Masters of opinion clash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you ready for Sarah Palin on your TV?

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

Sarah Palin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill - at Fox News no more

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now in a quick statement Senator Obama mentioned China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Obama on the O'Reilly Factor Part 1

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

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



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

“success beyond all expectations”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why current Oscar Award choices lack interest

I was watching The O’Reily Factor, which I watch most every day, and Dennis Miller was doing his weekly spot on the show. The discussion encompassed the Oscar Awards, and Dennis Miller mentioned the fact that several nominated and winning films of the past could never be made today. I agree with that.

So I decided to go through a list of all the movies I have seen that have been nominated or won an Oscar Award. To that end I only selected films that I have seen, and range from the start of Oscar nominations up to 1984. Where there are movies that have been remade (some several times) I have gone with the original movie.

To simplify this list a bit, I’m grouping the movies into groups based on the reason it can be made today. I will add that several of the movies, if remade now, would have their theme and emphasis massively re-written. Wining movies are identified with a w.

[By the way, I recommend seeing all these movies, and M – a German film starring Peter Lorie.]

Movies that can’t be made because they promote America – A common theme now is that America is evil and our military is cruel. At least many in Hollywood would like you to think that.

Sergeant York
Yankee Doodle Dandy
The Best Years of Our Lives - w
It's a Wonderful Life
Miracle on 34th Street
Mister Roberts
The Alamo
M*A*S*H

Movies that are anti-Feminist

Captain Blood
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
Gone with the Wind
The Wizard of Oz
Casablanca
The Best Years of Our Lives - w
It's a Wonderful Life
The Quiet Man
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
12 Angry Men - if only for the title if not the casting
The Alamo
The Guns of Navarone
West Side Story – w
How the West Was Won
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
In the Heat of the Night – w
M*A*S*H
A Clockwork Orange
Sounder

Movies that offend various special interest groups

Sergeant York – Germans
Cleopatra (1934) – Africans/ Blacks/Arabs (none of which are White)
The Gay Divorcee – Title insults Gays
The Thin Man – not sensitive to overweight people
Gone with the Wind – w – African Americans
Of Mice and Men (1939) – Tthe mentally challenged
The Wizard of Oz – Height challenged
The Best Years of Our Lives – w – Disabled Vets
It's a Wonderful Life – lack of minorities
Miracle on 34th Street – insensitive to non-Christian religions
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre - Mexicans
The Quiet Man - Irish
Shane – Native American Indians
Mister Roberts - Japanese
The King and I - Asians
The Ten Commandments – Non-Christians
The Bridge on the River Kwai – w - Japanese
12 Angry Men – Puerto Ricans/Hispanics/Latinos
The Defiant Ones - Southerners
The Alamo – Mexicans
West Side Story – w- Puerto Ricans
Lawrence of Arabia – w- Arabs
To Kill a Mockingbird - Southerners
How the West Was Won – Mexicans/Native American Indians
In the Heat of the Night – w
Sounder – African Americans
Gandhi – w – Hindus
A Soldier's Story – African Americans

Movies that have African American leads, not involving them as drug addicts/dealers, not involving a holiday, family gathering or wedding, without a comedic plotline

The Defiant Ones
To Kill a Mockingbird
In the Heat of the Night – w
M*A*S*H (yes it’s comedic, and the only Black guy is called Spear Chucker; But he is a top class surgeon and respected by the leads)
Sounder
A Soldier's Story

Movies that would offend some religious or religious group

The Gay Divorcee
The Wizard of Oz
Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941)
The Bells of St. Mary's
It's a Wonderful Life
Miracle on 34th Street
The Quiet Man
The King and I
The Ten Commandments
M*A*S*H
Gandhi

Movies about wars that would be rewritten to change historical fact or make the enemy seem nicer

Gone with the Wind - w
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Casablanca - w
The Best Years of Our Lives - w
It's a Wonderful Life
Mister Roberts
The Bridge on the River Kwai – w
The Alamo
The Guns of Navarone
Lawrence of Arabia – w
The Longest Day
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
The Sand Pebbles

I could go on, but you get the point. A host of movies that are classics would never be done any more. Of the ones that would, the entire storyline would be redone to facilitate various groups, and ruin the story.

The recent remake of Robin Hood with Kevin Costner is a great example. Did they really need Morgan Freeman in the film? Did the fact of the Crusades occurring in that time help the story at all? And there was the re-write of Disney’s version of the attack at Pearl Harbor. I believe the remake of the Alamo was historically wrong too.

Protests from various orthodox (more like fanatical) religious groups assuredly would surround The Wizard of Oz, due to witches that many movies recently have seen. It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street, and The Ten Commandments would all be attacked in a similar manner as was The Passion of the Christ.

And not a single movie that shows America being a positive force in the world could get past the extreme left wing groups that have continued to fund and promote the miserable flops like Sicko, Redacted and Lions for Lambs.

Oh, I would support the blocking of a film like The Ten Commandments and Cleopatra on the basis that Egyptians are African, not White. No matter how many times these films are remade or colorized, Blacks are Black even if they are from North Africa. It’s insulting to portray them as otherwise. I mean if there was an all Black version of The Guns of Navarone it wouldn’t make a hell of a lot of sense now would it?

When you think about it, the reasons why movies like all the above, and others like Sergeant Rutledge, don’t get made anymore are stupid. No wonder we are left with endless remakes (The Invasion, The Honeymooners, Who’s Your Caddy, and occasionally a decent but ultimately disappointing plot changed I Am Legend), prequels (Hannibal Rising, AVP:Requiem), and miserable original films based on everything but a good idea (Bratz, Hulk, AVP, I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Transformers, Sex in the City, Codename: The Cleaner, and the list goes on).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 3...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in part 2...