Bill O'Reilly addresses Minister Louis Farrakhan

What's the difference between Louis Farrakhan and any media supported Black "leader"?

Nothing.

It's not a joke. There is no punchline. The fact is that I don't see a difference. Whether it's Rev. Sharpton, or Rev. Jackson, or Minister Farrakhan the net result is the same. An individual that owes their success to the division of people in this nation solely on the basis of skin color.

It's not a job that I would imagine anyone would be proud of. Yet the media ensures that when this highly selected group of men speak, their words are promoted (intentionally or not) across the nation. What may be even worse is that most of the time these individuals are speaking about situations and issues that are real concerns for African Americans - minus the rheotoric and bias they instill to the issue at hand.

Last night Bill O'Reilly address part of a recent speech by Minister Farrakhan



I agree that the comments highlighted are hate-speech. They feed off of the worst fears and prejudices in America. But I don't think O'Reilly and many Americans get it.

O'Reilly and others get stuck on the hate-speech, the over-the-top presentation being made for the explicit purpose of providing Minister Farrakhan (in this case) coverage in the media. They miss, and deafen their ears to the kernel of truth at the core of the comments.

I'm not excusing Farrakhan. But there is a fear in the nation among African Americans that President Obama will be assassinated. That fear has existed long before President Obama ever considered running for the Presidency. If ever there is another Black President (which I doubt, sadly) the fear will be there as well, though to a lesser degree - if President Obama exits the Presidency unscathed.

I think that many misrepresent the source of the danger to the President. The first thought obviously goes to a neo-nazi or similar fanatic. But to call such a person an example of the generic right-wing of America is about as accurate as when I'm told I look like Richard Pryor. Still that does not mean that a segment of America, likely some part of the 47% (Democrats, Republicans, and Independants) that voted against President Obama, hates the President on a basis as crude and deranged as the color of his skin.

So it is not like the assassinations of Lincoln or JFK. There is a component in the attempts on his life (so far) that is derived solely in race. Were an assassination to succeed it would be more than a political attack, it would be a call to return America to a not so distant past that most want to forget willfully.

Like most, of any color or race, in America the issue of racism is something no one wants to address. Thus it is mocked, and isolated, and rebuffed. But it is also mislabeled - which is perhaps the greater problem. When President Carter, and President Clinton, attacked those that had legitimate issues with the politics of President Obama, calling them racists, they only fanned the flames of the problem. They in fact gave credence to the fears that Farrakhan uses to support his power base. To the detriment of the nation.

There is no way that Bill O'Reilly, or anyone, can come to understand the issues that face people of color in America in 5 minutes. To even try to do so only creates more anger. Because misunderstanding and confusion cannot help but be created in such a short time frame, no matter the good intetions. This is even worse when the intricate and persistent issues still dominant in America are not allowed to be exposed, as O'Reilly did when cutting off Leo Terrell. Given the fact that the purpose of the segment was not to address all the issues of people of color face, nor the causes of fears based on race (true or not).

One thing though is very clear. America has not entered a post-racial period. Racial issues still dog America as much as they did 6 months ago, as they did 6 years ago, as they did 6 decades ago, as they do 6 minutes from now. For all the interconnectivity of the internet, the immediacy of cable news, the presence of the first Black President, America has not moved forward - just sideways.

Minister Farrakhan is no worse than any other "Black leader" promoted in the media. He may be more extreme, more honest, or if you choose to believe him more accurate. But in essence he is just as much a minstrel and opportunist as the others. Highlighting this in 5 minutes or less segments does not disrupt his actitivies, it enhances them.

Rather I think he should be either ignored, or exposed fully to the world in full. Only then can he be seen for what his is, just as the other Black "leaders" are.

News flash from Chris Matthews: Obama is Black

I realize that most people do not watch MSNBC. There are many reasons for this, but the latest comments from Chris Matthews helps to make it quite clear.





So if I understand this correctly, Chris Matthews forgot that President Obama is (by Matthews comments) a Black, loincloth wearing, spear chucking, Tarzan movie escapee that can stand infront of a crowd of Whites and not cower and simper? And Matthews believes this because America is past the racial divide of the 1950's?

Ok, let's smell the coffee and wake up. President Obama is African American, and there are no Blacks in the modern world that run around in loincloths. To my knowledge there are not tribes of African Americans, not even during the centuries of slavery. And President Obama is not the only African American will and capable of standing in front of a crowd of any and all groups of people in a position of authority and leadership without a loss of respect, power, or anything else.

Yes, in the 1950's African Americans couldn't do a lot of things. Yes, even today stereotypes and small-minded individuals make life difficult for people of color. It's true that loans, for anything, tend to be priced higher for people of color. It's true that inner city schools with high percentages of people of color are more likely to be underfunded and the teachers overworked. It's true that the worst stereotypes and images of people of color are promoted to this day on television, music videos, and every other media. It's even true that right now, in every industry in America, people of color are underrepresented at the top level even though qualified people exist for those positions.

But all of that together does not make President Obama less Black, or any of the numerous insults that Chris Matthews let fly.

I wonder what will happen to Matthews, if anything. If this were a White Conservative, say Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or anyone on Fox News, you could guarantee that there would be an outcry for them to be fired. But I wonder how Black "leaders" like Rev. Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson will respond to this, if at all.

Post-racial America? Are you sure about that

Do you remember that once President Obama was elected how every major news media source was proclaiming, or at least inferring, that America had become post-racial. That the election proved America had moved beyond race and was now the fruition of the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.

For me such lunacy ended on January 1st of 2009 when 2 young Black men were murdered by police while unarmed without provocation, and another was severely wounded. But for much of the nation the media ads of "change" ruled the airwaves and internet. I recall fanciful commercials on BET portraying Dr. King looking up to President Obama and smiling amid a crowd of mixed Americans. Obviously Harry Reid was not in that crowd.

The AP has found, and Sen. Harry Reid has apologized for, comments made about then-candidate and Senator Obama. They seemed to be meant as a positive much in the way VP Biden (then a Senator as well) described President Obama as "clean". Sen. Reid said

"light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Wow.

It brings up a memory from roughly the same time of a joke that was made by Chris Rock. It was about former General Colin Powell, who at the time was considered a potential candidate, and went along the lines of



It would seem that Senate Majoity Leader Harry Reid did in fact expect then-Senator Obama to be something like the joke from Rock. Which makes me wonder who else in Nevada might share that thought. Who else in Congress shares those thoughts. Who eles in the Democrat Party and leadership shares those views.

I look at this from a systemic viewpoint because the 2010 census also reverberates that theme to an extent. Question 9 on the census, when asking for the racial background of the public includes the description "Black, African Am., or Negro".

Negro? A term only slightly less repugnant than the N-word. A term firmly isolated to the 1950's pre-Civil Rights Movement view of Blacks as seperate, inferior, second-class citizens. A term that only 50,000 people used in the 2000 census and will be considered for removal in the 2020 census.

When I look at the reality of the situation, things like the murder of Sean Bell, the murder of Oscar Grant, the kidnapping and torture of Megan Williams, the persecution of Mauricia Grant by NASCAR, and then add the census and Senator Harry Reid, I don't get post-racial. When I listen to President Carter and President Clinton (with his famous dream comments and denial to recognize then-Senator Obama), along with other prominent Democrats, flinging around the term racist on ANYONE that disagrees with them - I don't see post-racial.

If we are to be honest, America is no more in a post-racial phase of it's existence than it is in an economic boom. Some can see improvement on the horizon, but for far too many people that horizon is too far away to matter. It's a concept most of us want to believe, to live. But reality reminds us that right now it is still only a concept.

I have long disagreed with Democrats and Liberals on policy and economics. But I had hoped that at least on the concept of equality, respect, and recognition there was some degree of common ground. Sen. Harry Reid, among so many others, seems intent on dashing even that thought. Not that a slew of Republicans are much better.

So is America post-racial? Has President Obama ushered in a new era, filled with the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream? I didn't think so in 2007. I said it wasn't in Novemebr 2008. And it seems that I am being proven correct in 2010.

I really wished I was going to be proven wrong. I really did.

C-SPAN Health Care Reform - would you watch?

While not exactly being entertaining television, C-SPAN is a network all the same. So I thought to include this, but you can respond at the more politically oriented VASS if you prefer.

The questions at hand are transparency, health care, and the word of the President. All of these are issues that cause the politically tunnel-visioned to fume. But the issues still remain.

President Obama campaigned on a pledge to pass Health Care Reform, and to do so while the public was watching on C-SPAN. Now, there is a final Bill being worked on and Bill Lamb, CEO of C-SPAN, has requested to place the entire debate on the final Bill live on television.

"C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote [in part], ``Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

The response from the White House has been



I don't feel that was an answer. In fact I beleive that at 1:00 - 1:12 on the video the reporter was threatened.

So the questions come down to these 2 things:

Has the Obama Administration lived up to it's promise of transparency?

If C-SPAN was allowed to provide live coverage (assuming Nancy pelosi and Harry Reid took the Bill from closed door meetings) would you watch it?

Black Conservatives on television

I don't know how many people saw this on Friday. I think it was very important. I think that there are far too few that pay attention to the other Black voice in the Black community.



These days Black culture is a commodity up for sale. Various consumer products use it to sell everything. Politicians use it to get votes. The youth are sold it as the norm they should observe. Yet there is a portion of African Americans that are completely opposed to such an outright mental slavery.

Why is it that the youth of today are sold on the idea that they should got to jail? Why do kids think that the only way to make money is via illegal actions, rap music, or sports? How have we moved from creating some of the most important inventions in the world, and multiple scientific discoveries that have saved untold millions of lives, to (some of us) waiting to be handed money?

Not only that, but why is it that in a mere 40 years we have gone from a people that led the nation from a mindset of prejudice and segregation to that of subservience. Dr. Martin Luther King never advocated that, Malcolm X never believed that. Both men were conservatives, especially in the political world of today. Yet Conservatives that are Black today are shunned and rejected. Why?

I really don't understand why we have come to a place where intelligent Blacks that offer strong reasonable opinions, that differ from the Liberal mindset, are considered to have abandoned their race. I don't understand why just speaking American English is considered an insult to so many. It leaves me with my head spinning.

I know of some younger African Americans that have bought into the commoditized view of Black culture. They rush out to buy anything that is hip hop, they obsess over rappers and bling. They are the first to go to any movie that is Black-oriented - no matter the quality - the first to buy a big SUV while living in the projects, the first to get $500 jeans and/or Prada shoes while they can't pay rent. And they are the first to denounce the Black businessman that questions the economic programs of President Obama, or the kid going to college.

Listen to the things said in the video clip. Forget that it's on Fox News, forget about Glenn Beck. Listen to the words, listen to the people. Have you heard these voices in your community? Maybe you even heard it from Bill Cosby. Now ask yourself this, Why have you not supported these views and instead contributed the nearly $1 trillion dollars of Black buying power supporting those that would keep you in a line for food stamps - essentially economic slavery?

Why, in America, would Black Conservatives consistently be called sell-outs, yet entertainers that are followed and emulated and are merely high paid employees selling the denigration and commoditization of Black culture are seen as being pro-Black?

How can an African American that rises from poverty, gets an education even though in sub-standard schools, goes to and pays for college without a trust fund or family money, and creates a career - maybe even a business - so that they can raise their kids in a better life than they had be called a sell-out?

Maybe Black Conservatives don't agree with every word coming out of President Obama's mouth. Maybe they aren't Democrats. Maybe they speak well and have educations. And how does that make them any less worthwhile or Black? How does that make them so different from Dr. King, Malcolm X, or even President Obama?

I'm glad Glenn Beck did this show on Black Conservatives. I'm glad that finally the major media is acknowledging our existence. I'm glad that the Black community is now faced with addressing this segment of Black Americans. Because maybe now we can have some real discussions on fixing the problems we all face. At least until another rapper tells the Black community that jail is good, drugs are great, and abandoning their own children is manly.

The full video is available at www.mvass.com. Either way let me know your thoughts.

President Obama vs. Fox News - bias or not?

So the White House is upset with Fox News. The President just doesn't like the coverage he gets there. Because they must be less than legitamite since they criticize his Administration. Are they serious?

Now I have no problem with anyone that wants to critique the major news media. There are multiple issues I have, ranging from the disproportionate representation of people of color in television shows to the subliminal reinforcement of stereotypes in news coverage and advertisements. I write about it often. But to be realistic, there is no one major media outlet that is far and away worse than all the others.

Of course when we focus only on the news media I begin to see the situation. Considering that virtually all the news media fawns over President Obama, Fox News actually doing there jobs must be a pain in the ass. They are the one place that reality sinks in, and rockstars prefer groupies to critics.

Think about it. ACORN has abused the system, promoting criminal activities and corrupting votes across the country. It took over a week and a preponderance of evidence before the rest of the media even noticed there was a story there. Hmm, political corruption on a national level. Sounds like a job that the news media is supposed to do.

What about officials in the Government. Besides telling the public about people in positions of power that have less than reputable backgrounds (Van Jones is a great and obvious choice) isn't it the job of the news media to mention the problems (like failing to pay taxes - which almost everyone in or proposed to be in the Obama Administration has failed to do) in our Government? Isn't that what most of the media did non-stop against President Bush?

And those are just 2 examples of many. The fact that a President is a rockstar does not mean they are above critique or observation. It's part of the job. And President Obama has had many things to critique, just check my political blog VASS to see what I mean.

When President Bush was in office, didn't he get hammered with tough questions every time he spoke to the press? Wasn't MSNBC treating President Bush even worse than Fox is accused of treating President Obama?

The media is not perfect. They all have agendas and preferences. But for the White House to attack one organization for doing its job - that smacks of abuse of power. How dare anyone question President Obama. How dare anyone question obvious flaws in policy. They have to be solely stooges for political adversaries and racists. Except that would be a lie to say.

Notice that the White House has not stated any materially important facts that were wrongly reported or commented (ie correcting the name of the city of an upcoming Olympics is not materially important). Notice that there is nothing that wasn't true. They didn't like it, but that does not mean it was false.

No, the White House would prefer that the public either drools with excitement (like some at MSNBC seem to do) if President Obama speaks, or completely ignores the news of the day. It's much easier to pass legislation that no one has read if no one pays attention.

Fox News is not perfect. I have had issue with some of the statements and coverage it has presented over the years. I have disagreed, strongly at times, with the opinions of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sheppard Smith. Yet I watch the channel every day because even when I disagree, the quality of the news and commentary is consistently far superior to other channels. And it is because I watch everyday that the silly internet bashers that misquote, and the bullying of the White House stand out for what they are.

Simply put, if an Administration is hell bent to make sure you don't see something it stands to reason that you should pay attention. Put another way, if this was President Bush telling you not to watch a news channel many would flock to see what he disliked and why. The fact that President Obama is Black and a rockstar politician doesn't change that reasoning.

President Obama is Kanye West

I have been speaking with several friends over the weekend and today about President Obama's winning the Nobel Peace Prize. In all those discussions, it suddenly dawned on me that President Obama may be the older twin of Kanye West.

Think about it for a moment. You will be surprised by the number of similarities both men have.

Both have had the media lavish praise on them.

Both believe they should be praised for appearing anywhere.

Kanye West goes to MTV Awards (US and Europe) and must always have a mike, get an award, and express his opinion - President Obama expects praise whenever he makes a speech, went to Denmark and expected to get the Olympics, and creates policy based on his personal beliefs.

Both men have a Jesus complex (West on Rolling Stone, Obama gets it from MSNBC)

Both are considered rockstars in thier respective industries.

Neither seems to have a clue about reality.

Both are Black.

Both love to hear themselves speak.

Both have a fanbase that will defend them no matter what they do.

Both are Democrats (and Liberals to the best of my knowledge)

Both have bad tempers when their faults are pointed out.

Obviously President Obama is older. They are not related. And the Presidency is far more important. But still it just seems so uncanny how many things they have in common.

Too bad that neither benefits from the similarities.

Darfur - the genocide is not over United Nations

Have you ever wondered what is more important, politics or people? You may not, but the United Nations certainly has. And they picked politics, or so it seems.

I have long been an advocate of helping the people of Darfur from the genocide that has been ongoing from the Sudanese government. For years I have tried to add my voice to that of Don Cheadle, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt and hundreds of other non-celebrities. We all have asked the U.S. Government to get involved and to do something, while we have all acted directly. But all the U.S. Government has done is talk about HR 180 IH.

Hundreds of thousands have died since 2003. Millions have lost their homes and now live in refugee camps fearful of Sudanese government attacks. Government-allied militias - janjaweed - burned down villages, government planes dropped bombs on populated areas and reports of rape by the gunmen were rampant. And the U.S. Government was not concerned.

Yet today, the U.N. did something even worse.

“We can no longer talk of a big conflict, of a war in Darfur. I think now everybody understands it. We can no longer speak of this issue. It is over." Rodolphe Adada told The Associated Press this week before stepping down as head of the joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, or UNAMID.

Yet somehow I tend to believe this statement more

''There are no more people on their land to kill,'' said Abdelwahid Elnur, exiled leader of one of the oldest rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Army

In America politicians have been waiting for this day. Their inaction and the major media’s failure to discuss what has been called the worst humanitarian crisis has been astounding. 6 years of what the U.S. Government described as genocide equated to so much paper shuffling. And now the U.N. wants to have the world’s businesses and governments reigniting financial support of a government that is headed by a leader wanted for war crimes and has a warrant for his arrest since March of 2009.

The U.N. might as well say that the Sudanese people, especially those in Darfur, are not important enough to care about. Because their statements via Adada, and the inaction of America, seems to have said that loud in clear politically.

A genocide does not end because you can’t find as many people to kill as you did 6 years prior. A nation that actively killed people for no reason other than they existed is not something the world should ignore. And were this in Europe I guarantee we would not – World War II proved that. The people of Darfur deserve no less respect.

Congress, President Obama, and Secretary of State Clinton don’t have the combined balls of a mouse on this issue. But that does not mean we, the American people and those reading this around the world, are equally as impotent. We can still do something.

I again urge those that can do something to help Not On Our Watch and other aide organizations that seek to help those suffering in Darfur. Together we can make a difference, we can help children, mothers and fathers. Because if we don’t neither the U.N. nor the U.S. Government seems willing to.

“Change you can believe in” shouldn’t just be an empty American political slogan.

Correction to statements made by Michael Vass

As many of you are aware, I write about political matters at my other blog VASS. Recently I have discussed the Health Care Reform - even sending out letters to Sen. Schumer, Sen. Gillibrand, Representative Hinchey, and President Obama to get answers. But at the same time I was challenged to prove a statement about President Obama's campaign promises.

I have now answered that challenge, and can state that I was wrong in my thoughts. You can find out exactly how I was wrong, and about what at I was wrong about President Obama.

For those of you that could care less about politics or health care, or even President Obama, I'm sorry for the interuption.

I would invite you to check out the great fashionable designer clothing lines at my online store World of VASS, see the models I have used in photo shoots with the clothing lines (nothing like seeing how good real people look in these fashion statements) at Fashion Models, click on one of my advertisers to the left, or just check out some of the other nearly 1500 posts here on this site.

Michael Vass comments on President Obama "beerfest"

Video commentary of the meeting with police, Harvard professor, and President Obama. In particular is the emphasis on the failure to create a positive discussion on the issue of race relations and interactions between police across the nation and people of color.

The transcript of the video is below.

The t-shirt worn by Michael Vass, President of M V Consulting, Inc., can be found at the World of Vass online store. Additional clothing lines for men and women are also available at the online store.

(Sorry, the audio appears slightly muddled.)






You know, with all the attention that the arrest of Professor Gates has been given you would think that real issues between police and African Americans across the country would be addressed. Hell, police policies and actions with all people of color in this nation for that matter. But it’s a subject no one wants to go near.

President Obama could have really made a stance on the issues of race relations and police. He could have taken a position that would have created debate that advances all sides. He could have used examples that I have covered for years now, or who knows how many that the Government has data on.

But he did none of the above. He instead jumped into a situation, stomping all over local authorities, with misinformation and an agenda that honestly was more fixated on defending his friend than addressing race relations.

Think about it. If President Obama really wanted to do something about race relations there have been no lack of opportunities. He could have noted that on the first day of this year 3 Black men were all shot, without provocation or cause, by police. 2 were killed, one seriously injured. Their names are Oscar Grant, Adolph Grimes, and Robbie Tolan. He could have addressed how Oakland BART officers have lied in court in the face of video that proves guilt.

There is something to address how stupidly the police can act. There is a question that needs to be made a national discussion. The fact that African American men, especially those between 18 – 35, are targets of police profiling, brutality, and overreaction.

President Obama could have cited the way the media blew past the attack of 3 Black men by 15 police officers in Philadelphia, or the way the media ignored the cause of the riots in Oakland, or how they failed to even hint at the potential guilt of officers in the California, Texas, and Louisiana cases. Which says noting of the abuses that have occurred in New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, and a dozen other places just in the past couple of years. And the trail of abuse can be seen clearly going back as far as Rodney King. Not that it didn’t happen before then. It just wasn’t reported, and there was no Youtube to press the issue.

President Obama has taken a hit in his approval rating because of the Professor Gates arrest (roughly 2 – 7 points). He is being mocked by comedians about the beerfest that will replace an apology. He has angered police departments across the nation. And he is being called a racist.

All of which promotes nothing positive and benefits no one.

Seriously, a beer is supposed to wipe away racial profiling? A casual chat with the President will alter police departments across the country from a predisposition to react violently towards African Americans (including in one study the finding that police would more quickly and likely shoot an armed or unarmed African American than any other group)? Is this really the best President Obama can do on a subject that this nation needs to address desperately, even as it vehemently hides its head in the sand to avoid.

I realize that president Obama is on a crusade to socially re-engineer America. It’s apparent that he is using all his approval rating to ram big Government and politically extreme laws up America without so much as grease or a ‘may I’. But since he opened the door on the subject of race relations, and he is getting slammed for it, he might as well do something positive.

If President Obama does nothing, as it seems he will, he cannot come back to this. Any future action will carry the mark this has brought him. A mark he does deserve. But a burden that will prevent any substantive change, as it will be mired in the mud of this fiasco.

Think, the precedent being set is ‘Race in America? Have a kegger and don’t worry about it.’

Is this what all those people that were looking to Obama as the fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King’s Dream imagined? Is this what all the suffering during the Civil Rights Movement was meant to culminate into?

Honestly, I expected little better from President Obama. It’s one of the many reasons I did not vote for him. But the little I have expected from the President seems to have been far too much to expect. Which makes the future of race relations seem moribund since the way he is screwing up so many things, another chance may not come for decades, if ever again.

41 years and counting for Dr. Martin Luther King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Auto racing beware the rabbits

Way back in 2007 I made an observation about NASCAR, and the whole of auto racing. I mentioned that I was surprised that the "global warming" eco-freaks had yet to protest or address auto racing in any way. In fact I made a prediction

"Mark my words, it is quite possible that one day soon, some green political organization is going to suggest that all cars in the auto racing industry be replaced with hybrid vehicles. Actually, it will probably start with some super green nutcase (like a certain musician, who thinks everyone should use one square of tissue paper only) who will suggest that instead of racing cars fueled with a gas, races should be with solar cars or just bicycles. Imagine a Daytona 500 like that."

Well it's a bit less than 2 years later, and it seems that part of what I imagined is on it's first legs to start.

Yep, race cars made out of plants and fueled by chocolate. Sounds like a joke doesn't it? But it's not. Because in London a group of scientists have done it.

Called the WorldFirst Formula 3 racing car, it is claimed but unproven to reach speeds of 145 mph. It runs on used vegetable oils and chocolate factory refuse as a biomass fuel. It has a steering wheel made from carrots and wheels made of soybeans. It will be featured in the European Grand Prix and Britain's Goodwood Festival of Speed.

Now there are 2 thoughts I have about this car. The first is what will happen when it is in a race. If this car finishes anywhere above dead last, you can be assured that there will be a huge cry for more to be built, and an end to all other styles of race cars. Monster Trucks will be replaced with monster cabbage, and NASCAR with broccoli inspired stock cars. It will be the example of green entertainment, and the prototype for everyday vehicles.

There is a good and bad to this of course. The good is the eco-fanatics dream. A world of vegetables and speed, or at least just vegetables. The bad might be the damage drivers will endure from cars that are not strong enough to be safe, or more flammable. And of course there ever present problem of rabbits.

But the more serious thought is something far more dangerous. Let's say this Willy Wonka inspired contraption works. Maybe even wins a race. And it inspires a slew of other vehicles and changes the entire auto racing industry. Even the personal vehicle industry (especially if President Obama continues on the path of privatizing the auto industry).

The result is that the cost of food will skyrocket. Most haven't noticed, and the major media has yet to seriously report that ethanol, especially corn-based ethanol as used in the U.S., drives up food prices. All the food we have costs about 10% more today just because of corn-ethanol. And that is rising.

Imagine cars made out of food, with engines fun on biomass derived from food. Of the hundreds of millions of cars just in the U.S. alone, with billions of gallons of fuel consumed. Of the thousands of race cars in the auto racing industry and the fuel they use. If the use of ethanol, which can't be bought by 95% of American citizens, has risen food prices 10% already what might this trend cost us?

Auto racing, NASCAR in particular in the U.S., is not going to go away. But this Wonka-mobile will start a trend, similar to what I imagined 2 years ago. So get ready. Things are about to change I think. And all the change may not be as fun, healthy, or affordable as some will claim.

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.

Mia Farrow's hunger strike

There is nothing in the world quite like the feeling of standing by your convictions. It is a reward upon itself. Even better is when those convictions insist upon or cause to happen the improvement in the lives of another person. That is something worthy of discussing.

Such is the case with Mia Farrow. While the actress may not be the biggest name ever, and she is still remembered by her connection to Woody Allen, there is a better reason to remember her name. She is a human being that puts her money where her mouth is. Or in this case refuses to put food to her mouth.

Mia Farrow is about to embark on a hunger strike starting Monday the 27th. She will eat no food, only taking in water. The purpose of the hunger strike is to draw attention to the cessation of aid to the people of Darfur in the Sudan. Like millions that are now in danger of losing their lives, Farrow will share some of that risk.

This is a serious matter for Farrow. She is 64 years old. She’s not an athlete, just an ordinary woman with the ability to make the public aware of an issue the media seems more than willing to ignore. Just like Congress has done for 4 years now. That means Republicans and Democrats alike.

I commend Mia Farrow for being true to her convictions, and taking a potentially dangerous task in hand. Few people, celebrities and entertainers or anyone else, are brave enough to make such an endeavor. And if she is successful, hundreds of thousands if not millions will benefit.

If only Congress, and/or President Obama, had the resolve – even half the resolve – of people like Don Cheadle, Cynthia Basinet, Mia Farrow and others then perhaps there would be no genocide in Darfur. If bills like HR 180 IH can pass Congress, then maybe we could see world leaders create change in the troubled regions of the world.

I hope that Farrow draws the fickle attention of the news media. I hope that average Americans are motivated by her selfless act, causing them to write to Congress or to President Obama and force them to act. Because more of the polispeak shuffle that has continued for years will result in only one thing, hundreds of thousands of more children, mothers and fathers will die.

And we can do something to stop it.

HR 180 IH may not be the best answer, and it is not the only answer, but it is an action. Only in action are there results. The time has long since come that America do more than turn a blind eye.

Jackie Chan clarifies his Chinese control statement

As much as I wanted to jump on the story that Jackie Chan believes Chinese people need to be controlled, I just had to wait. There was no question in my mind that the news story had to have more details than what was first stated back on the 18th. And now it seems there is more to it all.

It all started when Jackie Chan was speaking at the Boao Forum. He was discussing censorship and restrictions in filmmaking when he stated

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said. "I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic. Chan added: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

Now this statement was taken by the AP reporter (William Foreman) to be an affirmation of the communist Chinese Government, or at least that's the tone of his report. And the comments of Chan quoted in that article do tend to support that view, in part. They also go on to make a strong critique of recent debacles in China, like the tainted milk event.

The whole thing left me confused. Was Chan for less democracy? Were his comments about filmmaking just misinterpeted or misquoted? Was Chan upset with the modern Chinese culture?

Of course the international response didn't bother to wonder about these things. The international media focused in on the one line they cared about "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled."

There was outrage as some took his words as to mean that he was calling Chinese people pets, like Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung

"He's insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren't pets. Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law."

This of course ignores the harsh denouncement Chan made of the Chinese Government after the Beijing Tiananmen Square event where hundreds of pro-democracy protesters were killed in June 1989.

So it has come to the final point where Jackie Chan had his spokesman clarify things. And like I wondered at the onset, he was taken out of context as his spokesperson stated

"Some people with ulterior motives deliberately misinterpreted what he was saying."

Chan was speaking about the entertainment industry. Just that industry. Which makes sense since that was why he was speaking in the first place, to talk about entertainment. And it makes his comment clearer what he was meaning. But the AP reporter stands by his account and the nature of how he made the quote.

But while Asia is in an uproar I still have to wonder. Chan has made millions because of the freedoms he has enjoyed. Why would someone who can directly tie his success with freedom be against it, especially for his own people? That just doesn't make sense.

Though it makes a lot of sense that a reporter might misquote or misinterpet a comment in a foreign language (I presume Chinese is not Foreman's fist language) that would create lots of coverage and promote a certain political view. It's a trend that we have seen in America since roughly October of 2007 with President Obama.

Even now the media reports on President Obama are short on details, missing the vigorous questioning given to other Administrations, and in some cases blatantly propagandist. Which says nothing of the trend in the mainstream media to become more entertainment oriented as opposed to true journalism.

Did Jackie Chan intend to insult the Chinese people, and support the Communist Government of mainland China? I think not. But that won't stop him from becoming the scapegoat those opposed to those ideals can use to whip up international outrage at China. If this were to destroy the career of Chan, thouse using his words for their own ends won't care. They just want headlines that get their message across.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am too much of a Jackie Chan fan. Still I think that this is too odd and suspiciously politically adventageous for certain groups. Too bad there seems to be no transcript of the full speech to make this absolutely clear for everyone.

Dr. Kutner’s dead, blame Sean Hannity

I’m sure that at some point a liberal nutjob will utter (or type) those words. And when they do they will be partially correct.

The first thought I had, when I was the news of the death of Kal Penn’s character, Dr. Kutner, on House was that Penn in fact had died. I was shocked at the thought he would commit suicide. That was just the way the article was being presented in headline form. But my relief was short-lived.

House is a great television show. I love the re-runs and have seen many episodes. But I rarely get to see the first-run shows. So I have not been quite up to date on what was happening to all the characters. Still I was unaware of any problem that the Kutner character was having. In fact, there seems to be no problem.

This troubles me. There are many things that television says to the public these days. The show Bad Girls Club celebrates depraved actions of a group of MTV wanna-be women, I Love Money celebrates the degradation of individuals for the chance to win cash, American Idol primarily entertains with the embarrassment of thousands winding down to the insulting and occasional humiliation of just a few. And now we have a character that is doing what they love, being paid well, is respected, who just kills himself. Wow.

Yes, I do realize that the intent of all the shows I mentions, and many I did not, are not what I stated. But their effective communication is that, if only on a subliminal level. Which is dangerous.

Add to this another thought I have. While I applaud the desire of Kal Penn to be involved in public service, and to support deluded actions that he believes in, what is his presence in the Obama Administration saying?

Kal Penn is an actor. While he will be associate director of the White House Office of Public Liason, ostensibly a pitchman for the Obama Administration, he will not be targeting people in my generation. He is useful to the Obama Administration because he is known for his role as Kumar of Harold & Kumar movies. And that means he is targeting a young generation.

So the Obama Administration is trying to gather more support and attention within Americans that recognize Penn primarily as a pot-smoking, junk food nay-do-well. This is the face of the Obama Administration that is being used to gain political attention.

Again, like the sudden and illogical death of his character, I have issue with the message being sent.

Now some will say I am reading too much into this. That this is entertainment, and that the American public can discern a character from reality. Yet if this were true, why are there so many programs on television that must state that you should not do what you see in your own home? Why is it that as television programs and movies that highlight the promiscuity and drunkenness of teens have coincided with the increase in single parents and teenage pregnancy? Why is it that the debauchery of Girls Gone Wild is seen as fun and something to be attained, as opposed to any number of other things?

Because all of this, especially in combination, is not all harmless. Were there no effect, there would be no commercials on television. It’s just that simple.

So the fact that Penn’s character was removed in such a manner disturbs me. And the fact that his main claim to fame is the tool that will be used to promote a President and a social agenda that actively seeks to destroy the America I grew up in troubles me. Maybe it won’t upset the general masses of the public, but then again that same mass buys up Girls Gone Wild and vegetates to American Idol regularly.

Again I commend Kal Penn on following through with a public service agenda that he believes in. I just don’t like the path that agenda leads to, nor the means by which it will achieve its goals. At least I hope Penn has paid his taxes.

Michael Vass becomes a Democrat

Well it's official now. I declare myself a Democrat. After a wee bit of drink and much deliberation I have converted to the political party of popularity.

Yes, I now affirm my belief in the political party responsible for the 13th and 14th Amendments. I too join the party that all African Americans have believed in since 1865. Like the South I too believe in the mantra of the Democrats.

I don't know how I held off following the lead of President Barack Obama. This is the leader that has lived up to every campain promise. I have sat back and had casual time to read each law for 5 days before he has signed them into law. I have luxuriated in the thought that every American soildier is returning from Iraq this year. I have beheld the decisive and exact nature of the economic plans he has put forth for the nation.

I can now join the most liberal of supporters, like Bill Ayers, in the thought that President Obama has created retro-active laws crushing private business. Truly the root of all evil, private business, has been defeated as the Government now can take control of any venture, and dictate the proper salary of every employee. And on the horizon is a health care system that the Government can dictate as efficiently as the Post Office.

Yes, I am part of the Party of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Congressional representatives so astute as to know they have approved laws and recommended investments that cannot be questioned by any American. I am part of the Party of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who have ensured that not one dime of my future earnings will be under my sloppy and independant control. Because only the Democrat Party truly understands the needs of the poor and those people of color, and other Americans.

Only in the Democrat Party are the needs of subservience understood. Because as a person of color, and an American, they know I cannot fathom the repercussions of deficits beyond the record of history. They know that the true definition of stimulus is social reform and not action. They know that I prefer to be fed fish rather than taught to fish.

Yes, today, April 1st 2009, I realize that listening to every socialized nation in the world warning of the economic perils facing our nation is folly and jealousy. I realize that having leaders that cannot pay their taxes as they expect me to do in droves is fair and equitable. That to expect those that would kill America under misbegotten beliefs to falter because of mere words is acceptable. That every nation in the world will love my country if we just do as they say is a mantra I must recite 24 times a day.

Only in America can I expect to have politicians determine my worth and pay. Only in America I should wish for the Government to determine my health plans. Only in America should I shun the soldiers that provide my freedom. Yes it is this kind of America that I now subnit my fealty to.

Because on April 1st 2009, the world is open to understanding. On this day North Korea will end it's plans to create a nuclear weapon. On this day China and the world will buy American debt like honey flowing down a river. On this day police will assume I am innocent of all crimes I never enacted as never before, and the justice system will punish all before them equally under the law. Yes this is a day to be heralded for years to come.

I no longer have the need to do math, since the Government will provide my income and balance my checkbook for me. I no longer need to care what contracts I create as the Government will decide which are lawful and those that are not. I no longer need to strive for success as the Government will mandate what I can sell and what is best for the world at large to buy.

The joy I now feel as a Democrat of far-left leaning is of immeasurable levels. Because I have a President that ignores the losses to my retirement funds, or my employees. There are untold numbers of rich that can be depleted to ensure my ability to live as the Government sees best. And I have no fear for my children as they will inherit a world of green energy and carbon-less emission once the techonolgy is created, if ever.

In fact those children will be free of the burden of marraige or children pf their own as they can freely abort any child at any age, and any stage of pregnancy. Even better, they will be able to engineer the look and intelligence of that child, if the Government does not do so for them in its infintie wisdom. And lest we wish to worry, every drug known to man will be accessible to beat down any thought of doubt.

Even better is the thought that now as a proponent of the Democrats, I will be able to sit back and watch programming that has been duely controled to be fair and balanced. I will no longer need to question the information provided to me, since the Government will ensure it passes muster. I will be ensured that the race to an ever lower common denominator will be matched by the number of channels providing such copied and flawed material. Material that I might add will be open to any viewer, regardless of age or mentality or content.

Oh, the exstacy that lies before me. Without the need for independant thought I can now toil away my days at a Government approved job, at Government approved wages, with an assurance of a Government approved retirement. Because President Obama, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi know far better what is needed than I. Even Rep. Barney Frank, with his dilegent eyes watching for any politically motivated question of impending peril, will protect my every move.

So on April 1st 2009, I join the Democrat Party. Because what else would anyone do on All Fool's Day?

Michael Vass comments on the Obama budget

As found on Youtube, M V Consuting, Inc. President Michael Vass takes a moment to break down some of the key points of the Obama Administrations budget in terms any citizen can understand.

Michael Vass on AIG and the budget

For those wondering about my thoughts on the AIG bonus, President Obama's budget, the deficit, and the polispeak being batted about by politicians right now - please read my post Polispeak in political math and jobs made simple at Worth Blog.

I will be using that blog for some of my more political posts until the redesign of VASS is done.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,
Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc.
info@vassconsult.com

AIG bonuses, and the change in the American Way

**This is a post that normally would appear at VASS, my political blog. At this moment VASS is undergoing site renovation and technical issues, so it appears here. This change is temporary.**

Executive pay and bonuses. Everyone is screaming about the $165 million in bonuses that AIG executives were paid. Congress went so far as to break the law to take back the bonuses paid. All of this to avoid noting that about $20 billion dollars of the over $100 billion given to AIG so far, went to overseas banks and companies.

Polispeak is one thing, but this should be an outrage.

Senator Chris Dodd knew that AIG was going to pay bonuses. He in fact made a provision just so they could do so. Treasury Secretary Geithner knew of this, in fact he knew back when he was still working in the Fed. So all the surprise they are feigning is obviously for a different reason.

The public is being distracted from the real problems. That our money went to foreign countries as opposed to helping our own. And it is advancing the ability of the Liberal Democrats to control exactly how much an American citizen makes.

$165 million in bonuses sounds like a lot. And to the average person it is. But then again this was a contractual agreement made by AIG long before the bailouts. Basically, as long as the company has money it must pay the bonus. Every member of Congress and the Obama Administration knew that. President Obama as a former lawyer had to know it as well (they do teach contract law in law school).

So the outrage is misplaced. Especially when key Democrats were involved in ensuring that the contracts were lived up to. So why all the hype?

Because $20 billion dollars is really a big number and an enormous waste. That’s money that could have saved tens of thousands of U.S. jobs (literally), gone from the nation. That is factually the retirements and college tuition of millions of Americans wiped away for years, maybe decades, to come. All because the Democrats were in a rush to pass legislation without the public, or most of Congress, seeing what the legislation entailed. [You do recall the promise of President Obama to have full transparency and allow the public to review legislation 2 days before it is passed into law – which he has violated several times now]

Because in feigning outrage at actions done willfully, they look like they are concerned. Because it looks like someone is trying to do their job. Because the legal battle that will ensue will have more public passion behind it rather than what it really means.

The fact that Congress has passed a tax on the AIG bonuses now means that ANY company and ANY employee or owner can be taxed if the Government decides they want their money. Besides being a retro-active act, which is expressly forbidden (that’s why there are grand-father laws), it is a means in which we move from a capitalist society to a socialist one.

Win a lottery, and the Democrat-led Congress will pass a law saying that you must be taxed even more than you already would be, because the Government can use the money better than you. Build a business, and the Government will put a new tax out so that you can’t gain the reward of your hard work and risk. Because the Government wants to pay for spending on special interest initiatives. Work for a company in a good job, and have a tax to take away the money you worked hard for all year, just because they can.

Yes it sounds wonderful that people will get things from the Government. That is what they want you to have, not necessarily what you need and definitely not what you want. Because the Liberal Democrats know what is fair - for you.

This is a horrendous step by the Government. Yes the idea of paying AIG executives for failure is distasteful. But not so distasteful as removing the ability of contracts to exist. Not when compared to the end of American life as we know it and have enjoyed it.

These kinds of acts are things that socialist nations like Venezuela, China, and the C.I.S. (former Soviet Union) take. People have fled those nations to come to America because we don’t treat people in such a manner. Or we didn’t until now.

People have complained to me about how they thought President Bush destroyed the law of the land. Yet there is not one thing that has been proven to have affected the American people. Lots of allegations, but not a single fact. And the average person lived as free as a decade ago.

Now we have a Democrat-led Government that is actively breaking the laws that built this nation. We are watching as the structure of the nation is being manipulated. And I hear no outcry about this.

Dark days are ahead of us, if this is the path we are being led down. Do we need to shout? Oh, yes. But it’s not the AIG contracts that upset me. It’s Congress and the Obama Administration.

Stephen Colbert's Michael Steele remix

I just don’t know who I am more upset with, Michael Steele or Stephen Colbert. It’s just so hard to say at this point.

The problem starts with the idiotic statements of Michael Steele purporting that hip hop needs to be the means of gaining more Black and Hispanic/Latinos into the Republican Party. Which is just dumb. A bad gimmick and a waste of time.

In fact it’s more than a bit insulting. Just because we are Black or Latino does not obviate us to being hip hop fans. Nor does it mean that we all support the lifestyle choices that are the definition of modern commercialized ghettofabulous hip hop. It in fact flies in the face of the reality that most of the ideals of many of the Black Civil Rights leaders were more in line with current Republican views than those of President Obama and Democrats. And Michael Steele knows this as well as most anyone.

So I don’t blame Stephen Colbert for jumping on that bandwagon. It was just obvious and easy. Not like he is going to take on President Obama for lying to the public about promises he has made. Like pork-barrel spending by the Government, creating a plan to deal with the economic crisis, getting all troops out of Iraq, or giving full transparency to the public on each bill before he signs them into law – to name just a few. Colbert, like Jon Stewart, is far too in love with President Obama to dare touch on those facts.

But as I was saying, Colbert took Steele on in this hip hop is the answer (lack of) mentality. Thus came a challenge to Steele to perform a rap battle. Steele of course fell into the trap, by agreeing to this and then not following thru to do it. You know that Colbert would never let that slide.

Thus we get the following.



Yes it’s funny. Yes the massive man-power and resources of Comedy Central came up with an inventive remix of the many things Steele has said, to achieve a highly biased view of all Republicans. But it irks me.

Not because it’s against Republicans. That’s what Jon Stewart and Colbert do. And they do it well most of the time. It’s just that they are degrading African Americans. All of us.

If you don’t see that, just think of this. If Fox News, or Saturday Night Live (which will never happen) – or Jon Stewart if hell froze over - created a remix of the speeches of President Obama highlighting all the lies and broken promises he has done so far what would be the result? Massive outrage. From Democrats and the media in general as every liberal in the nation would freak-out over the portrayal that the remix implies about African Americans. Yet, it’s the same joke.

Even if you change the person to say Dr. Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X – and highlighted how their political views are actually more in line with Republican values than Democrats today – the outrage would still happen. Perhaps even more.

Thus it makes me ill at ease. Because if you can’t flip the scenario, then something is wrong in the message. Laugh it up, enjoy the humor at Michael Steele’s expense all you want. Colbert makes it work, I admit. But there is more to it. The subliminal message is not positive.

Am I over the top on this? Maybe. Then again, just because someone says it’s only a joke does not make it funny, less cruel or less offensive. Even if they bring it on to themselves.

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.

Where in the world was George Clooney?

I know that some people were curious about the non-appearance of George Clooney at the Oscar Awards on Sunday. And even more people are wondering about his appearance on the final episode of E.R. But far more important is the actual place he was at.

On Sunday, George Clooney delivered 250,000 postcards to President Obama from the Save Darfur organization. He then discussed his latest, and 6th, trip to the Darfur region.



It is in the Sudan where the genocide of Darfur has been taking place since 2003. Clooney, Don Cheadle, Brad Pitt and several other prominent celebrities and activists around the world have been trying to draw attention and help end the genocide for years, and I support that too.

The work of Save Darfur, the movie Darfur Now with Don Cheadle, and several other efforts have been mostly unheeded by the U.S. Government, including Congress. It is Congress that has been incapable of passing a single bill of legislation to place pressure on the Sudanese Government to end this slaughter of innocents. And that includes Democrats and Republicans alike.

But President Obama is supposed to be the President of change. He is supposed to be doing things differently in Washington. So I hope this meeting with George Clooney is the first step in a path where America does something to help end the death of children, women and men.



I think that the President cannot ask China to do anything, until the U.S. acts in a similar manner. Since 2004 the Congress has been unable to pass HR 180 IH, which would bar U.S. businesses from working with the Sudan – effectively helping to cut their funding for this genocide. To date over 400,000 are estimated to have been killed with 2.5 million, including children, refugees searching for safety from the fighting. If America will not stop funding such acts of vile murder, how can we expect China to do so?

But I am glad of this. At least Presaident Obama has listened to the plea. Even though he has never voted in favor of HR 180 IH while in Congress, and the fact he did not speak about Darfur on the campaign trail, this is a step in the right direction. But I hope he acts on it. Just as he promised in the media ignored, undiscussed trip to Chad



And I am glad that celebrities and entertainers like Don Cheadle, Brad Pitt, George Clooney and so many more are actively doing something beyond lip-service for this cause. So I don’t mind he was not at the Oscar Awards, nor do I care about the end of ER. Some things are just more important.

Texting gets a tabloid flavor

From time to time, basically every day, I get emails from various PR groups promoting this party, that gadget, or a request to place ads for some insanely high interest loan company (which I will never allow as I disagree with the business model of such companies). But occasionally I get something that perks my interest and makes me take a second look.

So I checked out Predicto, owned by NextWeb Media. This purports to be an mobile text survey system. I don’t care what they charge or the free gifts they claim to provide to winners of contests they run. So don’t ask me if any of that is real or useful.

But what I did want to look at were a couple of the claims they made. It seems that their subscribers vote on various question posted each day. This is supposed to reflect the opinion of the nation. Whether it does or not I cannot say. But the questions intrigued me.

Top surveys as of this moment:

If Johnny Depp will get married to long-time girlfriend by April 25th – 61% yes

If Marc Anthony and Jennifer Lopez will announce a divorce by Feb 25th – 57% yes

Will President Obama add an indoor basketball court to the White House – 52% no

Will Eddie Murphy be the next Riddler in the Batman Begins series of films – 70% yes

Honestly, does anybody really do this? Is there anyone who is so without purpose that they spend their day just texting in responses to polls on their phone?

Look I am not against polls. Nor am I saying that mindless trivia is without merit (well maybe a little). But I really have to ask why anyone cares about the lovelife and/or marital problems of Depp, Lopez, and/or Anthony? Even if you are right, what does it change? This is just mostly interactive tabloid trash. As a friend once told me

“It’s the worst form of mental masturbation.”

Why am I speaking on it then? Because I discuss movies, and the question on Eddie Murphy looked like it could be relevant. But I was wrong. The poll had no facts, and would not even provide the number of people that voted. It could be 10 or 100 or 1 billion. The votes might even be by 1 person a dozen times. So it’s a useless poll.

But mostly, anything that engages in tabloid fodder – exhibiting paparazzi pictures that are clear violations of privacy, anything interfering with the children of entertainers and celebrities, attempts to invade the marriage or sex lives of anyone, ect – is something that I feel is unworthy of reading. In general I feel disgusted by it.

You may disagree. You may want to know what Joe Bob in Montana and Daisy Sue in Kansas think about some aspect of unimportant issues of a celebrity they have never seen. I really don’t care. You may want to invade the privacy of entertainers. I do not.

So for me Predicto is a unique gimmick meant to up-sell various products. Nothing more. I don’t recommend it to my readers. But you can make the choice for yourself.

President Obama and 2009 - what do you think?

Did you vote for President Obama?

	Yes
	No
	I didn't vote

Do you think the economy will improve this year

	Yes
	No
	It will stay the same
	I don't understand the economy

Do you think the nation is safer under President Obama?

	Yes
	No
	I'm not sure
	Fanatics make the world unsafe
	I'm worried about global warming more

Do you think an 'Obama effect' will create more opportunities for people of color in television, movies, and other entertainment?

	Yes, definitely
	Yes, as long as he is in office
	No
	No, Hollywood is racist
	No, some things never change
	The idea of an 'Obma effect' is insulting

Do you think the United State will ever apologize for slavery?

	Yes, now that Obama is in office
	Yes
	Maybe in the future
	No
	Never
	Why should America apologize

How likely are Reparations to happen in the next decade?

	10% or less
	20 - 40%
	50%
	60 - 80%
	100%
	Never

Which do you think are important for America? (choose all that apply)

	Improved race relations
	Education improvements
	Path to citizenship for illegal aliens
	Improving the economy
	Ending genocide and helping the world poor (ie. Darfur, and others)
	Middle East peace
	Allowing gay marriage
	Stem cell research
	Creating green energy alternatives
	Preventing 'global warming'

Lastly, and purely for my curiosity, have you ever been to www.cafepress.com/nova68 (my online store)?

	Yes, I bought stuff there
	Yes, I check it occassionally
	Yes
	Not yet
	No
	No, I don't buy clothes online
	No, the models don't look like me
	No, I think it's only for Black people