as being stupid, violent, drug-addicted, felons. It’s not true. It’s not even close.

Yet there is no suggestion of White males as being wife killing, co-worker murdering, school mass murdering, hate promoting fiends. If there was a fairness, an equality of the major media, that would be the conclusion. It’s actually more accurate as the numbers show. But the mere suggestion of such a thing evokes anger and cries of lack of education.

Without knowing these numbers I recently claimed that young White males are the most dangerous people in America today. For that I was told I was mentally challenged, a fool, and uneducated (all in far more colorful and explicative laden wording, which is why it was not approved). But having done the numbers it seems I was not only right, I am dramatically right.

Yet for all this information, for all the facts that more Whites are killed in a given year – overwhelmingly by other Whites – over the last 29 years (if not longer) and in every year, Blacks are feared and demonized. African American males, of all ages but particularly the youth, are considered dangerous and animalistic yet without real validation.

Concluded in part 4...

Labels: African American, Don Imus, James Brown, Megan Williams, Michael Richards, news media, racial controversy

Continued from Facts are not as important as myths Part 1...

Then think of this. See how many news stories are followed up when the criminal is found to be a White person. See how quickly stories are dropped when a crime is horrendous or obviously racially motivated by Whites.

I offer these examples:

Megan Williams was tortured, raped multiple times by White males and females, stabbed, choked with a noose, had boiling water poured on her, and perhaps more. The story garnered less than 5 minutes of national news media attention to date (to my knowledge)

The Jena 6 case was on-going for months before the media bothered to mention 1 comment on the injustice there. The fact that nooses were used was ignored as being a hate crime – by definition – and the dozen or so cases of nooses being found around the nation got maybe 2 minutes of attention. The death threats from White supremacists against the 6 Black boys received another minute of attention

The case of the White teen being beaten by 6 Blacks received 1 ½ day of coverage until the exact moment that the police in Norfolk stated on national news that this was not a racially motivated case and that there was provocations made by the White teen. Not another second of the case has aired since.

The Duke Rape case was followed for over a year. From the first day media pundits and news anchors disputed the credibility of the victim. Every step of the case and prosecution was questioned, and every facet about the victim’s life and friends was reported promptly. In every reference to the White males the word innocent was used.

Every week since the OJ Simpson trial ended, a reference to OJ being a criminal and guilty of the murders he was found INNOCENT of (by a jury of his peers that included White jurors) has been made and continues to be made. Virtually every case that involves the murder of a woman, especially if an African American is involved or questioned, brought up references to OJ and claims of his guilt.

Prior to the Bobby Cutts case, a White male killed his wife and 3 kids. He was investigated and was arrested. His arrest occurred at the funeral for his family. He blamed, as I recall, his wife for the crime. The entire case got 1 hour of coverage, most of it occurring prior to the start of the Bobby Cutts case. I doubt most Americans can name the state where the murders occurred in, the family’s name, or the industry that the White male held.

Continued in part 3...

Labels: Bobby Cutts, Duke rape case, jena 6, Jessie Davis, Megan Williams, news media, oj simpson, racial controversy

So recently I had a comment on a post where I was told about homicide rates of Black on White crime. Now considering the source of the information, I had serious doubts on the credibility of the information. So I decided to look around and find the facts.

The facts (as reported by the Department of Justice) are that 86% of White victims are killed by Whites, and 94% of Blacks by Blacks since 1976 to 2005. A White is most likely the attacker in murders of family, at work, with poison, or if more than one person is killed. If drugs are involved, or an argument, then the numbers make it more likely to have a Black offender.

But that still did not answer some questions I had. So I looked further. I found that a Black or White friend is highly unlikely to be a victim of a person of the opposite race (8%), and a stranger is only killed by a person of the opposite race 25% of the time.

Focusing on 2006 (estimated data from the FBI) there were 611,523 violent crime arrests and 17,034 people murdered. 70% of all arrests were for Whites, with 59% of those responsible for violent crimes being White. And White teens represented 67% of all teens younger than 18 arrested.

And in 2005, 61% of all hate crimes were committed by Whites (20% were by African Americans). There were 828 incidents and 975 victims of anti-White hate crimes. As for anti-Black hate crimes there were 2,630 incidents and 3,322 victims. Black-on-White murders were 934 (8.8%) vs. White-on-Black murders of 337 (3.2%).

There were 296,507,061 American citizens in 2005, and 299,398,484 in 2006.

Ok, so those are all the numbers, but what does it all mean? Why did I bother doing all this research?

Because the numbers are often twisted and misrepresented by the media and those that have a bias one way or another. Because these stats are the basis of ignorance and prejudice in the hands of some.

If you go by major media reporting you might not get the same kind of impression that these numbers give. That impression, spread across the world, is that Blacks kill Whites on a regular basis. You might believe that all African Americans are violent, or that Black teens commit most crimes. You could gather the opinion that most criminals arrested are Black and that the Black community is filled with murderers and violent felons.

Watch the nightly news; see how often an African American face is attached to violent crimes. Count the time that Black images are shown in regard to crime, or how many news stories feature alleged African American perpetrators. Notice how often reports claim a non-White is being sought in connection to a crime. When you actually notice these things, you see a trend.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: African American, Black community, Department of Justice, FBI, hate crimes, homicide rates, news media, race in America

I’m so pleased that the New York Daily News has made an editorial piece yesterday, challenging the Presidential candidates to provide answers to several questions that are critical to the future of America. I salute them in their attempt to get clear answers. I applaud the fact that they want to know where the plans are, and who has them. I just want to ask them one question, what took you so long?

When I say that I mean it. I started asking significant and serious questions of the candidates back in December 2006. I highlighted the fact that the comments from the Presidential candidates of both parties were obfuscated with 30 second soundbites and little else.

“There is also the fact that for a majority of the voting public, information and opinions are formed from the various televised soundbites found on news broadcasts whether they are local or on a 24 hour cable channel.”

I surmised that there have been no clear plans on any currently hot or politically significant issue back in the first quarter of this year.

“Yet, in my opinion, less information is known about the views, and in some cases the voting records, of these individuals.”

Only now has the New York Daily News caught on that the public has yet to learn anything that would motivate us to elect the next president of the United State, much less consider their potential for the position.

“Considering the thought that many are gaining their insights on potential candidates from 30 second blurbs, edited and presented to match a political preference of whatever corporation may own the broadcast, this is unacceptable. Even the few debates that are held contain little real information; rather they are extended soundbites that are framed to capture the attention of selected target groups without actually defining exact parameters or plans.”

In the past I felt that it was the fact that I am not as famous as say Mr. Bill O’Reilly, Ms. Michelle Malkin, Mr. Larry King, or Ms. Rosie O’Donnell. I also considered that the staff of the various candidates were too dependant on the televised looks of the candidates to provide answers to serious legitimate question, even when they were asked by a constituent of one of the Senators. But it appears that even the Daily News was rebuffed by some of the candidates.

Why is this the case, that it’s so difficult to get answers from those that wish to guide the nation at this crux point in time. Why is it that after 7 months, only the New York Daily News has been observant enough to notice the failure of the candidates to provide the public details? Why did it take so many months, and several debates, for the news media to mention that such inadequacies exist?

I may not have the massive staff, the fame provided by an organization with decades of existence, or the revenues funded by millions of readers (yet); but I was aware enough to start asking for more than mere soundbites in 2006. I have difficulty understanding how major news media could not come to the same conclusions. Either way the Presidential candidates are obligated to provide more to the public, and the news media are obligated to make sure they do.

I’m glad a challenge has been placed before the candidates, and saddened that some failed to take up this crucible. But until all who wish to be considered can be precise, without relying on the crutch of soundbites and pat answers, the challenges must be demanded regularly. That is the stick, with the carrot being the Presidency. I can think of no better motivation.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Daily News, Larry King, Michelle Malkin, New York City, news media, presidential candidate, Rosie O'Donnell, soundbite politics