President Obama vs. Fox News - bias or not?

So the White House is upset with Fox News. The President just doesn't like the coverage he gets there. Because they must be less than legitamite since they criticize his Administration. Are they serious?

Now I have no problem with anyone that wants to critique the major news media. There are multiple issues I have, ranging from the disproportionate representation of people of color in television shows to the subliminal reinforcement of stereotypes in news coverage and advertisements. I write about it often. But to be realistic, there is no one major media outlet that is far and away worse than all the others.

Of course when we focus only on the news media I begin to see the situation. Considering that virtually all the news media fawns over President Obama, Fox News actually doing there jobs must be a pain in the ass. They are the one place that reality sinks in, and rockstars prefer groupies to critics.

Think about it. ACORN has abused the system, promoting criminal activities and corrupting votes across the country. It took over a week and a preponderance of evidence before the rest of the media even noticed there was a story there. Hmm, political corruption on a national level. Sounds like a job that the news media is supposed to do.

What about officials in the Government. Besides telling the public about people in positions of power that have less than reputable backgrounds (Van Jones is a great and obvious choice) isn't it the job of the news media to mention the problems (like failing to pay taxes - which almost everyone in or proposed to be in the Obama Administration has failed to do) in our Government? Isn't that what most of the media did non-stop against President Bush?

And those are just 2 examples of many. The fact that a President is a rockstar does not mean they are above critique or observation. It's part of the job. And President Obama has had many things to critique, just check my political blog VASS to see what I mean.

When President Bush was in office, didn't he get hammered with tough questions every time he spoke to the press? Wasn't MSNBC treating President Bush even worse than Fox is accused of treating President Obama?

The media is not perfect. They all have agendas and preferences. But for the White House to attack one organization for doing its job - that smacks of abuse of power. How dare anyone question President Obama. How dare anyone question obvious flaws in policy. They have to be solely stooges for political adversaries and racists. Except that would be a lie to say.

Notice that the White House has not stated any materially important facts that were wrongly reported or commented (ie correcting the name of the city of an upcoming Olympics is not materially important). Notice that there is nothing that wasn't true. They didn't like it, but that does not mean it was false.

No, the White House would prefer that the public either drools with excitement (like some at MSNBC seem to do) if President Obama speaks, or completely ignores the news of the day. It's much easier to pass legislation that no one has read if no one pays attention.

Fox News is not perfect. I have had issue with some of the statements and coverage it has presented over the years. I have disagreed, strongly at times, with the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sheppard Smith. Yet I watch the channel every day because even when I disagree, the quality of the news and commentary is consistently far superior to other channels. And it is because I watch everyday that the silly internet bashers that misquote, and the bullying of the White House stand out for what they are.

Simply put, if an Administration is hell bent to make sure you don't see something it stands to reason that you should pay attention. Put another way, if this was President Bush telling you not to watch a news channel many would flock to see what he disliked and why. The fact that President Obama is Black and a rockstar politician doesn't change that reasoning.

From Right and Left, the media gets Hillsboro town hall wrong

On August 18th, Bill O’Reilly discussed the charges of racism at a Missouri town hall. This is a news item that first surfaced on CNN, and has since risen in controversy. O’Reilly, and Dr. Marc Hill went over several of the facts of this case.



The problems though are many. Foremost is the fact that it seems all the details of what happened have yet to be accurately described. Yes, the White male was arrested for assault. Yes, signs are not allowed at that town hall meeting. Yes, the woman was in violation, and it is unclear what was in the mind of either individual involved.

The fact that the poster was of Rosa Parks does not instantly mean anyone knew who she was on the poster. I bet many of my readers wouldn’t be able to pick out Rosa Parks picture without help. Still that does not give anyone else a right to assault someone for the poster either. Even if they disagree with the poster. But that doesn’t make it an outright racial event. Especially at a highly heated debate as the health care reform issue is.

Based on those facts, CNN is wrong in allowing a depiction of this being a racist act. But O’Reilly is wrong to dismiss the accusations of signs with the N-word. It is something that is being reported, though not visually backed up, and thus is questionable as to veracity. So Dr. Hill should have stood stronger on that point.

But when Dr. Hill makes the claim that the town halls, across the nation as he implies, are all racist – I think he is channeling Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There is no proof of this. There is no way to even make a credible argument for this. So in effect all he is doing is fanning racial flames. Which is wrong.

But O’Reilly goes off the deep end when he assumes that the only possible way a person can find there to be racial animus at a town hall is if a White opposes President Obama’s health care reform – and thus must be assumed a racist by anyone Black. It is illogical and fallacious and insulting. Such reasoning is as bad as the claims of Dr. Hill. If this is not what O’Reilly meant, he did a supremely poor job of making his position clear.

But there is more to this, as I found on Youtube.



Given the additional video evidence, the question of racial discord seems far more credible. To a degree.

There is the fact that the initial incident looked to be approaching an explosion point. Which would mandate the separation of both parties. But if the excuse for the removal of the Black woman is the fact that she had a sign, why were the others with signs and flags allowed to stay? Why were police so forceful with the Black woman, once she was separated from the man assaulting her, and adamant in expelling her? Why were police so uncaring in dealing with other sign holders in the crowd?

And from the evidence I was able to find, I did not once see anything that included the N-word. Nor am I aware of any credible source stating that. Still there was a remarked difference, which should be addressed.

Was this event a blatant racially biased event? I think not. Though there was plenty of insensitivity and more than enough emotion – for various reasons. And I think that CNN, Tim Wise, Fox News, O’Reilly and Dr. Hill are all equally at blame for sensationalizing what happened at Hillsboro. Which just makes it that much harder to really address obvious issues when they appear in the media.

In all honesty, the major media can kiss my buttock when it comes to covering racial bias in this nation. The major media has a blind eye to what really should be discussed, and a knack for sensationalizing the more trivial events. I mean I still have yet to watch coverage of the Oscar Grant case, or Adolph Grimes and Robbie Tolan, which took place this year. Yet there was no end to coverage of OJ, and the spin on that was anything but a witch hunt.

This event is a tough call. It is obvious that there is a disparity. Much like the systemic disparity I have often spoken about. But if we only get to see the edited versions the major media provides we are left with an equally biased and unfair view of events from either side.

Perhaps that is the most important thing to keep in mind. Today the problem is not only the systemic problems that we as a nation have carried forward over centuries, but the overreactions of media in (rarely) both directions when they do choose to hype a situation. Ultimately neither helps resolve anything. And everyone loses.

I don’t think all town halls are like this. I don’t think everyone is like this. But until we deal with the underlying issues, and the ideological propaganda of the major media, it will only get worse.

Bill O’Reilly interviews Senator Obama – part 4 oil and ANWR

In the last portion of the interview between Senator Obama and Bill O’Reilly the subject of domestic drilling and alternative energy sources are discussed.



Now remember that when this interview was taken the Democrat-led Congress refused to discuss in any form domestic drilling. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was adamant in refusing to even consider the issue. Also note that Nancy Pelosi hold a substantial position (worth in excess of $250,000) in alternative energy stock.

But today OPEC has cut back crude oil production. The only reason for this is to sustain and elevate the price of crude oil. This is also timed directly for the winter heating oil season. For those that believed that crude oil was going to go back down, they had not considered the cyclic ups and downs of crude oil. Thus the need of alternative sources of oil are deeply in demand.

And Nancy Pelosi has hinted recently that Democrats will consider allowing some domestic drilling if some unstated factor is given to Democrats for their compromise. Though they emphasize that alternative energy must take primary attention.

Given this the fact that Senator Obama is against domestic drilling (based on his voting record) but states that he is for it is confusing. The same can be said about his willingness to create nuclear power plants as he told O’Reilly.

I will never understand, and Senator Obama makes no credible argument against, drilling for oil in ANWR. The amount of land suggested for drilling is miniscule. The disruption to wildlife is questionable. Yet the need for reliable sources of energy, until a viable alternative is available, grows daily. If Senator Obama wishes to side with an animal over American citizens, I cannot see him becoming President. I love animals, but people come before them for me.

Still Senator Obama is correct about the fact that money must be spent on all alternatives to find which is the viable option. All options. Note he leaves out nuclear in his description of where he wants to spend your money.

By the way, where will the new money for all these energy development and research plans come from? Senator Obama tactfully leaves out that. It’s called taxes, these on energy usage, which is left out of the economic plans that Senator Obama speaks about. So much for increasing the money in 95% of paycheck receiving citizen’s pockets.

And while we are developing these new energy sources Democrats seem to forget that America will still need energy. And if we are not drilling domestically we will be paying more money to foreign countries.

But I suppose if you can get to ANWR (which will take fuel unless you walk), and stay warm (more fuel), you might love the “beautiful real estate” and that will make it all worthwhile (while the pipes in your house freeze)

As for foreign policy, the clear signal so far has been that Senator Obama is unsure of what to do in the real world. His speeches sound great but his response is questionable at best. Georgia knows this, as it took him a week to support them. Iraqis know this as he fought to not send troops to that nation and create the stability that exists today. Russia, the Middle East and many other nations love the idea of an Obama Presidency. Because they think that it also means an America that avoids the issues in the rest of the world, slow action, and little impediments to attrocities. Unless you think the constant comments about Darfur that Senator Obama makes are changing things in the Sudan.


If you want to see the full interview of Senator Obama and Bill O’Reilly, from start to finish, please go to [www.mvass.com] VASS. You can also find commentary on all the candidates and the issues we all believe to be important in this election.

Bill O'Reilly interview with Senator Obama - part 3 Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright

There is nothing more interesting than watching a politician discussing the merits of their background or in some cases the counter position. Tonight we saw Senator Obama take the counter position. And in one issue I agree and the other I disagree.



When it comes to Reverend Wright I absolutely agree that there is no case against Senator Obama. Rev. Wright is not a politician, he was not elected by the public, and he has the right to say whatever he wishes (without promoting violence, racism or other such acts). Rev. Wright is a religious leader. And I dare any personality of note to withstand having five 10-second soundbites of their words being taken out of context.

When Bill O’Reilly asks if Obama was in the church during some of the objectionable sermons, Obama said no. No proof exists to claim otherwise, so I accept his word. The fact that DVD’s existed for sale means nothing, unless someone can prove that Senator Obama purchased or was given one of these DVD’s. And even if he had such a DVD, it does not have anything to do with politics.

For anyone that wants to argue the counterpoint I ask you to show me a political vote in which Rev. Wright influenced Obama’s vote. [And I feel the same way about Gov. Sarah Palin’s religious influences]

As for the issue of Bill Ayers, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine on the issue. I find Bill Ayers to be relevant, my friend does not. The reasons are a simple set of rules that I believe defines what relationships of candidates are fair-game and which are not.

When any friend or associate of a candidate is considered the question to be asked is relevance. Did this person directly influence and/or affect the outcome of a vote by the politician in question. If a line can be made directly then I believe they are fair to investigate and publicize, if not they are off limits.

Thus Ayers is a legitimate issue for Senator Obama. Bill Ayers is an admitted criminal (by the standards of today a terrorist). He is also unrepentant on what he did some 40 years ago. If he could he has stated he would act in exactly the same manner again. But he is unpunished via a loophole in law. Thus he is now able to be directly involved in politics today.

Now Bill Ayers has been a key figure in getting Obama’s political career started. He has served as a teacher with Obama. He has given fundraising events for Obama. He has discussed Chicago politics with Ayers early in Obama’s career as I understand. Thus he has had the ability to influence how Obama would vote. He is fair game.

My friend disagrees. The argument is that any association could be claimed to have influence. That if, as in my life, I knew a criminal – say a convicted felon that had served time for armed robbery – that I would be jaded by that association.

But here is the difference. While I may have grown up with individuals that became criminals, that was their choice. I have never violated a law. I have never accepted money from a criminal (or suspected criminal), or questionable source. No questionable source has aided me in attaining my business or clients. In fact, while I may have had dinner with or been at events that the ex-con may have been at, there is no connection to any actions I have taken in my life. Thus such a person is off-limits and any connection is invalid. To mention them is mere polispeak, attempting to scare away voters.

Ayer is a criminal, by his own admission. He has directly benefited Obama’s political life. He has had ample time to discuss and affect the political acts of Obama. He is very fair game.

And I do have a problem with a President that has been influenced by a former-terrorist that is unrepentant about his actions. That does not reflect what I believe about this nation even on the worst day. And it does call into question Senator Obama’s judgment, to choose to be connected, for years, to a person that has such extreme anti-American views.

Obama never explains his visit to the Daily Kos conference. For those that are unfamiliar with the Daily Kos, it is a far-left blog. Well to be fairer it has several far-left blog writers. They have made several obnoxious and unconfirmed comments about any politician that does not conform to the exact style of government they would prefer to see. They have wished death, insulted family members, disrespected the office of the President and more.

Now Senator Obama went to the Daily Kos conference as did all the Democratic Presidential candidates at the time. They all sought the support of the far-left to win their Primaries. But why he did so when they are known for their vicious attacks is not clear. I have to believe that any Democratic candidate can win an election without having to have the support of near radical elements of their Party.

But to be fair, this is not every blog writer, nor reader, of the Daily Kos. But there are more than a few. And I have no idea of a single commentator on almost any network (except maybe Keith Olberman) that has said anything nearly as hateful, disrespectful, and vicious as some of the things found on Kos. If I am mistaken please let me know.

When it comes to General Patreaus and Moveon.org Senator Obama is not exactly clear or truthful. He did speak about the Moveon.org ad – which blatantly insulted the General and the entire Armed Forces. He spoke about it, but when the Congress gathered and voted to condemn the insult made, Obama declined to take a stance. Senator Clinton voted in favor of the ad.

So while Obama had plenty of polispeak after the fact, when it counted he in fact took the side of Moveon.org – along with 3 other Senators as I recall the vote. Senator Obama may have been offended, but he voted as if he wasn’t.

But I will say that Senator Obama does strongly defend his positions and the things he has said. When it comes to decisions he has made he has shown, throughout the interview so far, a decided unwillingness to bend – not unlike the accusations made about our current President’s unwillingness to change course.

Senator Obama is correct that every tangential act of anyone he has ever known is not fair game or politically relevant. He is correct that some in the media are overeager to find fault with every word spoken by him or those around him. But it is also true that some associations are important to be explained. Some comments must be responded to. And he will not always like or agree with which person or comment is investigated. Such is the bar to be President.

And by the way, Bill O’Reilly has taken several questions too far in this interview, and he knows it. As in his question to have Senator Obama name his conservative friends. They have no more reason to be put under scrutiny than Reverend Wright or a high school classmate of Obama. Unless they have affected the votes of Obama in an undue manner, or have a past which reveals an anti-American agenda, they deserve to have their lives remain private.

The last part of the interview, revealing why domestic drilling is bad and why alternative energy should be explored exclusively should be interesting as well.

[By the way, if you would like to review Senator Obama, Senator McCain, the Primary races, or the Vice Presidential picks just check out the relevant hyperlink. I’ve followed and written the 2008 election since 2006.]

Bill O'Reilly interview with Senator Obama - part 2 analysis

Well the questions between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama on the economy was interesting. And aggressive.



First are the facts. The economy grew during President Bush. The average wage increased for Americans $400 to $500 dollars, that’s on top of the $2000 it grew under President Clinton. And the Federal Government increased revenues by 20% under President Bush. Spending by President Bush has been outrageous though, and wasteful.

Now if you want to see what I think of the increases on the corporate tax structure just check out my previous post [Democratic tax plans: a look from reality]

A more realistic view is location 11%, Energy 4%, Advertising 1.2%, Raw Goods 3.2%, Communication 4.2%, Operation 2.35%, Outsourcing 2.2%, Employees 32%, Tax 34% - which nets 94.15% of Revenue. Increase cost of higher taxes means that the 6% profit becomes 11.5% in debt.

Senator Obama clearly states that he will be increasing taxes on investments to at least 25%, which is massive. It means that to make a decent return on an investment – say the historical 11% that most mutual funds have made per year – you in fact have to make a 36% profit to get the return, which most stocks never make unless you are in the middle of the internet bubble. That is a fact I can attest to from my experience as a successful stock broker.

So to make attactive profits for inestors, companies will be forced to make changes. As I have stated in the abovementioned post, that means that since virtually all costs are fixed except employees they will absorb the hit as will consumers.

Also note that Senator Obama restates a previously stated comment. He states that 95% of Americans will benefit from his tax plan. That is a lie. He has clearly and repeatedly stated that 95% of American that RECEIVE A PAYCHECK will benefit from his tax plan. Business owners are not included in his savings, no matter the size of their business.

Bill O’Reilly also failed to mention that Senator Obama, along with his Vice President, already voted to effectively increase the taxes of all Americans making $31,850 or more this year. That’s a 3% tax increase on roughly 95% of Americans.

Now in a quick statement Senator Obama mentioned China

“…[the debt has] gone up $4 trillion dollars, that a credit card we’re taking out on our kids from the bank of China, that they’re goning to have to pay back…”

While I too have no love of foreign investment levels that currently exist I have a problem with what is being implied. Does Senator Obama plan to limit who can invest in American companies and banks? Because in a free economy you can’t stop anyone from investing.

In addition, I am unaware of English, French, or German companies, individuals, or nations stepping up and offering to make the investments in America that the Chinese and Saudi Arabians has offered. So if we are to have these investments and no friendly countries are offering anything, what are we to do?

The counter position – which is never being mentioned – means that we refuse the investments of these nations, or limit them. That also means that several of our banks, this year, would have been short on average $5 billion each at least. That means that at least 2 major money center banks would have failed this year. Without that foreign money the economy would have crashed as the dollar got crushed and inflation flew thru the roof because banks would have caused a domino effect that would easily have plunged the nation into a depression.

I have yet to hear an answer that addresses the problems the counter position creates. Perhaps it’s because there is no answer, or they realize that most Americans are unfamiliar with stock market intricacies to ask this question. But I do.

So does this mean that Senator Obama would rather have CitiGroup, and Lehman, and other banks/brokerages fail than accept the billions of dollars foreign investors offer – even is only certain countries are willing to give us the money and none of them are close friends? Is Senator Obama saying that he is willing to plunge America into a Depression that will obviously not help retirees, workers, the economy, and ultimately the world?

Tonight is part 3. Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, and other questions on character that are sure to be the high point of the interview.

Senator Obama on the O'Reilly Factor Part 1

Finally after about 9 months of waiting, if I remember correctly, Senator Obama has lived up to his word to appear on the Bill O’Reilly Fox News program, The O’Reilly Factor. There are going to be 4 parts to the interview, of which tonight was the first. And I must say that it was far too short. The rest of the interview will air from Monday thru Wednesday next week.

Bill O’Reilly was direct and confrontational, as he always is in interviews, but he was also the usual fair interviewer. The questions so far have been solidly based on what voters are most concerned about and included 4 out of 10 questions I expected him to be asked (including 2 that I am aware of for Tuesday).



Senator Obama answered the question on the Surge, finally admitting that it was a

“success beyond all expectations”

And there was the question about if America is involved in a war on terror where he again said yes. Further adding that our enemies include Al Quida, the Taliban and a network of other fanatical Muslims that have “perverted Islam”.

I am surprised by the answers as Senator Obama has been remiss to speak so directly on such issues. His prior stances on such aggressive actions by America have generally lead one to believe he is far more pacifist than his answers with O’Reilly revealed.

Now that is not to say that Senator Obama was on brand new territory with all the questions. He still maintains his latest view of Iran, that it is dangerous and a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. A far cry for his early descriptions of the nation. And I accept that how he would prepare for an Iran pursuing nuclear weapons could not be answered as since he potentially could be out next President and thus would be tipping his hand.

Though that raises an interesting question. If telling Iran about our plans is foreshadowing our actions, how is creating an exacting timetable not the same? If Iran could anticipate and counter our actions because we openly provided our plans, how can Al Quida or any other group not anticipate and react to a specific date of withdrawl – not unlike Saigon in the 1970’s?

Moving on, I’m also glad that O’Reilly admitted that history will likely prove that our initial action against Iraq was a bad idea. That Senator Obama, then unelected and unable to vote in the Senate, was correct to oppose the war. Though I continue to think that Democrats are far too fixated on that one event in the past, looking for people to blame without dealing with the pressing current issue at hand.

But in discussing Iraq, which I started with, I noticed something about Senator Obama I had not seen before. He refuses to admit he was wrong to any degree. He was adamant to point out how there are problems with the Surge, and that it has not accomplished everything it was supposed to. And that prior to the vote for the Surge (which he and Democratic VP Senator Biden voted against) he relied on the fact that President Bush’s strategies had been wrong.

Now given that he is absolutely correct, President Bush had run the war exceptionally badly, that does not change the fact that the Surge worked – as he admitted – and thus he and Biden were wrong in their vote. I have to wonder that if he cannot admit that, how is he different than how Democrats stated President Bush was intractable in his belief about pre-Surge Iraq? If one was bad, how is another not equally troubling?

Now another thing I noticed is the body language of both men. Bill O’Reilly was sitting in a very guarded position. And Senator Obama was sitting forward. As the conversation got headed, respectfully, Obama tapped O’Reilly several times.

I’m not an expert but I take that to mean that O’Reilly was on the offense. Senator Obama was intense, slightly uncomfortable and when he was touching O’Reilly he was trying to establish a sense of friendliness, deflection of argument, and asserting his strength of convictions. Both are not bad things and speak to the strong characters of both men.

Overall I have to say that the entire first part was far too short. I wanted to hear more. I’m anxious to see what else will be asked and how Senator Obama responds. I am especially interested in the Tuesday portion.

I do not feel that either man was disrespected. Both made intelligent arguments. And Senator Obama showed a determination that really has not appeared before.

Oh I mentioned Tuesday. That is when questions about Bill Ayers and Rev Wright will be asked. I previously stated I thought that this would be included in the questions asked. I was told that I was racist to hope for Obama to be asked these questions. We shall see if Senator shares that opinion, or my own.

Bill O'Reilly interviews Senator Barack Obama - Thursdsay

Well here is something that I’m sure will top the Nielsen ratings charts on Thursday. After months of waiting, Senator Barack Obama has finally come in for his interview with Bill O’Reilly. And it’s about time.

Now on the left, especially the far-left, Bill O’Reilly is seen as the fanatical face of the right. It’s an unfair accusation, based in the extremist views of those critics. That’s like saying the comments and actions of Code Pink or Moveon.org represent all Democrats, which I would say is equally unfair.

But there is no question that Fox News is the most watched news channel in the nation. It is also no question that throughout the Primaries and since Fox News has been noted as the most unbiased news agency. And it is also factual that Bill O’Reilly is the most popular commentator, reaching millions of Americans of all types of political beliefs.

So it will only be to Senator Obama’s benefit to appear on the program. His audience is so wide and politically beneficial that Senator Clinton appeared as she was regaining ground against Obama in the last few weeks of the Democratic Primaries. And while I dislike Senator Clinton and her policies, she did look good in the interview.

But how might Senator Obama fare?

Well in England we have these headlines on the subject –
Obama agrees to Murdoch's Fox News grilling

Rupert Murdoch broked 'truce' between Fox and Barack Obama

In the U.S. the headline tones are:
The secret Obama-Fox News meeting

OBAMA AND FOX MAKE UP, PHELPS LENDS A HAND, RICH PEOPLE READ

Fox News' Obama Power Play

According to those titles, which I think is a fair and popular representation of the way this is being presented to the world via most news media, Fox News has been seen as an enemy of Senator Obama, and involved in a feud. And Fox is supposed to be biased.

There is no question that some of the commentators on Fox are right-wing. There is no question that I have disagreed with the presentation of various events by Fox News in general. I firmly believe that Fox is prone to presenting African Americans in negative stereotypical tones. Shepard Smith is unquestionably biased in the manner in which he covers cases like OJ Simpson, or the Duke Rape case. Sean Hannity is unquestionably far-right.

But Bill O’Reilly isn’t the above people. In watching his program for years now I see that he is one of the least biased commentators on cable television today. There are issues where he is way off, like anyone, but in general these are subjects where he is as hostile to Whites as Blacks. Child safety is one such example. You just can’t question that O’Reilly is an advocate of all children.

But he is fair. His interview with Rev. Jesse Jackson was fair. His interview with Senator Clinton was informative and fair. His discussions with Rev. Al Sharpton are fair. And he has often covered news stories that I have highlighted that no other major news media, including the hard news of Fox, touch.

On the other hand it does seem obvious that he has a problem with the people Senator Obama knows. Which is not entirely wrong.

So I expect these questions to be asked:

• The association with Bill Ayers
  
  
• The association with Rev. Wright
  
  
• The association with Tony Rezco
  
  
• Senator Obama’s exact views on domestic drilling and alternative energy
  
  
• Senator Obama’s plans for taxing business, his definition of rich, and the economy
  
  
• If Senator Obama will finally admit that the Surge has worked
  
  
• How Senator Obama plans to pay for his nationalized healthcare and how it would be implemented
  
  
• Why a timetable for retreat would be in America’s best interest
  
  
• Whether Senator Obama will or will not speak with Iran and other anti-American governments without conditions
  
  
• The reversal Obama took when he selected a standard of ‘old’ politics – Sen. Joe Biden – as his Vice President
  

Each of the above items are questions that have existed since the Democratic Primaries and each has failed to be resolved fully.

If Senator Obama can answer these questions well, he should have a huge boost in his polling. If he fails to answer them, or does so poorly I expect to see him drop quickly.

Movie preview alert: Bill O'Reilly in An American Carol

Well the ultra-liberal fanatics will surely be up in arms about the latest item to be presented on the O’Reilly Factor last night. It seems that Bill O’Reilly has landed a small roll in an up-coming film. The film is a satirical look at people like Michael Moore, and many of the Hollywood Liberals that are just one step from Hanoi Jane Fonda.

Here is the video of the film



So what do you think of it? I found it to be very funny.

Michael Moore and many of the far-left nuts need a bit of air taken out of their blustering. And I think the concept of using A Christmas Carol as a format is original. Considering one of the writers and director here is the same man, David Zucker, responsible for Airplane, Top Secret, and the Naked Gun series, I expect the jokes to be pretty good.

The cast is filled with notable actors, including Kelsey Grammer, Robert Davi, Jon Voight, James Woods, Leslie Nielsen, Dennis Hopper, Kevin Sorbo, Travis Schuldt, and Trace Adkins.

That’s a lot of talent. I should mention that Kelsey Grammer and Dennis Hopper were previously paired in a movie that just came out – Swing Vote. I already panned the film in my preview of the film. Reviews by Rotten Tomatoes give it a 39% negative approval rating, and most reviews believe its ok to bad and a DVD pick at best. No surprise to me.

But Grammer and Hopper should redeem themselves in this film. Not that the liberals aren’t complaining already

“This is just more of the right wing believing their own BS to make themselves feel better. They know their time is almost up. A great deal of effort is put forth daily to keep morale up (see talk radio, right wing blogs/forums, Fox News) among the true believers. This film is another example…

Come October, the film may do well, if a campaign like the one for "Passion of the Christ", along with a "let's stick it to the liberals" message is ginned up via the usual outlets.

So go and have fun liberal-haters, laugh all the way into the political graveyard, you are proud to be part of an ugly history which will not be judged mercifully.”

I’m sorry, the self-important and more-righteous-than-thou attitude of Moore needs a pin to pop his balloon. In fact most on the far-left need a hit as well. Not that they haven’t been trying to, unsuccessfully, sell the “horrors” of America in films for the last few years.

I expect this film will be decent, based on the writer and actors involved. And America will likely flock to a film that pokes fun at the groups that are so serious and so sure they know what’s best for everyone. My bet is that the film makes more money than Redacted, Swing Vote, Lions for Lambs, and War Inc. combined. Actually since that isn’t much of a number to beat (Swing Vote is the big winner of the group having made about $13 million, still less than what it cost to make the film) I will say it makes $20 - $25 million it’s first week and nets a total of $40 million at least.

Do you agree?

2008 Olympic Games: What I hope to see

The 2008 Olympics. The once every 4 year event that circles the globe and features the greatest athletes in the world. The pinnacle of healthy fit human bodies. Supposedly representing the best of every nation, and with little polispeak of those nations.

But that’s not exactly true.

China is a prime example of that, and needs to be addressed before, and during this years games. China is a key supporter of the Sudan, and in this manner supporting the genocide of Darfur. China is the Sword of Damocles over Taiwan. China is the iron fist against Tibet. And while it’s not as commonly discussed as it has been in the past, for all the economic innovations made in the past decade, they are very communist.

On Wednesday many Americans got their first glimpse of the problems that China promotes. The students that crossed the Atlantic Ocean and our country to scale that bridge, at serious risk to themselves, made a statement. The protests, which were far more peaceful than similar events in England and France, got significant attention. But the major news media missed the big boat.

Well let me rephrase that, they missed the big boat of issues that I care about. While much was said of the protesters supporting Tibet, little was said about the other problems of China that have been ongoing for decades. Not to belittle the desire of the Tibetan people to be free. But I have yet to hear more than a polispeak soundbite discussing the continued efforts of China to encourage the Darfur genocide.

But it’s not because some with the major medias eye have not made statements. Stephen Spielberg quit as artistic advisor to the Olympics because of all the issues. French President Nicolas Sarkozy seems ready to boycott the Games. Last night Dennis Miller made perhaps the best statement and idea I have heard on the matter during his time on the Bill O’Reilly show – that every athlete, of every nation, appear at the opening ceremonies dressed like this



Some might say that a bit of clothing is just not enough. That this is not a strong enough statement. That more is required. I agree that more needs to be done. That Darfur needs to be ended, and those supporting the genocide punished in some manner.

“The Chinese have had their way over Tibet. They have openly intimidated those countries who want to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. And from their point of view, the Tibetans are an ungrateful bunch of peasants who have been dragged from the Dark Age of a Buddhist theocracy to the modern era of paved roads, city plumbing and light bulbs.”

Does that sound familiar? Does it remind you of the European desire to help the African people find civilization? Or the comments of some recently trying to justify the slavery of Africans in America and the current condition of Black Americans. Those kinds of thoughts and comments were not always unaccepted or considered the utterances of minds filled with compost. And even recent Olympics have been the stage for criticisms of American acceptance of those similar thoughts. Many of my readers may be too young to recall the international attention that this one scene created, deservedly so.



The Olympic Games are about the nations that host, as much as they are about the athletes that are competing. Nations are connected to the Games and each other. To accept the Olympic Games without calling attention to the murder of children and the subjugation of countries is an insult to what is on-going.

Thus I agree with Dennis Miller’s thought. I support his idea and add one minor point – every visitor to the Olympic Games’ opening ceremonies, including the political representatives of all the nations, should join the athletes in wearing the robes of the Tibetan monks. Such a display, viewed around the world, would shame China and hopefully be the cause of starting to address these horrible actions in a peaceful non-paranoid realistic manner.

Do you agree?

Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly Part 3 - 9.27.2007.3

Continued from Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly Part 2...

I must admit my annoyance with Whites that presume to understand Black America’s issues and present answers with a sense of moral authority. Yes, Mr. O’Reilly is correct that fathers in the community are a major issue, but it is not the only one. Rev. Jackson presented several others that are equally important.

The rant by Bernie (I forget his last name, and honestly have lost massive respect for him after attacking Rev. Jackson) presuming to understand what ails African Americans smacks of the classic ‘White Savior and Protector’ image that portrayed, and continues to, Blacks as jungle savages. Bernie needs to be reminded that Africans created the number system the world uses today. Africans made the pyramids that cannot be duplicated today. Africans have helped create the world that exists today, in virtually every field of endeavor that Man is aware of at this time, and the slave descendants of those Africans continue to be important in America today.

We are as diverse in our culture, though major media ignores this, as much as any group in America today. To say that there is just a simple answer and that he UNDERSTANDS what I have gone through in this life is preposterous. At the best he may comprehend, but it is impossible for him to understand, much in the way I could not understand what it is to be White or female in America.

I can continue to go on. The issues are far flung and deep-rooted in American culture. Fear is a major factor; I have live through many aspects of it. The problems are multiple and come from within and without the Black community. [As I have noted before, having books older than myself while in high school, being denied word and training as a stockbroker because of my looks, being prodded to get into a fight because my manner of dress is upscale and mashed an obviously weak and tiny ego, and far more]

The point is that this is a discussion that needs to be continued. I hope that Mr. O’Reilly is incorrect. Whites need to speak up. Debate, especially passionate debate, must occur. Fear can only be defeated by action.

I will close with this though, but when I get more composed and when I get to read some of the responses from you my readers. I will come back to this.

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. Franklin D. Roosevelt

**I am posting this here and at Black & White Blog. That is a site where discussion on racial issues are exchanged between myself and the other co-contributor, who happens to be White. For those uncomfortable commenting here for whatever reason, I suggest commenting there as an option.**

Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly Part 2 - 9.27.2007.2

Continued from Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly Part 1...

I do not deny that I have criticized Rev. Jackson and Sharpton for their actions in recent years. I still question why they have not lent their considerably publicly accessible voices to the tragedy in West Virginia, or the absence of reporting on Jonathan Riches, or why the major media seems to have completely forgotten the Congressional hearings on the music industry, specifically dealing with gangsta rap. I feel they can make far more noise than most, gaining attention to these matters that demand attention.

Am I glad they are raising the bar on what is being reported on Jena 6? Definitely. Should this have happened months ago? Without question. Do I feel that the major news media is seeking any means possible to avoid the subject and their abysmal responses? Do you even need to question that?

Even so, this does not mean that the media can round up any figure they can get a hold of and allow vile personal attacks on people that are reporting facts they were first person witnesses to. The attacks on Mr. Juan Williams are not out of context. How dare he call any Black American a ‘Happy Negro’. Being Black does not justify such a comment, nor does it automatically allow news commentator at CNN the ability to not challenge such offensive actions. They would not allow a White interviewee to get away with such a comment, nor should a Black one.

I feel insulted that the implication made by CNN is, via their acceptance and lack of action on the insulting attack on Mr. Juan Williams, that any African American (or Latino/Hispanic, Asian and so forth) that agrees in part or whole with views of Mr. O’Reilly is an Uncle Tom, mindless, foolish, minstrel. Would they let someone call a Spanish public figure a spic? Or an Irish one a ‘Happy Mick’? How about an Italian as a ‘Happy Wop’? Is my point made?

Since when have African American been relegated to a singular viewpoint? Since when did anyone get to be the singular voice of African Americans determining what is or is not permissible Blacks? How dare CNN allow such an image to be created, without question or challenge!

I know I have long said that I do not feel that Rev. Jackson or Sharpton are Black ‘leaders’, but that does not mean they are not important figures. I do not believe that this means that any person chosen by major news media can spout any kind of commentary and it be taken as gospel. Being Black does not mean you can say anything you please about other Blacks, nor does it excuse Whites from standing up and correcting such vicious and unwarranted attacks.

Continued in Part 3...

Reaction to Rev. Jesse Jackson and Bill O'Reilly - 9.27.2007.

**I am posting this here and at Black & White Blog. That is a site where discussion on racial issues are exchanged between myself and the other co-contributor, who happens to be White. For those uncomfortable commenting here for whatever reason, I suggest commenting there as an option.**

I hope that Fox News, and Mr. Bill O’Reilly make the transcript of the program tonight, September 27, 2007, available to the public. They covered a large number of issues, all of which need to be dealt with more in depth. The conversation needs to be had. And I found Bernie Goldman’s (I believe that is his last name) comments about Rev. Jesse Jackson offensive, cruel and unjustified.

I agree that the whole issue on O’Reilly has detracted from more important issues. I was unaware of the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock 9 (I’m not that old) occurred during all this hoopla. I’ve mentioned several issues that I am aware of that also have been unfairly ignored.

I must mention that I found the words of Rev. Jackson riveting. This is perhaps the best conversation and most informative allocution I have heard from him in decades. There has never been a question in my mind of his intelligence. I have a great deal of respect for his past actions and achievements. At the same time, I admit that I have found fault with his more current actions and failure to address issues that I feel are very important. The same can be said, to a lesser degree of my feelings towards Rev. Al Sharpton.

Rev. Jackson has to be commended for finally being the person that got the actual story of the Jena 6 out to the media. Until this conversation, major news media has picked at parts of this case, sensationalizing aspects of it and ignoring others. Every major news station and news media outlet can share in the blame for failing to properly cover the Jena 6 for MONTHS.

I also have no problem stating that I agree with Mr. O’Reilly, and Mr. Juan Williams, that the absence of fathers is a major source of the issues in the Black community. I do not feel that it is the root of the problem. Mr. O’Reilly is correct that this goes back to the days of Slavery, and that fear motivates many of the actions of Whites (not all but in my opinion most) in America.

I have addressed the fear that prevents America from apologizing for Slavery. I have addressed the fear that prevents discussion of reparations. I have discussed how this fear leads to anger on both sides, and that this anger is a poison in America that is not going away.

I commend both Rev. Jackson and Mr. O’Reilly for honestly stating the issues before America, and denouncing racism – especially when it is used as a tool to manipulate and divide American opinion for the gain of a few extreme groups or worse yet, money.

There is no easy way to address race issues in America. Both sides, actually all sides are wrong at points, and absolutely right in others. All sides are passionate on their view. And there is no question that none completely understand the feelings and viewpoints of the others. Comprehend, sometimes but understand, ABSOLUTELY not.

Continued in part 2...

Accusations against Bill O'Reilly Part 2 - 9.26.2007.2

Continued from Accusations against Bill O'Reilly Part 1...

That is not to say that he is completely balanced. I am far from a sycophant. But I have watched his program for a long time, and listened to his views and words. I have observed him taking up issues and asking questions the majority of major news media ignores. The fact that he is conservative and right-leaning does not make him wrong. Nor does it make him a racist. I am not saying that he is nor is not a racist. Rather I am saying that I would expect that either Mr. Williams or Rev. Sharpton would be on bullhorns if he had crossed a line with either. Personally I have no idea as I do not know the man personally. Then again, neither do 90% of the bloggers and websites that attack him.

The thing I really am upset about is that racism is being used as the tool to launch attacks at Mr. O’Reilly. This created argument lessens the real racism that exists. There are real issues of media turning a blind-eye to issues affecting African Americans. I have consistently mentioned the many cases that present this racism head on. I have addressed the disparities in the legal system, and in entertainment. There can be no question on my position on the commoditization of Black culture by entertainment corporations like Viacom, and the music industry.

Those are all reasons to speak up, and things that need to change. These are issues that need to be addressed. But distractions of this nature are not. Mr. O’Reilly may be insensitive to some African American issues, and he can be quick to judge individuals, but that is not racism. Let’s not get lost in the political circus, rather let’s focus on the real issues.

And for those that think I am wrong, cite your reasons. Also keep in mind one other thing. Rev. Al Sharpton will be on the O’Reilly Factor Wednesday at 8pm est. Not a press conference, just the show. Perhaps we will learn more then. If I am correct I think the left-leaning bloggers, that don’t watch his program, may be proven wrong. Then again I may be. We shall see.

This is what I think, what will you think?

Accusations against Bill O'Reilly - 9.26.2007.1

Why does the left like to use racism like a weapon? I’m so tired of it. It’s aggravating. If you have not noticed it yet, there has been a lot of media stating that Mr. Bill O’Reilly is a racist. They state that his commentary from his radio show was racist.

"It was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun” he said. "And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."

That is the main quote. It is referring to a dinner at Sylvia’s, a famous restaurant in Harlem, NY. Something that needs to be understood at the outset. The dinner was with Mr. O’Reilly and Rev. Al Sharpton.

I want that to be clear because if this was really what was going on, I would expect that either Rev. Sharpton, who is no shy wall-flower, or Mr. Juan Williams would have called Mr. O’Reilly out on the matter. Both have the ability to make national press conferences and easily would be able to comment on this in no time at all. Considering the historical matters that Rev. Sharpton usually covers, this would have been the first thing he would have talked about upon leaving Sylvia’s.

The quote comes out of context from a discussion on racism on Mr. O’Reilly’s radio program. When the program aired, over a day ago, on reportedly 400 stations there were no complaints. Mr. Juan Williams was on air as the comment was made, in context of how the media often portrays African Americans as simply thugs and rappers, and this influences what some Americans think we are like. I’d say that the media influences how the world views us.

Yet, CNN, which was given the opportunity to review the actual conversation, went and continued to state that Mr. O’Reilly was a racist. The internet has picked up the ball and run with it.

Obviously, left-leaning bloggers and websites constantly find Mr. O’Reilly to be a huge target and oppose everything he says, so there is no surprise in their reaction. Others that have not seen anything other than the claims of his racism accept this news without question. I did not.

I have said before that I agree with Mr. O’Reilly on several issues. I feel that he is basically fair in his opinions. His desire to protect children is unquestionable, his belief in a balanced legal system is prominent, and his views against criminal illegal aliens match my own.

Continued in part 2...

Even Bill O'Reilly hates Hot Ghetto Mess - 7.19.2007.3

I don’t know how many saw this yesterday, but at 8:51pm Mr. Bill O’Reilly took time on his show to highlight the BET Hot Ghetto Mess situation. While there was a guest (I forget her name but believe it was Mary Katherine Ham) that was trying to explain the position BET has taken, even Mr. O’Reilly realized that this was sensationalism and exploitation for the benefit of gaining money.

Even he was able to note that a television show of this nature was an “inner city freak show” on display. I’m sure some are too liberal to accept anything Mr. O’Reilly states, but I am not. And even if that is how you may feel, it has to make an extreme point when he sees what this show is.

The executives at Viacom should take note. Even conservative White Americans disagree with this proposed program. They can see the exploitive and greedy nature of this program. African Americans have seen this nature in the programming at BET for years.

It is a matter that will cost Viacom profit and shareholders. If nothing else will get their attention, not dozens of bloggers, huge amounts of negative internet attention, the loss of at least 2 advertisers (BET is keeping the name of the advertisers for this program quiet), and now a respected (mostly) television pundit with international reach, then it will have to be the shareholders. Loss of revenues from advertisers that WILL be protested will hit the bottom line in the next earnings release, and the one after that. A reduced earnings to price ratio drops a stock haeavily. Missing earnings forecasts will kill a stock.

Viacom executives be warned, this isn’t going away. This will affect more than just one division of your company. It will affect your stock and the shareholders. The best thing that can be done is to remove the program. There is no corner of America that I am aware of that agrees with you on this. That’s why no one, including television critics and advertisers, have been able to see the program. You know what will happen. Just be proactive and stop now.

Do you see a media bias? - 3.20.2007.1

Did anyone hear the news about the Sean Bell case? I doubt if most did. 51 shots fired at 3 men in a car leading to a death, all those men unarmed and fired upon by 5 police officers, and I only noticed 7 minutes of coverage all day yesterday between CNN and Fox News. 3 of the officers were indicted; charges included reckless endangerment of the public as shots hit buildings and other structures where other innocent people were. Anyone surprised?

I have friends all over the country, none of them heard a word about the latest events in the Sean Bell Case. I’m in New York State, barely any comment in the last 24 hours. I do watch a lot of cable news, but I’m not glued to it so there may have been somewhat more coverage. But I can say that in 4 hours I saw 2 mentions of the case for 45 seconds each. In the same time I saw 5 minutes of Anna Nicole Smith, and 6 mentions and 12 minutes on the woman shot by unknown individuals in her bed. There was no less than a half hour of information about the Boy Scout that was in the woods. Seem fair?

I recall that back when the Duke rape case started, there was hours of information. Most of that information was instantly in defense of the lacrosse team, there were questions on the defendant immediately. The fact that some of those questions came to be found as true is immaterial to the way the media reacted. Anna Nicole Smith and news relating to her death and paternity of her child has had more coverage than the death of President Ford, the death (and 2 month non-burial) of James Brown, The Sean Bell Shooting, and the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident; even if you doubled all of them and combined the times you would still have more coverage on Anna Nicole Smith. Honestly the case is worth almost no time.

And now I see that Mr. Bill O’Reilly is going to do a segment on despicable villains and their body language. One of the featured individuals appears to be Mr. O.J. Simpson along with Kim il Jong and Saddam Hussein. The O.J. trial remains the most commented and reported item in the last decade. At every turn the media takes a moment to reflect on how similar, or impacting, or some other vague connection a current event has to that case. Mr. Simpson has not helped himself, but the nation and the media cannot get over the fact that the Justice system found him innocent of the charges placed against him just as dozens (perhaps hundreds) of other rich, famous, non-minorities have done for decades before and after him.

So in each case there seems to be a disparity. Lead by the media there is an emphasis. Black American men shot to death, in a style of overkill usually only found in action movies, minor news. Black man with contribution to the arts for decades, unburied for 2+ months, not important. African American wins a trial by using high priced lawyers and reasonable doubt, bad charges, and evidence planted by the police is unforgettable. Cute blonde gets daily coverage. An argument between celebrities, daily coverage. Offensive, demeaning comments by a celebrity against a religious or ethnic group, minor coverage. Defensive coverage of accused rapists, prior to a trial or Grand Jury, prior to any actual facts being found – daily coverage. As facts are found, huge recaps of the case, furthering the defense especially if anything leads to defending the accused. Coverage of a bank robbery by ‘cute teens’ huge coverage, the fact that the charges were lessened from federal offenses? 2 minutes.

Do you see a trend? I do. If I or my friends were to commit any of the above acts I’d be in jail and barely get noticed. I’d get no defense by the media. I’d never be referred to as ‘cute’ or innocent. My attackers would have the presumption of innocence or cause. Were I to win, I’d be hounded for life.

Is it racist? Well you tell me. When was the last time you saw a non-minority shot more than 10 times? Did you know that James Brown wasn’t buried for 2 months, and when did you learn about it? A week later, a month, just now? If I were to rant racial or ethnic slurs in a public forum or on tape, would it be forgotten in a week? If there was video of the event would it be discarded in a few hours of the event, or even make it to the news? Would there be newscasters and news consultants defending me on accusations of rape, robbery, assault, defamation or other events? If you think I would get a treatment different than some of the above cases, what makes the difference? Is that racist?

I leave you with this thought. Right now there is as much news on a hockey player that high-sticked another player as all the news on the Sean Bell shooting combined.

This is what I think, what do you think?