TIME looks at Pelosi, I reflect on video

As I was serching for "accomplishments" of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - trying to understand how TIME could ever consider her for Person of the Year - I ran across a theme that I've said often at my political blog VASS.

"Liberals believe that you can say anything, do anything... as long as it is completely what they agree with. Otherwise they will shut you down."

It was on this theme that the cries of Speaker Nancy Pelosi insulting Americans at the Tea Party's falls upon. It is this theme that encapsulates President Carter and Clinton (and Pelosi too) claiming that ANY disagreement with the policies of President Obama and Democrats is based solely in racism.



And the list goes on and on.

But I ran across a couple of interestig things on Freedom of Speech and stating your mind that most probably never think about. But maybe we should. Maybe entertainment will make that thought easier to have.



Just substitute President Obama or Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Senator McCarthy


You don't have to agree with me, but just think what television, movies, and life would be like if you just let Person of the Year runner-up Nancy Pelosi ramrod all your decisions through Congress? If our politics can't be filled with free thought, how can you imagine our entertainment to be so?

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi is to be one of the paragons of 2009 I am led to remember a video I've shown here before. And I would say that Pelosi and those of her mindset would be more akin to the view of China or other socialist nations than America in the following video:



Again, you may not agree but it is a thought, via entertainment, that's worth having if you want to read how TIME waxes gloriously about Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Rappers beware Senegal

Gangsta rappers in the U.S. should be happy that world tours don't normally include Senegal, nor any nations similar to it. As tough as they would like to say they are, and a few are indeed all the criminal low-life they propose to be, I imagine most would look quite bad skittering across the stage.

Now the reason I say this is because in Senegal a man of 70 decided to let a group of rappers performing on stage know how he felt about the lyrics they were spewing. He did so with a rifle. Suffice to say they stopped performing.

The reason for this incident was because the elderly man was offended by the lyrics of a particular rap. It dealt with a "cranky old man". The 70 yr old felt it was a disrespect to him, I am lead to believe. When the performers would not abandon the song, he opened fire.

I do not advocate the use of a weapon on entertainers. Not even for rappers that I personally find to be lower than scum for their admitted (and potentially over-glorified) role in dispersing poison (in the form of drugs) to communities. Not even for a horrendous performance. But I can see how the man could have been so enraged.

As I am aware, Senegal is not the most progressive nation in the world. I could be wrong as I have not been there and base this on the news I have seen. So that is a factor. But I have to wonder what would happen in the U.S. if parents and adults took a non-violent yet similar stance to rappers.

What if parents refused to allow their kids to buy the albums that contain offensive lyrics, or watch videos with allusions of drug-fueled grandeur? What if entire communities protested when admitted drug criminals performed in their area? What if felons of violent crimes and drug charges were shouted down when they get on stage and begin songs that promote the death of children by imitating or glorifying their illegal path?

Or on a more personal level what if parents stopped buying the records, and provocative clothing? Blocked the BET's from their cable channels, and monitored the songs their kids listen to? Wouldn't that be something.

Yes kids would still be able to listen to songs and rappers when they are out of the home. But that is a limited time. Unless you allow the child to roam the streets, even after 11pm at 12 years old, as I have seen in some places. Because parents have the power.

A child has no money of their own. They don't work. So either you are buying the trash for them or you aren't paying attention on what they are doing. Because if they have a new pair of stupidly expensive jeans that don't fit and sneakers that cost over $100 and you didn't pay for it you should ask questions and get involved.

But my main point is this. While the Senegalese man was over the top in his reaction, he had a reaction. In the face of apparent disrespect and dismissal of his complaint he did something. The wrong thing, but something. How many parents in America have done something? As I mentioned, by the number of kids roaming streets far beyond any reason, the number of those that dropout of high school, become single parents, get addicted to drugs, and die before the age of 25 they are not doing much.

Gangsta rap is a business like any other. Were it the equivalent of a pharmaceutical company it would have been recalled and banned due to its negative side-effects a decade ago or more. But this is the music industry, and unlike in Senegal many just accept the insults, profanity, degradation, and promotion of illicit drug use because 'it's just music'.

Rappers, like all artists, have the freedom of speech. I respect their right to perform as they choose. But that does not mandate an obligation on my part to listen nor provide them a financial incentive to continue. Even if they are Black or Latino. Call that my non-violent Senegal-style gunshot to the gangsta rappers.

Marilyn Manson performs for Obama: what if it happened?

Here is something you don’t hear everyday. In fact I just heard about it today. Supposedly Marilyn Manson was going to have a performance that would have been in behalf of President Obama (then Senator Obama). Can you imagine it?

Now the source of that would be performance is Manson’s ex-girlfriend Evan Rachel Wood. So there is some question on the fact of this. And even more questionable when you factor in that the Obama campaign immediately denied the suggestion.

But I have to wonder what if Manson had performed?

Yes I realize that some find Manson to be weird. His music is not the most mainstream, though he is very popular. His appearance is really the most disturbing part of him to many older Americans I think. Which is a shame as it has nothing to do with talent or ability or his opinions.



The appearance of Manson is also irrelevant to his actions. It was Manson that has gone out and discussed the Columbine massacre in an honest manner. And he is a voice of change and self-responsibility. I may not agree with everything he says, or how, but I respect and understand his position. And much of that is the same kind of change that Obama has campaigned on.

“I think it's terrible when anyone dies, especially if it is someone you know and love. But what is more offensive is that when these tragedies happen, most people don't really care any more than they would about the season finale of Friends or The Real World. I was dumbfounded as I watched the media snake right in, not missing a teardrop, interviewing the parents of dead children, televising the funerals. Then came the witch hunt.

… Right now, everyone is thinking of how they can prevent things like Littleton. How do you prevent AIDS, world war, depression, car crashes? We live in a free country, but with that freedom there is a burden of personal responsibility. Rather than teaching a child what is moral and immoral, right and wrong, we first and foremost can establish what the laws that govern us are.”

It scares me that anyone could be restricted in voicing their comments about America, politics, and life in this nation. Marilyn Manson has as much right to support Obama (or any other politician) as has Jennifer Hudson, Will.I.Am, Oprah, or even Chuck Norris for McCain. They are all Americans and they all had opinions, as did over 120 million other Americans.

I wish Manson did perform on behalf of a politician. And in that performance I would have loved for him to state that appearance, whether it is clothing styles, skin color, or a name are all excuses to close our minds to anyone in those clothes, of that color, with that funny name.

I doubt the Obama campaign would have crumbled. I doubt that it would have gotten Obama more votes. But it might have motivated more of the youth that feel left out of the mainstream. And that itself would have been enough reason for me.

Why do I care about this after the election, and considering the fact it might not be true? Because if Manson did not perform or state his support because of appearances and potential outcry it was a voice in America being silenced. If any American is silenced like that, then we all are less free. And if appearance can silence us, appearance can again become the cause of enslavement of us.

And I won’t allow that to happen without comment or a fight.

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.

Free speech or is it - 10.30.2007.1

Sometimes you just run into things that hit a note. I was looking for something to write for Real Simple Blog and I found this. Perhaps the most important part of the entire clip is the last portion. I suggest that ALL college students reflect on those final statements.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
**Some might find language in this video objectionable. Be aware of that prior to playing it.**