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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill O'Reilly interviews Senator Barack Obama - Thursdsay

Well here is something that I’m sure will top the Nielsen ratings charts on Thursday. After months of waiting, Senator Barack Obama has finally come in for his interview with Bill O’Reilly. And it’s about time.

Now on the left, especially the far-left, Bill O’Reilly is seen as the fanatical face of the right. It’s an unfair accusation, based in the extremist views of those critics. That’s like saying the comments and actions of Code Pink or Moveon.org represent all Democrats, which I would say is equally unfair.

But there is no question that Fox News is the most watched news channel in the nation. It is also no question that throughout the Primaries and since Fox News has been noted as the most unbiased news agency. And it is also factual that Bill O’Reilly is the most popular commentator, reaching millions of Americans of all types of political beliefs.

So it will only be to Senator Obama’s benefit to appear on the program. His audience is so wide and politically beneficial that Senator Clinton appeared as she was regaining ground against Obama in the last few weeks of the Democratic Primaries. And while I dislike Senator Clinton and her policies, she did look good in the interview.

But how might Senator Obama fare?

Well in England we have these headlines on the subject –
Obama agrees to Murdoch's Fox News grilling

Rupert Murdoch broked 'truce' between Fox and Barack Obama

In the U.S. the headline tones are:
The secret Obama-Fox News meeting

OBAMA AND FOX MAKE UP, PHELPS LENDS A HAND, RICH PEOPLE READ

Fox News' Obama Power Play

According to those titles, which I think is a fair and popular representation of the way this is being presented to the world via most news media, Fox News has been seen as an enemy of Senator Obama, and involved in a feud. And Fox is supposed to be biased.

There is no question that some of the commentators on Fox are right-wing. There is no question that I have disagreed with the presentation of various events by Fox News in general. I firmly believe that Fox is prone to presenting African Americans in negative stereotypical tones. Shepard Smith is unquestionably biased in the manner in which he covers cases like OJ Simpson, or the Duke Rape case. Sean Hannity is unquestionably far-right.

But Bill O’Reilly isn’t the above people. In watching his program for years now I see that he is one of the least biased commentators on cable television today. There are issues where he is way off, like anyone, but in general these are subjects where he is as hostile to Whites as Blacks. Child safety is one such example. You just can’t question that O’Reilly is an advocate of all children.

But he is fair. His interview with Rev. Jesse Jackson was fair. His interview with Senator Clinton was informative and fair. His discussions with Rev. Al Sharpton are fair. And he has often covered news stories that I have highlighted that no other major news media, including the hard news of Fox, touch.

On the other hand it does seem obvious that he has a problem with the people Senator Obama knows. Which is not entirely wrong.

So I expect these questions to be asked:

• The association with Bill Ayers
  
  
• The association with Rev. Wright
  
  
• The association with Tony Rezco
  
  
• Senator Obama’s exact views on domestic drilling and alternative energy
  
  
• Senator Obama’s plans for taxing business, his definition of rich, and the economy
  
  
• If Senator Obama will finally admit that the Surge has worked
  
  
• How Senator Obama plans to pay for his nationalized healthcare and how it would be implemented
  
  
• Why a timetable for retreat would be in America’s best interest
  
  
• Whether Senator Obama will or will not speak with Iran and other anti-American governments without conditions
  
  
• The reversal Obama took when he selected a standard of ‘old’ politics – Sen. Joe Biden – as his Vice President
  

Each of the above items are questions that have existed since the Democratic Primaries and each has failed to be resolved fully.

If Senator Obama can answer these questions well, he should have a huge boost in his polling. If he fails to answer them, or does so poorly I expect to see him drop quickly.

Jim comments on Don Imus and racial remarks

I just wanted to share a comment and my response to a post I made on one of the blogs I write to. Sometimes I get comments of interest in other blogs and I think that you my readers deserve to hear those thoughts too. This is in response to my post Don Imus - the offense is unending

jim Says:

Don Imus didn’t say anything racial no more than anyone else has said.Why don’t the people that are so concerned like Sharpton say anything about Obamas remarks when he brings up race or the rev. wright.Blacks use race as an excuse for everything instead of taking care of their own business and get beyond it.Most Black and whites get along fine if some so called leaders would shut up instead of making a living on what someone said.

My response is as follows:

Jim,

I’m sorry that I have not responded to this earlier.

Actually Don Imus may not have said anything more racial than he has for decades, but he consistently says racial comments on a regular basis. He has a habit of stating his thoughts in the most demeaning manner when addressing or discussing African Americans among others. Every comment he makes may not be outright racist, but as a total he is way over the line – far enough to cover a continent.

As for Senator Obama, I don’t speak for him. I speak for my own comments and if you wish to address what I have said then I will respond.

But as for Rev. Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jerimiah Wright, I have spoken about both. They each have good points and have done positive things. The media coverage of those actions is non-existent. Who is to blame for that?

The media exalts in detailing every comment of both of these Reverends when the issue is racial and/or controversial. There is a vacuum and silence when they speak on things the general populace agrees with and or wishes someone would do. How much have you heard about Rev. Wright’s stand, before it was popular, against Apartheid? Or either Reverends work for the poor and homeless?

But I see that you chose to fall back on a familiar comment

“Blacks use race as an excuse for everything instead of taking care of their own business and get beyond it.”

That’s both insulting and ignorant. Just because you have the inability, or desire, to be aware of the privileges afforded to any White American does not make the world all rosy.

African Americans of all educations and backgrounds cope with a nation that is biased against them everyday, virtually all without a comment. I doubt most other races in America could do as much with so little. And I do mean little. Media would like to pretend that minorities don’t exist, or when we do we are the worst of stereotypes. Police authorities are routinely excused for acts of violence that they would not use 1/5th of against a White. And on and on.

And with all that millions of African Americans live fruitful lives. Could you do that? Could you live with the thought that the national media thought so little of you that they ignore you every day of your life? That every image of someone like you is a display of unrest and failure. That you are shunned by general society and watched like a criminal just for trying to live. I don’t think so.

And you want me to get beyond it. How can I when you can’t get beyond stereotypes, and racial insults? How can I accept that America has moved on when you embody a mindset that’s from the middle of 2 centuries ago? How can I when you empower comments being repeatedly thrown at me by the likes of Don Imus.

You are delusional. Perhaps in your eyes all Blacks and Whites get along fine all the time. But that’s a nice lie to help you get to sleep. Yes there are many who do not see race, or rather let it be an impediment. But as long as the legal system, the media, even politicians regard some Americans as different then things are never fine.

There is a big difference between making the best of a situation and being in a good one. You will know the difference the day a cop stops in front of you and draws a gun, because you LOOK suspicious. You’ll know the difference when you are singled out amongst a group, because ‘you people are trouble’, and everyone of a separate race around you just watches.

You can’t see the forest or the trees, and I understand. I understand because I, my family, my friends, and all the people we know have lived with the understanding virtually from birth. You wouldn’t be able to sleep at night seeing reality, so you change the view. You close your eyes and accept the joy that the right color provides and the wrong denies.

It’s human nature to reject pain. You see it, and you know you can’t deal with it. So you avoid it. But for those of us that can’t avoid it, we learn to live with it, like a cancer that won’t kill you but just eats away.

So if I’m pissed off at Don Imus, or you, ignore it and blame me like you always have. You’ll sleep well at night I’m sure. And I’ll understand that you are too weak to deal with it. Trust in that it’s not the first time I’ve encountered someone like you, and undoubtedly it won’t be the last.

Fox News lied about Tuskegee Experiment

Considering the massive attention being given to Rev. Wright today after his comments to the National Press Club, I wanted to make a comment. But before I could get to that I saw on Fox News at 6:02pm a report where Rev. Wright’s response about the American government creating AIDS and inflicting it on the Black community was addressed. Rev. Wright mentioned

“As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”

The Fox news reporter then goes on to mention that the Tuskegee Experiment was where “syphilis infected Black men were observed for years.”

LIE!

The Tuskegee Experiment was when the United States Government watched (purposefully?? It’s not clear) 400 infected African American men with syphilis, without their knowledge, and then watched what happened over the next 40 years without ever providing a bit of treatment to them. The Tuskegee Experiment ended in 1972, just long ago enough to have affected some of my readers fathers, uncles, brothers, and grand-fathers. That is what our Government did, and when you consider they were willing to do this you can understand why some would think they could create AIDS and infect the Black population again.

Fox News in wording the actions of the government in a softer, and less viscious manner than actually occurred not only lied to the American public, they have attempted to change history and influence the public perception of current events.

Look up the Tuskegee Experiment. Learn the facts. Understand why some have the views they have. Learn what our Government has done and is capable of doing.

It’s moments like this that I get inflamed and angered. The news media has an obligation to report the truth, and when that vow is broken, we must respond quickly and directly.

As for Rev. Wright, you can view VASS and see the full transcript of what he said, word for word. Then you can make up your own mind, just as you should with his full sermons and video.

Sean Bell murder - Police absolved of guilt, African Americans endangered

Rodney King, Amidou Diallo, Sean Bell. What do these events all have in common. Black men assaulted by the police, with extreme and unjustifiable force, with officers that walked away from the incidents (crimes) without penalty. Nothing like the even hand of justice in America.

Now you may have caught some of the relatively brief news that came out today on the Sean Bell case. I have been following it since the murder was committed. The news today may well have been obscured by the shark attack or other vital news. What has happened is that the trial (which you may not have heard was underway since early this year) concluded with no charges against the police officers guilty of firing 51 shots into a car holding 3 Black men that were all unarmed.

If you never heard about this case (which you might have missed considering the short shrift the major news media gave it) it goes like this. 3 African American men are in a strip club celebrating a bachelor party for one of them, Sean Bell. They leave the club and go to their car. They are followed by a police officer. At this points all the facts end and conjecture begins.

According to the officer, who was in the club for surveillance in a matter unrelated to these men, he believed them to be acting suspiciously. He followed them to the car where he thought they were going to get at least one gun. He approached the car, identified himself, and as the men started the car feared for his life. He then fired into the car, as did several other officers involved in the original surveillance. During the shooting of the surrounded car it was believed that a 4th man exited the car – while under fire - with a gun. In total 51 shots were fired, killing Sean Bell, and severely wounding both of the surviving men in the car. No gun was found, no drugs. No witness identified or corroborated a 4th man, nor anyone exiting the car with or without a gun.

According to the men in the car, the officer has words with their group while in the club. They left and entered their car, at which point they became aware that they were being followed. The man from the club pulled out a gun, and they – in fear of their lives from this unknown assailant – tried to drive away. The man proceeded to fire into their car, followed by several others as they surrounded the car on all sides. There was no 4th person in their group, no gun, no drugs. The man with a gun, and his companions, never identified themselves as police officers.

That is the reports of both sides from the initial day of the incident. And that begins my problems. As I stated before:

“Mr. Sean Bell and his friends were fired at 51 times. One officer fired 31 times another 11 times. The tires of the car were not shot out. Deadly force was used, though it was against official policy…As Mr. Bell continued to attempt to get away the officer seems to have become fearful for his life and the results were one dead another shot 23 times and the third shot 16 times.

Imagine that this was a car full of white males. If that would be excessive then this must be. The bigger question I have always had is why such force needs to be used solely against African American men. Mr. Rodney King had 5 or 6 officers beating him; Mr. Diallo had 41 shots from 4 officers [at least one shot was through his foot after he was laying on the ground dead]. In each case the officers walked away without a single charge. Mr. Louima was violated in a police station with a plunger. Given these facts, my own experiences and those of friends, if I had a chance to get away from a police officer in a touchy situation I’d try to run as well. It’s not about guilt, it’s about survival.”

Now what does the media say? Well Yahoo titles this : 3 NYPD detectives acquitted in 50-shot killing. They go on to mention that the murder occurred in a “seedy strip club in Queens” – inferring that this was a bad place and that bad people go there. The tone is meant to imply that the officers were in the right and the men wrong, justifying the trial outcome.

But what about the case that few ever heard about? There was no jury, only Justice Arthur Cooperman.

“Cooperman indicated that the police officers' version of events was more credible than the victims' version. "The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified" in firing, he said.”

He said this without 1 officer taking the stand. He said this with both survivors taking the stand. He said this even though initial reports had a mysterious 4th person running from the car, without pursuit and allegedly armed, as per the police report and news media coverage that has since been dropped as if it were haze in the sunlight.

So I ask again

“But what is it that makes it alright to go to such extremes. And it must be alright on some level because across the nation Black American men are assaulted like this often. I don’t recall a single white male that was attacked in a similar manner once in my entire life. I’m not talking about a shootout with officers, or hostage taking. I mean beatings by half a dozen officers, being fired at enough times to necessitate reloading firearms, and abuses that even the prisoners at Abu Ghraib have not received.”

And what about the news media? Well I just wrote about Wesley Snipes and the media dealing with him. And this case?

“Black American men shot to death, in a style of overkill usually only found in action movies, minor news. Black man with contribution to the arts for decades, unburied for 2+ months, not important. African American wins a trial by using high priced lawyers and reasonable doubt, bad charges, and evidence planted by the police is unforgettable. Cute (dead) blonde gets daily coverage. An argument between celebrities, daily coverage. Offensive, demeaning comments by a celebrity against a religious or ethnic group, minor coverage. Defensive coverage of accused rapists, prior to a trial or Grand Jury, prior to any actual facts being found – daily coverage. As facts are found, huge recaps of the case, furthering the defense especially if anything leads to defending the accused. Coverage of a bank robbery by ‘cute teens’ huge coverage, the fact that the charges were lessened from federal offenses? 2 minutes.” [In fact there was a follow-up on the blonde bank robbers – they got probation and 1 year, the men of color involved in this non-violent crime got 10 years each. Coverage? About double the 2 minutes mentioned above.]

What about the legal system?

“There is no question that African Americans have long felt that the legal system in America is a failure when it comes to any person of color. We have long complained of higher conviction rates, less access to bails, and harsher penalties once convicted. That says nothing of the stigma attached to those paroled, falsely accused, or who win the judicial action.

There is the examples from the past of numerous lynchings, the eradication of Rosewood, and Jim Crow laws including segregation as recent as the mid- to late-70’s. But on more recent notes there are the examples of Rodney King, Sean Bell, OJ Simpson, Genarlow Wilson, and the Jena 6." [Add to that Wesley Snipes and his unfair and uncommon sentencing for misdemeanors.]

And yet when the facts are observed we find that

“So we get this realization, Whites committed 4,297,146 acts of violent crime against a single person, and 759,079 acts against multiple victims that were White. Including the 40,249 multiple Black victims we get a total of 5,096,474. Thus once we move away from percentages and look at real numbers we learn that Whites are far more likely to commit a crime of violence against anyone, especially other Whites.”

Yet given the preponderance of facts that Whites commit more violent crimes, against everyone, there has never been a White that has been murdered in a manner and/or without punisment as African American men face on a regular basis.

The media is negaitve, the legal system unbalanced, and the facts ignored. Is anyone surprised that the officers got off without a charge? Or that the judge in this case wouldn’t believe them? Or that, looking more broadly, a couple of 10 second clips of video is being accepted as Bible truth in an attempt to assault Senator Obama’s Presidential aspirations?

When you look at the larger picture the painting isn’t very good. If you’ve read this far I have to believe you can see the point and share my anger. You can see why African Americans laugh coldly when the concept of “fair and equal under the law” is brought up.

40+ years after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and so many others fighting for Civil Rights there is still the absensce of equality in the law and law enforcement. And some want to tell me ‘It’s in your head’ or that I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Looking at all this I think we can all understand when an American military veteran religious leader says “Godd**** America” or wonders if AIDS was another version of the Tuskegee Experiments.

There are a lot of problems in America, and many can be seen in how the media reports or fails to report (like the Megan Williamns case) the facts.

But now that you see what I have seen and followed what will you do? For those White Americans that read my posts I ask you, now that another layer of the wool that covered your eyes has been removed, how do you feel? What is your response? How will you help get things to change, even if this reality makes you uncomfortable?

Wesley Snipes unfairly sentanced to 3 years, Willie Nelson free

So I was wrong. Not by a lot, but wrong all the same. Wesley Snipes was sentenced today to 3 years of prison by a judge in Florida today. I had expected him to receive no jail time and probation.

“Mr. Snipes was found guilty of 3 counts of not filing a tax return. Those were misdemeanor counts. He was up for 16 years in prison, that pundits were sure he would be convicted for, and based on the misdemeanors he will almost assuredly spend no time in prison.”

Given that the various pundits were nearly demanding his incarceration I found it interesting that he was found innocent by a jury, and that it was not publicized. There was massive media in convicting Snipes before the trial ever started as I have written. Now that he has been unfairly penalized, the media is all over this in a manner they have avoided on the positive news of this case.

Mind you that before the sentancing many entertainers offered letters defending his character. Some of those included Denzel Washington, Woody Harrelson, and Judge Greg Mathis. At least in the case of Judge Mathis, the hope was not in obtaining leniency but in ensuring a fair sentancing. That obviously did not happen.

Unlike Willie Nelson who lost a case with the IRS, owing $32 million, and received no jail time or probation Snipes was placed in jail. This reminds me of the various cases where crack dealers receive severely harsher penalties while those convicted for cocaine receive lesser punishment. In these examples of what is known to occur commonly, we see that being Black virtually ensures the longest jail sentances.

Remember that in this case we have Snipes with no prior criminal record, this is a non-violent crime, it’s a misdemeanor, and he’s a celebrity (which usually helps). Add to that that the IRS paid Wesleyt Snipes a full $7 million dollar refund, and waited 5 years for the red flags to go up.

At what point is this not the Government picking on a Black man? They used tax loss even for years in which Snipes was acquitted of failing to file a return. And the fact is criminal tax prosecutions are relatively rare. The judge in this case wanted to make a point and hurt Mr. Snipes, not unlike the courts and juries that went after OJ Simpson after he too was found innocent. They just couldn’t let the African American man walk away when they knew (in their minds), and wanted him to be found guilty and suffer in jail. Again, if you think I am wrong just refer to Willie Nelson and his freedom though he was found guilty for $32 million.

And I have to ask, why must the media play up the negatives of this case. From day one they framed this, in 30 second soundbites, to enhance the presumed and pre-convicted guilt of Mr. Snipes. Similar in the way that 35 years of sermons of Rev. Wright were summarized into five 10 second polispeak soundbites to be used against him and Senator Obama.

The media seems to take great joy in promoting any image or story that presumes guilt of African Americans. Yet they are remiss in dealing with obvious events of Whites commiting atrocities and repugnant racial attacks. Just look at all the news coverage given to Megan Williams as compared to Bobbie Cutts or the manner in which the death of Sean Taylor was covered, or the brief coverage of Michael Richards, or the unabashed and unrelenting proclamation of innocence of the Duke Lacrosse team, or the 3 month long coverage of Anna Nicole Smith as opposed to the virtual fleeting coverage of James Brown’s death. And I can go on.

With this kind of media coverage, is there any question why Senator Obama gets such strong polling, and yet reflectively few White votes? Or that Wesley Snipes is now going to serve 3 years in jail for something a comparable White entertainer didn’t spend 5 minutes in jail for?

Hell, Paris Hilton had petitions and multiple pundits proclaiming she was unfairly sentenced – though she flaunted the law and was a menance to the lives of the public on roads. Yet I’ve heard only Judge Mathis on the news media saying the same thing (the sentancing) for Wesley Snipes.

What a world we live in. And what major media we have telling us about it. Keep your eyes open because the America they are selling us isn’t the Friends they want us to believe in, but a more colorful and diverse reality. Until they get a chance to spin the polispeak against us.

If you want to be a bank robber - 3.25.2008.1

Have you ever needed money and dreamt of robbing a bank for the money? Maybe you needed an operation for your family, or your kids were hungry. Maybe you don't like working. Maybe you just wanted to go to the mall and get your hair and nails done. And if you were blonde, white and young, you could.

I’m speaking of the affectionately named “Barbie Bandits” out of Atlanta. About 1 year ago I wrote on the robbery these 2 young girls committed, stealing $11,000 from Bank of America – giggling all the way. They were caught after casually leaving the bank, spending money and then going to the mall the next day and discussing the robbery with a hairdresser.

For this crime, one girl was given the harsh penalty of 10 years probation, the other 2 years in jail and 8 years probation. Let my heart be still. Keep in mind that this was an inside job, one of their accomplices was a Black man. He received 10 years.

Now if you think this is appropriate, note that a bank robber in Surprise Arizona – who walked away with no money – had a 5 ½ hour manhunt after him. He was Hispanic/Latino and 41. Another man Paul Carman, of unnamed race, age 31 robbed Citizens Bank of $3,500 was arrested 8 ½ hours after the robbery. He is charged with robbery, theft and receiving stolen property.

There were no cute nicknames for the male robbers. There were no casual attempts at catching the men. No delay was spared in searching for them. And the charges were both multiple and likely to involve everything but probation. Of course they were not blonde, young and White girls.

My problem? That this is another example of the skewed enforcement of the law that occurs. Senator Obama may not have wanted to say it, but Rev. Wright was alluding to it. And White Americans receive the advantage without thinking about it. If you are White you have an advantage at every step even while you break the law. And I can’t get the same treatment even if I deserve it.

The “typical White person” in America probably won’t see the problem with the young girls getting probation. They were dumb, and were not violent in their actions. They have lives in front of them. They deserve the chance to get their lives on track. Such are the comments that might be said.

Yet I have never heard such comments made of African Americans or people of color when a crime is committed. Nor have I seen a similar criminal penalty handed out. It reminds me of the Delorean fiasco. He was caught with a kilo of cocaine. Only because there were huge sums of money devoted to finding an entrapment by the DEA, did he avoid jail. Of course the general consensus of the country was, ‘He couldn’t have done that?!’ But if I was similarly entrapped do you honestly think I’d get the same monetary and public support? Do you think I’d have avoided a huge jail term?

If you can even hesitate in your answer then you know the answer is that I’d be in jail for a decade or more. The same thing would happen if I were involved in a robbery like the ‘Barbie Bandits’, as the Black male in this case received.

How can any American be aghast at the comments of Rev. Wright, Rev. Al Sharpton, or any other African American while our legal system skews the legal punishment of Whites right in our faces? And the media conveniently avoids coverage of these events in favor of negative portrayals of people of color? Avoiding questionable or downright barbaric events like Megan Williams torture, rape and kidnapping, or the murder of Sean Bell and others.

I love my country, but I hate the schism in legal enforcement and the presumption of guilt I face because of the color of my skin. This ‘Barbie’ case just highlights the facts. It is in no way an extreme as I have seen in the news.

These women are criminals. They broke federal laws, and committed high crimes. They flaunted their crimes and were laughing about the crime. Were they not idiots, who knows how long they would have gotten away with their actions, since there was no manhunt as every other similar case has. And as a deterrent to other young, White girls and boys they received probation while the African American received 10 years. What message do you think is being made?

So the next time you need money, especially if you are in the South and specifically if you are in Cobb County, rob a bank. That is if you are White with blonde hair. Being a girl is a bonus too. Because the time is easily worth the crime, if you are White it seems.

Fox News spends day attacking Rev Wright, I get angry - 3.14.2008.4

Today I spent the day, from 9am and continuing thru my writing of this, watching Fox News. That is something I do 5 days a week normally. Its part of how I do my work and one source that keeps me informed on breaking news. And throughout the day I have gotten angrier and angrier.

Before I explain why I have anger today, let me share a moment in my life. Back when I was in high school, in the mid-80’s, I was a solid student but not due to my effort. The material being presented, as well as could be done by teachers that actually cared, was dated and in some cases blatantly inaccurate. But several of my teachers saw something in me and challenged me separate of the planned coursework.

Part of one of those challenges led me to a discussion about Malcolm X in a history class. It was my position that he was worthy of recognition and I wanted to know why he was not being discussed while Dr. Martin Luther King was. In my eyes at the time I felt Malcolm X had done more and made possible more than had Dr. King.

I was told directly, he wasn’t a good person. I was told directly that he had made statements that were vicious and mean. That he was un-American. That he was dangerous and should not be looked up to.

The teacher stating this to me is a friend and I respect him. He went out of his way to help me, in high school and college, even going out of his way to do so. He respected me and gave me responsibilities beyond my age. Through his direct influence I was entered into the Mr. Bronx competition, an advanced college program, and a job. He was white and Jewish if that matters to anyone.

I was annoyed that day because I had read the Autobiography of Malcolm X years earlier and found it inspirational. Not because of the negative speeches or stance against White Americans, but because of his ability to overcome racism and bias, to become educated in a culture that did not value it, and his ability to lead and learn throughout his life. I think all of those reasons are positive and admirable in anyone.

So to flatly disavow the accomplishments of the man because of a focus on the negatives he had, which we all have had at some point in our lives, was unfair.

Today I see the same thing happening, mostly from individuals that do not have the best interest of the American people at heart. Senator Obama is being railroaded, and this is the means to viably deter his chance at the presidency.

For hundreds of years, hundreds, White ministers and pastors decried Jews and Blacks as sub or non-human beings. White ministers for centuries defended the right to slavery. Fro decades White ministers organized lynchings and Jim Crow laws. Right up to the recent actions at Bob Jones college that had rules forbidding interracial dating – not in the 1800’s or 1950’s but in the 80’s during the Reagan Presidency.

I have heard White ministers call AIDS God’s punishments on gays, and other similar comments. I have read and refuted a minister that wrote to defend a murderer, who killed an abortion doctor, because of his political beliefs. And I have seen these preachers and others like them on their pulpits on Sunday espouse these political beliefs. Even in this election cycle, Senator John McCain recently distanced himself from a religious leader that was making a racial attack on Senator Obama while introducing and supporting McCain (though McCain waited for the press to start to question the event before making a move).

But this is all ok.

I listened today to Sean Hannity as there was a replay of an interview with Rev. Wright, in which Hannity asked,

“If there was a church that advocated Black business, Black schools, and a Black focused society but the word used was White instead of Black, what would you call it?” – Paraphrased

I did not have the full quote, forgive me if I have the exact wording wrong. But I noticed the nature of what I have seen all day. White pundits universally condemning a 30 year span spent spreading his religion, supporting his community, and standing up for the rights of people of all walks of life in this nation and abroad. (Rev. Wright was a leading advocate against Apartheid, and gay/lesbian rights)

By the way, the answer to Hannity’s question

“I would call it a church. The White is assumed.”

I got angry as 10 second soundbites from an unknown number of sermons of unknown length, that have been available since the moment Senator Obama announced his run for Presidency, were used to condemn this man. Yet I heard nothing about the fact that Rev. Wright is a former Marine, or an acknowledged theological scholar.

The context of these soundbites were picked to scare White people. They were meant to inflame White people. They are by design intended to kill the chance of Senator Obama being elected as President, I believe.

Let me pause again. I am a Republican. I like Obama, but disagree with his political objectives. He is an inspired speaker, but has no experience. I believe he could be good for the nation, and I prefer him over Hillary everyday of the year. But I am not an Obama supporter. Currently I have not picked between Obama and McCain.

As I was saying, suddenly there is all this attention. Just as the Democratic race was reaching a critical point. While Obama is leading in delegates, popular vote and state count.

Now there is nothing that connects the worst, or any of the comments of Rev. Wright to political decisions of Senator Obama. I have yet to see anything connecting the 2, and I have not heard anyone alleged that they are connected. Yet Senator Obama is being held by these statements as if there was a connection.

And not one other Presidential candidate has had their religious leader taped, soundbites made, or interviewed. None have had their sermons recorded or questioned. Thus there is no way anyone can claim that similar or worse is not being preached to the other candidates.

And like my experience in high school I have to ask why? Why is this so blatant, and so sudden. After 14 months of campaigns there is suddenly all this attention. After all the racial attacks now there are the questions and anger. All in 24 hours. And I mean 24, in the more than 12 I have watched Fox News today I have seen Rev. Wright more than I have seen any African American on any on series of programs or programming with the exceptions of BET and TV One. The soundbites of his sermons have been played more often than coverage of the death of President Ford. That is the degree of the statement trying to be made.

And there is another point. Several of Rev. Wrights statements are true. I reviewed one 3 minute video clip of Rev. Wright, and 90% of what he said was true and fine. But of the 10% I disagreed with I’ve seen 2 10 second soundbites that have been played so much that I would guess it’s had 2 hours of airplay. And I’m to believe that this is not biased?

In one 24 hour period Fox News has succeeded in bringing race and religion into this election in a manner that Senator Hillary Clinton was both unable and probably gleeful to see. And the only reason I can come to why this is happening is because Senator Obama is Black.

Black Pride has been made a fearful thing. And yes, Rev. Wright has made statements that are objectionable. But how many times has he made these statements in 30 years? In what context were they made? Do we know if he later corrected himself or apologized for some of these statements? Did he, like Malcolm X, later recognize he was wrong in some statements? Fox News and all the major media have never bothered to mention it if he has.

So again I saw why?

If there was any connection to the political actions of Senator Obama, I could understand all of this. But none has been presented. If every candidate’s pastor, priest, or religious leader was given this same scrutiny I would be ok – but they are not. And if any of the comments made by Rev. Wright were any worse than what I’ve heard in churches in the Bronx, California, New York City, across America in Black churches I’d be concerned. But the honest answer is that while I disagree with some statements they are not new, or isolated to Rev. Wright.

And just like Senator Obama, all those that have heard those words have the ability to chose and interpret what they have heard.

Ok, I have to stop. I’m tired and angry. Maybe I’ll discuss more tomorrow. But you can see my comments on the video at www.mvass.com

Christian Slater to get TV show - 3.14.2008.2

Well television may just get a bit more interesting soon. It’s not because American Idol is about to get canceled (I can only dream of that day so far). The reason is that there may be a new television program starring Christian Slater.

Now I am a fan of Slater. His work in Heathers and Broken Arrow were good. He has done many roles with a Nicolson-eque flair and a dark demeanor. It works, on the big screen and small. Similar qualities were brought to his work on The West Wing, a show I really enjoyed and virtually the last network television program I followed.

The new program is described as a Bourne Identity meets Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. Now I’m not exactly sure how that can work. From what I understand the main character has an alter-ego that is a spy, and that he is unaware of. From what I can gather he is not playing a comical role but more in line with a 24 style.

I’m not sure this can work. But I want to give Mr. Slater the benefit of doubt. I look forward to seeing what this program might be like. Look for this in the fall.

Not much else to say about that.

But I know many people are hearing a lot of different things about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Senator Obama. For those that don’t normally follow politics but want to know my review of one of the speeches of Rev. Wright as opposed to the 5 and 10 second soundbites in the major news media you can go to www.mvass.com