I had the most interesting experience the other day. This experience leads me to ask a few questions. The first is whether the age of a Black person in any way influences their ability and/or propensity to use the N-word? The second is what rule or unspoken law mandates that African Americans must vote for a Democratic candidate?

What happened is that I was out having a drink with friends. Now realize that I am in Binghamton, an area with approximately 3% Black population. So when a White guy came up to me and started to have a conversation, that I wasn’t really paying attention to, that somehow hit on the fact that he would not use the N-word – but his Black friend would – I wasn’t too shocked. Out here I often hear random Whites discuss with me how they feel about racial issues, and invariably they have a need to impress upon me the fact that they are not racists.

Of course I stated my position. That the N-word is a vile word and no one of any race has a right or need to use this term. And at that moment his Black friend, who I will call Eric, popped up and mentioned that I was wrong. Eric’s assertion was that he had every right to use the N-word, because he is Black. When I said I am no less so and disagree, he was put off. He then felt the need to try to set me in place by letting me know he was 43 and born in 1964. To this I informed him that I was 40, born in ’68, and saw no way that age applied.

Now in my eyes there is no way to justify the use of this term. Those of us born during the Civil Rights Movement never endured any of the hardship of those few that were in the Marches and having sit-ins. That is not to say that the 70’s and early 80’s were without incident (or even today). But I don’t compare it to the 1920’s or 1950’s. So being in the 40’s has no meaning to me. Of course someone alive from 1865 would have a better argument, as would anyone in their 80’s. The first because of experience, the second because of due respect for their age.

Am I wrong? Does the meaning of this vile word change at all when spoke by someone with a darker skin than a lighter one? To me there is no difference in being punched by a person with darker or lighter skin, so there is no difference in the use of this word.

Now a bit later in the evening, Eric was leaving and felt the need to walk over to me. There were 3 Black people in this bar and that was a lot. Though Eric made on effort to speak with the Black woman that was there. His comment was

“Hey fellow Black man, you have a good night. And did you vote?”

When I mentioned yes I was asked if it was for Senator Obama. I did not. I was asked if it was for Senator Clinton, with a bit of surprise and disapproval. I did not. He then asked with more than a bit of incredulity “Senator McCain?”

Yes I did.

This then lead to the question of why I did so. My response was why shouldn’t I. I was then told that he was a Republican. When I bypassed that obvious fact and asked why I should vote for a Democrat Eric then proceeded to inform me that he is 43, a homeowner, a business owner, and formerly worked as a senior executive. When I reminded him of my age, and mentioned that my casual attire did not reflect my personal success, he agreed that we both did were not reflecting our success in our attire that moment.

Again I pressed the question of what Democrats have done for the nation and African Americans in the past 20 or even 40 years? I was then told that I was deluded, sold-out, and without common sense. Eric then walked away.

At no point was I given a reason why I should vote for a Democrat. The unspoken comment was that since I was Black I owe Senator Obama a vote, as well as any Democrat. Now I am 40, a business owner, soon to be a homeowner, successful in my current and prior careers for over 2 decades. None of either of our personal successes were derived from anything other than our own drive and actions. So where is the reason to change my vote?

I hate when anyone presumes or attempts to belittle my reasons for doing something, based solely on my skin color. Especially when they don’t have any counter-reasoning for me. Had Eric tried to ask me a question or give me a reason I could have discussed this with him. As you my readers know, I’m hardly a novice in covering the political environment.

So am I wrong? Do I owe Senator Obama my vote? Is being Black an obligation to vote one way or another? If so why?

I really want to hear the other side of this. The side that Eric was too busy trying to obscure with his personal successes to bother to credibly offer.

Labels: African Americans, Democratic Party, political bias, Senator Barack Obama

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

This is a reply to a comment found initially under Duane Dog Chapman, reposted to Rev. Manning - sad, vile, and trying to influence your vote - 3.28.2008.1, and commented on there. But as the latest comments seemed to completely diverge from the point of both posts I felt it deserved a post of it’s own.

I will quote from the latest commentary and then reply. Please go to the Rev Manning post to see the original comment.

“the reason I posted that article and link in the http://www.blackentertainmentblog.com/labels/Fox%20News.html site, is because that I never knew either of these blogs existed and why would I?”

Well Anonymous, I will correct one thing. It seems that you commented under my Duane Dog Chapman post because you were unaware of the political blog. Fine.

Though I would have imagined that you would have noticed some of my references to VASS, and the links to it. Since you did not, I take the blame for that and will correct it. While many have found each blog from the other blog if you could not, others may not as well. And I will thank you for highlighting that.

“well, I posted the racial lineage of Obama which you call an attack? why is reminding you that Obama has only one grandparent that is African an attack?”

As for your comment being an attack – yes I do feel it was. You brought up a fact – that was unverified - that was not significant or relevant for the purpose, seemingly, to denigrate and/or weaken the opportunity and status of Senator Obama. Politically I do not agree with many of the proposals of Senator Obama, but I do not agree with attempts to dissuade vote from him on a basis of race.

His heritage is not a factor of his choosing nor of his ability to affect. His ancestry is whatever it is, and I have no problem calling him Black and/or the first Black President were he elected. I have no problem, nor do I believe it has any relevance, with his heritage and how it could affect his ability to lead America.

And I ask, why is mentioning Senator Obama’s lineage important in deciding his worth as a Presidential candidate? What benefit does this fact, which you provided no factual or credible link to, create or deny? And if it is important, I ask then what are the grandparents of Senator McCain and Senator Clinton?

As for why you would know of my blogs? Well obviously you found it. And you were looking for something that dealt with some aspect of Fox News that had reference to what I wrote about at Black Entertainment USA. You obviously read through at least one post, so I gained you attention. And you could easily have contacted me for questions or checked other posts as both are clearly posted.

But I would hope you found my blogs because I have insightful commentary on a range of issues, some you may agree with, and others you won’t. I would imagine that is why tens of thousands from over 100 countries read my blogs every month.

“and your 'black' this and 'black' that how would and do you react to and orginization that called itself White? why do you perpetuate the need to keep defining yourself by the color of your skin?”

As to dealing with organizations that were defined as “White XX”. I deal with it as every African American does. The more important fact you do not realize is that most organizations in America are de facto White XX. Look at movies and television. Look at most corporations. And so on. America is designed to emphasize the Whites in this society and minimize all other races. Being a minority in America is to deal with “White organizations” every day in almost every facet. To be aware of that and acknowledge it is just stating the obvious. But if you are not a person of color then I take it that this is just a given of life and not as obvious.

I do not perpetuate nor need to be defined as a Black Puerto Rican. I am a Man, and an American. But it would be foolish and a lie to say that American society, and some individuals, react to me in such a manner. Far too often I am seen first as a Black man, and in that visage all the baggage that is claimed under that title. I am often not treated equally or fairly solely on the basis of my skin. I have noted many occasions of this through the blogs. This is not done to separate myself, but to give others that never have these experiences a window into the world that does not affect or happen to them. And I am not unique in this point. Every African American I have ever known, without regard of color, education, sex, or location has had similar events and reactions.

Why does the media feel the need to perpetuate negative images of Black Americans? Why does the entertainment industry feel a need to ignore the existence of minorities in America, and when they do address our existence it is to promote the worst aspects of our cultures? Rap was a positive music genre that the music industry refused to acknowledge or support until the emergence of a then sub-genre ‘gangsta rap’. But the industry flooded the airwaves with that type of rap and suddenly proclaimed that rap was no longer a fad. Odd how it took more than a decade and the promotion of the worst aspects of a community to suddenly be accepted.

“I must say that I find anonymous posts that are placed out of context as a comment on a completely separate post as cowardly. This one went to a completely separate blog, which I own, to make the comment. I suppose the thought was I wouldn’t notice. Surprise, I notice everything on my sites.

do something about your paranoia and shoulder chip..splinters in your head must be uncomfortable” [italics and bold as per the writer]

LOL. As for the chip on my shoulder, the splinters in my head, and my supposed paranoia – I just have to catch my breath from laughing. Yes I am very confident in what I write and say. I have a passion for what I believe and will defend my positions strongly. I am authoritative and I do not fear dissenting opinions. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Any person that writes a blog, especially on as topical a group of subjects as frequently as I do, should be both thick-skinned and confident. I believe that all writing presented to the public must be passionate and from the heart. Because there will be those that disagree, sometimes equally as passionately.

Debating issues that affect America is a positive. But it is only beneficial when the writers believe in what they are saying. When they provide a benefit to the reader and allow them to gain a new insight or confirm their convictions. That is part of the reason that I place so many links to sources of information, quotes, and video clips. So that I provide my readers with facts that they can read and ultimately gain their own perspective from. I may not be right, but you need to prove it to me because I’m not going to just take someone’s word that I am wrong.

After 40 years and many experiences here and abroad, I’ve earned my confidence. I’ve owned businesses, been homeless, swept floors, lived through earthquakes riots and a coup attempt. I’ve gone to college, had numerous friends jailed or killed, avoided drugs, and lived across the nation. I’ve been a Marine, and buried my father. If after all that and more I was not confident, then I would agree something is wrong with me.

But if you do not agree with my comments about your comment I can’t help you. If you disagree or think that I am wrong in a post, give reasons and back them up with a factual source (if possible). If you think there is a relevant point that needs to be made about a post, make the comment and state it. But be aware that I may not agree, and I will give reasons why.

Whether you believe it or not, I value every opinion and comment I get. I really do. Either because I learn something new or I get to highlight why I believe what I have written. And because I do get comments and am read across the world I make a point of being as credible and passionate as possible. Though that does not make me everyone’s cup of tea, and I don’t want to be.

I write from a Black Puerto Rican Male viewpoint. As such some will not like what I have to say on some issues. But it is a viewpoint that is not readily available via the mainstream media. And there are points that I feel need to be expressed and some that need to be challenged.

Your comment about Senator Obama’s lineage has nothing to do with his abilities or his attempt to become President. It is based in a racial reasoning to cause voters to vote against him on a superficial and irrelevant reasoning, in my opinion. Thus the comment was moved to where I though it more appropriate, and my comments were made. I stand by both decisions. You have not given me reason to change that reasoning – with the exception noted at the beginning of this comment.

If you wish to defend your reasoning, please do. If you wish to discuss my “paranoia” go ahead, as long as you refrain from vulgar or personally demeaning language. I am confident in my views and thick-skinned enough to take a few hits, but I would hope you can share a new insight with my readers and I so we can learn something different. If not, I’m ok as well.

Labels: black americans, Black Entertainment USA, Duane Dog Chapman, Michael Vass, political bias, racial controversy, Rev. Manning, Senator Barack Obama

I want to share a response to a comment that I recieved at Black Entertainment USA under the post of Coming to a movie theater soon: Monopoly - 2.20.2008.3 and my response. I feel both are more appropriate on this more political blog.

Every part of the following is verbatim and can be seen at the above link. I believe that the commentor meant to respond to one of my posts referring to the racial and false religious attacks against Senator Obama. [By the way, I do enjoy comments and generally don't care if the responder is anonymous or not. But I do not enjoy small minded racial, religious, or gender based prejudice and intolerance.]

"Anonymous said...
He is of muslim descent ding-a-ling. The name has everything to do with our future. Your not gonna have the women in the United States wearing burka's. How the hell has he helped the taxes in Illinois, What has he done for this state. We are one of the highest taxed States in the country. I cant stand hooples...the youth of the country voting for him are stupid."

M. Vass said...

Anonymous,

I can see why you didn’t place your name to this post. First, I find it quite interesting in your choice of term to try to denigrate and minimize my posts with. Generally I find the more eloquent wordings better, but yours was a cute blast from the past.

Beyond this, I feel the need to emphasize that you obviously placed the comment on the wrong blog. Considering that you posted this to my entertainment blog, under a post about Monopoly becoming a potential movie in the near future, I think you were a bit confused at the time. Or you were fearful of making the comment under a more appropriate post such as Democratic Presidential candidate’s tactics and behavior which is found at my political blog – VASS.

But, lets deal with the comment as it pertains to Senator Obama and his growing success at becoming the Democratic Presidential nominee.

As I stated in the post I referenced above, The Clinton campaign has used the background of Senator Obama’s parents (particularly his father’s religion) and his given name as a reason not to vote for him. You seem to agree. I find that ignorant.

Senator Obama is of African and American descent. To be more exacting he is of Negroid and Caucassian decent. The religious background of his parents is not a birthright nor a genetic imperitive passed on to him at conception.

Further, his name is not a determination of anything in his life. Were it true as you suppose, Billy Bob Thornton would never be an actor or person of note, but instead a poor farmer of dubious parentage and unlikely to be able to sign his name. Such is the stigma attached unfairly to such a name, and with no reasoning behind it. Another example might be John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It could be said that such a name could imply that this great President of our nation was gay and a drunk. Of course only the most insipid of minds would come to such a conclusion, but they might say this because his middle name comes from his mother and the last is related to his Irish lineage. Niether are true to my knowledge, nor affected his ability.

Or perhaps John Wayne, whose real name is Marion Robert Morrison, was gay? Or Albert Einstein was a Nazi because his name and parentage is German? I can go on throughout history, but the point is a name does not make a man. A man (or woman for that matter) makes the name renown by virtue of their actions.

But in your fear adled mind a mere name is enough to make you worry that women in America could be forced to wear burkha’s or that laws based on our constitution would be suplanted by those of a strick religious sect, which is not the most populous sect followed by a majority of Americans. I’m sure if you were told that the sky was falling or that certain actions with your hand would make you go blind you believed that too. I am also lead to believe that your knowledge of history is defined by your belief that those just like you were always right and beneficial in every act ever done. You are a fear monger, and appear ignorant of facts both present and past.

As for the taxation in Illinois, I cannot answer that. I am not a native nor resident of that state. Though I am sure that the taxes in that state are not the sole responsibility of this one elected official. Perhaps he has not done enough for your state, but sharing in that responsibility would be the Governor, another Senator, your Congressional representiatives, and the Federal Government most recently headed by President George Bush and his administration. But that is a legitiamte reason, if correct, to not vote for Senator Obama. That is your Constitutional Right. As is the Freedom of Religious Expression that this nation was founded under.

By the way, what is a hoople? I find that the urban dictionary has multiuple unofficial meanings. Do you mean you don’t like birds that cannot fly straight? Or the hardening of nipples? Or prehaps you are more against a preson who drinks to excess (normally refered to as a drunk or alcoholic). Possibly you mean to say that you dislike people similar to a character in the book Mott the Hoople that was lazy. Of course none of these meanings seem to apply to Senator Obama, my readers – I believe, with the exception of possibly the writter of the comment this is responding to, or myself.

You claim that the youth of this nation are stupid. I doubt that. While many may be misguided and/or are making decisions without understanding the full ramifications of the actions that is neither a new thing nor stupid. I in fact believe that the youth of today are educated, and far more knowledgable of current technology than many adults. Many are far more understanding of religious, racial and gender differences than their parents have ever been. Far more than what you appear to be with your limited scope of understanding and inability to use technology accurately.

So in fact I think you may be projecting your own fear and lack of willingness to become educated onto the youth of America. That seems far more apparent and resonable.

With any luck, and the attention of American citizens that actually care about the best interest of America, we will never have a President – nor any elected official at any governmental level – that reflects the small minded, zenophobic, religiously intolerant, illogical, uneducated, probably racist and gender biased mindset that I believe you have displayed.

That is what I believe. And I am happy to present my name not only throught my blogs, websites, and businesses but also on this post.

Michael Vass

Labels: Black Entertainment USA, Freedom of religion, Michael Vass, political bias, President George Bush, President John F. Kennedy, racial controversy, religious tolerance, Senator Barack Obama

In discussing the Presidential candidates and the election in 2008 I have read large volumes on both sides of key issues. I have read the comments of pundits, bloggers opinions and facts they have dug up, and the comments and information on the candidates’ websites. Often there is conflicting information on the same issue, or the writer injects their viewpoint on the subject.

I have tried to be neutral in this matter. I want to present both sides fairly. That is not always easy. But there is a difference between what I do and what others claim is a fair comment. I’ll give you an example, because it just annoys me to no end to read something that claims to be an even discussion and in fact is a one-sided slam.

“I'm upset with both parties and particularly the brainless media that's obsessed with catering to the right. There's no striving to set the crooked straight. It seems nobody cares about what people care about.”

In just one sentence we get the disconnect. I like most are upset with both parties. Neither is really doing anything except getting donations and trying to look more Presidential than the other. The major media is only promoting this aspect, unless you believe that an issue like the retreat from Iraq or what to do about the impending shortfalls in Social Security are issues that can be answered in 30 second soundbites. But to say that the media caters to the right tells me several things.

One is that the above quoted writer does not understand what the left and right represent. To say the media leans right is absurd. Pick up virtually any newspaper or watch virtually any news program, listen for a discussion or case about immigration. When the media speaks about immigrants that have entered the nation without following the law see how they phrase it. Undocumented workers and immigrants are a common reference, not illegal immigrants. That’s one example, but recent polls show most of America recognizes that the media leans LEFT. So you know the above quoted writer is about to bash the Republican candidates.

And bash is what happens. The Republican Party is cited as doing nothing but committing errors, Senator McCain is called out by name as a leading bovine. The President of the United States is insulted and ridiculed.

Then we get to hear about the ‘savior’, the left.

“…liberals who seem to be doing a good job of focusing on the dishonesty of our politics…”

Get real. There isn’t a Party in this nation that doesn’t include dishonest politicians. I believe that being arrested for accepting bribes, and having $90,000 in a refrigerator qualifies as dishonest and that was a Louisiana Democrat. The writer continues to mention the great healthcare program that the top 3 Democratic candidates have. Hogwash. Not one candidate in either party has a plan yet. None of them. They have ideas, and good soundbites. A plan would mean they could answer where the money for the program will come from, what incentives will be made available to motivate further medical innovations, and how to avoid the pitfalls of national healthcare that every other nation has currently.

I severely dislike the hypocrisy disguised as concern some present. If you pick a side, then discuss it. If you think one Party is better than another say that. But to say there is equal problems that need to be addressed do not hide an agenda inside the message.

I’m not picking a side, I’m highlighting hypocrisy. The writer is no better than the Presidential candidates and political Parties. We cannot have an improved nation or a good President if partisan arguments are used to promote one side or another. Social Security, immigration, terrorism, the wars, education and more are serious issues facing the nation. The next President will be crucial in defining the direction America takes for the next 10 years. Bias and emotional preferences will not help get the best choice elected.

Both sides have problems. None have given a good answer on the issues. None have given plans to resolve the issues. We deserve more. But to negate one side or another as the writer above has doesn’t help. We need to be aware of that.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: election 2008, political bias, presidential candidate, Republican Party, Senator John McCain