"Negro dialect"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

41 years and counting for Dr. Martin Luther King

It’s been 41 years so far since the death of Dr. Martin Luther King. In that time, my lifetime as I was born 2 days after his death, many things have changed but some have not. One of the more surprising things is the fact that this celebrated Civil Rights champion has never made it to the silver screen.

Well let me correct that. There was a documentary about Dr. King, shown once on March 24th 1970. That’s it. Every other time he has been shown has been on television. And that is usually just documentaries about his actions and/or death, shown almost exclusively during February (Black History Month).

But it seems that Dreamworks has decided to change that chasm of history. Finally Dr. King will have a film, noting more than just his marches and tragic death. Giving everyone in the nation a bit more than just his speeches. But how much do you want to bet it opens in Febrary?

The thing I hope for in this film, that has no date for production to begin or when it might appear in theaters (bet on it being in either 2010 or more likely 2012), is that it does for Dr. King what Malcolm X did for Malik El Shabazz. That is give the public more than a few quotes, or a static visage of the man.

In allowing us to see Dr. King as the man he was we will get to understand and appreciate what he did and what he sacrificed. Because right now, Dr. King is just “I have a Dream” and not the passion and desperation that fueled that dream. People forget that Dr. King was not some political tool, but a force with goals and issues that were societal in the foremost.

Dr. King these days is seen as a holiday. The aspirations he hoped for African Americans have mostly failed to happen. America is little better off today than in 1960 in many ways. We are improving, but so slowly as to seem as if all forward motion has stopped.

I say this because I don’t know how many people believed that President Obama was the incarnation of Dr, King’s dream. Which is a falicy, promoted by the commercialization of his efforts. Dr. King did not want one man to succeed, he wanted everyone to improve their lives.

Yes, President Obama did a grand thing. But how could Dr. Martin Luther King be happy about that when over 50% of teenage pregnancies are Blacks. How can he be rejoicing the election while over 50% of African Americans are dropping outr of school. Why would he cheer when television still shuns people of color in front of and behind the camera, or when African Americans are highlighted we are stereotyped and objectified?

Dr. King’s dream’s, efforts, and life were dedicated to preventing these very things. While I think he would be impressed with the success of President Obama (which is not the same as approval of his political policies) he would not hold that above the failures that are rampant in the Black community. The success of one is not the success of us all in some cases.

So I hope that seeing Dr. King as the man he was, standing for the things he believed in, advocating changes we still need to see implemented can help to really improve America. Because it’s not happening now. It likely won’t happen even if President Obama is re-elected on the political endeavours he currently proposes. Because that is not what the dream is about.

Movies to see before you die

There is nothing quite like a list of something to get the blood boiling. When that list happens to be of movies, and is called the 100 movies to see before you die, well you can imagine I was like a moth to a flame.

This Yahoo list is pretty good though. In fact I have seen 74 out of the full 100. When it comes to lists of great movies, I normally have far more issue with some of the choices. But this list is very much on the mark.

But they did get a few wrong.

Like Princess Monoke. A very good anime film. But not something you must see before death. I'd substitute that with Akira or Ghost in the Shell. Both are dazzling in the story and art. Far more compelling anime.

They touched on martial arts films, including Bruce Lee's Enter The Dragon. A true classic. But not the only style of martial arts film worthy of viewing. For a story that is completely different yet deep in thought and martial arts try Circle of Iron as an addition to your top 100 list.

I have to be excited about this list as they included one of my favorite films, and one that most people never heard of. M. That is a classic and groundbreaking. It may be old and sub-titled, but it is powerful cinema and that's what matters.

The list leaves out The Princess Bride, which I think is great on a comedic and swashbuckling level. And they did not include a universal classic The Adventures of Robin Hood. How can they not have Errol Flynn's most renown role.

Still the list does have Blazing Saddles and Do The Right Thing. Something I'm glad to see as films starring Black actors or directors normally seem to not exist in these kinds of lists.

Though they ignored Malcolm X, by Spike Lee. There is a reason why this was Denzel Washington's first Oscar nominated role (which he was robbed of), and why the movie itself was robbed of an Oscar Award. Once you see it I think you will agree.

I like that the list includes: the original 12 Angry Men, Alien, Apocalypes Now, Blade Runner, Bridge on the River Kwai, Die Hard, Dr. Strangelove, The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, the original King Kong (one of the first films I ever saw and remember to this day), Groundhog Day, It's a Wonderful Life, Lawrence of Arabia, M.A.S.H. (yes it was a movie long before it was a television show), Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Animal House, Nosferatu (second film I recall ever seeing), Schindler's List, Seven Samurai, Some Like It Hot, Star Wars (the first of the series in 1977), To Kill A Mockingbird, and Usual Suspects. I find them all to be essential films that everyone should see at least once.

Also included in that list of core movies (besides the others I mentioned above) that everyone should see is Being There. A Peter Sellers film unlike anything he did before it. This is comedy of a cerebral nature yet enjoyable just to watch and eat popcorn with.

Overall this list is very good. One of the better lists to come out of Yahoo. But it isn't perfect. At least to me. And I think if you take the time to compare the movies I would add to the list, you'll see how much better it becomes in total.

I have often regretted my speech, never my silence

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

For those that are still angry, concerned, or just learning of the murder of Oscar Grant I want to mention that I have not forgotten. I still am following the details as best I can on what is going on.

From time to time I will have further updates on this case, and any other issue that involves race relations in America, on this blog. But as I have sought to focus more deeply on entertainment and its various aspects on this blog, I will be posting many of the interim thoughts I have on this at my political and general blog – VASS (www.mvass.com)

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." - Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), Inaugural Address, January 20, 1953

As much as the media wanted to say all race issues are over, as much as many of us want to believe that racism and prejudice have ended, the fact is that neither is true. President Obama taking office is a huge, wonderful, historic moment towards a day where such will be true, but that is not today.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." - Auric Goldfinger, in "Goldfinger" by Ian L. Fleming (1908-1964)

Right now there have been 3 murders of Black men since the start of 2009, after the election of President Obama. Oscar Grant and the following:





Right now there are millions of children with substandard schools and school books – focused on areas where there are high concentrations of African Americans, Latino/Hispanics, and other ‘minorities’. Right now minorities across the nation receive less pay versus a White peer. Almost 1% of all the major CEO’s are people of color. And the media, including Hollywood, maintains roughly 5% of its workforce that are people of color – combined – in front of and behind the camera and in the executive offices.

The dream of Martin Luther King, the demands of Malcolm X, the struggles of those involved in the Civil Rights Movement are not over.

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

So I will continue to discuss these things, until one day there is no longer a need. I hope for that day to be soon. But until then, most of my commentary will be found at VASS.

"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates (396-314 B.C.)

95 of the top 100 greatest movie characters

Oh the fight is on. It seems that British magazine Empire made a list of the top 100 movie characters ever. This of course could not go without dispute. and thus Yahoo had to throw in their 2 pennies with a list of the top 25.

And I think that both lists have some merit but forget quite a bit. And the order of the characters is just plain dumb. Empire has Tyler Durden (Fight Club) as Number 1, Yahoo goes with The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin's films). While the Tramp is a good choice I think it isn't the best.

So here is my entry into the foray. Without question I will be told I am wrong to varying degrees. But that is the nature of a top list.

1.Harvey (Harvey)- The number 1 spot has to go to the only character that is never seen or heard from, is spoken about in virtually every 3rd line, is the center of attention, and is loveable.
2.Darth Vader (Star Wars series) - this is what bad guys are
3.HAL-9000 (2001) the definition of paranoia and what happens without the 3 laws
4.Morpheus (Matrix) the heart of the entire series
5.Mad Max (Mad Max series) defining the loner
6.Ellen Ripley (Alien quadrology) The most powerful woman character on several levels
7.Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs) The power of a mind twisted
8.Willie Wonka (original version Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) The joy of childhood in an adult
9.Malcolm X (Malcolm X) The example of what a life can become
10.Captain (Das Boot) The ultimate in determination
11.Popeye Doyle (French Connection) Perserverance personafied
12.T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) Ambition and a dream made real via willpower and planning
13. Lee (Enter the Dragon) The fusion of mind and spirit
14.John McClane (Die Hard series) The worst of being in the wrong place wrong time
15.Han Solo (Star Wars trilogy) Swashbuckling in space
16.Ferris Bueller (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) The perfect in the right place and right time
17.Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects) The least is the greatest among us
18.James Bond (007 series)
19.The Terminator (The Terminator series)
20.Ghengis Noonian Khan (Star Trek: Wrath of Khan)
21.Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Kilgore (Apocalypse Now)
22.Indiana Jones (Indiana Jones series)
23.The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin's films)
24.Mr Blonde (Reservoir Dogs)
25.Forrest Gump (Forrest Gump)
26.Harry Callahan (Dirty Harry)
27.Dr. Strangelove (Dr. Strangelove)
28.Ash (Evil Dead)
29.Charles Foster Kane (Citizen Kane)
30.Blondie (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly)
31.C3PO and R2D2 (Star Wars)
32.Inigo Montoya (Princess Bride)
33.Jules Winnfield (Pulp Fiction)
34.Mr. Virgil Tibbs (In the Heat of the Night)
35.Roy Batty (Blade Runner)
36.Will Kane (High Noon)
37.Norma Desmond (Sunset Blvd.)
38.Arthur Chipping (Goodbye Mr. Chips)
39.V (V for Vendetta)
40.Zatoichi (Zatoichi series of films)
41.The Major (Ghost in the Shell)
42.Inspector Clouseau (original Pink Panther series)
43.Alex DeLarge (A Clockwork Orange)
44.Michael Meyers (Halloween series)
45.Roy Dillon - (The Grifters)
46.Lilly Dillon (The Grifters)
47.Chris (The Magnificent 7)
48.Max Bialystock (The Producers),
49.Yojimbo (Yojimbo, Sanjuro)
50.Jason Bourne (Bourne series)
51.Capt. Hilts "The Cooler King" (The Great Escape)
52.Hans Beckert (M)
53.Rooster Cogburn (True Grit)
54.Ray Charles (Ray)
55.Princess Leia Organa (Star Wars)
56.Atticus Finch (To Kill A Mockingbird)
57.Saul (Soylent Green)
58.Chance the gardener (Being There)
59.Fred C. Dobbs (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
60.Jessica Rabbit (Who Framed Roger Rabbit)
61.Dracula
62.Frank White (King of New York)
63.Agent Smith (Matrix series)
64.E.T. (E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial)
65.Jack Torrance (The Shining)
66.The Car (Christine)
67.Snake Plissken (Escape From New York)
68.Lt. Frank Drebin (The Naked Gun)
69.Luke (Cool Hand Luke)
70.George Bailey (It's A Wonderful Life)
71.Mathilda (The Professional)
72.G. Joubert (3 Days of the Condor)
73.Robin Earl of Locksley (Adventures of Robin Hood)
74.Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
75.Maximus Decimus Meridius (Gladiator)
76.the kids (Village of the Damned)
77.Mystery Woman (Blues Brothers)
78.Alice (Alice in Wonderland)
79.Ensign Frank Thurlowe Pulver (original Mr. Roberts)
80.Ken Pile (A Fish Called Wanda)
81.Witch of the West (Wizard of Oz)
82.Marv (Sin City)
83.Norman Bates (Psycho original)
84.Dil (Crying Game)
85.Damien (Omen original)
86.Lieutenant Commander Philip Francis Queeg (The Caine Mutiny original)
87.Zed (Killing Zoe)
88.Lawrence Garfield (Other People's Money)
89.Mary Kate Danaher (The Quiet Man)
90.John "Bluto" Blutarsky (Animal House)
91.Alice (Resident Evil series)
92.John Robie (To Catch a Thief)
93.Chief Bromden (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
94.Old Yeller (Old Yeller)
95.Cujo (Cujo)

Each of the characters in the above films stands out, and their loss is one that makes a vacuum. Though the roles are not always the biggest they are powerful.

Some might dispute the inanimate or anime characters. But that does not prevent the characters from being as real or influential as any other. Some may wonder about why there are so few women. The honest answer is that until relatively recently there just haven't been many roles written where women are prominent or have a truly standout role. Some might discount the characters that reflect real people. But these movies are not the actual person's life and still their characters are larger than life.

And why does my list stop where it does? Well how might you round out this list? What might you change?

Danger for kids on the internet

I have a nephew that is pre-teen, and is on a social network. Recently I found that he had made changes to his page on that site. And I was amazed and upset by what I saw. And I wonder if other children have done the same thing. [By the way, all the things have been since changed and discussed with him by his father - so he understands why they were inappropriate.]

One of the first things that was on the site was the fact that he had pictures up that showed him and his friends holding up the moronic 'westside' and other similar gang signs. Beyond looking as bad as anyone who does this, it alarmed me to think that some fool was trying to recruit him and his friends into the dead-end life that is a gang member.

As it turned out he and his friends had no understanding of what the symbols meant. They had just seen them many times on television and thought it looked cool. Which is the idea I suppose. But he also did not realize that fools that believe in this kind of lifestyle also might hurt or kill him and his friends, because it was an insult to their gang or he represented an invasion to their 'territory', or simply because he had no connection to their abusive, illogical, warped group.

Another problem was the fact that his age was incorrect. This was done because he and his friends did not want to be seen as kids. For some reason they felt that being their actual age was a bad thing. That they were left out of some major positive the website provided only to adults.

They had no idea that this minor act helped to put them in danger of the pedophiles and other warped individuals that surf the net. They roam around enough as is, they need no help in finding children. And when my nephew mentioned that he would never be tricked into meeting with or otherwise contacting a stranger because he is too smart - I had to remind him that many adults are far smarter and have more experience than even the highly intelligent boy he is.

But the really big things that bothered me was the ease he had in finding and using graphics from a site that had an altered image of Microsoft's Word package.

The Word graphic is a box that has the picture of 5 famous rappers on it. Each in a state of rapper ghettofabulousness. Underneath were the words "Yo it's Word (n-word)". This was thought to be funny. Yet when asked there was no reason why it was funny, it just was.

So I then asked a simple question.

"Does it make sense that all these rappers and people want to be 'ghettofabulous' but everyone in the ghetto, especially the rappers, all want to get out? How good can the ghetto be, and living a life based on the 'ghetto', when no one wants to be there - even with money - except drug dealers."

His answer was simple as well. "It doesn't make sense at all."

I then asked the really big question.

"Do you know what the n-word means?"

He did not. He had no clue, though he has heard it in music and movies. He just thought it was another word.

That might sound great to some but that troubled me. Because the meaning of the word has not changed. If the CEO of Procter&Gamble used it in a interview he would be fired and sued if possible. The same would happen to the record executive that rappers work for (many of whom will not allow that word to be used in their own home). Because the meaning never changed, no matter the color of who says it.

So I told him about the fact that the n-word was used to describe slaves. That it was used to describe people just like him and I that were treated worse than dogs. And I told him about all the people that died so that he would never have to be called that word. Like uncounted numbers of slaves, Blacks that fought in the Civil War, WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam. Men like Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All those that died in the civil rights movement and so many others.

I told him the truth of the meaning of the word, and how it is defined in part as the single worst word in the english language. That to be called that has no comparison or equivalent come-back.

And then I told him how lucky he was to be alive today. Because he has never been called that. But I have been, as has my mother and father and so on. That he never has to fear being called that (I hope) because he was playing in school with a White kid, or because a White girl liked him. The world is mostly better than that, but not entirely.

And I told him the truth that the legal system once said that if a White person called a Black person that word, and the Black person hit them they would not go to jail. Because it was an incendiary term, a provoking term. And that's why the White owners of record companies can't say the word, but pay rappers to do it for them. And I asked him this

"How important do you think it is that the law was made about this word? How big a word do you think it is?"

He thought it very important. And he understood it in a very different and unfunny way.

I say all that to bring up this point. It's not enough to just watch what children are doing on the internet. We all, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents, need to be involved. We all need to explain why some things are wrong, and what the history of these things are. Because if we don't kids will use them, act on them, to their detriment.

Spike Lee ignores racial diversity

I love the film work of Spike Lee. I like the fact he takes on controversial topics. But his politics are something else.



I am a Black Republican. I support Republican ideals. You know, things like if you work hard you deserve to keep more of what you earn. Being self-responsible instead of relying on the Government. Having a strong militiary is one part of having a safe nation. And so on.

I disagree with the policies that President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress propose. Thing like letting the Government pick my healthcare for me. Having the Government decide how much money I should have. The Government deciding where my money should go instead of allowing me to expand my business or give to a charity or cause of my choice. Talking to nations and groups that have sworn to their God to kill all of us – and increasing their power by doing so, instead of ensuring they can’t hurt the nation and think twice before doing so. Forcing conservation by jacking up electricity costs and closing power plants. Stuff like that.

Does that make me a White man stuck in the 50's? Does it make Afican Americans like Colin Powell, Ken Blackwell, Condoleezza Rice, Janice Rogers Brown, Erik Rush, Ken Hamblin, Thomas Sowell, Yaphet Kotto, Lynn Swann, Karl Malone, Akindele Akinyemi, T.D Jakes, James Meredith, Vernon Robinson, Stanley Crouch - and I believe Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcom X – among so many others White? Spike Lee seems to think so.

He may not agree with the views of the Republican Party but that does not mean he should insult all Republicans with stereotypical comments. Just as he would be upset if he was stereotyped, or labeled as a liberal, tree-hugging, socialist, racist. I don't think such things can be said about him or most Democrats, but niether should Republicans be blasted.

And most of all I hate the way that Black culture, and American society in general, insists that African Americans must be Democrats. Like we don’t have minds and philosophies of life of our own. Like race is the only issue that we care about.

If Spike Lee makes a new film, I’ll still probaly go see it. But I’m way past tired of being blasted for a choice I make for my own life.

Fox News spends day attacking Rev Wright, I get angry - 3.14.2008.4

Today I spent the day, from 9am and continuing thru my writing of this, watching Fox News. That is something I do 5 days a week normally. Its part of how I do my work and one source that keeps me informed on breaking news. And throughout the day I have gotten angrier and angrier.

Before I explain why I have anger today, let me share a moment in my life. Back when I was in high school, in the mid-80’s, I was a solid student but not due to my effort. The material being presented, as well as could be done by teachers that actually cared, was dated and in some cases blatantly inaccurate. But several of my teachers saw something in me and challenged me separate of the planned coursework.

Part of one of those challenges led me to a discussion about Malcolm X in a history class. It was my position that he was worthy of recognition and I wanted to know why he was not being discussed while Dr. Martin Luther King was. In my eyes at the time I felt Malcolm X had done more and made possible more than had Dr. King.

I was told directly, he wasn’t a good person. I was told directly that he had made statements that were vicious and mean. That he was un-American. That he was dangerous and should not be looked up to.

The teacher stating this to me is a friend and I respect him. He went out of his way to help me, in high school and college, even going out of his way to do so. He respected me and gave me responsibilities beyond my age. Through his direct influence I was entered into the Mr. Bronx competition, an advanced college program, and a job. He was white and Jewish if that matters to anyone.

I was annoyed that day because I had read the Autobiography of Malcolm X years earlier and found it inspirational. Not because of the negative speeches or stance against White Americans, but because of his ability to overcome racism and bias, to become educated in a culture that did not value it, and his ability to lead and learn throughout his life. I think all of those reasons are positive and admirable in anyone.

So to flatly disavow the accomplishments of the man because of a focus on the negatives he had, which we all have had at some point in our lives, was unfair.

Today I see the same thing happening, mostly from individuals that do not have the best interest of the American people at heart. Senator Obama is being railroaded, and this is the means to viably deter his chance at the presidency.

For hundreds of years, hundreds, White ministers and pastors decried Jews and Blacks as sub or non-human beings. White ministers for centuries defended the right to slavery. Fro decades White ministers organized lynchings and Jim Crow laws. Right up to the recent actions at Bob Jones college that had rules forbidding interracial dating – not in the 1800’s or 1950’s but in the 80’s during the Reagan Presidency.

I have heard White ministers call AIDS God’s punishments on gays, and other similar comments. I have read and refuted a minister that wrote to defend a murderer, who killed an abortion doctor, because of his political beliefs. And I have seen these preachers and others like them on their pulpits on Sunday espouse these political beliefs. Even in this election cycle, Senator John McCain recently distanced himself from a religious leader that was making a racial attack on Senator Obama while introducing and supporting McCain (though McCain waited for the press to start to question the event before making a move).

But this is all ok.

I listened today to Sean Hannity as there was a replay of an interview with Rev. Wright, in which Hannity asked,

“If there was a church that advocated Black business, Black schools, and a Black focused society but the word used was White instead of Black, what would you call it?” – Paraphrased

I did not have the full quote, forgive me if I have the exact wording wrong. But I noticed the nature of what I have seen all day. White pundits universally condemning a 30 year span spent spreading his religion, supporting his community, and standing up for the rights of people of all walks of life in this nation and abroad. (Rev. Wright was a leading advocate against Apartheid, and gay/lesbian rights)

By the way, the answer to Hannity’s question

“I would call it a church. The White is assumed.”

I got angry as 10 second soundbites from an unknown number of sermons of unknown length, that have been available since the moment Senator Obama announced his run for Presidency, were used to condemn this man. Yet I heard nothing about the fact that Rev. Wright is a former Marine, or an acknowledged theological scholar.

The context of these soundbites were picked to scare White people. They were meant to inflame White people. They are by design intended to kill the chance of Senator Obama being elected as President, I believe.

Let me pause again. I am a Republican. I like Obama, but disagree with his political objectives. He is an inspired speaker, but has no experience. I believe he could be good for the nation, and I prefer him over Hillary everyday of the year. But I am not an Obama supporter. Currently I have not picked between Obama and McCain.

As I was saying, suddenly there is all this attention. Just as the Democratic race was reaching a critical point. While Obama is leading in delegates, popular vote and state count.

Now there is nothing that connects the worst, or any of the comments of Rev. Wright to political decisions of Senator Obama. I have yet to see anything connecting the 2, and I have not heard anyone alleged that they are connected. Yet Senator Obama is being held by these statements as if there was a connection.

And not one other Presidential candidate has had their religious leader taped, soundbites made, or interviewed. None have had their sermons recorded or questioned. Thus there is no way anyone can claim that similar or worse is not being preached to the other candidates.

And like my experience in high school I have to ask why? Why is this so blatant, and so sudden. After 14 months of campaigns there is suddenly all this attention. After all the racial attacks now there are the questions and anger. All in 24 hours. And I mean 24, in the more than 12 I have watched Fox News today I have seen Rev. Wright more than I have seen any African American on any on series of programs or programming with the exceptions of BET and TV One. The soundbites of his sermons have been played more often than coverage of the death of President Ford. That is the degree of the statement trying to be made.

And there is another point. Several of Rev. Wrights statements are true. I reviewed one 3 minute video clip of Rev. Wright, and 90% of what he said was true and fine. But of the 10% I disagreed with I’ve seen 2 10 second soundbites that have been played so much that I would guess it’s had 2 hours of airplay. And I’m to believe that this is not biased?

In one 24 hour period Fox News has succeeded in bringing race and religion into this election in a manner that Senator Hillary Clinton was both unable and probably gleeful to see. And the only reason I can come to why this is happening is because Senator Obama is Black.

Black Pride has been made a fearful thing. And yes, Rev. Wright has made statements that are objectionable. But how many times has he made these statements in 30 years? In what context were they made? Do we know if he later corrected himself or apologized for some of these statements? Did he, like Malcolm X, later recognize he was wrong in some statements? Fox News and all the major media have never bothered to mention it if he has.

So again I saw why?

If there was any connection to the political actions of Senator Obama, I could understand all of this. But none has been presented. If every candidate’s pastor, priest, or religious leader was given this same scrutiny I would be ok – but they are not. And if any of the comments made by Rev. Wright were any worse than what I’ve heard in churches in the Bronx, California, New York City, across America in Black churches I’d be concerned. But the honest answer is that while I disagree with some statements they are not new, or isolated to Rev. Wright.

And just like Senator Obama, all those that have heard those words have the ability to chose and interpret what they have heard.

Ok, I have to stop. I’m tired and angry. Maybe I’ll discuss more tomorrow. But you can see my comments on the video at www.mvass.com

The Erasing of Black History

This post was written by C. Miller a contributing author to this blog.


I find myself at the end of Black History Month looking around to see what has been put out there for our young people to see of blacks in the U.S. To my disappointment not much different was done. All the same things as last year and the year before etc.

We see all the familiar faces of Black History such as Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Malcolm X. This is just to skim the top. No one seemed to be interested in the fact that we are living in a moment in time where history is being made. Across the world many people of black decent are coming into positions of power. In the U.S. alone we have Barrack Obama fighting to become the Presidential nominee. We have Condoleezza Rice a woman of color occupying a high level government office and of course Colin Powell, who can forget this great man.

The winds of change are in the air to say the least. To my surprise some change happened in the high school my son attends. February 2007 I found that in Union Endicott High School of Endicott, NY that Black History Month has been erased from the curriculum and no one batted an eye. No one thought to fight for Black History to be kept on the school curriculum. No teachers protested this change and on one made a peep as it was silently removed. At this school Black History went into the night without so much as a whisper. Up until this point no one noticed that it was put to death.

My son, being of mixed African American decent, was unaware of the impact of this particular event. I had to explain to him what it meant to have Black History removed from school. I then stood to explain to my son the richness of his family history. Here is how I laid it out for him; from myself (age 40), to my mother (age 59), to her father (age 79), to his now deceased father who at the time of his death in 1998 was 104 years old. At this point I explained that his great great grand father was a sharecropper in Hawkins Ville Georgia on the same land his parents and grand parents were slaves on. This is a line in history that his school has now negated. Virtually saying to my son, “your history is unimportant and not worthy of the paper on which it would be written.”

He found this to be an unbelievable thing; he said it felt like he was being robbed. That the school had studies on the Holocaust and all kinds of other studies of people. So when did the history of blacks in the US become any less important. This is a question he will be asking his counselor at school to see what the answer will be. I told him not to be surprised if his counselor sweeps it under the carpet in the hopes that it just goes away and that my son forgets about it.

How can the American school system sweep away so many tragic moments in its history along with all the wonderful things that black invented and not even bat an eye? What repercussions will follow in the wake of this action being taken by a public school? Who was it that okayed such a thing being done in the school system? And why were no red flags raised among the teachers and faculty of the school over this?

As a result of asking my son at the beginning of the month what his project for Black History Month was going to be is how this conversation came about. I was excited to help him with whatever the project was going to be, but instead I find that the school has completely removed Black History from the roster.

Attending a Jeff Johnson talk at Ithaca College of NY, I had more questions to ask. I just happened to mention to Mr. Johnson what I thought was something that could happen in schools, the erasing of Black History. Only to come home and talk to my son the next day and hear from him that such a thing had taken place, right under the noses of everyone. It was slipped in nice and quiet so as not to cause a ripple.

Have parents become so complacent as to not notice when huge swaths of American History are being taken away? I have to say on some level yes, because it happened in Endicott, NY. I have to say yes because I was one of those parents. I have to say yes because I have not heard nor have I read of anyone responding to this on any level. The scary thing is that with this coming to light we are now sending our children of color out as sheep among wolves. Their futures hang in the balance and with the rippling effect of what has happened in Endicott NY. For something like this to take hold even on a small level, what can be expected for their futures?

Grammy's versus Black History Month - 2.11.2008.1

Why is it that I have seen news on ‘Cookie’ Thornton for a day last week, and then a bit later news on C.J. Turner, but I have yet to hear that 3 of the 6 defendants responsible for the rape, torture and kidnapping of Megan Williams have admitted their guilt? Why is it that I have seen maybe half a dozen missing women reports since the beginning of the year yet none of them have been Black, Hispanic/Latino or Asian. Why is it that major news media followed every aspect of the OJ Simpson Las Vegas case for 2 weeks, but there was barely 5 minutes of coverage on Wesley Snipes being found innocent of Federal charges? [Look at the linlks on the bottom for posts on the above.]

I bet right now there is more news out about who won Grammy's, and what the celebrities and entertainers wore than on Megan Williams, Wesley Snipes, and every Black woman and child that went missing in this nation since the beginning of the year. At the very least you think you would see more about African Americans since this is Black History Month, yet that isn’t the case.

In fact, there is more news about the drugs Heath Ledger took to kill himself (accidental or not), or the coverage of the news about Kayne West and Amy Winehouse winning awards than there was about the 3 villages in Darfur that were bombed on Friday, and the tens of thousands of men, women, and children that are fleeing for their lives.

But what can the major media do? It’s only Black History Month. It’s only realistic and a small portion of it positive non-entertainment related news about African Americans and Blacks in the world. That’s not something important. And besides the quota of positive Black news was filled with the coverage of Senator Obama winning Primaries and Caucuses.

I would say I’m being obtuse and sarcastic, except I don’t see anything on the major media that refutes such a thought. Nothing. In fact I will make a bet with anyone willing to take it. I say there will be more coverage (in minutes of airtime and/or number of related stories) on the Grammy red carpet and what Beyonce, Bai Ling, Soulja Boy Tell'em, Carrie Underwood all wore, than about Megan Williams, Darfur, Wesley Snipes winning his trial, and every other positive news event other than Senator Barack Obama, combined. I’d also bet that the Grammy’s will garner more attention than Senator Obama’s wins this weekend. I won’t even bother comparing it to coverage celebrating the African Americans who made 1000’s of inventions that we use every day or those that have given up their lives so that Obama can be a Senator now.

I think this is the perfect month to ask, why are those White Americans that run the major media so terrified to present positive and real events involving African Americans? Why is it that the only real media focus is on Blacks as entertainers or criminals? Even in the one, shortest month of the year when attention of a positive nature is supposed to be the secondary, or even terciary focus.

The most I’ve noticed are more television commercials with Blacks in them. Like the one from Time Warner Cable. The one with a woman comedian (who looks White – but could be incredibly light skinned) who thanks Richard Pryor (without ever mentioning his name) for letting her be able to joke about events in her life on stage. While that may be a breakthrough, I think the things that Time Warner could promote about Richard Pryor beyond that can fill hours of television time. Yet that’s the best homage they could manage. Not his writing, his work to fight Muscular Dystrophy (MS) or other events.

In fact even in schools there is a failure to recognize African Americans and there contributions to America. There are tens of thousands of things that African Americans have done over centuries to improve lives in America, but don’t think the major media or schools will mention that. From early versions of gas masks that saved lives of miners and firemen 100 years ago, to the Tuskegee Airmen who saved hundreds of lives and helped win WWII, what has been done is barely ever scratched.

I know of schools that have yet to discuss African Americans, though they are discussing the world history. Kids of all races know a lot about the Holocaust, yet few know anything about the causes of the Civil War and where freeing slaves really fell as a priority. And if it were up to major media, not a single child would learn a thing more than Blacks play games well, can sing and shake their asses, and some can make funny movies. That’s the message out there.

The more I think about it the more I get upset and insulted.

If you have kids, nieces or nephews, take a moment and ask them about Black History. See if they can name more than 5 famous names (and what those people did). See if they can name anyone beyond Senator Obama, Dr. Martin Luther King [the DR. part is important – he had a doctorate and it should be included in his memory], Malcolm X, Dr. George Washington Carver, and Booker T. Washington (rappers, sports figures, and other entertainers of general achievement don’t count). Ask them if they know the real reason America had a Civil War (freeing slaves was an afterthought – tying up loose ends). Ask if they have ever heard of the Tuskegee Airmen, or Tuskegee College for that matter. And if you don’t know these things you can learn about it too.

Everyone in America has seen the positives of White America, the positive news of various selfless acts, and the fears that occur when a White child is missing. I just wish the major media could give a little bit of attention to those same things for African Americans, or any people of color, at least during the shortest month of the year.

Since America is set against apologizing for the slavery that built the foundations of this nation, and livid at the mention of reparations fro that slavery, the Jim Crow laws and segregation that followed, a bit of positive images are the least that can be done.

Reflections on Bill Cosby's words 3 years ago - 9.24.2007.2

3 years later and finally Dr. Bill Cosby is getting some respect for his statements about the Black culture and community in America. It’s about time.

At that time, and since there has been a huge outcry that Dr. Cosby should not have said what he did and has since. I’ve never understood why. He was speaking the truth and it was as obvious then as it is now. In fact it’s been true for a lot longer than just when he made his statements.

But the fact was that more than a few were either embarrassed, in denial, or oblivious to these facts. How I am unsure. A casual observation at high schools around the nation, or prisons, say everything right there. The Black community had become complacent about the advances made in the 60’s and was doing nothing about the wholesale commoditization of the culture since the mid-90’s.

Perhaps the impact that Dr. Cosby was speaking about can be summed up in these words

“If we can get outraged enough to trek by the busload to Jena, La., then the dysfunction destroying our communities from within should compel the same outrage -- and the energy to do something about this black implosion.”

Strong words. And appropriate. I would add that if we can feel a national outrage by the words of Don Imus, revulsion by the idiotic definitions of Snoop Dogg, endangered by the torture in West Virginia, and angered by the lack of compassion provided by Michael Vick, then we must look to the roots of those problems and what we can do to correct them. Sitting by passively allowing these things to exist cannot provide answers, or more accurately answers that will engender a positive response.

The major news media has no interest in discussing the positives in the Black community, apparently. Universal condemnations of OJ Simpson and Michael Vick, excusing acts of denigration (Don Imus) or completely ignoring them (How long was Michael Richards in the news?), and promotion of the worst aspects of rap music and videos seem all that they are interested in. When that is the message being presented by the news on a daily basis, coupled by the virtual non-existence promoted by television programming, we need to step up in our communities to provide the positive impetus that is desperately needed.

I mentioned

Of the centuries that our ancestors struggled to gain the right to read and be treated as equals, is the only benefit our chance to compete in games for the selfish monetary return it provides? I cannot agree that the only benefit of the past efforts is our increased ability to entertain the masses. Dr. Martin Luther King did not dream of an equal chance to ‘shake dat ass’ on an iPod. Mr. Malcolm X did not want to defend his life and family “by any means” so that his children could sell drugs, or have ‘baby-mama drama.’ Mr. Jackie Robinson did not endure the stresses of proving his abilities to hostile crowds so that drop-outs would have the inability to read about his challenges; and Mr. Richard Pryor didn’t make us laugh and think about what was inadequate so that the youth could use a term that is the single most offensive term in the English language as a greeting because they haven’t learned enough to know the words meaning and history.

I feel no different today. I would hazzard to believe that Dr. Cosby would agree. The fact that others are also joining in this mindset is a positive. Perhaps that is the best news, after 3 years. That there are positive moves being made, and that the community has gotten over the minor reasons to avoid Dr. Cosby’s words and are now embracing them. If that is the case I look forward to the next 3 years.

This is what I think, What do you think?

Conservatives vs Rap, maybe Part 3 - 9.7.2007.3

Concluded from Conservatives vs Rap, maybe Part 2 - 9.7.2007.2

I think it's quite clear that the difference between the two is explicit. To try and justify a subgenre that promotes the very things that Malcolm X spent his life fighting against is unfathomable to me. To say that the difference between these two individuals is nearly misplaced rage and content is like saying the difference between oil and water is only the color of the liquids. I am angered and mystified how anyone could compare the civil rights leaders of the 60s (that actually lead the people) to the spoiled, materialistic, and predominantly convicted felons that comprise rap music today. I further believe that it doesn't take someone that has conservative or right-leaning political feelings to realize this conclusion.

Rap music is under attack today. There is no question on that. But to oversimplify the case by saying that it is merely the efforts of the conservative right to remove this form of music is to belittle the reason why rap, and by its connection hip-hop, is under attack. It is not only the conservative right that feel that the use, or perhaps I should say overuse and in some cases exclusive use, of four letter words in songs is inappropriate. It does not take someone right of center politically to recognize that lyrics supporting drug use and dealing, violent crime, disrespect of women, and lack of education are not something good for children to hear. It may be a fantastic marketing tool to have scantily clad women bouncing their rump, but it's far from fantastic to make it a common cultural activity to do such.

Min. Paul Scott ends his post with the thought that he hopes to give Mr. Bill O'Reilly nightmares of being abducted by gangsta rappers and being forced to watch BET continuously for two days. Perhaps it's my age, but I too would find such a situation a nightmare. I have to believe that it's the prevalence of music videos, and the marketing techniques of Viacom that make anyone find such an event troubling.

Rap music has long had the potential to be a positive force in the black community and the nation as a whole. Hip-hop has had the opportunity to allow young people, especially those that are African-American, to express themselves and take pride in their community. These are not new ideas. Conservatives did not try to stop that. The fact is rap music sold out; the cost was the improvement of the black community. The result is gangsta rap. If you disagree with that listen to any song by Public Enemy and tell me where they promote crime, degradation of women, or wasting money on frivolous baubles. Also consider this, how much money were Grandmaster Flash and Kurtis Blow and Public Enemy paid combined. Take that total, and compare it to how much Kanye West, 50 cent, NAS, or virtually any other top gangsta rapper makes today individually. Consider how much higher the dropout rate for African-Americans have become and how many more young black women become single parents.

Maybe it is conservative or right-leaning to not want children to grow up with a value system that places platinum teeth, above being a father. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect kids to grow up without trying every drug they've seen in a music video. It may be non-liberal and anti-left to think that the children of today will go farther in their lives with a solid education than if they spend their time locked up in jail.

Perhaps.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Conservatives vs Rap, maybe Part 2 - 9.7.2007.2

Continued from Conservatives vs Rap, maybe Part 1...

The post goes on to say that the use of four letter words could be the fuel to incite riots and rebellion against the status quo. How? Of every riot I have ever heard being created I have never heard that it was done through the use of four letter expletives. To be honest such words are far too crude and simplistic to incite much more than perhaps a fistfight. I would suggest that readers who believe this is possible go over the speeches of some of the greatest leaders the world has known. Whether they were completely evil, such as Hitler, or peaceful, like Mahatma Gandhi, or forces of good, such as John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, you will not find four letter expletives used.

But perhaps one of the most incredible things that I read was the comparison of the words of Malcolm X to 50 cent. As incredulous as that may seem it was proposed. I obviously have deep reservations and disagreement with this comment. I'll take a moment to debunk that now. The actual statement is:

They understand that the only difference between the radical militant Black Power leader of 1967 and the gangsta rapper of 2007, is content and misdirection of rage. In other words, the degrees of separation between Malcolm X and 50 Cent are not as much as one might think.

I believe that if you compare 50 cent with a man the caliber of Malcolm X is to insult the memory and actions of Malcolm X. I'll let the words of each proved this point. The following is an excerpt from one of the songs by 50 cent:

[Intro]Uh..Yeah..
I like the way you do that shorty (shorty)
Now can you do somethin' for me (uh)
I like the way you movin' girl
Show me how you do that girl
I like the way you do that shorty (uh)
Now can you do somethin' for me
[Chorus]I can't, stand here and watch her dance
She got me comin' outta my pants
And i dont wanna miss my chance, to jump on her
If i could, get her outta here i would
I never seen a girl move that good
And there's something tellin' me i should
Get Low!

The following is an excerpt of a speech by Malcolm X:

When I was in Africa in May, I noticed a tendency on the part of the Afro-Americans to, what I call lollygag. Everybody else who was over there had something on the ball, something they were doing, something constructive. For instance, in Ghana, just to take Ghana as an example. There would be many refugees in Ghana from South Africa. But those who were in Ghana were organized and were serving as pressure groups, some were training for military -- some were being trained in how to be soldiers, but others were involved as a pressure group or lobby group to let the people of Ghana never forget what's happening to the brother in South Africa. Also you'd have brothers there from Angola and Mozambique. But all of the Africans who were exiles from their particular country and would be in a place like Ghana or Tanganyika, now Tanzania, they would be training. Their every move would still be designed to offset what was happening to their people back home where they had left.

The only difference on the continent was the American Negro. Those who were over there weren't even thinking about these over here. This was the basic difference. The Africans, when they escaped from their respective countries that were still colonized, they didn't try and run away from the problem. But as soon as they got where they were going, they then began to organize into pressure groups to get governmental support at the international level against the injustices they were experiencing back home.

I think it's quite clear that the difference between the two is explicit. To try and justify a subgenre that promotes the very things that Malcolm X spent his life fighting against is unfathomable to me. To say that the difference between these two individuals is nearly misplaced rage and content is like saying the difference between oil and water is only the color of the liquids. I am angered and mystified how anyone could compare the civil rights leaders of the 60s (that actually lead the people) to the spoiled, materialistic, and predominantly convicted felons that comprise rap music today. I further believe that it doesn't take someone that has conservative or right-leaning political feelings to realize this conclusion.

Continued in part 3...

Concluding Now that Imus is gone - 4.12.2007.3

Concluding Now that Imus is gone...

Any institution that serves the public has a responsibility and morale imperative to not disparage the public. Commentators are not allowed to say anything they wish in a discussion, television broadcasters (public and cable alike) cannot show movies and films of any content at any time to every viewer without discretion, news media cannot report anything they cannot justifyably confirm. There are limits to what can be done, as there should be. Even in the 1950’s and 60’s when parents were outraged by Rock ‘n Roll, with its mantra of sex and drugs there was still limits. There were boundaries that the society and the corporations abided by. In breaking those boundaries record companies, media corporations and entertainers have violated a trust the public has placed in them. Rather than rewarding this breach of unwritten laws with our money we should protest and deny them our funds.

The good and bad must be taken when appropriate. The Black community has failed its children, just as the record companies, radio stations, and gansta rappers have failed the public. This is not something that cannot be resolved, in fact it must be. We have shown the fact we have power, and we need to use it. We must use it in a positive manner. We need to change the Black culture from the commodity it has become to something greater. We are born Black, to sell that off as a cheap triffle is no different than shooting ourselves in the foot. It’s just stupid.

We must also recognize the failures and positives of some of our more recognized figureheads. I say figureheads and not leaders as at this moment there are no leaders of the Black community. There has been no leader since Mr. Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King, with perhaps some argument made for Minister Louis Farakhan or Rev. Jesse Jackson for a segment of the community. While Rev. Al Sharpton was helpful, as was Rev. Jackson, in bringing this recent incident to public attention neither are leaders in my mind. They bring baggage and questionable motives to every arena they enter.

Rev. Sharpton is particularly in question. He has a long history of inflammatory actions who’s main motive seems to have been the promotion of Rev. Sharpton primarily. We need to accept that those that would claim to be leaders of the Black community are accountable for what they have said, positive and negative, and when they are in the wrong they admit to this. I say this as the credibility of serious issues that plague the entire community are lessened and placed in question when public figures of questionable motive jump into the limelight. As an example I pose the fact that several of the pundits on television questioned the seriousness of the demand for the removal of Mr. Imus on the sole basis that Rev. Al Sharpton was asking for it. Leaders are followed because they are credible, because they bring a somber tone to the subjects they deal with. To accept less is to weaken the causes, no matter how worthy, that are being pursued.

Again I say that we must change the nature of rap music as it stands today. In doing this we bring ourselves into full accountability for our community and the Black culture as a whole. We are more than just pimps, ho’s, drug dealers, ganstas and other riffraff. In reclaiming and redirecting one of the most popular and prevalent formats that the society and world views us by, we gain in all aspects of our lives and futures.

This is what I think, what do you think?

You are a helluva B***h - 4.10.2007.1

So how many women feel complimented by that headline? How many people feel that this comment was humorous? This isn’t targeted to any one race. It could be your mother I’m speaking about. Or your daughter, sister or girlfriend. Or just you. Yes, how much joy do you have now that you know this was directed personally?

The fact is that it isn’t personal. I don’t intend to insult anyone. But what is the difference between my headline comment that can be insulting to any woman on the planet and the words of Mr. Don Imus and Mr. Bernard McGuirk? Obviously I’m not as famous, though the fact that this blog is read by people in over 50 countries in the world and coast to coast in the United States makes me more than unknown. Beyond that what is the difference?

I’ll tell you what I think it is. I run the risk, with that headline, of alienating readers forever. I could be losing my base for life and thus crushing my business to make a point. Mr. Imus though got a 2 week vacation. Yes, he was suspended. But he is keeping his job and not, as far as I’ve seen, losing any pay. That is a vacation in my opinion. Just enough time for the media to find a new subject to pump up. Probably the Anna Nicole Smith case, with who is the daddy. You know really substantial news that affects the lives of millions.

Think about that for a moment though. I am risking everything to make a point; Mr. Imus lost nothing (beyond temporary embarrassment that he has gone through before) for saying far worse comments. Does that make any sense?

I’m sure Mr. Imus, and Mr. McGuirk, understand that they are paid to be confrontational. I’m sure that the comments felt completely natural, and/or funny, when they were said. Obviously neither thought this would get as much attention as it has. But I think they, and NBC or General Electric, never were worried about how it may affect them and the current “punishment” reflects that they still don’t think this is an issue.

I know, some will say “But Rev Jesse Jackson held a protest,” or, “Rev Al Sharpton took him to task on the radio.” Well with all due respect that just makes it somewhat farcical. The inclusion of both these men in this matter just makes this less serious, not more. If President Bush made comment, or both Senators for New York, or any number of other legislators were critical of this punishment and the comments that would be serious. I say that because neither man is representative of Black culture or the majority of the Black community. Both do grab the headlines though.

I’ll detract a moment more. Mr. Malcolm X was a leader. Dr. Martin Luther King was a leader. Mr. Bill Cosby has assumed a position of influence. Senator Barak Obama, Representative Keith Ellison, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and her predecessor Mr. Colin Powell are persons of influence and leadership. But there is no leader of the Black Community today. There is no one person that speaks for all African Americans. There is no one person or group that is recognized. Both the reverends are far from the levels the abovementioned are at. They just get a lot of media attention. So does Anna Nicole Smith, but that doesn’t mean it’s justified or worthwhile.

Continued in Part 2...

Screen Actor's Guild Award winners - 1.29.2007.2

Excuse me for a moment as I take a second to give myself a bow. Yes I got 5 out of 7 right – 71% - which I call pretty respectable. If you are wondering why I’m so pleased with myself, of the guesses I made on January 9th for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards [Bad films and Screen Actors Guild Awards hopefuls - 1.9.2007.1] I came pretty close to a clean sweep.

Not too bad for a regular guy. Perhaps the Oscar Award voters are paying attention. They should be. Considering how they have completely disconnected with the public, again, in not nominating Dreamgirls for Best Picture. I would love to hear the reasoning on why it was not nominated. I will give the SAG Awards the benefit of doubt on Little Miss Sunshine, at least they recognized the talent in Dreamgirls by giving them a nomination for best ensemble (basically best picture).

The snub really irritates me. 8 Oscar nominations, but not best picture. Never in 79 years has the leading nominated film not been a best picture. If it is so highly regarded how can it not also be best picture? This reminds me of the fear in 1993, when Malcolm X was not nominated for best picture, nor Mr. Spike Lee for best director. Yet there was large critical acclaim for the film, it won several awards (lesser ones but still won all the same), and Mr. Denzel Washington was easily recognized for his portrayal. In that case though I think the political commentary of Mr. Malcolm X was too much for the predominantly liberal white Oscar committee. [By the way I think this was the reason Mr. Washington won the Oscar. Often the Oscars will give a deserving actor/actress an award in a later good movie for a phenomenal role they were passed over on previously.]

The excuse for Dreamgirls escapes me. It’s popular, making money, still in movie theaters, well done and critically acclaimed – even before the Oscar nod. The only reason I can see for it to get snubbed as it has is a horrible and deplorable reason. I can only hope that isn’t the reason.

But to get back to the point of this post, I am sure that my winning choices will win the Oscar Awards as well. The choices that apply anyway. My congratulations to the winners, Mr. Hugh Laurie (you really should see him play the title character House. Biting wit and sarcasm matched with intense ability. Well written and balanced by an excellent cast), Mr. Forest Whitaker (a long time favorite of mine. His work in Ghost Dog is especially good, though his role as Idi Amin is even better), Mr. Eddie Murphy (I spoke about him in What does Eddie Murphy make you think of? - 12.22.2006.1), Ms. Jennifer Hudson and all the other winners.

Now let’s see how I do for the Oscars.

This is what I think, what do you think?

My message concluded - 1.15.2007.4

Continued from part 2...

...

Without these items the creed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” is just hollow words. The equality can never be realized, not when we feed the flames that inequality thrives on. The dream that, “…my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” cannot come true when we allow the character of a person to be based on the color of their skin.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream, but it was not something that he wanted to only dream. He had a vision of a better America, stronger by the inclusion and respect of all the colors and religions that comprise America. Dr. King, and many others, worked towards taking the dream and making a reality. Sadly Dr. King has not lived to build that reality. Thankfully he did not live to see this failure on the steps he helped the nation take forward.

We have stumbled. Not just White Americans, Black Americans, but ALL Americans. In the same way we grew and moved forward as a nation we have faltered and stumbled together as well.

I feel the time has long passed to wait for another Dr. King. As African Americans we need more than a figurehead, real or imagined by the media, to bring us forward. We need to accept that the vision of Dr. King, Malcolm X, and all who sacrificed those short decades ago is the vision we all share. Dr. King was a great man, and great men lead. But all great men are so due to being followed. Though Dr. King has passed we can each still follow his vision, as we did when he walked among all people in Alabama, Mississippi, Washington D.C., and in life.

If we do this, the dream becomes a reality. The creed takes meaning. The lives of all in the nation improves. Perhaps the lives of all the world may one day live this dream come true. But if in our community and culture we do not live the dream, it fades from memory and distorts. It becomes a part of the past that has no meaning in the current and thus cannot be in the future.

I, for one, do not wish to see a future like that. I do not wish my nieces and nephews, or those children of my friends, to grow up in that kind of world. Perhaps this can help to ensure such a world of negativity never exists. It’s a small step, but a step all the same. Now what step will you take?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Part 1

Part 2

My message as we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King - 1.15.2007.2

For many today is a day of remembrance. Today is a day to think of hope. This is a time to look to the future and see a better America. For just as many today is just another day. A day that holds no glimmer of hope, no potential for better and no end to the sometimes harsh conditions that every day brings.

The differences in those 2 thoughts tends to be age and education, in my opinion. For many of the youth of today there is no understanding of what happened some 40 years ago. The youth of today have never been beaten for sitting in the wrong seat on a bus, based solely on the color of their skin. They have not had fire hoses placed on them because they tried to go to school, but had the wrong race to be allowed in. The youth of today have never been lynched because they dated, or looked at, someone of a color not their own. For too many of the youth today these are all items of ancient history, perhaps as relevant as the War of 1812, perhaps slightly more when a movie starring a favored actor is seen.

This is not entirely their fault. I cannot say I am greatly different. I am not different in that I did not suffer those same things. I had the benefit of growing up after that time. After the sacrifices of Dr. King, and Mr. Malcolm X and many others, most who were not famous enough to have their names recorded but sacrificed all the same. The difference is that I am old enough to have heard the bile in being called the N-word. I am old enough to have had a Mother, and uncles and a Father that did suffer those events. I am old enough to know that some have, and continue, to value the color of a person’s skin above their actions. I am old enough to have experienced the problems that go with that mindset. And that makes me understand that these things aren’t history, ancient or recent, but current in the world.

On this day I think to the breakthroughs we see. My own past success in becoming a stockbroker (a vestige of the ‘old boys club’ mentality still but not quite like it was), in traveling the world, in being able to attend a college (of my choice), and to live in places I chose. I see the things that have changed in the world. Actors and actresses of African American and Latino/Hispanic decent that are able to lead films without having to portray the villain, the drug dealer, the gangster or prostitute. I have seen characters on television that are Black that portray the American President, doctors, and leaders of industry. I have seen celebrities embraced throughout the world, and this nation, with skins ranging from dark to light. I have seen entertainers step back to their roots and enrich the lives of all there.

Yet I must say that with each step that has improved there are those steps that have gone backwards. I have heard the famous words of Dr. King often quoted and played, yet I’ve seen few continue them. Let me be clear, as much as the world is better for Black Americans it is also worse. And part of that worsening is the fault of the Black community and culture.

... end of part 1
Continued in part 2

Harlem's musical loss is ours as well

If I ask you to name a choir, what names come to mind? Vienna Boys Choir, Brooklyn Tabernacle and the Boys Choir of Harlem come to my mind. Of course, Im from the city and so I may be a bit jaded. Still here is no question of the fame of the Boys choir of Harlem. A Google search of the word choir has them come up in position 4. That says a lot, and that is before the Vienna Choir which is older [started in 1498]. Some may not be aware how often they hear the Choir’s work, but it has been in the soundtracks of Jungle Fever, Malcolm X, and Glory to name a few.

So why am I thinking of choir music today? It’s not because I’ve been listening to chamber music lately (which is quite nice in a live performance), but because of NYC officials. The City seems determined to kick the choir out of its current space, effectively causing harm to this institution that has existed since 1968. They are accused of possibly not paying music staff, do not have reliable tour dates and are in debt 5 million dollars. Oh, I should mention that they are on property that can generate $550,000 a year. So the city is willing to just shut the Boys Choir of Harlem out of it rehearsal space.

Let me give you some insight, that may or may not apply, as I recall it. As a native NYC I recall the decades that the city allowed Harlem to be a drug-infested and dangerous place. Everyone knew what streets you could go to, day or night, to get whichever drug you wanted. Police enforcement of laws were laughable. Rats the size of small dogs or large cats ran around from abandoned brownstone to brownstone. It was so bad, that in 1977, according to an article by Ms. Julia Vitullo-Martin on August 3, 2003, “an entire house could be bought for $5,000.” In 2003 a brownstone sold for $2.5 million and 1 million dollar+ sales are common today.

It took roughly 50 years for Harlem to go from the Cotton Club to a literal rathole. Then after a major and historic black-owned bank (I apologize but I forgot the name, this being a ~20 year old event) was forced to liquidate before Mr. Bill Cosby and others could provide funds to guarantee its survival [I have searched for 8 hours in the last couple of days and have not found one reference to this roughly 1983 news occurrence, yet it was national media at the time], numerous other banks in the city began to give loans out to buy houses. This was the 90's and the city started to develop the abandoned and worthless land. Businesses and Yuppies (many brokers as I recall) who could get approved, as opposed to the locals who never had the chance nor could ever qualify in the past, started buying like sharks in a frenzy. Had I the money I would have done so too. It was obvious that the prices would soon soar.

I say all that because again it seems to me that rather than working the situation the City is looking for the money. The fame of the choir, and its good work seems not to be as valuable as the money the buildings they use can generate. This is the conclusion I get.

Though no January 2006 or later appearance dates are available for the choir (no surprise since they may not have a place to operate from after the 31st) dates prior to that for last year are easily found on their website. So to claim that the tour dates have been unreliable could be a stretch. It is stated via the Harlem choir’s website that they have 100% college acceptance. Attendance is 94%, the number of kids passing is 95%. Statewide tests for math and reading show 84% and 79% of the students (respective) are at or above grade level. All of this and only 125 students are actually in the choir. How many other schools can boast such achievements? How many inner city schools that cater to mostly Black African American, Hispanic and other minority can say anything close to that? It wasn’t my high school, where I estimate roughly 15% were accepted into non-city colleges, 25% if you include them. [That was roughly 20 years ago in a better time for students and Black African American youth, I graduated 6th in my class... I had a decent school, but there can be no comparison to the Harlem Choir.]

As Thomas Carlyle says “Music is well said to be the speech of angels; in fact, nothing among the utterances allowed to man is felt to be so divine. It brings us near to the infinite.” I agree with that, and as I previously stated on how AOL is restricting musical expression (in my opinion) the City is doing so and worse for the most petty of reasons, money. Expanding the minds of the youth, especially the Black African American, Hispanic and minority youth that need to be exposed to more than just the inner city, is essential. Any culture or governmental entity that restricts or damages that is a failure and dangerous in my mind. This is especially true when other alternatives can be found. Half a million dollars is not worth the price of a musical note, nor is it even close to the value of an educated and broadly influenced mind.

Let’s apply my rule used for commercials [from my post Burger King ad], if this was happening to the Vienna Boys Choir would the reaction be the same?

This is what I think, what do you think?