Alan Colmes - the smartest commentor on television?

I was at my weekly pool league game yesterday when the topic of the departure of Alan Colmes from Hannity & Colmes came up. Several people were surprised at the move, and a couple claimed that it’s just what they would expect from Fox News.

Putting aside the far-left promoted misconceptions of Fox News for a moment, I thought about why this might be happening right now. And I also remembered a recent Word of the day from Stephen Colbert – which was on love lost and love found (highly pro-Obama). And I came to a conclusion that was interesting.

I expect that Stephen Colbert will lose his show, and so will several liberal commentators in both television and radio. Also Sean Hannity will lose his #1 rating, and possibly his time slot. The reason is because Democrats now lead the Congress and Presidency. It’s just that simple. After years of promoting liberal issues (Colmes), and (liberals) demonizing in the most personal way President Bush, they are getting out of the way.

Comedians and political satirists on the airwaves have flourished since the 2000 election of President Bush. Besides the fact that he is as eloquent as a stroke victim (no offense meant to those that have suffered this) it was the fact that President Bush won (liberals still say stole) the election by the slimmest of margins. It was taken as a personal slam by many liberals, and they never forgot it. Most of liberal media was motivated by this to attack President Bush on every issue and front they could cover.

For those that chose comedy and were less venom filled than the extremes, there was success. That led to huge moves forward by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as examples. They had an easy target, and they had the support of many liberals. But the most extreme individuals were shunned.

But now there is the media promoted, near flawless (according to many liberal pundits) President Obama. The popularity of this elected official is enormous. As such he cannot do anything but fail these ridiculously high standards placed in front of him. And liberal commentators are realizing that when he fails to keep up to the lofty expectations they will have to critique him harshly. None of them wish to do that.

Add to this the fact that as an African American critique of President Obama will be seen with an eye towards race and race relations. That is an issue America has yet to come to terms with. It’s the dirty secret that everyone knows and few acknowledge. As such comments about President Obama in the negative, from those that lauded him prior to the election will be seen as especially harsh. And that can’t be good for ratings or future career prospects.

So the smartest move is to get out of the way. To let the focus fall on conservatives that oppose the liberal plans of the Democrats. That any opposition will look as if it is entirely partisan (and some of it will be). Thus they can return at a later point and look like shiny defenders of the realm. It’s an interesting political plan, if I am correct.

The problem is that some cannot get out of the way. Like Colbert. And thus he will suffer. Since his television program is meant to mock conservative views, in an Administration of liberal programs he will be hard pressed to mock the Administration and keep the support of his followers. Comedians with similar objectives will face a similar problem. Many will fail as they are too far to the extreme to balance in the new environment.

Alan Colmes may be one of the smartest political pundits the Democrats have. By leaving the #1 rated program on the #1 rated news channel BEFORE President Obama enacts any of his programs (though not before he has broken several campaign promises) he leaves on top. He will continue to support President Obama and the Democrat policies, as an occasional and maybe regular pundit, but that’s not the same.

This will make the views of Sean Hannity seem even more extreme (not to say that several of his views are not already). And it might make some room for critique of President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress to be taken only as partisan. It will definitely make his return, on a more liberal focused program, seem more fair and bi-partisan. Thus Colmes will win big.

All of this makes me see one thing. The news media is far too political and commercialized. There is no room for objective analysis anymore. We have already heard several organizations declare how they slanted their coverage to promote President Obama in the election. Going forward there will be the continuation of this, to the detriment of the public they are supposed to be serving. All in the name of ratings.

And those that critique the politicians, have equally been partisan. Whether it’s David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Chris Matthews, or whomever. But their reward will be the loss of much of these ratings. At least at first.

Television and news media coverage of politics are about to change. Many liberals won’t like what it turns out to be. Neither will conservative be thrilled by the media response. In effect, over the next 2 years the public will lose as will the media. If I am correct, Alan Colmes saw this outcome and stepped out of the way. That makes him the smartest commentator on television at the moment.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now in a quick statement Senator Obama mentioned China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ludacris is not Senator Obama - understand Sean Hannity?

Name one thing that is potentially deadly to the political ambition of Senator Barack Obama and involves the youth of America.

Ludacris.

Or at least that is what the news media would love you to believe. And when I say news media I mean at least Sean Hannity, that I am aware of right now. But I have no doubt that there will be more than just a few that will try to use rapper Ludacris as a weapon against Senator Obama.

The problem is that Ludacris has released a video where he is lauding Senator Obama, and disparages Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Bush – in a manner only rappers would believe to be decent.

Here is the video – WARNING – some individuals and parents may find this objectionable. (note there are several versions of this video on Youtube, I have selected the least visually insulting version)



I agree with most of the news media that Ludacris is a poor representative of Senator Obama. His use of foul language, the N-word, and implications of women as valueless sacks of meat meant for the base enjoyment of men are all things I denounce and disagree with. Were that the only implication in the news media I would have no problem with their assault.

But that is not the case. The words and images of Ludacris are being used to intimidate White Americans. As displayed on Hannity & Colmes the lyrics are matched with images that are obviously meant to imply ‘watch out for the crazy violent Black men’. That I do not agree with.

When Senator Obama first met with Ludacris in 2006 it was at YouthAIDS ''Kick Me'' campaign to raise HIV/AIDS awareness. If preventing AIDS is not a positive, what is? What is violent or crazy about keeping our kids alive and healthy? Nothing, and it’s why the national news media had little to say about their conversation.

After Senator Obama declared his intention to run for the Democratic nomination, months later, a Youtube video came out called Obama Girl. While it was whimsical I heard no comments about how negative this expression of pro-Obama support was beyond its less than serious nature. The media was not rooting out the backgrounds of the performers looking to show how dangerous Obama was at the time. Of course at that time in 2007 Senator Clinton was still expected to garner the nomination.

When Will.I.Am made his popular and catchy music video demonstrating his support of Senator Obama no one raised an eyebrow. Yet Will.I.Am is a member of a music group that has used lyrics that while not as explicit as those used by rappers, is no less suggestive. Of course Senator Obama was still expected to lose to one of the White candidates at the time.

But now that Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, and another Black musician has voiced his support – well things are different.

But how?

This is just another entertainer that supports Obama. This is just another expression of that support. And it has nothing to do with Senator Obama or his policies. This does not reflect on Obama’s intention to get out of Iraq, or reduce energy prices, or implement a national healthcare system. It’s just a guy saying he likes Obama more than McCain in a bad way.

Yet according to pundits I have seen and read this is Obama’s problem. As if he was singing the song himself. And others have stated how this song does not reflect the social morality and family values of middle America.

But Obama isn’t singing the song. Ludacris has nothing to do with his campaign. And the most recent data states that more than 55% of all rap music sales are because of White youth throughout America. So obviously it must match up with hordes of family values throughout the nation’s White families.

The point is that I can understand debating the policy issues of Senator Obama. I can respect supporters and detractors that have substantive reasons. But to play on stereotypical fears of racial ignorance is insulting and unwarranted.

Yes Ludacris went way too far. Yes he should apologize for the attacks he made. It’s true the Obama campaign denounced the video. But what does any of this have to do with Senator Obama besides the fact that both men are Black?

Sean Hannity was wrong for the manner in which he presented this news item. He was wrong to imply the racial component as he did in his program on July 30th. He too should apologize for the over the top suggestive presentation that he provided. He is no less wrong than Ludacris. And the news media needs to stop trying to create Rev. Wright fiascos for their ratings and newspaper sales, just because a Black entertainer – or just a person in general – supports Senator Obama.

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)

The Andromeda Strain – A&E telemovie review

A&E Television has stepped forward with a dramatic movie, highlighting its steps to join FX and Spike Television (among others) with unique programming that sets itself apart from broadcast television. In that aspect it has succeeded. The choice they have done this with is a remake of the Andromeda Strain.

For those unfamiliar, The Andromeda Strain is a book from 1969 and then a movie first done in 1971. It’s a tale of a virus that hits the earth via a meteorite. It devastates an entire remote town in the U.S. and a highly specialized team of scientists is organized to destroy or contain the virus. The only clue that the scientists have to work with is the fact that an old drunk and a baby are the only survivors of a town with a few hundred people.

While that is the basis of the remake there are significant changes. Some are quite good, others not as much. And most of the intensity of the film is destroyed in this 4-hour extended made-for-TV film.

I will note that I hate the current trend of re-visioned movies and programs that an idea starved Hollywood is rife with these days. In almost every re-visioning the effect is a sledgehammer to the original idea, seemingly made by someone who never saw the original and basically just read a Cliff note on the subject in question. This film is not a re-visioning because most of its first 2 hours are true to the original. Beyond that, it starts to deviate.

A&E’s version (AS) isn’t bad, though it’s incredibly too long. They took a 90 minute film and dragged it out as far as it could be taken. And you feel it. Add to this the addition of several storylines that are blatantly obvious in their political underpinnings and you get a story that is reaching for high moral ground and failing to be as entertaining as it could be. That is not to say the original was not political as well, it was just concise and not overburdened by it.

This version is weighed down with the baggage of an attack on the U.S. military’s stance on gays, distrust of the Government, international bioweapons development, environmental conservation, the Patriot Act, infidelity, and seedy journalism. That leaves out the questionable physics of a wormhole, the abilities of the Andromeda strain organism and a conspiracy theory. Oh, and a minor love story too, nearly forgot that.

There are huge plot holes in the storyline because of this expansion and focus on everything but the threat at hand. Add to that ok but not stellar acting (of Braugher, Benjamin Bratt, Rick Schroeder, Viola Davis, Daniel Dae Kim, Christa Miller. Competely useless were Eric McCormack, Ted Whittall, and the other background characters) and you have a watchable but not rewarding mix.

Problems of the movie include the origination of the Andromeda strain in the first place, time continuity, how the strain sample was recovered since it was capable of escaping it’s container, how the radiation in the mechanical shaft did not kill the lead scientist, how the scientist trapped with the released strain survived, why the baby and old man continued to survive, and how the strain took so long to start to spread since buzzards were present immediately after the outbreak, and the intelligence of an organism that is sulfur based without DNA that communicates with parts that are completely seperated.

Plus the cover-up which included the murder of Andre Braugher seems inconsistent and useless since the reporter with all the details escaped. Of course the dig at President Bush and his administration is hard to miss (though little is shown of a better Presidential choice). Also the inevitability of the U.S. Government causing the death of mankind because of a shadow organization seems consistent with the current stance of Hollywood’s anti-military stance.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Like I said the movie is ok. It might have been far better had they stuck to the issue at hand, a mystery disease of extraterrestrial origin. The attacks on non-liberal ideas and Presidents (unless you think the connection of underwater mining being run by the fictional President’s corporate election backers is just coincidental) really just makes the other shortcomings too big and long.

If you want to rejoice in the horrors of global warming I-told-you-so, or paranoia over the government listening to everything you do, I’m sure this is on your must see list along with JFK and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Otherwise, skip this unless you are really bored or are stuck in Binghamton New York.

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/

Darfur vs. political poll numbers

When I think of Darfur I am reminded of a quote,

“Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” – Dr. Martin Luther King.

Back in June I noted that there had not been a single candidate that had spoken about the atrocity in Darfur. Today that genocide in Darfur continues, Congress has not acted, and the Presidential candidates continue to turn a blind eye. Not only that, but the major news media continues to have a blackout of any information on this issue, going so far as to be silent on even the recent Don Cheadle film on this subject.

Yes, there was a film about Darfur that came out in November. Did you hear a single review? Did you read about it in your newspaper? Highly unlikely, just as it’s unlikely that you will hear a single candidate discuss this issue while they argue about who has more experience in international matters.

How can we believe ANY candidate has international experience when they cannot mention and seem to be unaware of a massive, 4 year long genocide? The candidates running for the Presidency can even figure out the national level of concern in that they have not done anything on HR 180 IH. That is the title of the resolution in Congress all year that has received scant attention.

“The point is that the United States government has reacted pitifully in regard to Darfur. So far 3 sessions of Congress have been discussing this and still nothing has been done. And here is the proof. On January 4th Representative Lee introduced HR 180 IH. If you wonder what that means it’s the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (Introduced in House). So far any attempt at accountability has gone out the window.”

Now some may say I am being unfair. They will note that during a YouTube debate several candidates spoke about Darfur. And they may note that Senators Dodd and Obama also have a resolution. I will counter that empty soundbites and resolutions that sit and do nothing are just the equivalent of eye candy. It’s fluff to look busy and important without the substance of conviction.

“As for Senator Clinton, she got a bit of all the best answers and combined them, mostly. She agreed on the need for sanctions. She agreed on a no-fly zone. But she would not agree to place ANY troops on the ground.

Senators Dodd and Obama (as well as Biden and Clinton) co-sponsored Senate Resolution 559 (introduced on Sept. 7, 2006), which encouraged President Bush to work with NATO and the UN in establishing a no-fly zone.”

Congress has been so busy trying to find ways of taking down President Bush and his administration that they have failed to even notice the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. Presidential candidates are so busy puffing themselves up they can’t even commit to divesting their personal holdings in companies that are supporting the Sudan and the genocide in Darfur.

It is a n international embarrassment that the U.N. has more backbone than our nation on this issue. The fact that the U.N. has committed 26,000 troops to protecting lives in that region is paltry, but at least an attempt at something.

“And politicians can take the simple amount of time it takes to act on HR 180 IH, Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, forcing companies to admit if they are supporting the regime that is murdering women and children for no reason beyond the fact they exist. I dare even one politician to provide a reason that is logical that explains why this has not passed yet. To explain why this simple act has yet to be passed after 7 months seems inplausible to me. That only 151 Representaives have backed this is sad. How many lives will it take to move forward and act?”

We are America. We can do better. We can do more. And that action starts and ends with out political leaders. We elect them to do our bidding. They are there to enrich our nation, our world, and the lives of everyone we influence. And the influence of America is virtually inarguably massive.

"It is up to citizens in these early primary states to determine the agenda of the presidential candidates," New York Times journalist, Nick Kristof, said at an event at Drake University in Des Moines [...]. "Iowans, specifically, can use their voice during the caucuses to bring Darfur to the attention of the presidential candidates."

Think of this. If we can turn a blind eye to the suffering and death of millions of people, that we can help end, how long until we turn a blind eye to Robert A. Hawkins, and all the others that commit mass murders in our malls and schools. How long before we accept the suffering of those in our nation that suffer from hurricanes, earthquakes and floods? How long before we become so inhumane as to allow murders of anyone not exactly like us, that us being an individual determination?

And how long will it be before we realize that there is no difference between turning a blind eye to this genocide and committing the murders ourselves?

Discussing 50 cent interview on Fox News

It’s amazing what money will make some people do. Some have sex for it; others sell poison (drugs) to children. The prisons are filled with thieves and petty robbers, and sometimes there are those willing to prostitute themselves just for a buck. In this case I’m referring to 50 cent (Curtis Jackson) appearing on Fox News with Neil Cavuto at 4:50pm Monday, to market a new line of Pontiac cars that he was involved in creating (in other words he put his name on it).

Considering the broad net cast upon Fox News, and the general mood in the gangsta rap industry for the channel I found it amusing that Jackson would appear. But then again, trying to sell the new Pontiac on BET wouldn’t really be possible.

1. There is no news program for him to be on
2. Gangsta rap targets young poorer African Americans
3. The rating suck as few really watch the channel compared to most other cable network programs (though I think they exceed CNN)

So I find it interesting that Jackson went on the channel to pitch the new car essentially to a more conservative, generally White, predominantly Republican, basically older audience. But since he is getting paid (no doubt a licensing deal and or record company perks I imagine) he goes where he is told. But don’t confuse gangsta rappers with sell-outs! That’s just not fair or Black, so I’ve been told.

For those that missed the interview, it was no hatchet job. It was fair and generally stayed on point about this promotion. I found it interesting that for a guy ranking #2 on the Forbes list of top rapper incomes, he only has 3 cars (he never mentioned if any were the car he was pitching). The modesty seems far from the persona he markets on stage, video games and that movie flop.

Which lead to a question about his film coming out next year, April 12th. Sadly I will find something more interesting to do than see him in the film, like take a nap, but I was shocked to hear that Mr. Robert DeNiro and Mr. Al Pacino are in the film. How did he pull that? It’s not like he has talent, nor is he having sex with the director (I presume) so I don’t know what got him the role. I am going to guess it’s a very minor role that will be marketed and hyped as if he were the lead in a $100 million film. No matter what you think of the guy, the fact is he is no Will Smith, or even an Ice Cube.

While this was ongoing, Neil Cavuto referred to a conversation he had with Mr. Sean Combs. They showed a brief clip and the difference in the style between Mr. Combs and Jackson was stark. Mr. Combs looked professional, sharp, casual and wealthy in his suit. Jackson looked like he was just at the gym and paid too much for the quality he had on.

But I digress. Neil Cavuto asked a question of interest about how gangsta rappers are all trying to go mainstream, getting into movies and pretending to be actors. The question was, and I paraphrase both the question and answer,

“I notice that there seems to be a move away from the violence and more to the mainstream. Are you moving away from the violence?

[50 cent] It’s not a move away from aggressive content. Success removes us from the environment, we aren’t writing about those things as much. That doesn’t mean they aren’t there or that someone isn’t writing about it. We’re just not around it.”

Again, I am paraphrasing. If anyone can show me an official transcript I will gladly correct the wording, but the essence has not been changed. And “aggressive content” was exactly the term Jackson used. He was coached very well by his PR people. I was almost impressed by the ex-convict. The subtle change in terminology changing violence, which is what, is advocated and accurately describing the actions described in gangsta rap, to aggressive content implies that his lyrics are no worse than a game of touch football. Talk about spinning a scenario in your favor.

And it’s interesting to note that for the most successful rappers, the ones most in favor of the n-word, being ghetto fabulous, and living the thug-life, (in general) are the ones that have left the ghetto, and lead lives mostly without any connection to the actions they continue to promote. From what I interpreted from Jackson’s words, he believes that essentially the top and longest running rappers are fakes since they have no connection to the events they proclaim rap is meant to ‘keep real’.

[Why do people keep saying that? What does it mean? Keep it real. Like you can fake life. Like there is a choice in being alive. This isn’t the Matrix, when stuff happens it happens. The statement is ignorant, a result of minds refusing to stretch to find the words that actually convey the thought in their head.]

Now add to all this the fact that Jackson likes Senator Hillary Clinton, because he liked her husband. What President Clinton has to do with her holding the Presidency makes no sense to me. She did not gain experience in running the government by osmosis, nor did she have a real power or position when she was First Lady. And her policies, if you can figure out what they are, seem to not match his.

Of course, like most I’ve noticed in support of Senator Clinton, Jackson is strongly against President Bush. When you call the sitting President “without compassion” you clearly state your reasoning. This is not a good reason to pick the next President though. President Bush is not going to run again. He is not going to be elected again. The logic runs false.

And how dare he call any sitting President “without compassion”. I may not agree with all the actions of President Bush, but that is not the same thing as to insult the leader of our nation. I can respect that Jackson may want to bring the troops home, but I also realize that this ex-convict is hardly the most astute political thinker.

While President Bush may be slightly more articulate than 50 cent, he is advised by far greater minds, and has always acted in a manner that seems to be guided by a belief that his actions are in the best interest of the nation. Disagree if you wish, but there has not been a successful terrorist attack in this nation to date, several attempts have been made but all were thwarted. And the economy, while not perfect is good.

All in all I found the interview interesting. Curtis Jackson left me unimpressed, his efforts to sell whatever increases his personal wealth left me unfazed. I was amazed that he found himself in a film with quality actors, and learning his political beliefs just makes me hope he keeps them to himself in the future. But it was a fair and mild interview.

HR 180 IH, what does that mean? - Repost - 6.28.2007.2

This is a repost from my Vass ...

Here is something annoying. You have not heard a single Presidential candidate speak about this. I don’t recall any news media coverage of this. Were it not for the efforts of Mr. Don Cheadle, and several other prominent actors, and the humanitarian award he received I might not have heard about this. Not that there was any significant attention made about Mr. Cheadle getting the award or why.

The point is that the United States government has reacted pitifully in regard to Darfur. So far 3 sessions of Congress have been discussing this and still nothing has been done. And here is the proof. On January 4th Representative Lee introduced HR 180 IH. If you wonder what that means it’s the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (Introduced in House). So far any attempt at accountability has gone out the window.

As of my writing this now, as Congress prepares to go on July 4th celebration seven months after introducing this bill the best thing that can be said is that it only took 3 months for a subcommittee meeting on this. In virtually seven months there has been no movement on this bill since March 20th. Perhaps if the members of Congress were in danger of losing loved ones there might be more action on the matter.

Now some of you may be saying, ‘Hold on, we don’t need to start another war.’ Others may be saying, ‘What is HR 180 IH?’

The answer to the first is that the bill doesn’t require the United States to put a single solider anywhere they aren’t already. The answer to the second is

“To require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.”

Basically this bill cuts off money that goes to support what the 108th Congress

“declares that the atrocities unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan, are genocide.”

That was almost 3 years ago to the day. How many have died since that time do you think? The GENOCIDE was unfolding according to Congress, it still exists, and we barely hear anything about it.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress there was a genocide, President Bush told the U.N. that there as a genocide, yet only 4 states have passed laws requiring that no company doing business with the Sudan can do business with their state. Odds are it’s not your state. I can guarantee that it’s not New York State, home of Wall Street, and where the big six brokerage houses invest millions of dollars in mutual funds that could be doing business with [thus supporting] the Sudan and genocide.

I bet that 99% of those reading this now, that have a pension or mutual fund, have no idea what that mutual fund is invested in. I would bet that 99.5% have no idea what businesses might be supporting the Sudan government. Yet I am sure that, of those over 30 [which is maybe 50% of my readers] everyone was for and supported the bans against South Africa and Apartheid back in 1986.

To my knowledge, virtually every member of Congress is old enough to have at least heard about the 1986 bans. They have no excuse.

Of the 24 colleges mentioned in this bill there is not one that I am aware of that is a Black college. That could be simply an oversite of Representative Lee, or that they are doing matters separate of this bill. But I recall that back in ’86, there was more than one black college that was invested in South Africa.

Perhaps Congress can sleep at night without doing more than speaking about this terrible situation. Perhaps they have more to do in preparing their particular candidate for the 2008 election, or raising funds for that candidate. Perhaps every candidate for President right now can’t spend any time to come up with a 30 second soundbite for Darfur, as there isn’t enough time after explaining the resolution to Iraq, taxes, terrorism, social security, and why they are so great and warm people. Each of those points explained in 30 second soundbites. Perhaps the moderators of the debates are too overwhelmed with questions on when America will be out of Iraq, that question can be and has been asked in each debate maybe 20 different ways, to find one on Darfur.

I know that I was too busy writing to 6 blogs, and growing my company to stop and get into this issue. But at some point you have to stop and say, I can do more.

Well here I am doing more. I’ve raised the bar. Now you know. What will you do? Will you get in touch with you Congressional representative and ask them what they did over the 4th of July while people died and a simple resolution sat on the congressional floor? Will you take a moment to read HR 180 IH, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Robot Chicken does Star Wars - 6.18.2007.1

I’m sure many of the fanboys of Star Wars and Robot Chicken [a show on Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim programming. Basically anime for adults.] were watching all night as a special episode, approved by Mr. George Lucas, dominated the channel.

This one night there was nothing but older episodes of Robot Chicken, which can have some very funny and dark skits, with the special episode repeating throughout the night. Of the dozen or so skits, several are old, but there was one I really liked. It resolve the question (if anyone was wondering) of what happened to that ridiculous, waste of space, Jar-Jar. Darth Vader does something every fan of the original 3 movies wanted to do. He chucks him out an airlock!

Sadly this is not without consequence. Still it’s worth it. When you see the skit you will get what I mean.

Other than that the ‘dancing in Bespin’ skit [my reference not the actual] and ‘Boba Fett gets personal’ are my personal favorites. Still I did expect a bit more as Mr. Lucas okayed the use of his characters, in addition to the use of his voice and that of Mr. Mark Hamill. I’m sure those who dislike President Bush will get a laugh out of the ‘Jedi Bush’ skit, which wasn’t too bad. Oh, I can't leave out 'Luke and Laura go Hotel New Hampshire'.

You can see all the skits over at the AdultSwim.com site. Now that you’ve seen my favorites in order, which was your favorite?

On a separate thought, did anyone else see the commercial for the flavored water that featured 50 cent. [I still hate his name] While all of the commercials from this company (who’s name I forget) features entertainers, mostly from sports, in events that are ridiculous this was way over the top.

The basketball player throwing a sheep, football players doing ping pong, and the NASCAR racer in the Himalayas were all ok. A rapper conducting a symphony just doesn’t work. Especially since he can’t even stick to Beethoven for more than 3 bars. It might have worked if he kept with the 5th Symphony, but the fact he doesn’t just brought up in my mind the question of if he has actually ever heard the piece. Kind of defeats the theme I thought.

This is what I think, what do you think?