Bill O'Reilly addresses Minister Louis Farrakhan

What's the difference between Louis Farrakhan and any media supported Black "leader"?

Nothing.

It's not a joke. There is no punchline. The fact is that I don't see a difference. Whether it's Rev. Sharpton, or Rev. Jackson, or Minister Farrakhan the net result is the same. An individual that owes their success to the division of people in this nation solely on the basis of skin color.

It's not a job that I would imagine anyone would be proud of. Yet the media ensures that when this highly selected group of men speak, their words are promoted (intentionally or not) across the nation. What may be even worse is that most of the time these individuals are speaking about situations and issues that are real concerns for African Americans - minus the rheotoric and bias they instill to the issue at hand.

Last night Bill O'Reilly address part of a recent speech by Minister Farrakhan



I agree that the comments highlighted are hate-speech. They feed off of the worst fears and prejudices in America. But I don't think O'Reilly and many Americans get it.

O'Reilly and others get stuck on the hate-speech, the over-the-top presentation being made for the explicit purpose of providing Minister Farrakhan (in this case) coverage in the media. They miss, and deafen their ears to the kernel of truth at the core of the comments.

I'm not excusing Farrakhan. But there is a fear in the nation among African Americans that President Obama will be assassinated. That fear has existed long before President Obama ever considered running for the Presidency. If ever there is another Black President (which I doubt, sadly) the fear will be there as well, though to a lesser degree - if President Obama exits the Presidency unscathed.

I think that many misrepresent the source of the danger to the President. The first thought obviously goes to a neo-nazi or similar fanatic. But to call such a person an example of the generic right-wing of America is about as accurate as when I'm told I look like Richard Pryor. Still that does not mean that a segment of America, likely some part of the 47% (Democrats, Republicans, and Independants) that voted against President Obama, hates the President on a basis as crude and deranged as the color of his skin.

So it is not like the assassinations of Lincoln or JFK. There is a component in the attempts on his life (so far) that is derived solely in race. Were an assassination to succeed it would be more than a political attack, it would be a call to return America to a not so distant past that most want to forget willfully.

Like most, of any color or race, in America the issue of racism is something no one wants to address. Thus it is mocked, and isolated, and rebuffed. But it is also mislabeled - which is perhaps the greater problem. When President Carter, and President Clinton, attacked those that had legitimate issues with the politics of President Obama, calling them racists, they only fanned the flames of the problem. They in fact gave credence to the fears that Farrakhan uses to support his power base. To the detriment of the nation.

There is no way that Bill O'Reilly, or anyone, can come to understand the issues that face people of color in America in 5 minutes. To even try to do so only creates more anger. Because misunderstanding and confusion cannot help but be created in such a short time frame, no matter the good intetions. This is even worse when the intricate and persistent issues still dominant in America are not allowed to be exposed, as O'Reilly did when cutting off Leo Terrell. Given the fact that the purpose of the segment was not to address all the issues of people of color face, nor the causes of fears based on race (true or not).

One thing though is very clear. America has not entered a post-racial period. Racial issues still dog America as much as they did 6 months ago, as they did 6 years ago, as they did 6 decades ago, as they do 6 minutes from now. For all the interconnectivity of the internet, the immediacy of cable news, the presence of the first Black President, America has not moved forward - just sideways.

Minister Farrakhan is no worse than any other "Black leader" promoted in the media. He may be more extreme, more honest, or if you choose to believe him more accurate. But in essence he is just as much a minstrel and opportunist as the others. Highlighting this in 5 minutes or less segments does not disrupt his actitivies, it enhances them.

Rather I think he should be either ignored, or exposed fully to the world in full. Only then can he be seen for what his is, just as the other Black "leaders" are.

Masters of opinion clash

Yes, the battle of titans came togather once again. The first such meeting since President Obama has been in charge. What it might reveal about both and their respective viewpoints is sure to create comments for months, perhaps years.

If somehow you have failed to see the Jon Stewart Daily Show, I can't imagine it. While the program is geared towards the college crowd, it loses none of its humor for those of us a bit older. It is parody and political satire often at it's best. It is also a highly liberal and Democrat friendly program.

If you are unaware of the O'Reilly Factor, you are likely in love with President Obama and Democrats. Ok, that's a joke. Seriously, the program is a well organized commentart on issues of the day, based on the center-right, that includes the voices of the left, far-left, as well as those on the right.

In listening to both men one thing is immediately clear. They are both intelligent, passionate men that believe they are serving the public via the mechanisims they employ. To that end both must be praised. Beyond that, well it comes down to personal views.

I think that Jon Stewart did quite well on the show. He made interesting observations, while defending his well-known left of center personal views. I believe he was treated fairly, and was as aggressive as he received aggression.

Though I will note that the comments by Stewart on how President Obama should weild more power and control over Congress was a bit disturbing. It clearly marked a direction towards an imbalance of power that President Bush was raked over coals for even hinting at, particularly by Stewart.

But here is the interview, let me know what you think of part 1. Part 2 will be on tonight.

Are you ready for Sarah Palin on your TV?

She is probably one of the most recognized women in America. She is loved by millions, and despised by almost as many. She is anything but a media darling, yet the media can't stay away from her. And the blogosphere often lives to tout or taunt her.

Sarah Palin.

The best book selling, vice presidential candidate, former-Governor and mom is coming to a television near you. Unless of course you are a die-hard MSNBC loving Liberal. If so, you won't even notice. But everyone else surely will.

Ms. Palin is going to join the pundits and commentators of Fox News today. She will make her first appearance (as a pundit) today on the O'Reilly Factor. And I can already feel the warm buzz of liberal bloggers blood boiling.

Honestly, anyone that can be the target of so many slings and arrows and still be a success impresses me. The fact that she is a woman, in a mostly male dominated arena, that holds her own just adds to her image.

There are a lot of views people have about Palin. Most I find are second-hand regurgitations of political commentators like Chris "I feel a tingle" Matthews and/or quasi-political activists like David "I know a joke about a young girl" Letterman. But it's surprisig how few people really know much more than these tidbits about Palin's career, political views, intelligence, or any other aspect. Especially when you consider that she ran for the number 2 spot in running the nation.

Will Palin be a success? Will this help launch her political ambitions towards the Presidency? Well it can't hurt considering how low the expectations are from the career politicians and most media.

Like every other blogger around, I intend to watch her today and review her performance. One thing is for sure, Liberals will hate her and Conservatives will be mixed. But it will be a ratings coup for Fox News.

"Negro dialect"

Those are part of the words that Sen. Harry Reid used to describe President Obama during the 2008 Presidential campaign. "Negro dialect". It just keeps running through my mind.

What is "negro dialect" Senator Reid? How exactly are African Americans supposed to speak? Is it somehow different than himself, or Hillary Clinton, or even Rush Limbaugh? Is there some kind of class required to learn this language?

Let's take this from the beginning. Negro, a term used before and through the 1960's to describe African Americans. It replaced the N-word, which was a step forward indeed. But EVERY conotation of the word was intended to denote a second-class of citizenship, a substandard way of life, and inferiority. It is a term embedded with racial disparity and prejudice. And it is a term no longer used because of those very reasons.

In using these words, combined with the backhanded compliment of how light the skin of President Obama is, an image is made. It's an image no different that the one I would have if the words were said by a person in a white hood made them. And there is nothing that makes that statement better.

Reid has run for the hills, with Democrats of all types covering his tracks. He is proclaiming his record of acheivements absolve him of the thought process that made those words enter and escape his mouth. He is trying to project his liberal image, as a defense to his racial verbage.

But why, in 2008, would ANYONE of whatever political background use such terminology? What is it that makes this ok for some? [Notably the "Black leaders" - who themselves share the same political ideology]

Shallow minds might point to rap music as the cause of the statement. But think about that. Slang words have been used by every generation of Americans since before there was an America. Those in the South, the West Coast, even in various cities in the same region, all have slang. Yet I have never heard anyone speak of a politicians "White dialect", let alone praise them for it (or the lack thereof).

Who promotes the slang used in rap music? Not the entertainers. They are merely the tool used to market it. They don't control the production of CD's, the production of music videos and television commercials. That's all done by the music industry executives. The very same people that decide that this style of clothing will sell, or that gospel should be emphasized in the South, and country music in the mid-west.

Yes it's music executives that promote the rap slang. And they sell it to White youth that are all too willing to buy the records, dress in the clothes, and emulate the style in a music video like a child might emulate the family puppy because it's funny.

But that's all business. That has nothing to do with the educations of the entertainers, or their fans. It has nothing to do with their ability to speak or think. It has nothing to do with the shades of color (or lack) of their skin. All that has to do with is money.

So I really want to understand what "negro dialect" Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada is talking about. Is it the way I speak? Is it the way that my father spoke? Or the way Rev. Jesse jackson speaks? What is it exactly?

In my life I have heard some with doctorates that have thick Southern drawls, business owners with the quick tempos of New York City speech. I have heard people with perfect diction that are winos, and others who mumble that are multi-millionaires. I even recall a stock brokerage owner who you would swear sounds just like Mickey Mouse. Do any of those styles of speech make these people smarter, richer, better? Would revealing the skin color of those same people elevate their intelligence and abilities?

Sen. Reid wants to point out all the things he's done to better race relations in America. As if that alters his apparent thought that African Americans need to be fixed. That somehow the color of my skin impedes my mental abilities in some manner.

Was Dr. Martin Luther King any less intelligent because he had skin darker than mine? Was Malcolm X an less of a man because he could speak jive, like many New Yorkers? Is Jay-Z any less of a success because he can rap on an album that music executives want to promote? Is Michael Jordan, or Muhammad Ali, or Tiger Woods any less talented because of their skin or how they speak?

Sen. Harry Reid slipped when he uttered these comments. He spoke his true mind, and not the polispeak spin of a politician when in front of a crowd or camera. In the past when celebrities and politicians have done this there was an outcry to have those people removed. Think of Don Imus, Dogg the bounty hunter, and so many more. How is what Reid said any differnt?

Better yet, to understand if this was really racial bias and wrong let's change the color of the statement. If it's insulting when any other group is used, then it's insulting. And if any other group would be outraged, Harry Reid should be removed from his political position.

If the statement was 'Jewish dialect' or 'Chinese dialect', or 'Hispanic dialect', does it sound any better? What if he had said 'that's a lght-skinned Arab' or 'light-skinned Italian' does it sound just as supposedly innocent?

'XX should be President because they are a dark-skinned Caucassian... who can speak without a Christian dialect if they want to.'

Does any of that sound fair, or simple? Does it sound innocent, or does it hint as if the speaker is saying something less than positive? That somehow the person being referred to is less than what they are being touted as?

I say that in each case, substituting whomever you wish, the statement is an insult. Which means that, if we are consistent, Harry Reid should lose his position (and hopefully be voted out of office). Because if Rush Limbaugh, or Kanye West, or Bill O'Reilly said it, Liberals and Democrats, and all the "Black leaders" rushing to the defense of Harry Reid would surely demand their scalp.

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill - at Fox News no more

Well I missed some rather upsetting news the other day. If you have ever watched Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, whether you would admit it or not in public, you probably have seen Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. He was a Liberal speaker on the show. I say was, because Dr. Hill is no longer employed by Fox News. Which is what I find upsetting and surprising that I missed.

The earliest news of this change was on Oct 16th, though it was somewhat dubious at the time. It is now very confirmed. Though no information about this has yet to appear on his site - MarcLamontHill.com.

I admit that I had many differences with Dr. Hill. Politically we are on opposite sides of the spectrum. I often critiqued the views and ideas that he defended on the O'Reilly Factor, in my posts and video blogs. But that is not to say I did not respect him.

For all the faults that I found with Dr. Hill, he is an intelligent and passionate Liberal. He is willing to stand in front of millions and express views that many disagree with. He has placed his name and reputation on ideas that he believes in and that deserves respect. Especially when it comes to blogs, often run or commented on by individuals unwilling to attribute their name to what they say.

I am unaware of why Dr. Hill is no longer with Fox News. While I have found fault with his beliefs, he has always been informative and a great foil against the far more conservative views of Bill O'Reilly and others on that show. To my knowledge there has been no incident, personal or professional, that would call for his removal.



The loss of Dr. Hill upsets me not only because I believe that a Liberal counter is needed for the Fox commentators, but also because he is Black. There are very few voices that make it to the news media, no matter which network you choose to watch. The loss of a well known voice is a major blow to our visibility and ability to introduce concerns and issues that we hold.

The fact might be best seen in the fact that on Fox alone, Dr. Hill was often asked to comment on arenas far away from his own field of expertise. I do not believe that there were no other Black voices available for such discussions. I do believe that many of those that are qualified for these diverse commentaries are under severe pressure from the White House and on a local level to not appear on Fox News. Which again only amplifies the problem.

Without further justification provided I find the actions of Fox News to have been detrimental overall. It is not enough to stop my viewership, but it is enough to cause this post.

To Dr. Marc Lamont Hill I will say directly that I hope you find continued success and are not deprived of sharing your voice with the public for too long. While I do not agree on several facets of your publicly stated opinions, my respect for your voice stands far above my own personal views. I can think of no better compliment I could give any commentator.

Bill o'Reilly discusses Black man shot 43 times by police

Tonight Bill O’Reilly will be discussing the shooting of a Black man by police. He was shot 43 times. It’s about time such cases get attention.

I decided to check out which case of shooting O’Reilly might be investigating. Considering the time and number of shots involved I know it was not the Oscar Grant case (which O’Reilly did not cover), Robbie Tolan, Adolph Grimes (the last 3 being all at the start of the year 2009), Sean Bell, or several other more recent actions. So I decided to google it.

Under the term police shooting black man 43 shots there are 221,000 responses. On the first page of Google the time frame covers 2009 – 2001. That’s a hell of a lot of time. But it denotes the number of cases that never get national attention.

I have long stated that there is a national epidemic on-going. That young Black males are the target of police abuse and overreaction. In fact studies have found that the darker the skin, the more likely police are of reacting with violence, where or not the individual is armed.

So which case might Bill O’Reilly be discussing?

As I said before, it’s not the 1 shot in the back of an unarmed Black male in Oakland. Its not the shot against the unarmed Black male in his driveway in Texas as his mother was assaulted by police. But there is no scarcity of incidents across the country where an African American male has been shot by police officers several dozen times.

In fact, when was the last time that an armed White male was shot by police more than 3 times? Seriously. I can name at least a half dozen times where an unarmed African American male was shot by police at least 12 times or more in the last year and a half. But I cannot recall a single instance where even an armed and dangerous White male was shot by police more than 3 times. Not in a decade. Maybe more. Anywhere in the country.

So what will Bill O’Reilly say tonight at 8pm? Do you think it will be a highlight of the national response of police forces towards people of color? Or will it justify a singular case of police action?

No matter which it is, the ultimate truth remains. Police are prone to overreaction towards people of color. They react as if young Black males are the most dangerous people in America (which is factually White males 18 – 30, proven in another post). And that same reaction is also the consistent call of White violent crime criminals trying to obfuscate their own actions (how many times have we heard a supposed White victim claim that some ambiguous Black male did it?). Hell, almost even in the most extreme cases White actively dangerous armed criminals are treated with more care and firing restrictions than people of color – armed or not.

What do I want to hear O’Reilly say? That there is a problem. That the justice system is skewed in the nation. That across the country there is a predisposition towards violence against people of color, and that this needs to be addressed.

Will I hear that? Not likely. Not from O’Reilly, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other major news organization.

And that is the key point that sticks out in my mind. What about you?

Liberals blame Bill O'Reilly for Tiller death

Bill O’Reilly. The name alone is enough to send some liberals screaming. Though just as often the same liberals have never heard a word the man actually has said. The most recent outbreak of liberal fever has come in the form of the death of Dr. George Tiller.

Dr. George Tiller is noted for having been one of 3 late-term abortion doctors in the entire U.S. And so as to not to confuse the question, late term means after 21 weeks - or the period of time in which virtually everyone agrees is viable for the child. However you feel about that, Dr. Tiller did this for years and reaped huge profits for it.

Bill O’Reilly was one of a large number of people that felt this type of abortion, at least, was inhumane. The fact that these fetuses could survive outside the womb made this act akin to murder in many of their eyes. There is no question that this form of abortion is the most debated, and the least common in the nation.

Dr. Tiller was killed on Sunday, in his place of worship. The killer is a maniacal fanatic. That is how I define anyone who would kill another with the only justification being their warped understanding of their religion. There is little difference in this killer’s reasoning, and that of Al Quida when they killed thousands on 9/11.

Bill O’Reilly had made Dr. Tiller the subject of his focus 29 times over 3 years. Not once in that time did he advocate violence against the man. Not once did he encourage harm against Tiller. While O’Reilly disliked the practice of the doctor, he never gave impetus for anything but the end of his ability to continue these late-term abortions.

But if you look across the major media, and definitely across the majority of the internet, you will find no end to those blaming O’Reilly and Fox news for this murder. Which is blatantly stupid.

A fanatic is not motivated by television, they follow their warped beliefs. Which is besides the fact that there was no motivation from television. Bill O’Reilly is not a religious leader. Dr. Tiller was known for years because of his profession among anti-abortion fanatics and organizations. Bill O’Reilly did not suddenly catapult him to fame.

This idiocy among the liberal media is way over the top. It is beyond reason. But when has that ever stopped them?

So the extreme liberals are hopping mad. About something only a lunatic can justify. And connections that do not exist are being drawn. Often by people that have never watched a single O’Reilly Factor telecast. Does that not sound like fools chasing greater fools?

No matter how you feel about abortion, murder is not the answer. In fact the very religion many of these fanatics advocate insists on avoiding murder. But to blame this on a person, or group, that merely voices an opinion is just as wrong in my opinion. For some it’s a cheap attempt at gaining fame and ratings.

“He [Keith Olbermann of MSNBC] called for people to ask managers to change the channel when Fox News is played in bars, restaurants or waiting rooms, and to explain why they are walking out if they don't.”

I’m not sure what is more sick. The motivations of the killer, or the grandstanding and attempt to profit of some in the media like Olbermann.

Either way, the ultimate result is the same. A man was murdered for no reason. Another man is being blamed for it. And liberals are mad.

Bill O'Reilly discusses Oscar Grant...sort of

Some might be wondering about how awful (or moderately bad) the film Notorious is, and with recent news that Lil Kim is upset about her portrayal I'm sure more will go an find out. Because nothing drives money home like a bit of controversy.

But on Friday there was little controversy in what Bill O'Reilly had to say about the Oscar Grant murder. In fact he said little about it at all.

Bill O'Reilly was the first national news commentator to speak about this murder to my knowledge. This was an opportunity to convey the outrage that has occurred. To make a plea for justice, and for it to be enacted swiftly. Instead we got more of the national media ignorance. he spoke about the riots this murder has sparked.

Entertainment and politics: do they mix?

So have you seen An American Carol yet? If you have not you are hardly the only one. And the question is why is that.

An American Carol is a parody film by David Zucker of Airplane! and Naked Gun fame. So the question is not if the premise works. Considering his input, the writing is also not that difficult to imagine as being solid. And the acting includes Kelsey Grammer, Bill O’Reilly, Jon Voight, Dennis Hopper, Trace Adkins, Leslie Nielsen, and many other celebrities and entertainers. So it is solid on that footing as well.

So what is the issue?

Well there is the fact that while the film started off in over 1500 theaters across the nation, many people can’t get to it. In Binghamton, a hub city in the Central New York State area, you can’t see the film. Not one theater will carry it. In fact you have to travel to Ithaca to see it – about 2 hours away. And as far as I am aware that is the only place in western New York that is carrying the film.

Would more people see the film if it were available to them? We will never know as Hollywood hates the film and its subject. The film is a satire of far-left political nuts like Michael Moore. It is the only film of its type made with major stars and major money in maybe 2 decades.

Yet in this year alone there have been 4 pro far-left-wing movies (including the abominable W by Oliver Stone and the Kevin Costner flop Swing Vote, oh and the John Cusack flop War, Inc.). Last year there was Redacted, Lions for Lambs, and several other films in far more theaters. And while each of the films has lost money like a spitball trying to avoid a blackhole, there are half a dozen more films planned for next year.

So I have to wonder, the public loves to hear about the lives of celebrities and entertainers. Paris Hilton learns to tie her own shoes and there are videos on the internet showing and discussing every aspect of it. Britney Spears gives up on her career and children and paparazzi follow every moment as the hair hits the floor. But are politics of limits?

It’s a tough question, as all the movies of the far-left and right have failed horribly. Yet films like Apocalypse Now (which I feel is an anti-war movie), Dr. Strangelove (which did not do well in it’s first run but has since done exceptionally well), and M.A.S.H all have made money.

So maybe we just don’t want to see these entertainers play acting at politics. Sean Penn, Angelina Jolie, Chuck Norris, Oprah Winfrey and others are fine in the real world – but slamming the messages down our collective throats is just too much. I agree with that thought. And considering that Hollywood has more than enough of a problem creating new ideas these days I think they can leave their messages on their high horses. No matter the political preference.

I just was thinking about that. Or am I wrong and you love the political advertisements posing as entertainment?