Which is right - keep campaigning or fixing the economy?

This is a repost from my political blog, VASS, but I think it's an important question.

So the news has now been reported that Senator Obama does not plan to accept Senator McCain’s offer to go back to D.C. and work on the bailout.

Senator Obama believes that he can both work out the problems with the bailout and step before the nation for a debate on Friday. He believes that he can focus on both issues equally.

Senator McCain has already stated that he believes that the political debate can wait until the financial future of America is resolved.

I feel that Obama is placing politics above the nation, and his constituents that elected him to office. Both of these men are Senators, as is Joe Biden. They have a responsibility to the voters that put them in office up until they are elected by voters for a different office.

The polispeak will fly today. Some will laud one or the other Presidential candidate. I can clearly see the benefit to the nation of the actions of McCain, I do not see that benefit from Senator Obama. Obama is choosing to hold a speech about how great he will be for the economy once he is elected, while McCain will be speaking with Democrats, Republicans, and the President about keeping the economy going up to and through the election. Which makes more sense.

How well will Senator Obama be able to review documents on the bailout, and shake hands with undecided voters? How well will he be able to speak with Congress, while he is kissing babies and approving attack ads? How well will he be able to confer with economic experts while he is practicing his debate points.

Yes a President must do more than one thing at a time. But if Warren Buffett is correct, and this is the financial equivalent of Pearl Harbor, Senator Obama is saying he would rather go overseas for a meeting than deal directly with the situation.

Was the fear of following McCain’s lead on this potentially devastating financial fiasco so great as to refuse to do his job. Is his desire to be President so great that he would rather lead America in a depression, with millions unemployed and/or homeless than serve as the Senator he has been elected to be in relative economic stability?

Perhaps this, more than the debates themselves, will be the turning point in the election. And I have to wonder what most Americans will prefer. I for one agree that the debates for the election (which can be rescheduled for another day out of the 41 remaining) are not as important as my work, and as a consequence my house.

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.]

Nelson Mandela is 90, and America still doesn't care

Excerpt from VASS

Back in the far reaches of time there was a prisoner that no one knew. Well at least in America. Back in 1962 a Black man was thrown in a jail (with the help of the CIA) because he wanted freedom. He wanted a say in his government, he wanted to be equal to those around him. He wanted an end to the poverty that was focused on ever other Black in the nation. He was a visionary, and that vision was enough to have him locked up for 27 years....

Throughout the 1980’s and afterwards America woke up to the fact that a modern day slavery existed in the world. It was something the nation stood up and rejected, though not without resistance in some parts. But eventually the nation refused to do business with South Africa, hitting them in their pockets hard. We protested and held rallies. We politically turned up the heat internationally. And in 1990, Nelson Mandela saw the light of day as a free man. In 1994 he became the leader of his nation and abolished all vestiges of Apartheid. He led his nation to democratic rule, and improve the lives of millions of Africans in the process....

And I have to wonder. America woke up to Africa in 1980. For a brief moment the nation paid attention to a land filled with Black people, and the injustice being wrought by the Whites in power their. And then we walked away...

“America has become a policeman of the world in my lifetime. We have entered multiple nations as a peacekeeping force and in wars. Yet, for some reason America has turned its back while the equivalent of Orlando, Florida (or possibly Cleveland, Ohio – the exact number is unknown) have been killed since 2003. Let me make this clear, that’s between 200,000 to 400,000 men women and children that have been killed and counting.”

...

Nelson Mandela is a great man. He has lead a life worthy of notice and remembrance. At 90 he continues to call out to the world to do the right thing. And America has gone back to the deaf ear it had the day the jail cell doors closed on Mr. Mandela....

Full post found here>

Movie review: War, Inc

How might I describe the film War, Inc.? Well considering the film is a mash of liberals are great, big business is bad, America is all the evil in the world clichés I’ll try to describe it in that vain.

In terms of a green film (I’m sure someone will coin that phrase any day now) it fails miserably. From the abundance of HUMVEE vehicles used and blown up, to jets the film wastes more energy and leave a bigger carbon footprint than a mid-sized city. If we look at it from an anti-religion aspect, it makes marriage and Muslims look like fools.

Politically, which is the point of the film, every conservative ever to grace a movie or television seems to be used as a prop of corporate greed. And quite a few Presidents (though Abraham Lincoln – a Republican – amazingly was left out), though the real target – President Bush is never named but is referred to.

The American military is made out to be a bunch of redneck, doped up, imbeciles. I think there was all of 1 scene in the film where our military wasn’t bouncing around popping off rounds while rambling to loud music. I was particularly insulted when the movie portrayed American soldiers slaughtering hospital/mental patients.

And of course the blatant greed of America was the central point. That we are like every country in the world is not the point. We are more vile and twisted. Our excesses corrupt every nation and culture – or so the film wants you to believe.

Now I’m not above a satire of our government. I am all for political comments in entertainment form. But at least let me enjoy the film. MASH was a great film and made significant political points, as did Platoon. This film jams those points down your throat so hard as to make you gag. Literally.

I like John Cusack. I like Ben Kingsley, Dan Ackroyd, Marisa Tomei, Montel Williams and others in this film. But in this waste of time they all are misused and, I would like to think in the case of Montel Williams (a former Marine) at least, misled as to the full nature of the film.

Hillary Duff is unbelievable as a young star twisted by the vices surrounding her. She can’t pull off the depth to make you feel bad for her, or even to accept her as a harlot she spends half the film trying to be.

The sudden and supposedly intense relationship between Cusack and Tomei never makes sense. Why he has feelings beyond mere lust (where he starts at) is unknown, as is when he suddenly starts to feel them. Like everything in this film it just doesn’t come together in any cohesive manner.

The humor of the film could fill a teaser trailer. The witty banter, not the verbal noise floating around as dialogue through 98% of this film, usually is spoken by one character in almost always 1 or 2 sentences.

Visually the film is boring, which matches the pace of the film. With all the bombs bursting, and the 3 action sequences, you might start to pay attention to the film which is exactly when it all ends. Even the over extended scenes of the on-going “war” make you yawn.

If anything was done right in this film, and I have to say it’s taken a couple of minutes of thought, it would have to be the opening sequence. Dark, brooding, a surprising bit of action, and foreboding. So after minute maybe 4 the film just deteriorates into a grating experience.

I had high hopes for this film. It’s obvious play on Grosse Point Blank gave me hope it would rise above the polispeak that was a given it would be encompassed in. But like a ship in the Sargasso Sea it was held fast and rotted away.

Let me put it this way, I would rather listen to Al Gore drone on, or have lunch with Senator Clinton, or have front row seats for the entire season of American Idol than see this film again. Stated in a less PC manner I think that having my left testicle cut off would be more fun.

I truly understand why this film has opened to limited theaters, and will unquestionably never recoup its cost. If there was going to be a Grosse Point Blank 2, this film has assassinated its hopes. Seriously don’t even pay for a bootleg copy of this film, watch Gigli or Glitter – you’ll enjoy them more. (ok it’s not that bad, but you get my point)

Excerpt - Rev. Jesse Jackson vs. Senator Barack Obama - Old Black Power disses New

From my political blog VASS

Oh he’s gone and done it now. Rev. Jesse Jackson is scrambling to retract comments he made Sunday, his son is blasting him for those same comments and Senator Obama – campaign and all – are quiet.

What is the issue here? What was said?

Well it’s hard to be sure. What is known is that Rev. Jackson took offense at the speech made by Senator Obama. In a moment where his microphone was hot, and he believed it was off, Rev. Jackson let loose with comments Wolf Blitzer believes he cannot repeat on CNN air. According to Jim Tapper of ABC News the words were along the lines of

“…crude and disparaging remark along the lines of wanting to rip Obama's genitals off…”

Actually finding the remarks, via video or transcript, has proven to be difficult at this point. I have no doubt that they will surface at some point soon though. And I think that is the only reason that today, 3 days later, Rev. Jackson has made an apology.

This is not a sincere apology, it’s polispeak. He is protecting his political clout and image. Were he really sincere he would have apologized Sunday when...

To see the full post visit VASS

2008 Olympic Games: What I hope to see

The 2008 Olympics. The once every 4 year event that circles the globe and features the greatest athletes in the world. The pinnacle of healthy fit human bodies. Supposedly representing the best of every nation, and with little polispeak of those nations.

But that’s not exactly true.

China is a prime example of that, and needs to be addressed before, and during this years games. China is a key supporter of the Sudan, and in this manner supporting the genocide of Darfur. China is the Sword of Damocles over Taiwan. China is the iron fist against Tibet. And while it’s not as commonly discussed as it has been in the past, for all the economic innovations made in the past decade, they are very communist.

On Wednesday many Americans got their first glimpse of the problems that China promotes. The students that crossed the Atlantic Ocean and our country to scale that bridge, at serious risk to themselves, made a statement. The protests, which were far more peaceful than similar events in England and France, got significant attention. But the major news media missed the big boat.

Well let me rephrase that, they missed the big boat of issues that I care about. While much was said of the protesters supporting Tibet, little was said about the other problems of China that have been ongoing for decades. Not to belittle the desire of the Tibetan people to be free. But I have yet to hear more than a polispeak soundbite discussing the continued efforts of China to encourage the Darfur genocide.

But it’s not because some with the major medias eye have not made statements. Stephen Spielberg quit as artistic advisor to the Olympics because of all the issues. French President Nicolas Sarkozy seems ready to boycott the Games. Last night Dennis Miller made perhaps the best statement and idea I have heard on the matter during his time on the Bill O’Reilly show – that every athlete, of every nation, appear at the opening ceremonies dressed like this



Some might say that a bit of clothing is just not enough. That this is not a strong enough statement. That more is required. I agree that more needs to be done. That Darfur needs to be ended, and those supporting the genocide punished in some manner.

“The Chinese have had their way over Tibet. They have openly intimidated those countries who want to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. And from their point of view, the Tibetans are an ungrateful bunch of peasants who have been dragged from the Dark Age of a Buddhist theocracy to the modern era of paved roads, city plumbing and light bulbs.”

Does that sound familiar? Does it remind you of the European desire to help the African people find civilization? Or the comments of some recently trying to justify the slavery of Africans in America and the current condition of Black Americans. Those kinds of thoughts and comments were not always unaccepted or considered the utterances of minds filled with compost. And even recent Olympics have been the stage for criticisms of American acceptance of those similar thoughts. Many of my readers may be too young to recall the international attention that this one scene created, deservedly so.



The Olympic Games are about the nations that host, as much as they are about the athletes that are competing. Nations are connected to the Games and each other. To accept the Olympic Games without calling attention to the murder of children and the subjugation of countries is an insult to what is on-going.

Thus I agree with Dennis Miller’s thought. I support his idea and add one minor point – every visitor to the Olympic Games’ opening ceremonies, including the political representatives of all the nations, should join the athletes in wearing the robes of the Tibetan monks. Such a display, viewed around the world, would shame China and hopefully be the cause of starting to address these horrible actions in a peaceful non-paranoid realistic manner.

Do you agree?

Beware the Clinton wrath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hillary Clinton boxing connection - repost

**Repost from VASS, my political blog. But it has multiple boxing and movie references.**

So was it just me or did anyone else find humor in the comments of Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday? If you don’t recall the comment it was

“Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.”

Now as I recall, wasn’t the first Rocky movie that she references (about running up the stairs in center city Philadelphia) the first time that Rocky loses to Apollo Creed the champion that was Black? Are we to take it that she too is in a battle that she won’t win? [And in the real world Sylvester Stallone is a Republican that backs Senator John McCain]

In fact, Rocky lost multiple times to better stronger Black men. Actually Rocky was constantly losing and getting his head beat in. I recall a Rocky movie (just before the most recent, I think it was 5) where the pugilist lost everything and was back in the poverty he started from due to the fact he wasn’t smart enough to manage his finances and make a proper plan for the future.

So if Senator Clinton is just like Rocky, as she says, then she is a loser without the sense to know when to stop fighting, can’t manage money, and willing to risk the livelihood of family and friends just to prove a point. Not the inspiring image that she intended, perhaps a Freudian slip on her part?

But I won’t beat up on her about this. I’ll just highlight the similarities. Senator Clinton has lost the popular vote, trails virtually 2-1 on state victories (27 – 14) and is losing on the delegate count. There is almost no way that she can avoid a decision and the odds are decidedly against her as her own supporters are acknowledging Senator Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

And she has thrown more low blows than Gerry Cooney, hitting below the belt with a campaign staff that has either been following instructions or is so without supervision they have been caught repeatedly using race as a means of personal attack. Spreading emails that claim Senator Obama is a secret Muslim, highlighting his middle name to draw on the Muslim fears/prejudice of America, alleging that Senator Obama was a drug dealer, insulting African Americans that voted for him by dismissing his victory in South Carolina, attempting to circumvent every rule and plan that she agreed to back when she thought she would win easily in 2007, and the list goes on.

That says nothing of her Leon Spinks-esque brown bag equivalent of trying to ignore the fact that one of her larger fund raisers was known, wanted fugitive Norman Hsu, who happened to give her $1 million that he stole and she did not want to return.

If anything, I would equate Senator Clinton with James ‘Buster’ Douglas. Like the little boxer that could she won a Senate seat in New York State, and has gone up against a heavyweight she was not prepared for. She was under prepared and got knocked on her butt in the early rounds. But she made a comeback, and thought she was stronger than she in fact was. She’s been knocked back and down repeatedly and too many want her to throw in the towel. She’s even taking late hits (from herself) with the truth of her own actions hitting her as hard as the fact that she has no experience has. [Bosnia and Ireland if I was too obscure]

So let me ask this. If you had a choice, and you do, why would you want to back a fighter that loses repeatedly, trips over their own legs, is overconfident to the point of embarrassment, and seems more than a bit punch-drunk?

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

College students of color talk with Michael Vass - 2.28.2008.1

Do you know who Jeff Johnson is? Some may think of BET (Black Entertainment Television – no relation to this site) upon hearing the name. Others will have completely no idea whatsoever. To both I would say, you need to hear him in person.

On February 27th 2008 Jeff Johnson spoke at Ithaca College at Phillips Hall. This announced speech drew a mixed crowd of students that ranged from freshmen to seniors, male and female, and of all races. One commonality I noticed was the fact that they all were interested in becoming more involved in politics and active in issues important to them.

I had the chance, before Mr. Johnson spoke to talk with a few of these students. Initially I was speaking with 3 students, 2 guys and 1 woman with ages between 19 to almost 21. One of the most outspoken was Chinedum Nnodum, a 20 year old 1st generation son of Nigerian parents who grew up in the Bronx (not too far from where I grew up I later learned) and then in Connecticut.

Some of the questions I wanted to hear their opinions on are the same ones that are often spoken about at each Primary and Caucus that has occurred this year. When I asked how long they have all followed politics, and what interested them about this Presidential race I was told that they followed politics infrequently. That the big interest and draw was the fact that there was new blood in the candidates in the forms of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

When I asked if their preference was limited solely to Democrats and if so why I was told yes, partially because of the focus of the media and news feeds focused on them and the historic nature of their potential candidacy. Not to be left out was the fact that there is an ”emphasis on change.” Added to that was the fact that they felt the Democrats sounded more authentic in what they had to say.

Some of their concerns about this current Presidential race covered both political parties though. They all felt that there needs to be more of an emphasis on education. That this subject was being ignored due to the Iraq war and oil prices. For them it is a key issue, not only because it will affect the interest rates they will pay for their college loans but also – as one pointed out – what kind of opportunity will be provided to the younger brother of one of the students who is in middle school and will be coming to college as well soon.

They also felt that things were already changing, just by virtue of the fact that a woman and African American were potential nominees. Because of their involvement, and the fact that either way a minority potentially could be President, issues are being raised and addressed in a manner not seen before.

Considering the question about raising issues I then wanted to see how students in the Northeast, in college, felt about the emerging trend of school shootings like Virginia Tech and others. Their response was sober and immediate. The major media was not helping the situation.

“Tragedies do happen, but the timeframe seems to be promoted by media attention, making copycats.”

Because of the media attention, other disturbed individuals were gaining an impetus and validation for committing these heinous acts. It’s a view that I think has solid ground, and the major media should pay attention to. Suffice to say, it’s an issue that is prevalent in their minds, yet not preventing them from gaining the educations they have striven for.

Changing gears I wanted to ask about rap and hip hop, one of the issues Jeff Johnson was known for speaking about. In particular I wanted to know how they defined the difference between hip hop and rap. The answer was that the initial rap music, which I grew up listening to, was really hip hop. While there was a lot of entertainment in the initial songs, the overall theme of the industry also included culture and the people of the time.

Hip Hop today continues in that theme with artists like Gym Class Heroes (currently defined as an indie hip hop group). Their description of the band seemed like R.E.M. to me, back when they were just on college radio. They agreed in that groups like this have thought provoking songs like Cupids Chokehold which are not in the mainstream.

Modern day rap (which is what those in my age group would consider by the sub-genre title of gangsta rap) was simply about money. That artists like 50 cent was only in this for the money and had sold-out to get it. And that they felt this was reflected in the songs artists like this made.

While I spoke to just a small group of these students at the event, I can say that I was really pleased to learn of their interest in the future of America, their own educations, and the culture around them. They renewed my hope that, much to the chagrin of record company executives, many in the African American and minority communities are not buying into the images that are purported to represent them. And I have to believe that if even a small portion of students of color hold similar motivation and energy as the outspoken and determined Mr. Nnodum and the others I spoke with, the polispeak and much heralded change Presidential candidates are bandying about will be positive and real in the near term.

I would have asked further questions of these students in Ithaca College, but at that point, Jeff Johnson was about to be introduced. My thoughts on his speech will follow shortly.