Annie Leonard is at it again

If you have some spare time and want to laugh Annie Leonard is at it again. You may recall her from the inaccurate, misquoted, lie filled video The Story of Stuff. If you don't know about that your kids probably do. I covered that at Annie Leonard – Story of Stuff misrepresentations.

Well now that Cap & Trade is approaching a final vote to "necessarily skyrocket" your electric bills while President Obama kicks back in Copenhagen, Leonard decided to put in her warped views. But I have to give her this, much like a broken clock being right occassionally, she gets part of this video right. I guess you have to chalk it up to the law of probabilities - everything is probably if only infantessimally so.

But before your kids go to school and learn more brainwashing (sorry I mean 'get educated') on this subject I present you a correction, and then her video. It's kind of like the disclaimer that has to be shown to kids in Britian before they can see Al Gore's factually corrupt An Inconvienent Truth (which he will not discuss with anyone - go figure).





Perhaps one of the most telling things about this new fanatical ultra-left video is the lesson Annie Leonard learned from creating the first. Annie Leonard choose not to include any sources of her "facts" stated in this video. I suppose that having everyone point out her misquotes and falsehoods stated in the factsheet from the first video was her wqake up call that parents and others pay attention to what she is spewing. Or she just decided to do what Al Gore does, just ignore anyone that might provide opposing facts and questions.

If you watch any video of Annie Leonard I suggest you do so from the point of view that you might have with when seeing a bad B-movie. At least you don't have to pay for the bad script and cheesy effects.

President Obama at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

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

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

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

Will Adam Lambert win American Idol? If so, for what reason.

So here is a question that I recently was pondering. Does it matter if a contestant on American Idol is gay?

I personally find the question to be dumb. Seriously there should not be a question on this subject. Because it really does not matter. Not even in the slightest.

But it seems that there are some out there that find this to be important. Why is quite beyond me. I suppose they are the universe balancing out all those incensed by the response of Miss California. Which itself was an issue that should not have grown to the extent it has.

No matter the private sexual preferences of Adam Lambert, he is a singer. Since I take it that he is in the running to win American Idol (I don't follow the show as I like my brain cells) I would assume he is quite good. Thus until technology exists where listening to music will instigate direct sexual intercourse with the music, only his voice is important to the competition.

Still there is a flip side to all of this. Adam Lambert should not win American Idol if his sole or main qualification is the perception of his sexuality. If his current position is being bolstered or altered due to the hype and mystery of his private life, which some want to use to advance a political agenda, then he must lose. It's just that simple.

Hollywood loves to show a face of ultra-liberal beliefs. It glorifies those that agree with it's ideals and/or supports them. And those that diverge in any way from its dictates find themselves shunned. Just read what the late Ron Silver stated. Look at how the major media backed Perez Hilton in his attack on Miss California.

This of course flies in the face of what Hollywood does. Like the disparity of people of color in front of and behind the cameras. Plus the promotion of various stereotypes, like the gangsta rap genre as an example, without shame. And the non-stop love affair with President Obama, as opposed to the critiques of virtually every President beforehand in my lifetime.

Hollywood would love to have an openly gay, or bisexual, American Idol winner. It matches the showboat of ideals that it flourishes daily. It flies in the face of those that have whatever issue on sexuality (which is itself wrong), and reinforces the views that caused Perez Hilton to attack Miss California over.

By the way, the actions of Perez Hilton were upsetting. To attack someone for having an opinion you don't like is no less wrong if the person is Archie Bunker or Perez Hilton. It's a small minded way to dismiss someone, for something they should be free to choose. The First Amendment works both ways.

But back to my point. Who cares what Adam Lambert does in his private life. Beyond selling extra teen magazines, there is nothing worth knowing. And anyone that would judge him, either way, on that basis is biased. Either he is a good enough singer or not.

So will Lambert win American Idol? I could care less. That is up until the point where winning is more of a political statement than proof of ability and performance.

The first 100 days of President Obama

** This post is political. It covers the first 100 days of President Obama. As such I believes it deserves to be discussed. Some thigs are too important to avoid. Thank you for bearing with me.**

So we have made it thru the first 100 days under President Obama. The nation is still called America. This is still a democracy. The public, and more importantly the major media, still love President Obama. But this is no longer the nation that I grew up in.

There have been many changes under the Obama Administration, some due to the President and other due to the Democrat-led Congress. All of the changes have been based in the goals of the far-left and selected campaign promises.

Let's start with the appointees. There are many critical Cabinet positions that have yet to be filled. Several have had a revolving door of nominees, leaving some of the most critical positions that effect the economy open. Worse yet, there has been an undeniable consistency that virtually every Democratic nominee has failed to pay taxes, in some cases for multiple years, until nominated. Which is troubling in a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of way.

But beyond the appointees are other troubles.

President Obama has failed to live up to many of his campaign promises. The Guantanamo Bay Detention will be closed, eventually, though there is mass confusion on what to do with the detainees. Will some be imprisoned in American jails. If so at what higher cost than normal. If not in America then to where? So far only France has accepted exactly 1 detainee. So much for international support and their belief in President Obama.

President Obama has failed to increase transparency on 7 of 9 major laws since taking the Oval Office. This too was a campaign promise that was broken. The most notable case of this was the $787 billion stimulus bill. A stimulus package that does not spend all the money now, that limits the income level of those that can use it, that applies only to citizens that RECEIVE a paycheck, and is primarily a tool of social change.

There are numerous examples of millions being spent on projects like artwalks, skate parks, and non-existent homeless projects in cities without homeless problems. All of these are attributable to the stimulus package, and the fact that to this date almost none of the members of any level of the Government has read the full law. In fact almost no member of Congress or the White House read the entire bill before it was voted on and approved by Democrats. Nor did the public get a chance to read it before President Obama passed it into law. The reverberations of this are still being felt now.

Moving on, President Obama has enforced the ability to gain an abortion, even in later term pregnancies. Which is in line with his long-standing political beliefs, though not exactly the beliefs of the nation at large.

President Obama has approved the use of embryonic stem cells, another issue that flies in the face of overall public opinion.

President Obama allowed Congress to break the Constitution by retro-actively penalizing American citizens. This was in the form of specific and non-grandfathered taxes to the executives at AIG. These taxes were on bonuses that the executives received as part of their contract, that the Government did not renegotiate when they had the chance, and in fact guaranteed in the stimulus package that no one read. The Congressman that guaranteed the money? Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat and in charge of the Banking Committee.

Also, while violating the Constitution - which President Obama taught at one point - the concepts of all contracts were broken. In violating the contracts that the Government itself assured, all contracts are theoretically void. Because if the Government can break one it can break them all.

Plus the Government asserted its ability to control private business. First in taxing the AIG executive, thus stating the Government can retro-actively dictate pay. Then in forcing the removal of the CEO of a major auto company, while demanding changes to the operations of that company along lines that only the Government desired.

All this before the Government requested the expansion of power to allow the Treasury Secretary, an un-elected position, the ability to take over any company that it deems is significant to the nation based on undefined criteria. Which if passes will allow the Government to theoretically take control of any and all companies it chooses to.

But President Obama has done more. He has ended the Iraq War, by removing troops (a campaign promise) in an extended timeframe with the exception of 50,000 troops (both violations of the same campaign promise).

President Obama has also proposed his new budget. This is separate of the $410 billion continuation bill that was passed, also funding 9,000 pork-barrel projects. It was passed the same day that President Obama made a public outcry to stop wasteful spending by the Government. And it violated a campaign promise to end pork-barrel spending.

But the $3.6 trillion dollar budget of President Obama does not include the continuation bill or the stimulus package. It does include some $600 billion for a nationalized healthcare plan, that does not exist today nor have any plans of how it might be implemented. And this budget, going by President Obama's own best case figures will reduce the budget by 50% in 4 years. This part has been highly publicized. What has not been publicized is the rest of the budget plan.

President Obama's budget goes on after year 4 for a total of 10 years. By the end of that time, according to the President himself, the deficit will have increased by 250%. Few in the major media discuss this outcome, nor question how any plan that creates a larger deficit than it starts with can be called positive or effective.

But like every Administration, there have been bumps in the road. Besides the appearance that no appointee in the Obama Cabinet pays their taxes, while demanding that citizens must do so in greater numbers, there have been other gaffes. Like the recent decision to fly a plane over New York City without notification of the Mayor or any public notification - creating a panic based on the 9/11 events. There has also been the bow that President Obama bestowed - which has been described as everything but what your eyes will see in the video. There is the publicly friendly, and privately harsh, discussion with Hugo Chavez. There was the embarrassing gifts to our strongest ally's leadership and monarchy.

Yes the Obama Administration has had a hit parade. And these are only the most public and notable points. There are many other quieter, even less publicized actions affecting law and governance, and the appearance of the nation.

Like the now unspoken manner in which North Korea essentially turned it's nose up to the U.S. and fired a rocket that in one move threatened our ally Japan, and our nation itself. This cemented the fact that America has less respect and instills less fear than ever before on the world stage. An idea confirmed as our Secretary of State, and President, issued apologies for the existence of America and our actions to continue to exist.

Yet on the domestic side of the table things are even more unstable. America now fights terrorists, and the ideal of terrorism, by giving it a new name. The idea must be that there cannot be a terrorist act if the Government cannot call anyone a terrorist. That is except of Americans themselves.

Yes, because the Government - in the guise of Napalitano - has sought to isolate those that disagree with the governance of the land. Those that hold ideologies separate of the Administration, that have vowed to defend this nation with their life, and/or those that believe a religion strongly have been placed at the top of the list of dangers to America. Quietly, and without public scrutiny. The Amish and bloggers like myself be warned.

This is but the briefest coverage of the first 100 days of the Obama Administration. Likely each point will be something ignored by the major media. Yet it is these things that define where America is truly going. And doing so with smiles. President Obama's approval rating is over 60%.

So though this has been used to describe President Bush, I think it more directly applies to the America that President Obama is shaping

"So this is how Democracy ends. With thunderous applause." - Princess Amidala in Star Wars Episode 3

But if the poll on my sites are correct, Democrats had best watch the clock carefully. Because their time in the sun may well be short. My poll results state that since the inauguration the total outlook by my readers that responded are

39% feel President Obama has kept his promises and is doing a great job
38% feel President Obama has BROKEN his promises and is doing a horrible job
16% feel they need more time to decide
13% feel President Obama is the same as any other President

My poll may be small, but I believe that my readers are some of the most informed, intelligent in the blogosphere (well overwhemingly most are minus the ones that shout profanities), and those from America are real representations of America. Thus I would state that this is the real view middle America holds.

So in summary, President Obama promised change. He never clarified what that meant or what he would change. After 100 days we now have an indication. It is a change indeed. Though none I know would have voted for this.

Thankfully we will have the mid-term elections soon, and might be able to reverse or hold off the worst of that change.

Angelina Jolie banned in England - sort of

In news that is not so sad, there is the announcement from Britain that Angelina Jolie has been banned. Well not her directly (only British-friendly entertainers like Snoop Dogg get that treatment) but rather the ads for the film WANTED.

The situation goes like this. Gun violence is bad. Movies with gun violence are even worse as they make it sexy and glorified. So the ads that show Jolie blasting baddies with shotguns, and pistols, and so on is on the top of the hit list. Which I would respect except for one thing.

The movie came to Britain some time ago and the DVD has been actively on sale for about 6 months.

So this is a waste of time and mere polispeak for some politician or political group that wants to look good to constituents. It's hypocritical and there are few things that are worse. It makes me bitter and twisted.

I understand that England looks at guns very differently than America. We are the land of cowboys and action movies of course. So I can see how this might upset some of the English sensibilities. But to bellyache after the fact is just stupid and insulting.

If this ad is so bad, so instrumental in magnifying gun violence in England, why the hell did they let the movie and DVD get released? Which says nothing of the fact that all of 59 murders were committed in all of 2007 in England. What gun violence do they have? Binghamton NY has probably half that number in 2007, and there are only 150,000 people here.

Look, the second multi-stage bullets are recovered from a crime scene I'll understand the hysteria. But until then I think the British government needs to get a grip. Besides, I would think the impression that Amy Winehouse is giving the young women of Britain is far more detrimental and immediately more urgent than Angelina Jolie in an action movie.

President Obama proposes action in Darfur

Finally it seems that America will be taking a stance on Darfur. After over 5 years of genocide, President Obma has given indications that he is willing to do something more than Congress or the prior Administration has ever bothered to do. And it's about time.

In the past 4 years, as some 400,000 people have died and 3 million have become refugees fleeing the violence, Congress has ignored the situation. In both Democrat and Republican led Congresses HR 180 IH - an Act to prevent American businesses from working with the Sudan and thus funding the murder of women and children - has never made it out of committee once. Effectively, America has shown the world that we don't care about those African lives.

But This should change, based on the comments of President Obama

"It is not acceptable to put that many people's lives at risk. We need to be able to get those humanitarian organizations back on the ground."

This comes as the President of the Sudan, recently charged with war crimes and acts against humanity by the International Criminal Court, has thrown out 13 humanitarian organization. This further places lives in the region at risk.

Sadly the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon seems to be willing to dilute this immediate need for a bit of polispeak and U.S. press coverage. Rather than focusing directly on the issue at hand, Ban slipped in the desire to see international support of global warming issues. Seriously, he thinks that is equivalent or superior a threat to humanity.

I suppose the Secretary-General had to bring up the issue of global warming. It may be the only way that America will pick up 1/4th the tab of the nearly $5 billion budget that the U.N. has. Since global warming is an issue that liberals like President Obama love (given that there is no proof that it is not a natural occurring effect, there is evidence that global cooling may be starting, and the whole argument is arbitrary since India and China are increasing their CO2 emissions as they become more industrial) his discussing it helps provide reasons why the U.S. needs to waste money on this issue rather than focusing on the banking and credit sectors.

Now as long as the global warming issue is a far second to helping the people of Darfur, I really don't care. There have been hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost as Congress and America turned a blind eye. The rest of the world followed our lead, as they usually do. So if President Obama is serious, this could help turn the tide.

Polispeak and scientific debate are fun occupations, when lives are not at stake. America has allowed the media and it's own disdain to cover it's eyes for far too long. Hopefully this meeting and the words of President Obama will finally get a result from Congress and the world. The lives of children are counting on it.

2008 - a year in overview

With the hours ticking away I wanted to go back one last time and look at the year 2008.

It has been quite the year. Barack Obama rose from a nuisance Senator for the Clinton machine to become the first Black President, 411 years after the first African slave was recorded in this land.

The financial system started the year with rising oil, depressed profits, and fears of inflation. Which quickly became a domino of failed institutions, buy-in, buy-outs, and bailouts - most funded by the Government. And the vortex of money sinking into the blackhole of political finger-pointing, and employment worries has yet to end. But inflation and oil are no longer concerns.

And focusing on entertainment we started the year with a mediocre talent that died from his own illogical action and was catapulted to superstardom for it. As the year progressed, serious acclaimed greats in literature, comedy, film, music, and other forms of entertainment passed - barely with attention. And it looks like even into 2009, the stupid actions of 1 man will dwarf the lifetime of achievement of dozens of others.

War continues to rage in the world and in the movies. While the atrocities in Darfur continue to be waged, the screens of America are filled with blame America-for-everything political wastes of time. These films are not bad because they are badly acted (though some are), or that the scripts are irrelevant (some are just too inane to imagine being greenlighted), or even because they don't like their home nation (one of the few in the world that allows criticism of every elected official without reprisal). They just failed to entertain.

Hollywood enjoyed a year that was filled with no surprises and even fewer attempts at innovation than the year before. More sequels, spin-offs, remakes, revisioned past favorites and direct copies on the big and small screen occurred than Bill Ayers on a LSD flashback remembering his past actions. And most were as entertaining - the new 90210 comes to mind.

Filling the void of intellect was fodder so unfit as to be like sugar mainlined into a 5 year old with ADHD. There was the usual "reality" programming that did nothing but allow the public to lose brain cells without the joy of a buzz. And there was the not so subtle loss of several programs that bucked the trend - The Shield, The Riches, among others.

Another loss to the small screen flies in the face of the change in politics in the nation. While America gains the first African American to ascend to our highest office, television descended to a vision of America not seen since 2000 (or more like 1970). Several Black actors in co-leading roles were removed, or shows canceled. Hispanics and Latinos remain virtually unseen and when seen reflecting a diversity that is easily confused with another ethnicity. Native Americans and Asians remain invisible, even in background scenery. And if that sounds bad, the environment behind the camera is 1/3 as diverse.

So in 2009 the schizophrenia will be that one of the few times a Black face will be on the national airwaves will be in the news and the rest of television will be whitewashed. The hypocrisy of Hollywood and its ultra-liberal views, as opposed to its staunch 1950's actions, is amazing to behold.

And the ethical void continues to grow. The nation was deluged with images and stories of entertainers doing the wrong thing and getting away with it. From the British Winehouse (aptly named I think) to our own disfunctional and potentially child-endangering Spears. We watched as entertainers were allowed to throw children into crowds from stages, admit drug use, carry illegal weapons, abuse animals and people alike, all without a hint of true reprimand.

And as the substitution of justice we had racial revenge. OJ provided the means for many White Americans to cry out "Justice at last" though his trial was a mockery of justice from start to finish. He may be a fool, and perhaps even guilty of past crimes, but his trial was as much a kangaroo court as in any movie.

And when it comes to the law the media was very consistent. African Americans that they labeled guilty were made to look horrible, and their claims (and even jury confirmation) of innocence went unheard - like Wesley Snipes. But for the people making the media money, in music videos and records and what some call movies, there was plenty of coverage hyping their minor convictions - like Akon and DMX.

2008 was quite the year indeed. So much happened all at once it was often hard to be sure what was the most important thing to track. And just as often what the media wanted us to watch was the least important of the issues at hand. But then again this was the year where the line between journalism and cheerleading was obscured from sight. The after-the-fact admissions of several media giants that they crossed the line, "a little", says nothing of the 'feeling in my leg' they poured into televisions and thus homes across the nation.

The news media was so bad that satirical comedy shows often were more objective and less political than the supposed "neutral" media. And networks like CNN and MSNBC wonder why their ratings are so bad.

2008 was a bad year in most every manner of accounting. From wasteful spending by the Government, to political polispeak that was fair and unfair. Even in moments of honesty - like polling from various agencies during the Primaries - America showed the world that the ugly underbelly of racism still held a grip in the nation.

I won't miss 2008 overall. While I am amazed and pleased with being able to say President Obama and that I am a homeowner, there is little else that occurred in this year that makes me wish to relive it even in memories.

But 2009 is just hours away. And with it will come a new President, with a very different set of objectives for America. The new year will usher in a new direction in American thinking, where some like it or not. And the media will be forced to adjust, because even in comic books the world is changing.

2008 was they year to say "I want change", 2009 will be the year it happens in. And we can all only hope that the change is better than the reality of the year that has ended.

Marilyn Manson performs for Obama: what if it happened?

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

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

But I have to wonder what if Manson had performed?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tread softly, a hero has passed

Sad news for the nation today. We lost a true hero, John Ripley. He was 69.

Some may be wondering who was this man, what did he do you might be asking. He did more than what anyone could have been expected to do under circumstances that would cause many to fail.

John Ripley was a Retired Marine Colonel during Viet Nam. In 1972, under heavy enemy fire he blew up a bridge stopping the advance of 200 enemy tanks. Don’t underestimate what that means.

When I say under heavy fire, Col. Ripley had a mere 600 men that were tasked with stopping 20,000 North Vietnamese soldiers and the 200 tanks with them. The odds they were under were considered such that the orders given to them were hold and die.

Hold and die. Think about that. How many people today could ever consider living up to an order like that? How many could accept such an order?

I have an answer that many people today don’t want you to recognize. Virtually every single man and woman in our Armed Forces today. I would say that every Marine would and I have no doubt in all the other military forces of the nation, but I make exception of the brother Marines out there.

With all the noise of groups like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, and idiots like those in Berkley and San Francisco that want to hide our soldiers return home at their airports or refuse to let them perform their actions in their cities, you might miss the fact that America still has heroes. Some are older like Senator McCain, some have passed like Col. Ripley, but have no doubt that many are alive and serving our nation today.

I did not know Col. Ripley, but I am proud to know that my father and I have worn the same uniform as he once did. I am proud to know that there are others that love our nation enough to potentially receive orders as severe as hold and die.

It is because of men and women like that who allow me and all Americans the luxury of writing our blogs without fear of death or torture from Government secret police or worse. It is because of those in uniform today that on Tuesday we will elect a new leader of the nation for the next 4 years in peace.

I ask you all to honor the memory and actions of men like Col. Ripley, and the men and women serving our nation today, on Tuesday. Go out and vote. Exercise the Right they bleed and die for.

Because supporting our troops is not about just polispeak to get votes in my eyes. It’s an obligation we owe those that have held and died; and will do so tomorrow while the rest of us sit at home and gripe about cable television costing so much.

MoveOn.org blames Michael Vass for President McCain win

I heard about this vide that was being sent across the net and I was just waiting to see how long it would be until I received it. I didn’t have to wait long.



Of course this is a video created by and circulated originally by my friends at MoveOn.org. What lovely people they are. But this video was sent to my by a reader I don’t know, Donna (last name withheld).

I’m happy to know that I have made an impact.

In all actuality I am amused that I received this video. But if you look at it closely you see it’s a bit insulting as well.

First off it equates a vote for Senator McCain as a non-vote. That’s a pretty high pedestal to be standing on, but considering that MoveOn has attacked the very military that protects its freedom to say what it does, I’m not surprised.

Be clear, a vote for Senator John McCain is no less a vote than for anyone else. And not voting for Obama does not make you a racist, if it is based on issues and not the fact that he is Black. Even if you are African American it’s ok to disagree with the bigger Government, spend today tax tomorrow, Government knows best policies of Democrats and Senator Obama. This is not akin to a mandate of your Blackness, its not part of the commoditization of Black culture.

But if I were to be the responsible party in a McCain vote, which by my numbers and expectations is a real potential, I would not be upset. I made my opinion clear, and my reasons. And I have yet to hear an argument, or policy, that gives me pause for that choice. (I would also love the attention and income that such responsibility would provide my blogs and company)

I love the way this video equates a loss for Obama as a national outrage. It completely ignores the fact that nearly ½ the nation (according to polls of committed voters, and who knows about the undecided votes) does not agree with Obama’s policies. If this video is conveying the outrage that might occur in San Francisco, Berkley, or Eugene, Oregon then I will sleep well at night.

In fact in looking over this video again I can see why MoveOn made it. It’s an attempt to scare, cajole, and/or shame voters to vote for Obama. It’s like high school cliques in video form. If you don’t do this you won’t be part of the massive crowd of kids that think they stand out and are different – even though they wear, speak and act exactly the same. How dare you have a brain, know the issues, and have an opinion they don’t like.

The fact that it goes so far as to use religion to slam home the thought that even God must like the politics of Obama. Please. It’s a bit hypocritical for an organization that would support the removal of all hint of religion from all aspects of the nation and public life, to use it as a selling point for their political views. God doesn’t care about politics, Moveon, unless every verse I’ve read in all religious tomes are wrong.

Some would say “Mike, this is just funny.”

No, it’s a targeted attempt to use subtlety and humor to force an opinion onto people. To give the impression that voters have an obligation, instead of a choice, on who to choose for President. It’s the classic move of some liberals and Democrats, to support freedom of speech until someone disagrees with your position. They then need to slam them hard and force them to change their mind to their side, or else. Kind of like what the Obama campaign did to Florida reporter Barbara West, among others.

The best part might just be the absurdity of the thought that McCain would bomb some ubiquitous goat herder. Though the counter thought of Obama sitting down with Iran’s President - to ask him to play nice with Israel, stop making nukes to bomb America, cease funding terrorist groups that plan to kill all Americans (including pacificst and Democrats), and if he is still listening maybe raise the cost of oil so Americans can’t afford it and be forced to use less energy until some new discovery makes an alternative to oil possible – that is terrifying and real.

Of Course MoveOn wants to really sell the Republicans are evil thought. And reinforces the thought that a vote for anyone beyond Obama, and democrats, is a non-vote. MoveOn has a personal gripe with President Bush, and so he is one of their biggest scare tactics. But be honest, to have ANY President mention your name in a positive manner while speaking to the nation is an honor. I wish I had that much influence. I may be a megalomaniac but I’m not insane. (Though I hope to get Bill O’Reilly to comment on a post or speak about me one day. It would be fantastic for my business.)

I will say this, if MoveOn.org is for Obama it is yet another reason not to vote for him. They are the most extreme far-left political group short of communists in China. Ok, that was a bit overstated – maybe the North Koreans and Castro. Of the political opinions they hold that I am aware of I know only 1 person out of about 10,000 in my life that agrees with them. Talk about outside the curve.

So the future I fear is an Obama win. His tax plans will hurt my business and the national economy. He will promote a healthcare plan that will make my health about as important, and as high a quality, as regular mail. He will endanger American lives, and lead us into a war within 5 – 7 years because of his weak stance on foreign policy. He intends to give more to those that do less. He is unbending on his views, and uncaring about other political opinions. He is duplicitous in what he will say to the nation to achieve his goals (though not as bad as Hillary Clinton). And all of that, if not quite a bit more, can all be found in following his campaign since his announcement to run for the Presidency – something I have followed virtually everyday.

I respect Senator Obama. My dislike of his policies is not personal. I admire the fact that he is a Black man that has overcome many obstacles to reach this point. I think he is an incredible orator. And I do not question his intelligence. But none of that is enough to cause me to vote for him.

Voting is always important. Choose who you think matches your hopes for the nation. There is no stigma, no social pariahs. You cannot be singled out, and all the bad jokes and peer pressure in the world will not make someone else’s opinion your vote.

A vote for McCain is as American as a vote for Obama. A vote for Republicans is as valid and honest as a vote for Democrats. A vote is your Right, exercise that Right. But don’t let stupid gimmicks disguised as a joke curb your opinion, nor limit your right to vote. Be informed – from both sides – then get out and make your voice heard.

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.

President Bush and Darfur now - not the movie - 2.19.2008.2

In 2005 a category 5 hurricane named Katrina struck New Orleans and devastated the city. The United States government, lead by FEMA, failed the city and its citizens in a catastrophic manner. This is fact and there can be no dispute of it.

Some have argued that the failure of the government was in part because of the personal beliefs of President Bush in regard to African Americans. It is not the purpose or goal of this blog or me to delve into the heart of the President, but I will state that as the Commander-and Chief and highest elected official of the nation he ultimately is responsible for those that died and suffered. That being said, this failure should not have been a surprise since 2 years prior, and continuing to date, America allowed the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Today, President Bush was visiting Rwanda. During this visit he went to the site where thousands were buried from the atrocity that occurred in that nation. It was obvious that when questions were asked the foremost would be why America, under his leadership, has allowed genocide to occur that will one day create a similar site. The answer was polispeak and paltry, in my opinion.

“I still believe it was the right decision,” Mr. Bush said. “But, having done that, if you’re a problem solver, you put yourself at the mercy of the decisions of others, in this case the United Nations. And I’m well known to have spoken out by the slowness of the United Nations. It is — seems very bureaucratic to me, particularly with people suffering.”

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.

If you are wondering where this is happening, the place is called Darfur and it’s in the Sudan.

Today President Bush stated that he supports African nations taking care of African problems. That is a first, since America and Europe have meddled and created problems in Africa for millennia. President Bush has stated

“White soldiers are a target for both sides of a conflict [in Africa] and are counter-productive to resolution.” – as stated on Fox News via news clip

While that may well be true, this has never prevented America from doing anything before. Such an answer is paltry in my opinion. It leads me to believe that if this mass murder of children was occurring in Europe or affecting Whites, America would be there in gangbusters.

And lest anyone think that President Bush is alone in this decision, I refer you to HR 180 IH. Congress has failed to act on this matter for multiple years, and has facilitated the blind eye America and the major news media have given this genocide. Republicans and Democrats share equally in this failure. The President may be responsible for his actions as the Chief Executive, but Congress is no less complicit.

President Bush went on to say,

“We are cooperating to address violence and genocide in Darfur.”

To that end the President has pledged $100 million dollars to those African nations that will help to end the 5 year long conflict in Darfur. Rwanda is to receive $17 million with Ethiopia, Ghana, Senegal, Tanzania, Burkina Faso and Malawi also to receive funds. Yet American businesses continue to do business (and thus fund the murder of women and children) with Sudan unabated. And Congress seems too busy with holding meetings about steroids with baseball entertainers or investigating why individuals that are employed at the pleasure of the President were fired (a situation that was never illegal and known to have violated no laws).

America has acted too late and far to hands off in this matter. The major news media have ignored the issue though individuals like George Clooney and more prominently Don Cheadle have tried to being it to the spotlight. I mean Mr. Cheadle even was involved in a movie (Darfur Now) specifically to draw attention here. Yet none of the media paid attention, or the elected officials of the nation.

Thus I must ask why. When the action in Kosovo draw immediate attention and comment, and the problems in Israel are in our headlines. When the politics of Russia and the various nations of the CIS (many of which are only slightly less chaotic) are fodder for pundits. What is the difference?

I can tell you what Kanye West thinks (stated inappropriately in a format that deserved better)



Considering the actions of America about Darfur over the past 5 years I would have to say that his claim has merit. And the Congress along with the major news media is no better.

If you’d like to prove me wrong, write to President Bush and demand more action at:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

FAX: 202-456-2461
comments@whitehouse.gov

president@whitehouse.gov
vice_president@whitehouse.gov

You can write to Congress to request action in preserving the lives of thousands of women and children via your local Senator or Congressman:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

Or

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Can our votes change America?

**Part of I Love America That's Why I Vote!**

When the attention of the nation turns to politics, there are few things that most would call inspirational that occur. Generally there are soundbites of this debate answer, or a bit of polispeak that is catchy from a speech. But one thing is certain, in this election cycle Senator Obama has definitely inspired many of every political affiliation in the nation.

Initially this was seen in the Obama Girl video, which was more cute than much else. But it caught on like wildfire. But now there is a video, by Will I Am that I feel is inspirational. It’s not about who you want to choose, sort of, but that our voices count especially when we vote.

I agree with the intent of the video, which I include below if you have not seen it yet. Vote, make your voice be heard. No matter who you choose, as a nation voicing our concerns and opinions we can not only have change, but get positive changes that are in everyone’s best interest.

Yes We Can.