Black Entertainment USA - Celebrity / Entertainment News - African American view
The world of entertainment, focusing Celebrities and Entertainers from an African American/Hispanic viewpoint. Trends in movies, commercials, and all other media. Comments are always welcome.
I believe a person's character can be found in their answer to this question: If you could go back in time to the begining of Civilization with 3 books, which 3 would you choose?
Comments found on this Blog represent my views and opinions only. All items found on this Blog are subjective, except where specifically stated and/or quoted otherwise. Quotes and statements are for clarification or further information only and do not imply or express any views other than my own.
There is no connection between this site and any other site, company, or organization of a similar name.
So far the popular vote has gone back and forth several times. I don't recall seeing the difference between the candidates being greater than 3 percent as I have expected. The voter turnout has been higher, averaging about 10% more than in 2004.
Currently the total is 50% to 49% in favor of Obama. Roughly at 21 million apiece.
The results of an Obama win are far reaching, but I think not in the manner that some might be hoping for. I know of some people that voted for Obama because he is Black, and yet can't name a single policy Obama has. I know some that have pushed all their friends to vote, in favor of Obama, and can't name anything Obama has done since elected to the Senate.
Many expect race relations to improve quickly under an Obama Presidency. In fact early exit polls stated that 47% believed this. That is unlikely unless Obama plans to socialize the police departments of cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and others. Which I would not be surprised if he did.
The expectation of higher taxes are equally high, 70% in fact expect this. And it will happen. But I believe that anyone who does not expect those taxes to hit the middle class, or impact jobs, has not listened closely to what Obama has said.
At 10:07 Obama leads the electoral vote at 207 vs 129 to McCain. Again that does not reflect the tightness of the popular vote.
But Democrats have picked up 4 Senate seats and 1 in the House. So expect Nancy Pelosi to jump at passing another stimulus package, for $300 million, in January. Add that to the over $1 trillion spent this year to bailout brokerages and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The tax bill is going to be a whopper \once you add on the 837 billion in new spending Obama wants.
Suffice to say I am not happy. But if Obama wins I will support him. And I will be elated to have seen a Black President in my lifetime.
Senator Obama is quite the politician. Only a great orator could face the comments of his friends and colleagues and others, as they dissent his stated opinions, and still look good. You couldn’t make this fly in Hollywood even if you had great writers.
which leads me to this
You get one vote tomorrow. Be informed about who you choose. www.mvass.com
MoveOn.org blames Michael Vass for President McCain win
I heard about this vide that was being sent across the net and I was just waiting to see how long it would be until I received it. I didn’t have to wait long.
Of course this is a video created by and circulated originally by my friends at MoveOn.org. What lovely people they are. But this video was sent to my by a reader I don’t know, Donna (last name withheld).
I’m happy to know that I have made an impact.
In all actuality I am amused that I received this video. But if you look at it closely you see it’s a bit insulting as well.
First off it equates a vote for Senator McCain as a non-vote. That’s a pretty high pedestal to be standing on, but considering that MoveOn has attacked the very military that protects its freedom to say what it does, I’m not surprised.
Be clear, a vote for Senator John McCain is no less a vote than for anyone else. And not voting for Obama does not make you a racist, if it is based on issues and not the fact that he is Black. Even if you are African American it’s ok to disagree with the bigger Government, spend today tax tomorrow, Government knows best policies of Democrats and Senator Obama. This is not akin to a mandate of your Blackness, its not part of the commoditization of Black culture.
But if I were to be the responsible party in a McCain vote, which by my numbers and expectations is a real potential, I would not be upset. I made my opinion clear, and my reasons. And I have yet to hear an argument, or policy, that gives me pause for that choice. (I would also love the attention and income that such responsibility would provide my blogs and company)
I love the way this video equates a loss for Obama as a national outrage. It completely ignores the fact that nearly ½ the nation (according to polls of committed voters, and who knows about the undecided votes) does not agree with Obama’s policies. If this video is conveying the outrage that might occur in San Francisco, Berkley, or Eugene, Oregon then I will sleep well at night.
In fact in looking over this video again I can see why MoveOn made it. It’s an attempt to scare, cajole, and/or shame voters to vote for Obama. It’s like high school cliques in video form. If you don’t do this you won’t be part of the massive crowd of kids that think they stand out and are different – even though they wear, speak and act exactly the same. How dare you have a brain, know the issues, and have an opinion they don’t like.
The fact that it goes so far as to use religion to slam home the thought that even God must like the politics of Obama. Please. It’s a bit hypocritical for an organization that would support the removal of all hint of religion from all aspects of the nation and public life, to use it as a selling point for their political views. God doesn’t care about politics, Moveon, unless every verse I’ve read in all religious tomes are wrong.
Some would say “Mike, this is just funny.”
No, it’s a targeted attempt to use subtlety and humor to force an opinion onto people. To give the impression that voters have an obligation, instead of a choice, on who to choose for President. It’s the classic move of some liberals and Democrats, to support freedom of speech until someone disagrees with your position. They then need to slam them hard and force them to change their mind to their side, or else. Kind of like what the Obama campaign did to Florida reporter Barbara West, among others.
The best part might just be the absurdity of the thought that McCain would bomb some ubiquitous goat herder. Though the counter thought of Obama sitting down with Iran’s President - to ask him to play nice with Israel, stop making nukes to bomb America, cease funding terrorist groups that plan to kill all Americans (including pacificst and Democrats), and if he is still listening maybe raise the cost of oil so Americans can’t afford it and be forced to use less energy until some new discovery makes an alternative to oil possible – that is terrifying and real.
Of Course MoveOn wants to really sell the Republicans are evil thought. And reinforces the thought that a vote for anyone beyond Obama, and democrats, is a non-vote. MoveOn has a personal gripe with President Bush, and so he is one of their biggest scare tactics. But be honest, to have ANY President mention your name in a positive manner while speaking to the nation is an honor. I wish I had that much influence. I may be a megalomaniac but I’m not insane. (Though I hope to get Bill O’Reilly to comment on a post or speak about me one day. It would be fantastic for my business.)
I will say this, if MoveOn.org is for Obama it is yet another reason not to vote for him. They are the most extreme far-left political group short of communists in China. Ok, that was a bit overstated – maybe the North Koreans and Castro. Of the political opinions they hold that I am aware of I know only 1 person out of about 10,000 in my life that agrees with them. Talk about outside the curve.
So the future I fear is an Obama win. His tax plans will hurt my business and the national economy. He will promote a healthcare plan that will make my health about as important, and as high a quality, as regular mail. He will endanger American lives, and lead us into a war within 5 – 7 years because of his weak stance on foreign policy. He intends to give more to those that do less. He is unbending on his views, and uncaring about other political opinions. He is duplicitous in what he will say to the nation to achieve his goals (though not as bad as Hillary Clinton). And all of that, if not quite a bit more, can all be found in following his campaign since his announcement to run for the Presidency – something I have followed virtually everyday.
I respect Senator Obama. My dislike of his policies is not personal. I admire the fact that he is a Black man that has overcome many obstacles to reach this point. I think he is an incredible orator. And I do not question his intelligence. But none of that is enough to cause me to vote for him.
Voting is always important. Choose who you think matches your hopes for the nation. There is no stigma, no social pariahs. You cannot be singled out, and all the bad jokes and peer pressure in the world will not make someone else’s opinion your vote.
A vote for McCain is as American as a vote for Obama. A vote for Republicans is as valid and honest as a vote for Democrats. A vote is your Right, exercise that Right. But don’t let stupid gimmicks disguised as a joke curb your opinion, nor limit your right to vote. Be informed – from both sides – then get out and make your voice heard.
Charles Barkley interviewed by Campbell Brown on CNN
Charles Barkley is a respected athlete that is known across the world. He is outspoken and opinionated, to say the least. He is rich by most any standard. And he is a supporter of Senator Obama.
None of those things are bad. But I say that to introduce an interview that Barkley has with CNN’s Campbell Brown recently. Part of what was said was very interesting. Part of it were things I completely disagree with. And since much of the conversation centered on the up-coming election, which will affect all of us in ways that few could ever imagine a year ago, I wanted to discuss his thoughts.
The big question everyone is wondering about is race. Will there be an effect for or against Senator Obama based on race. Charles Barkley is dead on when he says this is a real factor. If for no other reason than we know that those that have said that race will affect their vote, in polls going back to the Democratic Primaries, account for ~10% of all voters. And that is the people that have willingly said this in the face of ridicule and media denouncement of such thoughts. Imagine how many might hold those same feelings and would not vote for a Black man, or a woman for that matter.
I expect that many pundits, and those that feel racism does not exist, will be surprised when the election is over and they compare the polls and the actual results. Because this is not a Bradley effect. This is racism in action, calling it anything else is just soothing the feelings of those that choose a racist action.
But let me also state clearly, not voting for Obama is not inherently a racist action. The Obama campaign, supporters, and the major media in general make it seem as if that is the case. But there are strong reasons for anyone to not vote for Obama. The fact that will be shocking is not those that are in the margin of those expected to not vote for Obama, it’s the numbers that don’t vote for him and stated they would. IF Obama loses by a margin greater than 5% then I would say that every percentage above 5% was based on race – because polling data currently states that the race should easily be within 5% based on the issues.
I agree that if Obama were to win it would be a huge statement on the state of race relations in America. It would be a testament to how far we have come as a nation from the Jim Crow laws and segregation that existed just a generation ago. It would give hope that one day racism would be so isolated and repugnant an idea that only the most hateful and small minded would still maintain it.
That said, if Obama wins it does not mean that racism no longer exists. Obama being elected does not change the legal system or it’s preference to convict and overly punish African Americans and other minorities. Overnight we would not see police departments changing policies and active actions in regard to minorities. It would not suddenly balance the numbers of CEO’s and executives of color in business, nor in elected office. Inner city schools would not suddenly get new books and materials, neither would teachers suddenly become more proficient or dedicated (at least those that are currently sub-standard).
Obama is just one man, and would be a symbol of opportunity. He means that a door could now be open, but African Americans and others would still need to be able to get to the door and then go through it. Part of that is the responsibility of the Black community – abandoning the disrespect of those with knowledge, the need to and acceptance of commoditizing of Black culture, the glamorization of drug culture and the lifestyle of it as misrepresented by movies and music videos – but part of that also resides as the responsibility of White Americans and the culture of denial that currently exists (just look at all programs on television in any 1 hour on all channels to prove that thought).
Yes many Black people support Obama because he is Black, and because a huge number of Black people vote consistently Democratic. There are more African Americans involved today because of Obama, because he is inspiring. That inspiration has motivated Republicans, Whites, Asians, Hispanic/Latinos, independents, socialists and who knows what ever groups, each for their own reason.
Somehow I don’t think that the even larger number of Whites and other ethnic groups that support Obama are all doing so because of his tan. If that is even marginally true, then to say that those that are Black that support Obama are for just that one reason is just ignorant and a means to discredit both the voters and Obama.
At the same time I do not think the McCain campaign has used race as a issue. Some supporters of McCain have used race, as have untold numbers of Clinton supporters and the Clinton Campaign. But if we do not fault the campaigns for what their supporters do and say (with the exception of key individuals) we cannot fault McCain, lest we also fault Obama for outrages against women (and Gov. Sarah Palin) and various issues against McCain (like Code Pink) that his supporters have done as well.
As for “code words”, sometimes a word or concept is just that. Welfare is not a Black only Government entitlement. As Barkley correctly states there are, and have always been, more Whites on welfare than all other minorities combined. And without regard to who will receive the money that Obama’s tax plan will provide, many feel that providing money to people who have done nothing to earn it is welfare. For decades the welfare system has mandated that those who do little or nothing receive the most, and Obama’s tax plan will give the most to those in similar circumstances – fairly or not. So this is not a code word, but in my opinion accurate.
And to be accurate, Clinton and her campaign focused on Obama’s heritage, his associations, and his religion. It was Clinton campaigners that accused Obama of being a drug dealer, and were spreading emails that stated Obama was a Muslim and terrorist. While some McCain supporters have picked up on that same line, his campaign has not. And to question his association with a self-admitted terrorist is a politically fair question.
Also, if we are to look at the full 8 years of the Bush administration then we must give him credit for his actions in dealing with the internet bubble that the Clinton Administration created and fostered, as well as his initial actions dealing with the 9/11 attack. The repercussions of both have had far-reaching complications on the economy and nature of the nation today. So to say it’s just a Republican thing is unfair and a misstatement that borders on a lie.
And to say that the only way that McCain can win is to obfuscate and ignore fact. Millions disagree with the larger Government that Obama advocates. Millions doubt and debate the effects of an Obama tax and economic plan. Millions feel his views on a nationalized healthcare are less than beneficial. To say that the only way that Obama could lose is because of his race is to call half the nation racists, and that is racist in its implication.
Many people are against abortion, or gay marriage, or other issues. That is not absurd to them, and if they disagree with Charles Barkley they have that right. His statement otherwise is a minimalization of issues some feel strongly about. It is the purpose of an elected official to support and protect the citizens they represent. That is first and foremost. And occasionally it supersedes their own personal opinions.
But I agree that politicians should ensure a proper education for all. That is paramount for the health of the nation. That ensures ultimately that the economy will perform well, and that prosperity will increase. It will reduce crime and improve communities. It is an obligation we all owe to the youth.
I also agree about keeping the nation safe. But obviously there are many different ideas about how that is best done. But I think that empowering our enemies with retreat and conversations that lift their international presence without assurances does not fit that bill.
Similar arguments can be made about healthcare and the economy.
As for Gov. Sarah Palin, is not Charles Barkley doing her a disservice in stating that her being picked as Vice President running mate is only because of Hillary Clinton? Doesn’t the fact that she has served as a Mayor and Governor of a state worthy of recognition. And if that experience, as well as her reforms and work on energy, are not enough to justify her as VP how is Obama justified in running for President when he lacks even that much experience?
Though I have to note this. Gov. Palin has spoken to reporters and news organizations that are not friendly. They have asked her tough questions, and at times she has had bad answers. But at no time did the McCain campaign blacklist an organization or attack those asking her questions. Senator Biden has done so to Barbara West and her news station, because he didn’t like her questions. Senator Obama supporters have attacked the name of Joe the Plumber because they didn’t like the question asked of Obama (when the real issue should be Obama’s answer – which the news media avoids). And there are other organizations that the Obama campaign has rejected as well, and individuals too.
I do wish Barkley the best in his political attempts. But I do not believe that as many people as he thinks will be in favor of his ideals as he would need. Especially when he, like most wealthy Democrats, is in favor of wealth redistribution but have yet to voluntarily donate a single dollar to the Government. Private organizations yes, but not the Government (even under Democratic Presidents and Congress) which I assume is because they feel Government is a bad administrator of such funds.
I have covered a lot of what was said by Charles Barkley in his interview with CNN’s Campbell Brown. It is political, and it is important in that it deals with the Presidential election.
If you agree with Barkley, go vote. If you disagree, go vote. If you are unsure, go vote and make a gut decision. Because the most important thing you can do is vote, and the worst would be not to vote.
If you would like to know more on the election and Senator McCain or Senator Obama I offer my political blog – VASS. If nothing else it’s a place to start from in you decision making process.
Skinheads plan to decapitate Senator Obama and 102 school kids
I have spoken about racism a lot over the years. And one of the big comments I receive every time is that I should get over it, because it doesn’t exist anymore. Then there is news like this
I don’t believe Senator Obama should be elected President. Not because of his race, but because of his economic plans. But I have to wonder what is so wrong in this country that the mere thought that a Black man is running for President could motivate some to plan the decapitation of 102 innocent school kids and the Democratic nominee.
Does this latest assasination plot mean that Obama should be elected? No. Not in my opinion based on his left wing liberal political views. But that does not make him unAmerican, nor does it mean that any Black person desevers to be killed. Aren’t we fighting 2 wars against people that plan these same kinds of events?
America needs to resolve the race issues that continue to plague us. Race is bigger than the economy, wars overseas, and almost anything else. This kind of division will destroy the nation faster than anything else. It is a festering sore that never heals, because some cannot accept the world as it is.
I really am disturbed by this news. Even without the election such a thought is terrifying. That so many still hold views that should have died in the middle ages with the bubonic plague makes me ill at ease. It reminds me that I still can wake up with a cross burning in my yard.
But I will not back down. Racism is still alive in this nation because too many want to hide behind the thought that because lynchings aren’t happening the world is fine. The thought that some believe racisim can’t exist since I and my family can sit anywhere on a bus or resturant keeps them from seeing the racial tones in the media and politics is not something I will abide by.
America, if we cannot be a nation of people instead of a nation of colors we will fall no matter who is at the helm. African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Asians, Native Indians and more all serve in our military and have bled to ensure the freedoms we all enjoy today. That does not mean Obama should win because he is Black. But it means even moreso that he should never lose because of it either; not as long as we want to continue to be a great nation.
Who really belongs on the Top 40 most Influential Men of 2008 list
Everybody loves a list of top anything. You just can’t resist seeing what got rated and how high things were ranked. Everyone has an opinion, this was too high or that was too low. At Askmen.com they have just released their Top 49 Most Influential Men of 2008.
Over 200,000 people voted to establish the men and ranks on this list. That’s pretty impressive. Going through the list I found it interesting not only who and what rank some men were ranked, but also why. This years list includes a bit of a bio and the reasons for the influence of the person. Amazingly, some on the list were ranked for the most inane reasons, in my opinion.
#48 – Lil Wayne. Ranked with an overall score of 73.3 his claim to fame this year was the plethora of songs he has released over his career, and the fact that he was arrested and charged with 4 felonies. Being a rapper there was no surprise in that the charges are related to drugs. So drug addicts (and definitely his drug dealer) are sure to have been impressed that he could get arrested with a massive amount of drugs, remain out of jail, and release an album.
#47 – Criss Angel. Ranked at 73.4. He makes people believe as only Houdinni and David Blaine have. If you don’t see him in Vegas, check out his show on cable television. Amazing.
#46 – Alex Rodriguez. Ranked with a score of 73.9. A real trend setter A-Rod was influential for all the men that want to divorce their wife and hook up with the wife of another guy (who subsequently is also getting a divorce). You might have expected him to have been ranked because of his success as a baseball player, but then again where did the Yankees finish?
#44 – Ryan Seacrest. Ranked in a tie with A-Rod at 73.9, you just have to be impressed that he made the list. The only claim to fame for this guy is American Idol. He must be influential to someone because he is making a career out of the least skill intensive career separate of being a judge on American Idol.
#41 – Lewis Hamilton. Ranked a mere 75.5. The first Black man to break the race barrier in Formula 1 racing, and the best in the world right now (possibly disputable). He has made Formula 1 racing exciting again and is a rage throughout Europe. Considering the reasons some are on this list, how he was not ranked higher escapes me.
#40 – Brett Farve. Ranked 75.9 you just have to love his spirit. He has come back out of retirement and brought life into the Jets game. This has been huge for the fans and changed up all the expectations in the NFL. Perhaps the only people that want this ranked lower are in Green Bay.
#39 – Heath Ledger. Ranked with a solid 77, he’s doing quite well for being dead. His big accomplishments were dying form a drug overdose/mix and his performance as the Joker in the latest Batman movie. Honestly I have never been impressed with his acting, and even less so with his rendition of the Joker. Where was the joke? Maybe that his death catapulted the movie higher than it ever could be if he lived and it was reviewed fairly?
#33 – Brad Pitt. Ranked with a 79.5, and you just have to wonder why. His film Burn After Reading got burned in theaters (he’s done much better). He hasn’t done much else this year except be a dad, which is reason enough to get credit. The big draw for him on the list – his wife Angelina Jolie.
#32 – Harvey Levin. Ranked at 79.5 with Brad Pitt. He is the man responsible for all the news you don’t care to know about Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. His gossip website, TMZ.com, is the spot for news that used to only be fit for the Globe. Influencing bathroom reading every day.
#28 – Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ranked 80.8 and the Guvernator. He has made almost as much of an impact on politics as he has in his movies. His influence was felt this year as he endorsed Senator McCain for President over Rudy Giuliani. Up to this point he is the only man on the list that is both well-known and actually influential for something.
#26 – Jimmy Kimmel. Ranked 81.4. Hey you just have to cheer for the success of this guy. And he got ranked above the Guvernator! Good for him.
#25 – David Beckham. Ranked 81.8 and the saviour of the L.A. Galaxy. The man is still a great soccer (futbol in the rest of the world) player and definitely the best playing in the U.S. today. His introduction to U.S. soccer has helped to lift the sport and got the Galaxy to finish above .500 which takes doing. Plus a 70 yard goal is damn hard to do.
#22 – George Clooney. Ranked 83 and far above pal Brad Pitt. Like Pitt I like the acting of Clooney. But he is an outspoken advocate of many causes. He was named a Messenger of Peace by the U.N. this year. His work dealing with Darfur (along with Pitt) is only exceeded by Don Cheadle. Too bad he’s not a Republican.
#21 – Usain Bolt. Ranked 83.2 for his performance at the 2008 Olympics. And it was a performance. Perhaps I was the only one a bit off-put by his showboating especially in the 100 meter race. Yes he’s fast, but if he wants to act he should get a different career.
#19 – Ben Bernanke. Ranked 83.5. Generally everyone on this list was ranked for their positive influence. Bernanke is the only person that I would absolutely say influenced the world with his negative actions. He failed in his monetary policy, his late rate cuts and abysmal attention to the span of the mortgage crisis. Influential and nearly deserving of a jail sentence, he makes Paul Volker look like a smart guy.
#17 – Kanye West. Overranked at 84.2 this performer is only overshadowed by his ego. I mean really, above Bernanke, Beckham, Hamilton, Clooney? Why is he even on the list? What did he influence?
#15 – Jon Stewart. Ranked at 85 he is one of the most important faces of politics today. That is both funny and sad because he is a comedian making fun of what is happening. Considering that he is reported to be watch by more aged 30 and under than regular news for the news it’s little surprise that so many are leaning left in this next election. But he’s just so funny.
#10 – Senator John McCain. Ranked 86.2 you would expect that one of the Presidential candidates would be ranked higher. I’m sure it’s a far-left internet plot (sarcasm if you didn’t guess). Still as one of the men that would run the nation, and with the best outlook for America – in my opinion – and an American hero (indisputable) he should be rated higher.
#9 - Cristiano Ronaldo. Ranked 86.2 he is an international futbol superstar. He had a good year with Manchester United, scoring his first hat trick and won the UEFA Champions League. He had 8 goals for Portugal, including one in the quarterfinals, as Portugal qualifies for the next World Cup.
#7 – Christian Bale. Ranked an astounding 89. Are they serious? I like him as Bruce Wayne, and he was one of the few saving graces in The Dark Knight but let’s be serious. More influence than Senator McCain? Bigger than Jon Stewart? Better than Lewis Hamilton? I think not.
#5 – Stephen Colbert. Can you believe that he is only ranked 89.9? I bet he can’t. And his gut will tell him it was a typo and really is 98.8 only behind Senator McCain. He is the best at parsing politics and being ingenuine in the very ingenuine field of politics. You know he is funny when Republicans watch his fake Republican rants and laugh. (and he is a great Phil Ken Sebin – Harvey Birdman Attorney at Law – Ha!ha)
#4 – Robert Downey Jr. Ranked a cool 90.4 he is the king of the hill right now. Iron Man, the upcoming The Soloist with Jamie Foxx. He is an actor that can make movies like Tropic Thunder look good, and can be huge in anything else. He gives hope that even the worst junkie has a touch of grace, and the ability to overcome any downfall.
#1 – Senator Barack Obama. His rank of 93.1 will likely shock some since it’s not 100%. He is the first African American to have a serious shot at being President. He is intelligent, an orator without current par, young (as politics go) and determined. Even if you don’t like his political positions (and I don’t) you have to respect his rise and ability to bring so many from the apathy most Presidential races fall into. Win or lose the election, he is the face of where politics will be going soon (in 4 years I think he can’t help but win the election).
There are others on the list that some might feel are of note. And some might not agree with the reasons, or lack thereof, for the rankings – or my interpretations. But if I had to list the aforementioned the top 5 would have to be:
Senator Barack Obama
Senator John McCain
Robert Downey Jr.
Stephen Colbert
Lewis Hamilton
And on the list of infamy and negative influence, which should be a separate list:
Ben Bernanke Harry Paulson Barney Frank Chris Dodd Harry Reid Nancy Pelosi
Each and every one of them for allowing the mortgage crisis which has created the credit crunch and damaging America.
Full video of the McCain - Obama Presidential debate
The following is the full video of the Sept 26, 2008 Presidential debate of Senator McCain and Senator Obama.
I believe that it is imperative that every American listen to exactly what each candidate said, and plans for America if they become President. My comments and in-depth analysis will be up shortly. In addition I will be providing a copy of the complete transcript of the entire debate.
I hope that this information helps each of you to come to a decision on who you wish to vote for. Because no matter whom you choose, your vote is vital to get the best person possible in the White House, and we can only get that if everyone makes an informed vote.
Which is right - keep campaigning or fixing the economy?
This is a repost from my political blog, VASS, but I think it's an important question.
So the news has now been reported that Senator Obama does not plan to accept Senator McCain’s offer to go back to D.C. and work on the bailout.
Senator Obama believes that he can both work out the problems with the bailout and step before the nation for a debate on Friday. He believes that he can focus on both issues equally.
Senator McCain has already stated that he believes that the political debate can wait until the financial future of America is resolved.
I feel that Obama is placing politics above the nation, and his constituents that elected him to office. Both of these men are Senators, as is Joe Biden. They have a responsibility to the voters that put them in office up until they are elected by voters for a different office.
The polispeak will fly today. Some will laud one or the other Presidential candidate. I can clearly see the benefit to the nation of the actions of McCain, I do not see that benefit from Senator Obama. Obama is choosing to hold a speech about how great he will be for the economy once he is elected, while McCain will be speaking with Democrats, Republicans, and the President about keeping the economy going up to and through the election. Which makes more sense.
How well will Senator Obama be able to review documents on the bailout, and shake hands with undecided voters? How well will he be able to speak with Congress, while he is kissing babies and approving attack ads? How well will he be able to confer with economic experts while he is practicing his debate points.
Yes a President must do more than one thing at a time. But if Warren Buffett is correct, and this is the financial equivalent of Pearl Harbor, Senator Obama is saying he would rather go overseas for a meeting than deal directly with the situation.
Was the fear of following McCain’s lead on this potentially devastating financial fiasco so great as to refuse to do his job. Is his desire to be President so great that he would rather lead America in a depression, with millions unemployed and/or homeless than serve as the Senator he has been elected to be in relative economic stability?
Perhaps this, more than the debates themselves, will be the turning point in the election. And I have to wonder what most Americans will prefer. I for one agree that the debates for the election (which can be rescheduled for another day out of the 41 remaining) are not as important as my work, and as a consequence my house.
Bill O'Reilly interview with Senator Obama - part 3 Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright
There is nothing more interesting than watching a politician discussing the merits of their background or in some cases the counter position. Tonight we saw Senator Obama take the counter position. And in one issue I agree and the other I disagree.
When it comes to Reverend Wright I absolutely agree that there is no case against Senator Obama. Rev. Wright is not a politician, he was not elected by the public, and he has the right to say whatever he wishes (without promoting violence, racism or other such acts). Rev. Wright is a religious leader. And I dare any personality of note to withstand having five 10-second soundbites of their words being taken out of context.
When Bill O’Reilly asks if Obama was in the church during some of the objectionable sermons, Obama said no. No proof exists to claim otherwise, so I accept his word. The fact that DVD’s existed for sale means nothing, unless someone can prove that Senator Obama purchased or was given one of these DVD’s. And even if he had such a DVD, it does not have anything to do with politics.
For anyone that wants to argue the counterpoint I ask you to show me a political vote in which Rev. Wright influenced Obama’s vote. [And I feel the same way about Gov. Sarah Palin’s religious influences]
As for the issue of Bill Ayers, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine on the issue. I find Bill Ayers to be relevant, my friend does not. The reasons are a simple set of rules that I believe defines what relationships of candidates are fair-game and which are not.
When any friend or associate of a candidate is considered the question to be asked is relevance. Did this person directly influence and/or affect the outcome of a vote by the politician in question. If a line can be made directly then I believe they are fair to investigate and publicize, if not they are off limits.
Thus Ayers is a legitimate issue for Senator Obama. Bill Ayers is an admitted criminal (by the standards of today a terrorist). He is also unrepentant on what he did some 40 years ago. If he could he has stated he would act in exactly the same manner again. But he is unpunished via a loophole in law. Thus he is now able to be directly involved in politics today.
Now Bill Ayers has been a key figure in getting Obama’s political career started. He has served as a teacher with Obama. He has given fundraising events for Obama. He has discussed Chicago politics with Ayers early in Obama’s career as I understand. Thus he has had the ability to influence how Obama would vote. He is fair game.
My friend disagrees. The argument is that any association could be claimed to have influence. That if, as in my life, I knew a criminal – say a convicted felon that had served time for armed robbery – that I would be jaded by that association.
But here is the difference. While I may have grown up with individuals that became criminals, that was their choice. I have never violated a law. I have never accepted money from a criminal (or suspected criminal), or questionable source. No questionable source has aided me in attaining my business or clients. In fact, while I may have had dinner with or been at events that the ex-con may have been at, there is no connection to any actions I have taken in my life. Thus such a person is off-limits and any connection is invalid. To mention them is mere polispeak, attempting to scare away voters.
Ayer is a criminal, by his own admission. He has directly benefited Obama’s political life. He has had ample time to discuss and affect the political acts of Obama. He is very fair game.
And I do have a problem with a President that has been influenced by a former-terrorist that is unrepentant about his actions. That does not reflect what I believe about this nation even on the worst day. And it does call into question Senator Obama’s judgment, to choose to be connected, for years, to a person that has such extreme anti-American views.
Obama never explains his visit to the Daily Kos conference. For those that are unfamiliar with the Daily Kos, it is a far-left blog. Well to be fairer it has several far-left blog writers. They have made several obnoxious and unconfirmed comments about any politician that does not conform to the exact style of government they would prefer to see. They have wished death, insulted family members, disrespected the office of the President and more.
Now Senator Obama went to the Daily Kos conference as did all the Democratic Presidential candidates at the time. They all sought the support of the far-left to win their Primaries. But why he did so when they are known for their vicious attacks is not clear. I have to believe that any Democratic candidate can win an election without having to have the support of near radical elements of their Party.
But to be fair, this is not every blog writer, nor reader, of the Daily Kos. But there are more than a few. And I have no idea of a single commentator on almost any network (except maybe Keith Olberman) that has said anything nearly as hateful, disrespectful, and vicious as some of the things found on Kos. If I am mistaken please let me know.
When it comes to General Patreaus and Moveon.org Senator Obama is not exactly clear or truthful. He did speak about the Moveon.org ad – which blatantly insulted the General and the entire Armed Forces. He spoke about it, but when the Congress gathered and voted to condemn the insult made, Obama declined to take a stance. Senator Clinton voted in favor of the ad.
So while Obama had plenty of polispeak after the fact, when it counted he in fact took the side of Moveon.org – along with 3 other Senators as I recall the vote. Senator Obama may have been offended, but he voted as if he wasn’t.
But I will say that Senator Obama does strongly defend his positions and the things he has said. When it comes to decisions he has made he has shown, throughout the interview so far, a decided unwillingness to bend – not unlike the accusations made about our current President’s unwillingness to change course.
Senator Obama is correct that every tangential act of anyone he has ever known is not fair game or politically relevant. He is correct that some in the media are overeager to find fault with every word spoken by him or those around him. But it is also true that some associations are important to be explained. Some comments must be responded to. And he will not always like or agree with which person or comment is investigated. Such is the bar to be President.
And by the way, Bill O’Reilly has taken several questions too far in this interview, and he knows it. As in his question to have Senator Obama name his conservative friends. They have no more reason to be put under scrutiny than Reverend Wright or a high school classmate of Obama. Unless they have affected the votes of Obama in an undue manner, or have a past which reveals an anti-American agenda, they deserve to have their lives remain private.
The last part of the interview, revealing why domestic drilling is bad and why alternative energy should be explored exclusively should be interesting as well.
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.
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.
Do you know enough about the 2008 Presidential election?
As many of my reader across the world know I have been following the Presidential election of 2008 since December of 2006 if not a bit earlier. And I know that many African Americans tend to be Democrats because the trend currently is for them to be so (for almost 100 years Blacks voted Republican en masse until the 1960’s). With the nomination of Senator Barrack Obama even more of us have given him and the Democratic Party our support. And that is a great thing.
But it is not the only option before us. And he may not be the best choice for the nation, regardless of the history making nature of his political success.
Only through evaluating both candidates and their VP picks can we make the best choice for America. So I invite you to review the commentary and actual speeches made at both the DNC and RNC.
Only through informed understanding can we elect the best President for America. Who you come to believe that is – that is your choice. Vote, but vote with full knowledge of what you will be getting.
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.
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.
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.
Chalk up another victory for Senator Obama and African Americans, and America in general. It’s taken some time but another historical event has taken place, and again it has received about as much fanfare as Janet Jackson’s latest album.
When I started to first write my blogs I wrote about an issue that has plagued every aspect of American life and politics since before the creation of America. That issue is Slavery. I have long been a proponent of an apology from the Government and I am a staunch supporter of Reparations...
But finally yesterday House Resolution 194 was passed, a mere 5 months after it was introduced to the House of Representatives. House Resolution 194 is
Yet a question has to be asked. Why has the Senate not acted on this resolution? Why did the Representatives not stand up and have their votes recorded for history? Why have both current Presidential candidates shunned and avoided the subject actively?...
The answer is, in my opinion at least, NO we haven’t. If we had there would not be cases in courts like Rodney King or Megan Williams, there would be no deaths like Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo, there would be no outrages like the one enacted by the police in Philadelphia. There would be no way that Michael Richards would have acted in the manner that he did, nor that the media would have railroaded Wesley Snipes as they did. There would be no need for comedians like Stephen Colbert to point out the obvious. And there would be no way that politicians like Frank Hargrove or Tancredo could could say what they have said....
The House of Representatives has taken a step, the Senate must follow that step, and the President must acknowledge and reiterate these actions. And in proving the sincerity and completing the rite of acknowledgement America...
Oh he’s gone and done it now. Rev. Jesse Jackson is scrambling to retract comments he made Sunday, his son is blasting him for those same comments and Senator Obama – campaign and all – are quiet.
What is the issue here? What was said?
Well it’s hard to be sure. What is known is that Rev. Jackson took offense at the speech made by Senator Obama. In a moment where his microphone was hot, and he believed it was off, Rev. Jackson let loose with comments Wolf Blitzer believes he cannot repeat on CNN air. According to Jim Tapper of ABC News the words were along the lines of
Actually finding the remarks, via video or transcript, has proven to be difficult at this point. I have no doubt that they will surface at some point soon though. And I think that is the only reason that today, 3 days later, Rev. Jackson has made an apology.
This is not a sincere apology, it’s polispeak. He is protecting his political clout and image. Were he really sincere he would have apologized Sunday when...
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
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.
Black Entertainment Television loses Procter & Gamble, but is it enough?
Viacom must be proud. I really have to believe that they are in a great mood today. If they aren’t all the better because I feel better. Why? Because Procter & Gamble and GM have pulled their ads from the network – specifically those found on Rap City and 106 & Park.
Both of these cable network programs are found on the infamous Black Entertainment Television (BET) [No relation], created by Bob Johnson based on the same theory as that of Marie Antoinette. But whereas Marie Antoinette was beheaded by the starving masses, the intellectually starving made Bob Johnson a billionaire. And Viacom was more than happy to jump on the bandwagon that Johnson started.
If television can be called the opiate of the masses, then gangsta rap and hip hop music videos are its crack. Bob Johnson figured out the formula and how to spread sales when he started his infamous late-night music video line-up. Viacom simply figured out how to sell this crack to schoolchildren during the day. Reginald Hudlin must be proud, because Sumner Redstone surely is.
But many others in the Black community, and those concerned about the welfare of children, were not pleased. Thus when the later re-named Hot Ghetto Mess was first imagined, we spoke out. While the changes were minor (program title was quickly altered, and some of the content it’s rumored) advertisers acted lest they stir the ire of the $1 trillion African American community. And again the voices were raised and that attention has caused action.
As most would agree, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that Rap City and 106&Park promoted videos to kids just out of school that focused on sex, violence and profane language. But for those, like the advertising executives at GM and Procter & Gamble, that obviously never actually watch the program an April Parent Television Council study found the following:
Don’t get too happy though. While these 2 companies are in the top 5 of advertisers in the nation they have not made the impact that really would have made a difference to Viacom. GM did take their ads from these BET programs, but it moved them to other programs on this troubled network. Thus the financial slap in the face has become a tap on the wrists and BET continues in silence.
And what about the advertisers that have not changed their position? That would be McDonald’s, YUM! Brands (ie. KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and A&W root beer), and Verizon. Not one of these companies seems to be fazed by children being spoon-fed sex and violence. Yet not one of these companies would dare advertise on a program targeting White children with the same reported numbers. Obviously their opinion matches that of Sumner Redstone and Viacom. What great company to associate with.
And the Black community must be admonished for supporting these kinds of actions. With so much money being spent on keeping up with the Jones’, so much importance placed on style over substance we effectively beg for more intellectual crack and they whip it up on demand.
But until we act in the same manner as the poor French with Marie Antoinette, expect to eat more cake and have children more damaged every year. I have to wonder how well Debra Lee, Reginald Hudlin, and Bob Johnson sleep? I’d guess as well as the crack dealer on the corner.
Because of the aspersions made, and the amount of ignorance espoused I felt that my response needed to be seen more prominently. To summarize the unknown commentor ignored the factual history of the South and NASCAR. They ignored the question and points discussed in my original post. Instead they produced an ill-formed rant that blames the woman and African Americans in general. To that I have this to say:
Your brilliance astounds me. The logic that you display has not been equaled since creation of protozoa’s (a single celled creature if you were wondering). The points you iterate are as straightforward as a Gordian knot. [I gave you protozoa, look it up] And in case you didn’t get it I am being sarcastic.
I realize you have an opinion, but I must ask where you form the idea that this woman has lied? What magical insight gives you such knowledge? Do you know her? Do you work with her? Based on your reluctance to provide any name, and the arbitrary nature of your arguments I have to believe you have no idea better than anyone else. Thus in taking the negative stance you highlight your support of NASCAR and dislike of her comments. [Of course I obviously have taken the converse position. Though that position has been backed up by the fact she has filed a lawsuit against a multi-million dollar industry which no one in their right mind would do lightly.]
Now if you are tired of hearing about the confederate flag, I suggest you ask millions of southerners to burn them and not stick them all over the place. I suggest you tell them to take it down from government buildings and off their cars and clothes. Because as long as it is in sight it is a statement of support of that history you so proudly want to remember parts of.
Perhaps you hate to be reminded of slavery because you feel guilt about something you have done in your life. Maybe it’s because you understand that the foundation of the nation was created on the backs and bones of African Americans, literally. Maybe you realize that the playing field in life is not even and your advantage gives you unease. But I doubt it.
You may not understand it, but in bringing up the unresolved past of America many African Americans are seeking to educate and heal the nation. Many are trying to ensure that actions of the past are never revisited, much like the way many Jews will not let their children forget the Holocaust. Because when people stop learning from the past, they tend to repeat it. You might recall all that from your high school history class.
By the way you say
“I hate that we had slavery but we did and we learned from it. We now have a mixed black and white nominated for president and that tells me we have come a long way.”
We learned from it? When? Right after the 13th Amendment Jim Crow laws were enacted and remained in place for about 100 years. There were riots as millions of Whites resisted any repeal or change in the Jim Crow laws and segregation. But that was 40 years ago. Today we do have a Black Democratic nominee for President. Yet that does not correct or absolve the prejudice and inequality in this nation. The Rodney King beatings were nearly 2 decades ago, Sean Bell’s murder was last year as was the atrocity to Megan Williams. Where is the learning? This says nothing of the fact that minorities are underrepresented in ever executive position in every industry in America. A fact that is statistically impossible for the numbers.
But then you want to blame the victim. Not unlike what happened to the woman in the Duke Rape case. [Yes she was found to have lied, but the media – like you now – instantly assumed her to be wrong and a criminal. When was the last time a White person was publicly assumed to be wrong and a liar when they claim to be a victim??] You blame her for trying to earn her living and surmount the problems around her. You blame her for not stopping the racism and sexism that surrounds her, allegedly. Let me ask you this, how would you stop such institutional problems. How do you stop people from treating you with disrespect when the top person in the company is joining into the fray? And how long do you think you could have worked with such pressure on you every day? By your statements you are not strong enough to have made it more than a day or 2. By your own words you would have immediately run and told, and then turned around and ran home. This woman stood her ground and tried to earn respect among people who could not give any for over a year, allegedly.
And let me correct something you stated. You would not stay and deal with the harassment for 22 months. You aren’t that strong. But there have been many African Americans that have endured what this woman, Ms. Grant, has and more. Think of every first African American, think of all those that lived prior to the civil rights movement, or those that yes were slaves. African American culture is filled with the belief that we endure difficult work and life conditions and make the best of it we can. So yes I do understand why she persevered for 22 months, and why I guess you could not.
Now at this point you jump top a different issue, about Black drivers. You say they CANT get sponsorships. Why the hell not? The best driver in the world currently is Lewis Hamilton, and he is Black. What difference does it make for an American Black driver? The culture of America refusing to accept him. And that is racist if you didn’t know it.
Again you jump to another thought. And I pause to note that these skips are not following a logical progression but spring from an association found only in your mind.
You make an assumption about “some blacks” and their desire to work. What about the fact that far more White Americans are not working. The fact is that even if every African American in America was to stop working it would not account for all the people in America that receive government aide. The fact is that far more than double are the number of Whites that “want everything without working hard for it.”
Again the culture of Black America is the recognition that because of the bias, and the implied benefit of being White, we must work 2x as hard to gain half the recognition and economic gain. That is not an assumption, nor are the experiences I have had that back up this cultural understanding. But you are right; Whites don’t get everything without working for it. But they will get it before me if I only do the same quality and quantity of work.
Finally you get back on point of the subject at hand. And you reveal that you see an opportunity for profit. You are motivated by her ability to sue to earn money. I see her ensuring that a point is made, and a path is cleared for the next Black person or woman that wants to work in NASCAR. But that is a difference in point of view. I see the aspect of improving NASCAR for everyone that is capable and interested in working there. You see a selfish get rich scheme.
But of course you had to bring Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson into this. [By the way they are reverends and should be addressed as such out of respect] Neither reverend was mentioned by a single news organization, or me. But you had to mention them. Why? Because you have some issue with them it seems. Because you don’t agree with what they do? Because it annoys you when Black men with power take a position against people that are used to abusing that power in regard to other African Americans? I make no claim to advocate everything the reverends have done, but there is little dispute that they have done many things to the benefit of America and individuals.
Now you sum up with a classic stop whining comment. I’m sure that was the same thing said about those injured in unsafe factories before unions existed. I’m sure that was the same thing said to women that wanted to vote and be considered more than their husbands’ property. I’m sure the same thing was said to American Indians as they were removed from their lands and placed into swamps and deserts. It’s the ultimate answer for someone that does not want to hear they are abusing their positions and don’t care about equality. It’s the penultimate comment by someone that is White in a country that prefers and respects those of the same color.
Now I don’t think she deserves $225 million. But to assume that she was not affected by abuse, insult, disrespect, and disregard for her humanity (assuming any part of her claims are true) is to be daft and obtuse.
You said
“When they set blacks free they thought everything was free from then on. We take three steps forward and a black comes along and sets us back 2.”
I took that personally and I will respond in kind. You small-minded, racist, cowardly, stupid, buffoon. How dare you. Blacks in America built this nation, fought and died for this nation. As a community we have contributed as much if not more to this nation than ANY group in our history. We have overcome the ill-conceived perception of being property, we have excelled in the face of oppression, and we have risen to the highest positions in the land in the face of resistance, fear, and hate.
Nothing is free in America, least of all the freedom that Blacks have been able to attain. Yes things are easier today than 100 years ago, but that does not mean anything is free or easy. Only the most dim-witted and thick-skulled individual would assume that the average Black American believes anything is just given to us.
Every African American I know or have known of has earned everything they have. From drug dealers to CEO’s every single African American works hard to attain the things they have. If you perceive this as being easy or simple, its just because we are accustomed to living with adversity and inequality and can be successful even in that environment.
Every time I write a post highlighting success and/or issues in America with regard to race, gender, ethnicity, or nationalism a repugnant, obnoxious, anonymous, feebleminded, peon makes a comment like yours and I see how America is not allowed to take a step forward after all.
Senator Obama is the Democratic Presidential candidate
This is an excerpt from VASS, my political blog following the Presidential election since 2006 and providing coverage for TV ONE.
With great joy I can now say that Senator Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
As of 5:37pm the total delegates and Super Delegates reached 2123 in a surge as many formerly supporting Senator Hillary Clinton abandoned her. There is no question that comments from Senator Clinton acknowledging her interest in the Vice-Presidency helped to sway at least some of the late breaking delegates...
But now is when the real issues will appear. The real questions of what are the plans that will improve America. The plans that will unify the nation. The plans that will carry the nation to the future. And these plans will be compared to those of Senator John McCain, with the best becoming President.
Race is still the predominant issue going forward. I still see that as a factor that will secretly withhold votes from Senator Obama no matter what people say publicly. I hope to be proven wrong on that, again...
Now a few of you may have been wondering why I have been quiet of late. Well the first reason is that I had a cracked tooth, that I finally went and got removed. Thankfully it was in the back of my mouth. The other reason is far more important. I was waiting. Waiting for what? The comments in response to Spike Lee.
Spike Lee recently commented, correctly, that in the multiple movies discussing WWII virtually none (and definitely none that come to mind for me) include even a background scene that includes a single African American.
"Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen”
This is a fact, as is the reality that many Black men fought at Iwo Jima, along with over in Europe and the Pacific throughout all of WWII. Oh, let me correct myself. There were a couple of movies documenting the attack on Pearl Harbor that had one Black man, a cook and Naval hero. But those movies just had him.
Amazingly, if you were to go by movies that involve WWII, you would find few that ever acknowledge African Americans in any war in America. Yet we have been in every conflict and war that America has ever had including the American Revolution. And there were many in WWII – just ask any bomber crew that was escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen (the only fighter escort to my knowledge to have never lost a single Bomber).
So when Spike Lee brings up this fact, that other Black figures mentioned when the movies came out, what kind of response do you expect? How will everyone react to the honest facts of the sacrifices African Americans made alongside White?
“Last time I looked there weren't any blacks in the flag-raising picture. I believe that was due to a policy called segregation which Spike Lee apparently has never heard of…” – comment by John Reece
“Hey Spike, why don't you do a movie about white people?” – comment by techie
“Hey spike, how come "boyz In the Hood" didn't have a single white or hispanic character. there are white people living is south central LA, and hispanics are the majority now, but i didn't see you whine about that. Racists come in all skin colors and you are one, spike lee, and that comes from me, a black man !” – comment by nick
“Eastwood's film is historically acurate, 70,000 US Soldiers landed on Iwo Jima 900 were black, and in all black units. My Father served on the USS Indiana in WWII and told me the only black sailors on board served in the officers mess. Better than being a snipe where my father served.” – comment by Peter Stella
and of course the reaction by Clint Eastwood himself.
“Asked twice by The Times to respond to Lee’s criticism, Eastwood stared out into the audience as the compere refused to accept a question that did not relate to L’Échange. Later, his spokeswoman also declined to comment.”
So in every version of this story I see a couple of common threads. One is that Spike is after money and publicity. It’s true that he is presenting his movie about the all black army unit in Italy right now. Of course this will affect the movies ability to make money. But it’s also true that in the past many African Americans have made comment about the portrayal of Blacks in EVERY conflict America has ever engaged in. The news just wasn’t covered, but in this case they had too since it relates to a film that is in Cannes now, and the world media is coverung his comments too.
Another common thought is racism. Either Clint Eastwood, Spike Lee, or both are racist for what they did and said. Such are the comments of others. I in fact believe neither is racist, though the issue is racial. There were 900 African Americans in the battle at Iwo Jima. That may not be many compared to the total, but it is enough to portray at least one or two somewhere in the background of a battle scene to pay some tribute to the lives lost in WWII by men who could not ride in the front seat of a bus back home.
Acknowledgement does not have to have a starring role, but it does have involvement. That’s not racist, just racial and true.
Of course there are those that want to lump any film made by a Black director into the themes attributed to Spike Lee. It’s part of the expression of anger I see in the comments and reporting. It comes off as ?‘How dare you point out that the media and America in general, have completely ignored African Americans defending the nation. Don’t you know that you aren’t supposed to exist – you have seen Friends, Will & Grace, Cheers, Dallas, and so on. Just be quiet and leave things alone, and we’ll let you have the Moesha, Sanford & Son, Cosby Show. Now be quiet.’
How about this. Black Americans have actively helped to build this nation at every turn. From the early plantations, buildings, and roads built by slaves, to every war and conflict, thru segregations and up to today African Americans have been involved with the growth of America. In fact I believe that it can be said that without Blacks America would not exist as it does today, if at all. So a little acknowledgement seems like a small thing to receive. Especially for those that fought for the freedoms they knew they would not receive but hoped their children might.
But according to the need to make these comments an attack, or by the comments seeking to find justification it saeems that acknolwedgement is too much. America just can’t accept Blacks history in America. Not the true full history anyway.
Kind of makes you wonder about Senator Obama’s chances doesn’t it. Makes you wonder about a lot of things, I hope. And once you are done thinking, what will you do next?
