LL Cool J - the elusive Black Republican?

Could you imagine that? Well obviously someone at Fox News media department did. Because he included an image of James Todd Smith, along with Jack Welch, and a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, in a promotional ad for an upcoming Sarah Palin special. How did they not see a problem coming?



When I saw the commercial last night, I really was shocked. Shocked that a Black celebrity would make public an affiliation with a Conservative view, or heaven forbid Fox News. I was also proud to see someone take a stand and remind everyone (Black people too) that African Americans are not cookie cutters, and some of us don't agree with Rev. Sharpton, President Obama, Democrats, and Liberals that just want to take care of us since we can't do it ourselves.

But that didn't last long. It seems that the inclusion of LL Cool J is inaccurate. The interview clip shown was from 2008, though I think Smith would like to still be considered a person who has overcome adversity - just not a Conservative or Republican one. So the commercial is being ammended to not include LL Cool J.

It's not the first time that any network has done such cut and paste work for a promotional commercial. It's been done over the years by EVERY news and media organization except possibly C-SPAN. But when a Black person is shown as a Republican, or Conservative, well that's just blasphemy. Because the universe would end if it were to happen.

"Popular conservative blogger Allahpundit tweaked liberals who accuse Tea Party supporters of racist sympathies, saying they'll be "shocked to find the alleged Grand Dragon of the tea-party movement making chitchat with a hip-hop legend."

Is this really such a big deal? It really shouldn't be. Is race really that important to what is supposed to be a show about real ordinary Americans doing the extraordinary? But it is. Because LL Cool J is Black, and therefore cannot be seen as a Conservative. It would end his career.

But the outrage, from a few seconds of positive imagery (as inaccurate as it was), seems to be a telling commentary. What it is saying will undoubtedly alter depending on the politics of the viewer, but if you step back and look objectively the message seems to be rather bleak - and it's not about the media comopany.

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.

Black Conservatives on television

I don't know how many people saw this on Friday. I think it was very important. I think that there are far too few that pay attention to the other Black voice in the Black community.



These days Black culture is a commodity up for sale. Various consumer products use it to sell everything. Politicians use it to get votes. The youth are sold it as the norm they should observe. Yet there is a portion of African Americans that are completely opposed to such an outright mental slavery.

Why is it that the youth of today are sold on the idea that they should got to jail? Why do kids think that the only way to make money is via illegal actions, rap music, or sports? How have we moved from creating some of the most important inventions in the world, and multiple scientific discoveries that have saved untold millions of lives, to (some of us) waiting to be handed money?

Not only that, but why is it that in a mere 40 years we have gone from a people that led the nation from a mindset of prejudice and segregation to that of subservience. Dr. Martin Luther King never advocated that, Malcolm X never believed that. Both men were conservatives, especially in the political world of today. Yet Conservatives that are Black today are shunned and rejected. Why?

I really don't understand why we have come to a place where intelligent Blacks that offer strong reasonable opinions, that differ from the Liberal mindset, are considered to have abandoned their race. I don't understand why just speaking American English is considered an insult to so many. It leaves me with my head spinning.

I know of some younger African Americans that have bought into the commoditized view of Black culture. They rush out to buy anything that is hip hop, they obsess over rappers and bling. They are the first to go to any movie that is Black-oriented - no matter the quality - the first to buy a big SUV while living in the projects, the first to get $500 jeans and/or Prada shoes while they can't pay rent. And they are the first to denounce the Black businessman that questions the economic programs of President Obama, or the kid going to college.

Listen to the things said in the video clip. Forget that it's on Fox News, forget about Glenn Beck. Listen to the words, listen to the people. Have you heard these voices in your community? Maybe you even heard it from Bill Cosby. Now ask yourself this, Why have you not supported these views and instead contributed the nearly $1 trillion dollars of Black buying power supporting those that would keep you in a line for food stamps - essentially economic slavery?

Why, in America, would Black Conservatives consistently be called sell-outs, yet entertainers that are followed and emulated and are merely high paid employees selling the denigration and commoditization of Black culture are seen as being pro-Black?

How can an African American that rises from poverty, gets an education even though in sub-standard schools, goes to and pays for college without a trust fund or family money, and creates a career - maybe even a business - so that they can raise their kids in a better life than they had be called a sell-out?

Maybe Black Conservatives don't agree with every word coming out of President Obama's mouth. Maybe they aren't Democrats. Maybe they speak well and have educations. And how does that make them any less worthwhile or Black? How does that make them so different from Dr. King, Malcolm X, or even President Obama?

I'm glad Glenn Beck did this show on Black Conservatives. I'm glad that finally the major media is acknowledging our existence. I'm glad that the Black community is now faced with addressing this segment of Black Americans. Because maybe now we can have some real discussions on fixing the problems we all face. At least until another rapper tells the Black community that jail is good, drugs are great, and abandoning their own children is manly.

The full video is available at www.mvass.com. Either way let me know your thoughts.

Movie Preview: Not Evil Just Wrong

Remember when a regular guy stepped up and took on the mega-corporations in a movie. There was no end to coverage in the media and support for the film created a career for Michael Moore. Since that time he has jumped up and down on the Conservatives of the nation, and most recently hypocritically denounced capitalism as he reaped rewards from it. All to acclaim from the media and Hollywood.

Because the media loves when regular people step up and fight injustice and wrongdoing. At least that is what they claim.

When former Vice President Al Gore skipped around the world on private jets to promote global warming in his movie An Inconvienient Truth, the media lauded praise. The movie was instantly setup as if it were fact. It became a mantra for eco-fanatics and an instrument to dynamically change society across the world. Hell, they even gave Al Gore an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize (at least he did something to earn it).

Again the reason this film was promoted, with jet fuel being guzzled like gatorade, was because it was fighting a wrong. Or so we were told by the media and politicians.

But what if someone stood up and said, "hey, I think you got it wrong." Well that would be fighting an injustice and preventing a wrong. The media should love it. They should be all over such a film, and praising its challenge to the big money of mega-ecology organizations. They should, but they aren't.



The movie being ignored is Not Evil Just Wrong. You probably haven't heard about it, since the media wants it to die on the vine. The film simply looks at the hype surrounding the "green" movement - especially global warming - and points out all the flaws. It's a bit of honesty and prepercussions that Al Gore and others like him refuse to acknowledge.



Note the key things, which are fact. Al Gore has not answered a question about global warming in 4 years. Even as scientists are becoming more sure that global freezing is likely more of an issue than warming. When asked what he has done to correct the errors in the film he has shoved down the throats of schoolkids as fact (yes it was allowed to be shown - with a requirement that actual facts be presented with the film correcting those errors), he refuses to answer the question. In fact he hides behind the emotion of the danger to polar bears, mitigating the FACT their numbers have increased. Then he has his people shut off the mike to end the possibility of debate, the need to answer the question asked, or to prove his position.

This is what Not Evil Just Wrong proposes to address. The questions that the media REFUSES to ask. The FACTS that eco-fanatics refuse to acknowledge. And it does so not with guesses, it uses science and scientists to do so.

Further the film does something that Al Gore (and I believe Michael Moore) doesn't. It provides the real full consequences of the actions taken. What happens when eco-fanatics get laws passed that change society. What will happen if they change things more?

If anyone believes in global warming (which I never have and continue to not believe) then they must - in my opinion - at least hear what facts and consequences exist against that arguement. They must be able to debate these findings without the crutch of emotion, to ensure that they are leading EVERYONE down the right path. Because if they can do so, then even those who disagree will join them in their efforts. But if they cannot, then we all must join together to find solution that really works, and not just make some people feel good at the expense of others.

I suggest that you see this film. Throw out every reason I have just presented. See this movie because Al Gore, the media, and the eco-fanatics are motivated to make sure you DON"T see this film. See this because they don't want you to think about the debate. See this because they are trying to actively control your choices.

You may not agree afterwards, but like with President Obama's attacks on Fox News, the question you should be able to answer is this

Why are they afraid to let you find out what is going on?

Remember something I have said often

"Liberals and the media are happy to have people say and do absolutely anything they want, as long as it agrees with them. The second it does not, they want it shut down and shut away. Isn't that liberal of them."

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.

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.

Sean Hannity vs. Michael Moore

Commentary about these interviews can be found at VASS.

Is TIME hypocritical, or is Glenn Beck the problem?

In as much as politics is entertainment these days, I want to discuss news commentators and the news media. I was motivated to do so by an article in TIME online. They were discussing Glenn Beck. Yeah, that guy.

For those that hate FOX News, and/or anything to the right, I ask you to keep reading and not zone out. For those that hate the left, do the same.

I’ve written about Glenn Beck before. On my political blog site. I have differences with many of his views, but at the same time he must be given credit for being dead-on with several issues. Van Jones was one, so is the current and growing ACORN situation. TIME notes both of these things.

But TIME meanders eventually to the question of if Beck is just there for the money, and playing both sides against the middle? Which is an important question, but not just for Beck.

Right now, politics and cable news coverage are huge business. Unlike years past where it was something more centralized to election cycles, or newspaper subscriptions, today politics is divided to channels available 24/7. Which is definitely helping to divide the nation, and occasionally inform.

Whether Glenn Beck is independent, or to the right does not matter. Whether FOX is right of center or just right of the rest of the media does not matter. They are all in it for the money. Which TIME is in it for as well. So to question the financial success of ANYONE in the media is stupid. None of us, including me (you did click on my advertisers or checked out my store, right?), do this simply for the good of our hearts. We want to be paid as well.

That is the American way.

The bigger question though is if the money is the goal or the means. Yes I want to make money, but I don’t write with that in mind. I write what I believe, and I think most pundits do the same. But in reading the TIME article you would think they are the only ones in the media that do it just to give away every dime. Which is laughable.

Let’s look at things as they are. We have a President that is not what he campaigned as (love or hate him for that as you will). We have an economy that is sour, and not likely to improve anytime soon. We have massive amounts of corruption in both Parties in Government. And the concerns of Joe Average seem the most far removed from politicians in my life (41 years).

Keith Olbermann, Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews and a host of others make millions because of this environment. But is that the goal? Or is it that each of them has a strong belief in what they say, and have no problem making a living from that conviction?

TIME seems to think that it’s all about the money. At least mostly so for Beck. Though they don’t mention their own revenues. Thus making their article useless, except for a subtle bashing of Beck, who has coincidentally scooped them and the rest of the media on several critical issues.

TIME mentions in the article that polls show America has the least trust in the media than perhaps ever before. And there is good reason for it. The Obama Stimulus was passed without being read and the majority of the media let it go. Van Jones made multiple radical accusations, after gaining a high political office, and the majority of the media didn’t blink. The President has made a health care policy that has no definition, and the majority of the media has not asked for details. And most recently, >ACORN has been exposed via the work of 2 amateurs and the majority of the media is just paying attention that this might be serious (a week after the fact).

Do I have a problem with the media, in particular news commentators like myself, focusing on issues they most agree with? Not at all. Do I have a problem with the same people getting paid for it? Obviously not. And of course I may be biased on this.

But I have a massive problem with the major media ignoring issues that are blatantly incidents that deserve national attention. I have a problem with anyone being paid for a job, reporting the news or commenting on it, and then not doing that job. Or worse being hypocritical.

I have yet to see coverage in TIME about the systemic bias in the legal system that continues to exist today. There was no coverage of the Megan Williams case, Oscar Grant, ACORN - the recent trouble garnered 1 article after the Senate vote but focused on past voter registration problems - and so on. For the life of me I cannot imagine why.

So TIME may wax and wane on the success of conservative pundits (with minor comments on Liberal pundits), but their job is to cover the news. Not Glenn Beck and his success, but the national news. He is doing his job – like it or not. TIME needs to do theirs.

No wonder so many find the news media to be so useless. It’s not just politically polarized, it’s stuck its head in the sand to the issues that are the core of its existence.

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.

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.

President Obama at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

So over the weekend the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner took place. And the Dinner was quite interesting. The remarks made at this annual event are comical in nature, plays on the events and scandals at the time. It’s a time for the White House to get back at it’s detractors, poke fun at gaffes, and lighten the mood over controversial policy decisions. Obviously Vice-President Biden was not one of those speaking at the event.

I thought that President Obama did a decent job at the event. He got in jibes at FOX News (which you knew had to happen) and even Michael Steele. He had a few really good jokes, though I think some of the best were directed at himself and Vice President Biden. Perhaps the best joke was at the start of his speech. That was dead on.

So hear is the full speech of President Obama. What do you think was his best joke of the night?

The war of the cable news networks

When you look at the various pundits on cable news these days, you get the feeling that there is a war going on. Not the events in Afghanistan, or Iraq, but in the cable networks themselves. Not a new idea, but recently it went to a new level.

Recently Sean Hannity, of Fox News, made a statement that he would endure waterboarding for the benefit of U.S. military troops. While this was a statement made somewhat lightheartedly, Hannity is a strong supporter of waterboarding as a means of gaining information from terrorists, it was heard in every newsroom across the airwaves.

Thus Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC, took it upon himself to make that comment a reality. He has offered an $1000 to be donated for every second that Hannity endures the interrogation technique. And the far-left loved the visage of the event.

But Olbermann missed something in this. Whether it takes 5 seconds or 5 minutes, Hannity will break. That's not a victory for Olbermann or MSNBC. Nor for the far-left. Because all that proves is that waterboarding is effective.

As much as the far-left, the major media in general, and President Obama want to state that tough interrogations are ineffective the fact is that they work. Even as the President has refused to reveal any information that he has available to him that proves waterboarding has saved American lives (though he is quick to divulge that it was used among other techniques) the fact remains clear as day.

This is only a small part of the war being held in the 24-hour news networks everyday. With the lines drawn such that MSNBC is to the furthest left, and Fox News in the center and thus seeming far right. That is not to say that some people on both networks are at different points in the political spectrum, even to extreme. Hannity is hardly a centrist, just as Olbermann is not.

Still this all leaves me with a big question. Where is the real news?

When any news organization is actively taking a political position, the overall information being given is inevitably altered. When that news is political and will shape the American life, then there is a problem.

Take this minor example. MSNBC praises President Obama and the Congress. This has led them to emphasize coverage of the Obama Administration budget on the fact that it has pledged to lower the national debt by 50% in 4 years. But to cover just that portion of the impact of the budget is to lie to the American public.

The fact is, under the best scenario given by the Obama Administration, the budget will absolutely increase the national debt in 10 years. That is the ultimate outcome of his budget. In fact in the 5th year the deficit will be slightly larger than it is today. That's just 1 year after it would have been whitewashed to look lower for a year. That's polispeak.

Or how about the New York Times, questioning President Obama about how he feels as President. Not that questions about the economy (none were asked), nukes in Pakistan, the war effort in Afghanistan, or the impending release of Gitmo detainees into America are even slightly more important. Do you really care if President feels elated, if you just lost your job?

I realize that I am picking on the left in my examples. Other examples of the same kind of insanity from the right exists abundantly across the net. But the examples are real. And the net effect is damage to the public.

Were it up to me, I'd like to see all the executives at the cable news networks waterboarded. Perhaps that would remind them that the news, and honest critique of politicians (in both Parties), is their job. Not ratings or political agendas. That's what America cares about.

So if Olbermann wants to cover waterboarding, let him do an expose that covers the pros and cons of the issue. Which means admitting it worked, and explaining its failures. Anything else is just trying to grab a bigger television rating (which MSNBC needs - given). Which is not a benefit to America.

And by the way, Olbermann, why not just donate several thousand dollars to the families of the troops that are ensuring that you can get on the air and say whatever you believe. Without them you would be like Cuba or China, just reading whatever the Government tells you to.

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.

A Night to End Violence Against Women in Darfur

Recently I have been in contact with Cynthia Basinet, an accomplished woman of multiple talents. She might be best known to some for her 2005 cover of Eartha Kitt's Santa Baby (which was included in my tribute to Kitt after her death). But she is also a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and an advocate for women and Africa.

Cynthia Basinet sent me something that I am happy to pass on to you my readers. On February 11, 2009 there will be a nation-wide effort on behalf of the women in Darfur, as well as to end the over 5 year long suffering in that region of Africa. There has been an on-going genocide there, as acknowledged by Congress and the U.N., that too little is being done about. I have spoken about Darfur several times. And I look forward to the day I no long have a need to do so because it has ended.

But until that day I encourage all my readers to be involved, with donations and/or contacting your Congressional representatives to pass the laws we have sitting in Congress doing nothing. And part of that involvement can include A Night to End Violence Against Women in Darfur.

In communities across the nation there will be a viewing of Violence Against Women and the Darfur Genocide, a movie discussing the horrific violence that is happening right now. A terrible blight on humanity that the American news media seems to feel secure in ignoring. And afterwards there will be an online discussion with communities just like yours being involved.

You can make a difference in Darfur. You can help the hundreds of thousands that are suffering even as you read this now. I recommend that all my readers find out more about this event, learn about Darfur, and if you can host this event in your community. Because America is a great country, once we get our asses in motion. And the news media is sitting on its ass when it comes to Darfur.

But we don't need to wait for CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or any other news to have a slow day to cover this. We can act today, and on February 11th, and every other day we choose.

To find our more about how you can help the women, children, and families in Darfur on February 11th just click on this link.

We can make a difference here. And we should make a difference. I hope that you agree.

Alan Colmes - the smartest commentor on television?

I was at my weekly pool league game yesterday when the topic of the departure of Alan Colmes from Hannity & Colmes came up. Several people were surprised at the move, and a couple claimed that it’s just what they would expect from Fox News.

Putting aside the far-left promoted misconceptions of Fox News for a moment, I thought about why this might be happening right now. And I also remembered a recent Word of the day from Stephen Colbert – which was on love lost and love found (highly pro-Obama). And I came to a conclusion that was interesting.

I expect that Stephen Colbert will lose his show, and so will several liberal commentators in both television and radio. Also Sean Hannity will lose his #1 rating, and possibly his time slot. The reason is because Democrats now lead the Congress and Presidency. It’s just that simple. After years of promoting liberal issues (Colmes), and (liberals) demonizing in the most personal way President Bush, they are getting out of the way.

Comedians and political satirists on the airwaves have flourished since the 2000 election of President Bush. Besides the fact that he is as eloquent as a stroke victim (no offense meant to those that have suffered this) it was the fact that President Bush won (liberals still say stole) the election by the slimmest of margins. It was taken as a personal slam by many liberals, and they never forgot it. Most of liberal media was motivated by this to attack President Bush on every issue and front they could cover.

For those that chose comedy and were less venom filled than the extremes, there was success. That led to huge moves forward by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as examples. They had an easy target, and they had the support of many liberals. But the most extreme individuals were shunned.

But now there is the media promoted, near flawless (according to many liberal pundits) President Obama. The popularity of this elected official is enormous. As such he cannot do anything but fail these ridiculously high standards placed in front of him. And liberal commentators are realizing that when he fails to keep up to the lofty expectations they will have to critique him harshly. None of them wish to do that.

Add to this the fact that as an African American critique of President Obama will be seen with an eye towards race and race relations. That is an issue America has yet to come to terms with. It’s the dirty secret that everyone knows and few acknowledge. As such comments about President Obama in the negative, from those that lauded him prior to the election will be seen as especially harsh. And that can’t be good for ratings or future career prospects.

So the smartest move is to get out of the way. To let the focus fall on conservatives that oppose the liberal plans of the Democrats. That any opposition will look as if it is entirely partisan (and some of it will be). Thus they can return at a later point and look like shiny defenders of the realm. It’s an interesting political plan, if I am correct.

The problem is that some cannot get out of the way. Like Colbert. And thus he will suffer. Since his television program is meant to mock conservative views, in an Administration of liberal programs he will be hard pressed to mock the Administration and keep the support of his followers. Comedians with similar objectives will face a similar problem. Many will fail as they are too far to the extreme to balance in the new environment.

Alan Colmes may be one of the smartest political pundits the Democrats have. By leaving the #1 rated program on the #1 rated news channel BEFORE President Obama enacts any of his programs (though not before he has broken several campaign promises) he leaves on top. He will continue to support President Obama and the Democrat policies, as an occasional and maybe regular pundit, but that’s not the same.

This will make the views of Sean Hannity seem even more extreme (not to say that several of his views are not already). And it might make some room for critique of President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress to be taken only as partisan. It will definitely make his return, on a more liberal focused program, seem more fair and bi-partisan. Thus Colmes will win big.

All of this makes me see one thing. The news media is far too political and commercialized. There is no room for objective analysis anymore. We have already heard several organizations declare how they slanted their coverage to promote President Obama in the election. Going forward there will be the continuation of this, to the detriment of the public they are supposed to be serving. All in the name of ratings.

And those that critique the politicians, have equally been partisan. Whether it’s David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, or whomever. But their reward will be the loss of much of these ratings. At least at first.

Television and news media coverage of politics are about to change. Many liberals won’t like what it turns out to be. Neither will conservative be thrilled by the media response. In effect, over the next 2 years the public will lose as will the media. If I am correct, Alan Colmes saw this outcome and stepped out of the way. That makes him the smartest commentator on television at the moment.

OJ Simpson trial - injustice unreported

I did not want to discuss this case. But when I listened to the glee from Sheppard Smith (news anchor for Fox News) as he spoke on the news I made up my mind to say something.

The case I am referring to is the OJ Simpson trial. You may not have heard much on this, you might even be surprised to know that his trial in Las Vegas is already underway. And the reason there has not been much media on this is likely because of what the outcome will be.

At this point I feel incredibly confident that OJ Simpson will be sentenced to jail for his life. For all those cheering that sentence realize this – OJ is being jailed based on prejudice and the bias of America.

Whether or not OJ Simpson is guilty of the charges, all 12 of them, stemming from his arrest in Las Vegas is not important. It’s the fact that after more than a decade the legal system, and most White Americans, now have the chance to convict OJ for the murder of Nicole Simpson; which he was found innocent of. The major news media has never accepted that answer. Shepard Smith has always made it clear he despised that verdict. And double jeopardy be damned White America could not live with this.

Every misstep OJ has made since the murder trial ended has been publicized. The media has maintained an onslaught of coverage aimed at 1 goal, tarnishing his image and guaranteeing every American would believe he was guilty of murder and deserved to be in jail. And this trial will be the fruition of all that work.

On the 10th of September the Las Vegas judge, Jackie Glass, decided that 2 members of the prospective jury being contacted by a reported member of the press was not a problem.

On September 12th the jury was selected. 9 women, 3 men. Not a single person on the jury is Black.

On September 16th, after being told not to take into account any of the news or rulings dealing with OJ’s murder trial, the prosecution has introduced it as part of their case.

So let’s look at this. Reportedly 4 men and OJ entered a hotel room to recover stolen goods that belonged to OJ. Questionably the meeting was set up by one of those men, who has given evidence against OJ for reduced charges. 2 men in the room that day are reported to have had guns, neither of which was OJ. Both of those suspected men have turned states evidence to get off their charges in return for being a witness against OJ.

9 women were reminded that this man is believed by the prosecutor, media and many Whites, to have brutally murdered a woman. They were reminded that for over a decade the media has hammered the thought that this man is guilty though proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt.

Fear of racial bias for OJ prevented any person in the jury from being African American. Racial bias to convict OJ was never considered in the jury selection. And the potential jurors being contacted by the media, thus hinting at future media stardom – or at least their 15 minutes of fame and a nice check for a book or appearance – was not important.

And someone wants to tell me this is a fair trial. After the initial arrest superseded all other news for 1 week. After a decade of persecution. After acts of retribution by the police on Rodney King (that’s just a guess about the L.A. police). Yeah, a real fair trial.

OJ is going to be convicted of at least 10 of the charges against him. He will be sent to jail for at least 25 years. It was a foregone conclusion the day he was arrested in Las Vegas. That’s why there the huge media circus that week. Validation for all their efforts of over a decade. And it’s why right now there is so little coverage. It has to be fair if they aren’t covering ever second of this stacked deck.

I’m not saying OJ is innocent of the charges in Las Vegas. I’m not saying there weren’t guns present, or that OJ didn’t know they were there. But I have doubt, especially the way this was handled and organized, and prosecuted.

I am saying that OJ is innocent of the murder of his wife, a court said so. I am saying that White America lost their mind on this case, and the media has fed that hate and anger. I recall mobsters being acquitted of multiple murders and getting less coverage or dismay.

The glee of newscasters reporting on the OJ trial just makes me certain. It may be nearly impossible for a Black man to get a fair trial in much of the nation [Jena 6, Rodney King, Sean Bell, Wesley Snipes, and on]; but it’s impossible for OJ.

Some call that justice, I call it the legal system in action. And people wonder why people of color distrust the legal system.

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.

NASCAR, Mauricia Grant, and my opinion

In the 1920’s the Old South was renown for its relaxed pace of life, good weather, Jim Crow laws, and criminal moonshine bootlegger races. Inbetween the massacre of Rosewood and unknown numbers of lynchings southerners of the time would rally together under the confederate flag to watch the intermittent Sunday races of these speedy criminals. The popularity of these races grew over the decades until in 1947 NASCAR was born.

But the South was unable to captivate the nation with this new sports league as it was busy segregating it’s schools, diners, buses, and life in general. With the Confederate Flag never far the late 50’s and 60’s were filled with Civil Rights protests and marches – and police and firemen using fire hoses and dogs to attack these peaceful demonstrations. And even more lynchings, with an occasional murder of northern White activists.

Then in 1979, after the attention of the nation had been focused on Viet Nam and assumed all the ills of discrimination were absolved by the end of segregation (but not prejudice or discrimination), broadcast television presented the nation a new image of the Old South. In that year the Dukes of Hazzard aired on television.

The Dukes of Hazzard was a mix of old ideas about the South in a more modern package. As I recall the show was as segregated as most all television shows (including the majority of those on-air today) without a single Black character ever crossing the screen. The focus of the show was a family of criminals, moonshine runners, their conflicts with the corrupt but exceptionally familiar authorities, and a NASCAR-esque car featuring the confederate flag. In fact the show was so focused on the car, and the short cutoff jeans of the only female character, that NASCAR grew in attention and prominence.

Jumping forward 3 decades we reach today. A majority of television shows still lack any non-White characters [or present just one so they can claim they are being fair – though I think most cities these shows are based in have more than just the handful of non-Whites the programs insinuate] the Confederate Flag still flies across the South and on government buildings, and NASCAR is more popular than ever. While NASCAR is not directly segregated (there has been African American drivers, and there are non-Whites in the pit crews and support staff) it is blatantly worse than television in its diversity.

Of course many in the South and across the nation would not believe this single northern Black Puerto Rican when I point all this out. God knows they have sent me the letters and comments to tell me so. But then the New York Times, Associated Press, San Jose Mercury News, Fox News and many others presented a news story that goes right to my points.

They all are reporting on a lawsuit by a Black woman that was a former NASCAR official. I say former because when she complained about the sexual and racial and gender abuse and discrimination she was receiving she was fired. Which is against the law and NASCAR rules as I understand.

Mauricia Grant was hired in 2005 to work as a technical inspector on the Nationwide series. In the 22 months that she was employed she was called “Queen Sheba” “Nappy head Mo”, told to hide from the crowds of spectators, called a lesbian, asked to perform sex acts, told she works on “colored people time”, and provided multiple disturbing references to the Klu Klux Klan. That’s just a few of the things she had to deal with. When she filed a complaint, to Nationwide Series director Joe Balash he joined in on the merriment.

Ms. Grant is suing for $225 million.

Of course she will not get that amount. But that is not the issue. Nor is my obvious disdain for the Old South and the romanticized selective rememberances of its past and present. The issue is that in 50 years parts of America have successfully refused to alter their views on human beings. And the nation as a whole willfully accepts this with our collective heads in the sand.

I would like to believe that NASCAR as a whole is not like the allegations that have been leveled against them. I would like to believe that the fans of NASCAR do not share such beliefs. But I am hard pressed to believe that.

Were NASCAR to present the various trophies swaddled in a confederate flag, I would not be surprised. Nor would multitudes of the fans who carry their own flags, cars adorned ala the General Lee (name of the Dukes of Hazzard car), and robed in confederate flags made into shirts, shorts, pants and more. Were NASCAR to have a KKK night, handing out white robes to fans and lighting the track with burning torches, I would be mildly shocked. Not because they did it, but that inevitiably it would be televised. I’m sure some of the NASCAR fans dream of such a night.

I don’t find NASCAR interesting. Because it is a symbol of the Old South and what that factually represents. But fans should wonder about what NASCAR represents today, because the allegations leveled speak to an attitude that is more backward and brain-adled than virtually any stereotype or mockery of the South.

Fox News lied about Tuskegee Experiment

Considering the massive attention being given to Rev. Wright today after his comments to the National Press Club, I wanted to make a comment. But before I could get to that I saw on Fox News at 6:02pm a report where Rev. Wright’s response about the American government creating AIDS and inflicting it on the Black community was addressed. Rev. Wright mentioned

“As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”

The Fox news reporter then goes on to mention that the Tuskegee Experiment was where “syphilis infected Black men were observed for years.”

LIE!

The Tuskegee Experiment was when the United States Government watched (purposefully?? It’s not clear) 400 infected African American men with syphilis, without their knowledge, and then watched what happened over the next 40 years without ever providing a bit of treatment to them. The Tuskegee Experiment ended in 1972, just long ago enough to have affected some of my readers fathers, uncles, brothers, and grand-fathers. That is what our Government did, and when you consider they were willing to do this you can understand why some would think they could create AIDS and infect the Black population again.

Fox News in wording the actions of the government in a softer, and less viscious manner than actually occurred not only lied to the American public, they have attempted to change history and influence the public perception of current events.

Look up the Tuskegee Experiment. Learn the facts. Understand why some have the views they have. Learn what our Government has done and is capable of doing.

It’s moments like this that I get inflamed and angered. The news media has an obligation to report the truth, and when that vow is broken, we must respond quickly and directly.

As for Rev. Wright, you can view VASS and see the full transcript of what he said, word for word. Then you can make up your own mind, just as you should with his full sermons and video.

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?

Beware the Clinton wrath

If you have something negative to say about Senator Clinton or her supporters, especially the female supporters, expect to fear for your job. Such is the reaction found on even the most conservative of news cable networks. Fox has been covering the comments of Randi Rhodes for 3 days now, and they continue to be surprised by the failure of Air America to fire Ms. Rhodes.

You may be wondering, what could a liberal radio personality say that would be so horrible? She called Senator Clinton a Wh***. Add to that the fact that she said the same of Geraldine Ferraro.

Now if you think this was bad keep in mind a few facts. This was not on the radio. It was not in a public forum. It was not open to the public. In fact the video of the event, of which excerpt have been running on Fox News for days, seems to be taken on a cell phone. This is still not enough for some considering what was said. But the last fact is perhaps the most important fact, Randi Rhodes was doing a stand-up comedy act.

That last fact is the most important of all the facts. That is comedic expression. Poor taste perhaps, but far from worthy of the indefinite suspension that she received. And dissimilar to other events with celebrities with horrendous humors.

Unlike the infamous words of Don Imus, this was not on public airwaves. This was not an attack on private citizens. The comments were made in reference to the public political actions of Senator Clinton and Ms. Ferraro. I don’t approve of what was said, but I note the difference.

Like the comments of Opie and Anthony, this was a private venue. It was not available to the general public, and if it was not taped would never have been an issue. The crowd, in general, seemed to agree and enjoy the comedy skit.

Like Michael Richards it was intended to be humorous. It was supposed to amuse and entertain the crowd. In this case it was exactly what was happening. The women in the crowd seem to enjoy the comments as much as the men. There was no expression disapproval or anger. So unlike the Michael Richards event, Rhodes did not cross the line. Actually Richards didn’t just cross the line, he lost his mind.

But the power of the Clinton machine is immense. The major news media has leapt to her defense, wording the event (and manipulating the video) to seem as if this were a public venue or part of her daily work responsibilities. It’s presumed by the media as if Air America had created this event and solicitate these comments.

The real problem of this is the effect it has on Free Speech. By trying to minimize these kinds of events, and by trying to get every instance of such actions punished to a manner beyond appropriate and environment of stifled speech occurs. That is unfair and dangerous. Even for speech that many might find objectionable.

As I defended Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman, in so far as he should not have lost his job for the private racist conversation he had with his son, I say the same of this event with Rhodes. Private conversations and events that are closed to the public should not be held to the same standards and punishment as public ones. Jobs and lives cannot be regulated by politically correct polispeak standards.

I wanted Don Imus fired because he attack private citizens, without provocation, in a manner demeaning to women and racially prejudiced. I wanted Michael Richards to never work again because he crossed the line of humor and made a racial attack based on his own anger and inner demons in a public venue (which he himself acknowledged). I opposed the call to have Opie & Anthony being fired as they were on a radio station that requires paid subscribers, and allows those subscribers to change the channel if they don’t like what they hear. I opposed Dog Chapman being fired because it was a private conversation, even though he acknowledged his constant and racist charged use of derogatory terms.

Based on that I must support Randi Rhodes. She should not be suspended, and definitely not fired. This in fact should have no affect on her day job at all. The media needs to stay out of this issue – which only exists because they created it.

And for the record I don’t listen to Air America, I’m far from a liberal, a Republican, and have no love for Senator Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro.

Eugene Oregon can't speak to African Americans - 3.27.2008.1

If anyone from Eugene Oregon is reading my blogs, I hope that you have a dictionary handy. If not I suppose you can ask a White person from at least 110 countries around the world what my blogs say. I mention this because I just learned that for some reason the city does not seem to know how to speak to Black people.

Seriously. On Fox News at approximately 6:35pm, Dan Springer made a report about the City mandating training to be able to speak with African Americans. Somehow the less than 2% of the population that is Black seems to speak some language that the Americans in Eugene Oregon cannot comprehend.

Ok, I can’t hold it back. You dumb bas****s.

I can believe the insult. Somehow officials there think that English is not enough to allow for communication between Americans in America? Is it because the White Americans in Eugene failed to get an education of any kind? I doubt that. To my knowledge there was no transplanting of an African nation into the town. I am unaware of a Zulu tribe doing a mass immigration into the area. So what is the problem?

I am left with the thought that some White elitist pseudo-intellectual liberal with more money than brains decided that African Americans in the town were being treated unfairly, and the cause was that the White population didn’t know how to speak to them. Were some person to come up to me, and ask ‘How should I speak to you. Do you understand English?’ I would hit them.

I have to believe that the same liberal mentioned above has watched too much BET (Black Entertainment Television) – the music videos, saw Soul Plane once to often, and recently saw Birth of a Nation. Somehow that same person came to understand that Snoop Dogg was the representative of all Black people. I would guess that the same person also probably has never lived in a bigger city nor ever actually been around Black people.

If Savannah Georgia, or Houston Texas, or New York City decided to create a program to teach non-Whites to speak to Whites there would be a riot. The concept is ludicrous it would be claimed. It would be called insulting and stupid. The fact that everyone speaks (or should at least passingly understand) English makes the thought incomprehensible. Equally the converse is true. Except in Eugene.

Somehow my writing, which is actually less evocative than my speaking, is an alien language in Eugene Oregon. Or so their program indicates.

I have to wonder what happened when Senator Obama was speaking in the town. When he spoke about

“The Oregon election is a chance to make change a reality, Obama says. A police officer with a shaved head nearby me nods his head in approval. Come to mention it, there are a lot of cops standing around.”

Did the rest of those at McAuthur court understand? Was the officer nodding his head to stay awake, did he think he was watching some kind of new rap group?

When Senator Obama said

“Obama says he wants a head of the Environmental Agency to actually protect the environment, including Oregon rivers, oceans, forests and skies.”

Did the reportedly massive crowd know he wasn’t speaking about EPMD or did his White heritage somehow provide a encryption key for their ears?

Well let me tell those that find this program neccesary a little secret that only the entire nation should know, and the rest of the world (at least those from the 110 countries that view this blog each month) seems to understand, and every English speaking human being I have ever met understands – even those that I spoke Russian with. You speak to African Americans like a person with respect and you will get respect and a conversation. Speak to us like some dimwitted creature that can’t understand it’s native language and I assure you that you won’t like the results. Especially if you are in arms reach of me.

Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman to return to cable television - 2.20.2008.1

Ok, time to re-focus. As is obvious I have been spending a huge amount of time on the Presidential election of late. From my I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign to the multiple posts on all the candidates and vote results [all found at VASS] I have expressed by belief that this election will critically impact all Americans. To that end I am promoting voter registration, and following everything about the candidates.

But, I have not forgotten the core purpose of this blog. So let me get back to those basics.

The first thing I want to touch on is Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman. He is getting back on cable television. Roughly 4 months after his tirade of the N-word and his, in my opinion, pathetic ‘save my job’ apology he will be going back to work.

The A&E cable network has stated

"Since the premise of "Dog The Bounty Hunter" is about second chances - we have decided to give him one."

That’s a load of crap. Lest I misunderstand the program, which I admit to having never seen more than 30 seconds of, it is the reality-styled coverage of a bounty hunter capturing fugitives from the law and forcing them to face the legal system. There is no second chance but forced responsibility. A responsibility that I feel ‘Dog’ Chapman has sought to avoid. And A&E is going to reward that evasion.

When the story first broke I stated

“The mindset that allows the use of the N-word and other disparaging terms against people of color is the issue. It’s that mindset that is angering. He isn’t upset with the words he uses, he is angry if others find out he uses these words. He knows he’s wrong, and doesn’t care.

That is racist. To cowardly use terms to disparage and degrade people, but not be willing to let anyone of the race in question to hear it is racist. Add to this that in the presence of his minister of 7 years, who is Black, he would not use this term but has no problem saying other curses in front of him adds to his deception. He is more than just racist; he is the hidden racist that acts in secret, in a way similar to the KKK.”

Obviously I did not accept the apology made to gain public sympathy. I did not accept his faulty reasoning. I did not excuse his actions. I still don’t to this day.

But I also stated that he should not lose his job. My reason for this has nothing to do with Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman and everything to do with the First Amendment and the fact that it was a private conversation that was made public without his knowledge. It is those factors alone that prevent me from decrying the actions of A&E.

But that does not mean I will support his return.

I hope this program fails miserably. In fact I would suggest that if you did watch this program you discontinue to do so. A message needs to be made, and diminutive ratings would be a nice step in that direction.

I will say it again, I think Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman is a racist. He is the sort of racist of the worst type. One that would smile in the face of an African American – like his preacher of 7 years – and them stab them in the back when no one is looking (and Mexicans and women as well). He is a cowardly racist that deserves no sympathy for his actions.

Let him go back to work. He was duped into being recorded without knowledge. That is a low blow. But his own admissions on national television (speaking with Hannity of the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes) were that this word and other defamitory demeaning comments were used by his cast and co-workers regularly. Thus the failure of his program would be apt justice.

The N-word is not a common plesantry. It’s not a term that is positive for any group of people to use. It promotes the perception that far to many in America are ready to support, that African Americans are lazy, ignorant, repugnant less than human creatures. That is the impression that the N-word has meant for centuries, and it has not changed as ‘Dog’ Chapan so clearly proved.

A&E is counting on the fact that Americans, of all colors, have short memeories. ‘Dog’ Chapman is counting on the same thing. This blog, and I, do not forget easily the use of a word that is meant to equate my family, friends and myself as less than feces.

So the question is do you?

Donate for breast implants or school books, NAACP, and Jerry's kids

Ok, it’s official. America is screwed up in a massive way. I can only come to that conclusion after finding out about a site that I just can’t believe exists. But it does, and it’s real. Not only that, it was a featured as a story on Fox News earlier today. What is the site? MyFreeImplants.com [No I will not link directly to the site – if you need to see it you can get there easily enough]

Only in America is it possible for such a site to not only exist, but to relatively flourish. The goal of this site is that flat-chested women (18 and over) place their pictures and bio on the site. Men (or women I suppose) who find a particular woman interesting, contact that woman and speak with them via email, as I understand. Based on the looks of the woman, and conversations – possibly with reward of “sexy photos” (at the discretion of the ladies involved) – the ‘benefactors’ donate money towards the ladies gaining cosmetic surgery that will augment their breasts.

That’s the basis of the site. Simple direct and legal. Based on the 4 successes listed on the homepage of the site right now this site has raised at least $23,345. Do the women look different? Yes. Better? That’s dependant on your personal opinions.

But the thing that I am amazed by is what I just mentioned. This site raises money for basically nothing. I won’t equate it with porn, nor an internet somewhat interactive version of Playboy, but I don’t think it’s far from it either.

I’m sure the women involved are quite happy with the results of the site. I’m sure that women that want the cosmetic surgery, without the means to afford it, and willing to undergo this process feel justified. I don’t question them at all. But I must say I’m annoyed by it.

Call it a bit of jealousy. I request donations of .50 cents to $1 (more if you want) for the virtually daily efforts I provide on my blogs and sites. I provide t-shirts, mugs, poetry and more, updated several times a year. I use those donations to help fund the cost of the various sites, and my give away contests (like the $1,100 I gave away for Christmas) and efforts to improve the quality of life – like the I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign. Effectively I give back a tangible something for the precious and generous donations that I receive from you my readers. And I thank each and every one of you that do this for me.

But this website seems to just receive money for nothing. I don’t get it. I don’t see the value in it. Hell, even going to a strip club has more value and return in it. And why do the male benefactors waste their money in such a manner? Forget my donations, the $23,000 mentioned above is discretionary money that could have gone to AIDS prevention and cure efforts. It could buy new school books for a local public elementary school, or help feed kids in those schools. It can give the homeless meals, clothing, and shelter. It could go to organizations that support the improvement of African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and other people of color in every aspect of our lives. Each of those things is far more worthy of a donation than me, and definitely the breast implant site.

So maybe I’m a bit jealous. Maybe I want to get .50 cents per reader so that I can do a huge campaign to help register votes so that the President elected in November realizes that they need to make substantive changes to improve America for Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos. Maybe I want $1 a reader to be able to give a high school student their first year in college free. Maybe I want to give multiple families across the nation money so they can enjoy a feast on the holiday, have gifts for the kids, and/or pay off a few bills. And yes, having a few extra dollars for myself if possible would be nice.

At least I’m honest. And I strive to give a somewhat tangible return for that, even if I don’t get anything. Hell, if the choice is between me and the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon, give it to Jerry’s kids. But $5,000 to look at pictures of a woman with bigger boobs?

I suggest this to those that would spend their money so frivolously. Buy a DVD for $20, take the remaining $4,980 and split it among a few of the organizations I’ve just mentioned. And if you have .50 cents, or a $1 or 2 extra, I’m happy to receive that as well.

The point is you can do far better, for far more people, than an optional self-respect boost for a single person.

And if you think I’m wrong, I’d love to know why.