Bill O'Reilly addresses Minister Louis Farrakhan

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

Nothing.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just another isolated event

Just days ago the Government decided that there was nothing more they could do to pursue justice in the Sean Bell shooting. After 4 years and 50 shots, nothing has been done besides "normal police actions".



Across the country, in an odd coincidence, a Black man was unarmed and shot in the back by police. No I'm not speaking about Robbie Tolan, or Adolph Grimes, or even Oscar Grant. I mean the shooting of Aaron Campbell in Portland.

I know, with all these cases being so similar it's hard to know which police shooting of unarmed Black men I could be talking about. Not that this is an epidemic or a pattern that someone should investigate or report.

Aaron Campbell was a man that had just lost his brother to heart disease. He was understandably upset. As was his family, because they knew he had a gun in his house. But the family made one mistake. They called the police.

Police arrived and text messaged Campbell if he was going to harm himself. He replied
that he had no intention of killing himself. Sgt. Liani Reyna, commander at the scene, believed the situation was over.

She is quoted as saying "I'm ready to walk away from this, we don't need to be here."

At that time Campbell came outside, unarmed, hands on his head. What do you think the police did next?

Obviously they felt that Campbell was still dangerous. Because he is a Black man and he must have the strength of Hercules, and the skin of Superman. The police near simultaneously told him to raise his hands over his head, shot him with non-lethal bean bags, and sicked a police dog on him.

Campbell ran, which is not entirely a strange thing to do as a dog attacks and the confusing reactions of police. As Campbell ran police claim he reached for his waistband. Here is the critical moment.

Just like Amidou Diallo (41 shots), like Sean Bell (50 shots), like Oscar Grant (1 shot while he laid face down on the ground), like Robbie Tolan (1 shot as he was on his knees), like numerous Black men across the nation, police were 100% sure that this meant Campbell had a gun. So they shot him in the back with a AR-15 (the civillian version of the military M-16 rifle) and killed him. They left his body on the ground while the police dog bit it, for half an hour, before they checked it (maybe they thought he was a vampire and would just get back up).

The police were loaded for bear, and bagged an unarmed Black man. What do you think happened to the officers involved in this? Nothing. Just a letter from the Multnomah County grand jury stating

"We feel that his death resulted from flawed police policies, incomplete or inappropriate training, incomplete communication and other issues with the police effort."

Have you heard that before? I have. Too many times. In cities across the nation (L.A., Philadelphia, New York, Oakland, Dallas, do I need to go on?), in "isolated" "justified" police shootings of Black men every year for decades now. But I bet that most people haven't heard a word about 1/5th of them.

But today the Dept. of Justice has decided to look into this case. Just because it's a "routine" thing to do.

I don't think there is anything routine about it. Aaron Campbell did not need to die. Nor did Oscar Grant (a case that won't go before a jury for another year oddly enough). Nor Sean Bell. Or a whole list of men (and Black women too) shot with enough bullets to kill the army of France [ok I'm exaggerating, France and Belgium combined].

At what point to people stop avoiding this "isolated" event that keeps repeating multiple times a year in every corner of the nation? At what point do people stop dreaming and proclaiming America is post-racial, and start noticing the very racial bias of police? Will it take a police officer shooting one of the Obama children 5 or 10 years from now to make someone in the major media notice there is a problem?

I'm not saying that every police shooting is unjustified or unreasonable. But I am saying that there are way to many examples of excessive force and deadly action, focused directly on African American men, without the hint of reason. And I am tired of it.



Stop the game!

The final Sean Bell act of injustice

I'm in NYC on business and I was checking the latest local news for what's going on in my old home. That's when I noticed this small item of news that hit at about 11pm. The resolution of the Sean Bell case.

A quick summary of the case. Sean Bell was having his bachelor party with 2 friends at a strip club. They had a minor argument with a man in the club and decide to leave. The man follows them and approaches their car. The men in the car attempt to leave. The man that followed was a cop. He and 4 other officers, in the strip club on a different matter, fire 50 shots into the car - killing Bell and wounding the 2 other men in the car. Bell and his friends were unarmed.

Those are facts. The debate is whether this was justified, excessive, or a crime. The coverage of the case was centralized in New York City, and was spotty from day one. The news media overlooked initial claims by officers that there was a 4th man in the car that escaped the barrage of bullets without injury with a gun in hand. An individual that was never seen by any witnesses nor verified in any manner.

So what has happened in this case that has floated slowly through the criminal justice system for 4 years? The criminal charges were dropped by judges. The Feds have decided that they won't pursue charges either.

Neither accident, mistake, fear, negligence, nor bad judgment is sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation. - Justice Department statement"

Is anyone surprised?

There seems to be 2 ways the criminal justice system reacts to African Americans (and often any person of color). IF they are a huge entertainer, like say Snoop Dogg or lil Wayne, they get mutiple chances to evade jail as they break the law over and over. Like the recent decision to allow lil Wayne to delay his jail sentence so he can get his personal dentist to take the diamond out of his mouth. Like you or I would be allowed to delay going to jail for dental surgery that any dentist can do, including those in a prison.

The other side of the coin is far less cavalier. This it the side most people of color get to see. That's where African Americans are seen a violent criminals that need to be stopped at all costs. Where people of color deserve to be shot, as often as possible, because they might rise up like the undead and raise hell with them.

It's that kind of justice that causes the kidnapping, sexual abuse, and rape of Megan Williams by 6 Whites (men and women of vartious ages) to go virtually unspoken by the media. It causes the muder of Oscar Grant at the start of a year to be discarded, even as riots unfold because of the murder - a murder of an unarmed man. It allows men like Bell, Diallo, and many others to be shot so many times as to be the human equivalent of cheese - each the murder of unarmed men.

In each case, and others like the assault by 15 officers in Philidelphia against 3 men, the person of color was assumed to be violent, deadly, and apparently impervious to bullets. In each case the trials take multiple years, plenty of time for witnesses and the media to forget what happened. In each case the reports of officers being absolved of their wrongs is announced in the dead of night, a weekend, over a holiday, or a combination of the previous.

Over the years I have recorded case after case of the warped justice system in America. I have seen police officers walk away from acts of depraved brutality, while I have seen people of color sledgehammered by the very same system for minor violations of law. I have seen the justice system bend over and kiss it's ass to make sure that whatever celebrity gets one more chance to cause a problem with drugs, violence, and/or guns.

The justice system isn't flawed. It's broken. The latest example of it with Sean Bell is just another reminder to police across the nation that as long as the person has a skin tone other than White, they can do damn near whatever they please.

For those that think President Obama ushered in an era of post-racial America, I submit this case. I submit his action to even acknowledge the Oscar Grant case that happened just before his inauguration. But for those that hold out and hope for change there is this

"Ms. Paultre Bell said she hoped to get the attention of the White House. “There is a history of black men being killed by police officers, and something needs to be done,” she said. “We’re hoping to eventually meet with President Obama, and that he’ll do something, because this is a national problem.”

I agree with Ms. Bell that this is a national problem. But I'm also sadly willing to take odds that President Obama neither responds to them, or any of the cases that I have mentioned or exist in this nation, nor will he publicly address the problem. Because America is anything but post-racial.

Will this ever change? Not until the day that news of these kinds of abuses of power and corruption of the justice system are as prominent in the news as the attention given to Paris Hilton and Stephanie Pratt wearing the same dress gets. The same attention that Burger King's business moves for the breakfast market gets. The same attention that Sarah Palin talking about Family Guy episodes gets. Are you understanding the disparity yet?

I feel bad for the Bell family, but more than that I feel afraid. Because it seems I have a bull's eye on my head, just like every other person of color in America. And that is a feeling you never get used to.

A songs for Black History month

Just for Black History Month I want to present the following music videos. Take it as you will.



And yes, 41 shots is repeated 41 times in the song.

Here is one of Recording Industry of America and the National Endowment for the Arts Songs of the Century



It's not much better across the pond



How about a cover of Sly Stone



How about the power that used to be in rap (before the minstrel show)



How about the superficial



If my readers down under are feeling left out



And finally a song everyone has heard, and few have ever paid attention to the words

Celebrating Black History Month?

Perhaps NBC thought this to be innocent. Maybe it is innocent. But I don't think it is.



That is what NBC felt was a good idea to celebrate Black History Month. A month that this year I haven't really noticed much being said or done about. From a media company that lead the wave in presenting a 1950's view of America on television from the moment that Cosby and A Different World ceased to be on primetime airwaves.

Maybe I would feel different if NBC had Black people on Friends (a show in the heart of NYC, the most integrated city in likely the world). Perhaps if the line-up of 2010 of shows identified the Black casts in several of the shows.

To be exact, not 1 show stars a single African American. Several have 1 or 2 in the supporting cast. But when NBC decided to highlight it's line-up they provided 25 faces of NBC (20 if you don't count duplicates). In all 1 person of color is featured, 2 are in a background photo. That's 4% of the featured shows and casts. Not exactly diverse on a station known for non-diversity.

All of that says nothing of the HUGE stereotype associated with African Americans and fried chicken. It may indeed be good food, and it may well have been made perfectly well. It could be part of the normal rotation of food in the company's menu. But dedicating this to Black History Month means the conncetion to the stereotype is alive and well in the mind of NBC.

But I'm not too surprised when it is all said an done. NBC, like MSNBC, is a very liberal organization. Which means that stereotypes and other actions against people of color are things only they can do since they "understand" minorities and "help" us. It's the reason that Chris Matthews "forgot" President Obama was Black and could "hold his own in a room full of White people".

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this wasn't even that good an intention in my opinion. No wonder I don't watch the network. But how do you feel about this?

News flash from Chris Matthews: Obama is Black

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





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

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

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

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

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

"Negro dialect"

Those are part of the words that Sen. Harry Reid used to describe President Obama during the 2008 Presidential campaign. "Negro dialect". It just keeps running through my mind.

What is "negro dialect" Senator Reid? How exactly are African Americans supposed to speak? Is it somehow different than himself, or Hillary Clinton, or even Rush Limbaugh? Is there some kind of class required to learn this language?

Let's take this from the beginning. Negro, a term used before and through the 1960's to describe African Americans. It replaced the N-word, which was a step forward indeed. But EVERY conotation of the word was intended to denote a second-class of citizenship, a substandard way of life, and inferiority. It is a term embedded with racial disparity and prejudice. And it is a term no longer used because of those very reasons.

In using these words, combined with the backhanded compliment of how light the skin of President Obama is, an image is made. It's an image no different that the one I would have if the words were said by a person in a white hood made them. And there is nothing that makes that statement better.

Reid has run for the hills, with Democrats of all types covering his tracks. He is proclaiming his record of acheivements absolve him of the thought process that made those words enter and escape his mouth. He is trying to project his liberal image, as a defense to his racial verbage.

But why, in 2008, would ANYONE of whatever political background use such terminology? What is it that makes this ok for some? [Notably the "Black leaders" - who themselves share the same political ideology]

Shallow minds might point to rap music as the cause of the statement. But think about that. Slang words have been used by every generation of Americans since before there was an America. Those in the South, the West Coast, even in various cities in the same region, all have slang. Yet I have never heard anyone speak of a politicians "White dialect", let alone praise them for it (or the lack thereof).

Who promotes the slang used in rap music? Not the entertainers. They are merely the tool used to market it. They don't control the production of CD's, the production of music videos and television commercials. That's all done by the music industry executives. The very same people that decide that this style of clothing will sell, or that gospel should be emphasized in the South, and country music in the mid-west.

Yes it's music executives that promote the rap slang. And they sell it to White youth that are all too willing to buy the records, dress in the clothes, and emulate the style in a music video like a child might emulate the family puppy because it's funny.

But that's all business. That has nothing to do with the educations of the entertainers, or their fans. It has nothing to do with their ability to speak or think. It has nothing to do with the shades of color (or lack) of their skin. All that has to do with is money.

So I really want to understand what "negro dialect" Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada is talking about. Is it the way I speak? Is it the way that my father spoke? Or the way Rev. Jesse jackson speaks? What is it exactly?

In my life I have heard some with doctorates that have thick Southern drawls, business owners with the quick tempos of New York City speech. I have heard people with perfect diction that are winos, and others who mumble that are multi-millionaires. I even recall a stock brokerage owner who you would swear sounds just like Mickey Mouse. Do any of those styles of speech make these people smarter, richer, better? Would revealing the skin color of those same people elevate their intelligence and abilities?

Sen. Reid wants to point out all the things he's done to better race relations in America. As if that alters his apparent thought that African Americans need to be fixed. That somehow the color of my skin impedes my mental abilities in some manner.

Was Dr. Martin Luther King any less intelligent because he had skin darker than mine? Was Malcolm X an less of a man because he could speak jive, like many New Yorkers? Is Jay-Z any less of a success because he can rap on an album that music executives want to promote? Is Michael Jordan, or Muhammad Ali, or Tiger Woods any less talented because of their skin or how they speak?

Sen. Harry Reid slipped when he uttered these comments. He spoke his true mind, and not the polispeak spin of a politician when in front of a crowd or camera. In the past when celebrities and politicians have done this there was an outcry to have those people removed. Think of Don Imus, Dogg the bounty hunter, and so many more. How is what Reid said any differnt?

Better yet, to understand if this was really racial bias and wrong let's change the color of the statement. If it's insulting when any other group is used, then it's insulting. And if any other group would be outraged, Harry Reid should be removed from his political position.

If the statement was 'Jewish dialect' or 'Chinese dialect', or 'Hispanic dialect', does it sound any better? What if he had said 'that's a lght-skinned Arab' or 'light-skinned Italian' does it sound just as supposedly innocent?

'XX should be President because they are a dark-skinned Caucassian... who can speak without a Christian dialect if they want to.'

Does any of that sound fair, or simple? Does it sound innocent, or does it hint as if the speaker is saying something less than positive? That somehow the person being referred to is less than what they are being touted as?

I say that in each case, substituting whomever you wish, the statement is an insult. Which means that, if we are consistent, Harry Reid should lose his position (and hopefully be voted out of office). Because if Rush Limbaugh, or Kanye West, or Bill O'Reilly said it, Liberals and Democrats, and all the "Black leaders" rushing to the defense of Harry Reid would surely demand their scalp.

My favorite Mission Impossible episode

For no particular reason, I want to share an episode of Mission Impossible that was a favorite of mine. This is from the original series and was on television first on November 21, 1970. The episode is called Hunted.

This episode starts off with the rescue of a religious leader of an African nation that is ruled by Apartheid (namely South Africa). The goal of the IMF team is to get him out of the nation so he can start the process of revolution and end the racist laws that hold down the majority of people in the nation.

It only took another 16 years before America seriously looked at South Africa and joined with the world in denouncing Apartheid. It took a total of 24 years from this episode before Apartheid ended. The episode was well ahead of it's time, and sadly it failed to inspire our nation or Government.

It's also one of the few episodes (or television shows) where African Americans are featured and not merely background thugs. Even when you compare it to 90% of the shows on television today.

The episode stars: Greg Morris, Sam Elliott, Leonard Nimoy, Peter Graves, Lesley Ann Warren, and Ta-Tanisha (who I think did a great job of being deaf and mute in this role).

[The video is not a production or edit by M V Consulting, Inc.]











I've long remembered this episode. It was quite good.

As a side note, does anyone else think that Ta-Tanisha looks incerdibly like Nana Hill (another beautiful woman) from A Good Day To Be Black & Sexy and Star Trek (the 2009 remake) fame?

Post-racial America? Are you sure about that

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

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

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

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

Wow.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plains, Georgia - more than a political difference with President Obama

The economy has gone from bad to worse for a still growing number of Americans. More people are in danger of losing their homes than at any point in the last 2 years. The Obama Stimulus failed, and talk of a new stimulus - or Jobs for Main Street Act as it's called in Congress - seems just as likely to do nothing as the plan a year ago.

These are facts of the enviroment that America finds itself in today. For those of us old enough to recall the Carter Administration, many similarities exist. Which definitely justifies comment and critique of the job President Obama has been doing since he got elected, even though President Carter brushed off those comments as racist without condition. But it will never justify, on any level, blatant racism.

Every President has a portion of the population that disagree with whatever they may propose. The best of President's have endured that, as have the worst. It is a healthy does of reality and a reminder that the President is still just an elected official of the people, and it is the citizens that ultimately wield the power of the nation. Yet, given this expression of dissent that is our Right, there is a line and it's not hard to know when it has been crossed.

In Plains, Georgia a statement has been made. Considering the comments of President Carter there is no surprise that the statement has been made there. Sadly, the statement is an expression of the lowest kind, a reminder that even in America today there are some that cannot elevate their minds beyond the shameful past of our nation.



Just 3 days ago I mentioned that I was thankful for the start of the New Year (Why I am thankful in 2010) being so different than the start of 2009. I was hopeful that perhaps this year the ugly, putrid, ignorant pestilience that is racism would not show itself, mayhap it had died. But it seems that such regressive thoughts cannot be removed so quickly. Such warped views cannot be corrected in so little time.

America is better than this. By leaps and bounds. We have our problems, like all nations, but this should not still be one of them.

Every American need not agree with the policies of President Obama. Every American need not be of a particular party affiliation or political view. But is it too much to ask that any America that disagrees at least be honest enough and intelligent enough to have whatever view without the disease of racism?

What happened in Georgia was not political. Let's be clear, this wasn't about policy. This was about race and ignorance and fear. It was created by cowards of the worst type.

But now that it has happened, America has a choice. We can stand together and denounce this vile act of a few wretched and miserable souls, or we can hide our eyes and pretend it never happened. The latter gives strength to these villians that they don't deserve and I think America does not agree with. The former is the path that I think the overwhelming majority prefer. But we have to say it.

I've made my statement on this, now it's your turn if you chose.

Why I am thankful in 2010

I am so thankful that so far 2010 has started off better than 2009. It's a sign that I can only hope continues throughout the year.

Now I don't mean that 2010 is better politically, economically, or in most any other measurement (see VASS for why). I do mean that the year is starting off better socially. At least as far as all reports have shown to date. Which is questionable at best.

In 2009 the year of "Change" started with the murder of 2 men, young African American fathers, and the critical shooting of another by police officers across the country. And when I say start I mean that literally. These men were shot within minutes of the ball dropping at Times Square.

Many still do not know the names of Oscar Grant, Robbie Tolan, or Adolph Grimes. Because the major media ignored these men and their stories of police abuse that I believe was motivated by their race. To this minute I doubt almost anyone other than my long-time readers are aware of what has happened (or more accurately not happened) to the police officers and the cases (click the link at the bottom of this post to learn more about these men). Which initself is another problem that 2009 shared with virtually every year since I was born.

But so far in 2010 I can see no report of such police brutality. I can see no hint of a murder born solely in racism and prejudice. In that at least the year has improved versus 2009.

Of course in 2009 it took days before any comment or hint of the year opening murders and assault caught any attention. In fact it took weeks of inaction and excuses leading to a riot before the major media even remotely noticed the most egregious murder of Oscar Grant. And even then, the major media address the riot and hinted at a cause of some sort.

Thus I am left with the same wish I had prior to the New Year's start, and the same as every year. That this might be a year without a racially motivated attack on African Americans (particularly young men) by police officers. I continue to hope that police won't "accidentally" shoot a Black man in the back while he lays on the ground in California. I hope that 15 officers will not pounce upon Black men like a gang of thugs in Philadelphia. That officers won't kill and wound Black men celebrating a bachelor party in a hail of bullets more akin to a gangster movie in New York City. That young Black men coming home from the store won't be shot in their driveways while their mother watches in Texas.

I can hope that none of these events will happen again in 2010 or ever. I can look forward and imagine an America where being Black (and young) does not place a crosshair on African Americans by trigger happy police officers across the nation. I might even take a moment to fantasize that equally violent and unnecessary acts will not happen to Latinos, Asians, and other people of color in this nation.

Perhaps if we all can imagine a year, just 1 year, without these kinds of events we will finally be 1 step closer to an America that is finally beyond racism, prejudice, and other acts of small petty minds.

I don't want to be proven wrong. I hope I won't be proven wrong. But I still won't go to Las Vegas and make a bet about it. Not yet, but I would like to.

How far have we really come?

The year is 2009. Yet there are still people who act as if the year were 1959. For all the hype of a post-racial America, for all those that continue to deny that any racism exists, they need only look to Louisianna.

Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell of Tangipahoa Parish, recently refused to grant a marriage to a man and woman. His only reason - they are an interracial couple. And he admits doing this several times before.

Wow. It just hits me hard. A supposed member of the Court, sworn to uphold the laws of the State and the nation, blatantly and without remorse is breaking the law. Because he doesn't agree with a racial issue that has nothing to do with him and should not be an issue. And he has been a judge for 34 years.

In all that time this officer of the court has been violating the rights of couples by asking about their races, and refusing to marry those that don't conform to his standards. That's breaking a law that's older than I am, and has been in effect long before he became a justice of the peace. But Justice Bardwell does not consider himself a bigot or racist. Because he has "piles and piles of Black friends".

Stepping away from the thought that I have never refered to the number of friends, or even enemies, I have as piles (or what imagery that might imply). Judge Bardwell has the audacity to claim that he is fair and treats everyone equal. Imagine that.

How equal can any man or woman be to another if on the basis of the color of their skin, and that alone, Justice Bardwell treats them differently? How is that not biased? And one must ask how else this racial prejudice have come out in his legal actions?

I will give Justice Bardwell this, he is open about his prejudice. But as the saying goes

"If you can see one roach, there are a thousand others you cannot."

What really upsets me is that I just wrote about the prejudice of France and Australia. How I just reprimanded both countries for not being in the 21st Century. Because I had forgotten for a moment about the death threats that were given to the Black college football player who proposed to his White girlfriend on national television (they since got happily married). I forgot about the systemic bias in the police across the nation, as clearly defined by the murder of Oscar Grant and Adolph Grimes as well as the shooting of Robbie Tolan. And there are a host of other examples from this year alone, never mind going back several.

This is not a case of some made up racism, like the accusations that stood before Rush Limbaugh. This is not some kind of political accusation meant to deflect any criticism or question of policy, as is being used by Democrats. This is the real racism that runs through the nation, altering what we see on television and movies, reinforcing stereotypes, and affecting the lives of millions both subtly and occasionally obviously.

When we get to see moments of racial bias in the light of day as this has, it makes me ask yet again - How far have we really come?

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL - the true shame

In listening to all the discussion about Rush Limbaugh potentially buying the St. Louis Rams, I come to a simple conclusion. It is yet another example of a saying that I believe the far-left lives by

"You can say anything you want... unless we disagree with it."

It really is just that simple.

Now I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh. He has been as right and as wrong as most any pundit. He's made huge amounts of money being incredibly controversial. In that respect he is not different than say Howard Stern, or Rev. Al Sharpton.

Actually, Limbaugh is better than one of his chief critics - Rev. Sharpton. While there are accusations about what Limbaugh has said - the worst of which are untrue - Rev. Al Sharpton is hardly in a place of judgement. The same is true of Rev. Jesse Jackson. These "Black leaders" have no end of comments that factually they have said. Yet there has never been outrage, or a call by the media, to prevent them from making a living or buying anything.

Think about it. Rush Limbaugh is probably one of the most reviewed people in the nation if not the world. For years, if not longer, the media and various Liberal groups have recorded every word spoken or written by Limbaugh. And at a time in this nation where comments by people like Don Imus and Dog the Bounty Hunter have rightly lead to job losses, there has never been a single report proving Limbaugh has said half of the things he is claimed to have said. Not one.

Had Limbaugh said what is alleged, I too would have cried to prevent his ownership. But he hasn't. So how is it that the NFL folded to such rumors? I mean we are talking about an organization that believes in hiring violent individuals, criminals of various degrees and ex-cons. All of whom are given every excuse and reason for a second, third and in cases more chances. The NFL too has no room to judge anyone as being too controversial or presenting a negative image. And again, this was based on rumor alone.

What does this say about the nation? At this point the word racist is more common than ever before. It's been applied to any person that disagrees politically with the far-left, and especially President Obama. Some have even tried to apply it to me for my political commentary, simply because they did not like the facts I have presented. Did that mean my purchase of my home should have been blocked because of accusations some have written about me on my blogs? That I should be denied business opportunites because I am Republican?

If Rev. Sharpton can make a living after the multiple comments he has made, and Rev. Jackson as well, and the NFL can re-hire ex-convicts and minor criminals, how is it possible to bar Limbaugh.

I truly am concerned. Because the mantra I stated above seems more in action day by day. It reaches from simple entertainment to our highest political offices. It's a scary thought that I find more akin to my time in communist led Moscow than an American value. And the damage it does to true issues of racism that still plague this nation is incalculable.

Reverend Al Sharpton may claim the action against Rush Limbaugh as a victory, but I just see it as a slap against America.

Nicholas Cage is better than Method Man - so the IRS apparently thinks

I think that someone in the IRS must really be a fan of Ghost Rider. Or perhaps this head honcho just loved Con Air. It has to be something like that, since I just found out about Nicholas Cage.

Nicholas Cage owes the IRS $6 million since 2007. Which does not include a lien against him for $350,000 back in 2003 - 2005. Of course the IRS is not looking to arrest Nicholas Cage. Which sets him apart from other celebrities.

As I mentioned last week, Method Man was arrested because he owes $33,000 to the IRS. Of course part of that arrest may lie in the excuse Method Man has for not paying the taxes

"Method Man has publicly said that he suffers from memory loss due to his penchant for smoke Marijuana, and that is the prime reason he has missed his tax payments."

Even if true it's a dumb reason. And illegal. But that aside, isn't it interesting?

Method Man is facing 5 years in prison. Wesley Snipe was sentenced to 3 years in prison, after beating the IRS on charges of evading takes on $14 million and facing 16 years in prison. The 3 year sentence was for 3 misdemeanours - and is universally seen as overly harsh. On the other side of things, besides the non-action on Cage, there was Willie Nelson who owed $33 million dollars and got probation.

Perhaps it's me, but this looks like a systemic problem. There seems to be a massive issue here, and I doubt that anyone in the major media will raise it.

Why is it that Nelson got off scot-free? Why is Cage seemingly untouched? Yet there was no end of media coverage negatively implying his guilt. And Method Man seems hardly in the same category, though the IRS took and sold his car and now has arrested him.

I realize that often celebrities and entertainers are slapped on the wrist for most criminal actions. Rappers, and other entertainers, are routinely absolved of possession of drugs, sex with minors, even acts of violence. But when it comes to taxes, well things appear to be very different. Are we to infer that the IRS loves country music and occasionally bad acting so much that it will give a free pass to those entertainers, but if the music and actor is outside that realm the whole weigh of the Government is thrown at them?

Personally, I think that all the entertainers and celebrities (not to mention a host of politicians) should be treated harsher than the average person when they break the law. The perks their careers provide should be the best reason not to commit a crime - of any nature. They need to be examples as much as they are role models in the society - even if they don't wish to acknowledge that they are that.

But when I say harsh penalties, I mean harsh with a level playing field. it is the highest hypocrisy to have one entertainer face jail for $33,000 and another entertainer walking free as a bird without a care while owing $6,350,000. If nothing else it implies a favouritism and prejudice. Neither should exist and must be removed from the Government and law.

The IRS is not a movie mogul, nor an Oscar judge. It is not a Grammy official, or in record sales. It has one purpose (which no one loves, given) and that purpose sees only 1 color - green. If the IRS cannot get that right, well then why do we have it?

I wish Nicholas Cage no ill, but if I could I'd make sure he was in the same boat as Wesley Snipes. At least that would make sense.

Oscar Grant trial - now its about 'emotional' African Americans

It's just one of those days. The racial bias in the news just seems to be rolling of the presses. This time its in reference to a trial I have long been discussing. Johannes Mehserle.

Johannes Mehserle is the former officer that allegedly shot the unarmed and defenseless Oscar Grant in the back on January 1st of this year. It was the first murder of the year (I believe), and was the unofficial welcome to office for President Obama.

I have stated in no uncertain terms, that I believe Mehserle is guilty. The fact that at least 4 separate videos of the shooting exist that I have seen, in addition to preliminary testimony for police that is at best questionable, plus the actions to evade prosecution by Mehserle have all led to that belief. But according to the lawyer for Mehserle it is that combination of facts, which cause me to be upset, that guarantee no African American can be fair in the trial without even presenting a single piece of evidence for Johannes Mehserle.

In fact, the defense has gone so far as to ask for a change of venue to move the trial out of Almeda County. They have stated that polls (of unknown quality and suspect technique) done for the defense show that 80% of all African Americans in Almeda County believe Mehserle is guilty. The defense has inferred that African Americans are too emotional and devoid of logic to put aside their passions and evaluate facts.

Thus if the trial is not moved, an action and motivation that allowed the officers on trial for the Rodney King beating to evade justice, the defense - Michael Rains - has requested the following:

"Mehserle will be entitled to question every black juror, in private, in substantial depth, about prejudgment. The questioning will be intense, awkward, personal and uncomfortable."

So I take it that the defense plans to either move the trial because 87% of Almeda County (the non-Black resident percentage) just hangs on the every word and thought of the Black community there, or any African American called to jury duty and selected for this trial will be taken to the side and intimidated in a style reminiscent of Mississippi in 1960.

Now my job may be to comment on events in the nation and the world and in doing so express my opinions and feelings - but I have no illusion that everyone that reads what I write agrees with me. No matter the color of their skin, age, religious background or sex. Yet the defense in this case is trying to claim exactly that same kind of situation. Essentially they are insulting every person of color in the nation and reviving streotypes that just can't seem to be left for dead in the past.

45% of all people polled by the defense stated that they had no opinion, or favored, Mehserle. So far there is no legal evidence presented - since the trial has yet to start. But if the defense thinks that just poking at race will allow Mehserle to bypass the legal system I think Mehserle should plan for a long stay in a very small room.

It is one thing for evidence to prove that Mehserle is innocent. It is a far cry differnt for race baiting to allow him to avoid prosecution.

So I come to this conclusion, Mehserle knows that testimony from officers found to have changed their story multiple times is not enough. That video from multiple sources makes a very clear and strong case. That an unarmed man lying on the ground face down isn't a threat to anything but an ant. That all of this combined equates to life in jail, UNLESS enough prejudice can be stirred up beforehand to create a biased verdict in his favor.

That's not emotion, that's logic based on facts at hand. But if Rains wants emotion I will take a moment and provide him some - if his client gets convicted I would love to see him get the death penalty.

Hair highlights police bias in Philadelphia

Can you imagine your boss coming to you and reprimanding you for your hair? To have your boss instruct you to change your hairstyle because it is not ‘clean or professional’. And imagine in this instance that there are several other people in your workplace that have the same exact hairstyle, and nothing is said to them as they happen to be of a different race.

Sounds like a blatant bias does it not? I would say it is.

The hairstyle in question is cornrows. A popular style among many African Americans, men and women alike. Which is not to be confused with dreadlocks, as some do make that mistake.

The workplace is the police in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia to be exact. Where the regulations regarding hairstyle require a military look.

But the person in question is not an African American. It’s a White cop – Officer Thomas Strain.

Now does that change anything in what you were thinking as you were reading along? For me it has not. But obviously in Philadelphia there is a bias, this time against White cops, over what is a simple situation.

This is just as wrong as if a Black police officer was told to cut his cornrows. In fact, I believe either all the officers need to remove the cornrows or every officer that wants to wear them can. As long as they are neat and keep up to date, it’s no different than a dozen different hairstyles that I have seen officers in every police force in the nation wear.

These days politicians are using accusations of bias, and racism, for anything and everything that does not match their point of view. It doesn’t matter how trivial the subject, nor if any factual evidence exists. Which is a shame and a problem at the same time.

This is an obvious case of bias. It doesn’t matter that the officer in question is White. And while hair preferences may be transitory and benign to most, it is a real issue as it indicates other problems. Yet with so many fake and politically advantageous uses of the serious issue of bias and racism, this gets shoved under a carpet – as do all real issues.

Personally I hate when any rule or law is split or modified just because of the color of my skin. Either I am just as good and qualified as anyone else, or I am not. To create special rules just for me infers a weakness or inferiority in me. Which is an insult and a lie. Which doesn’t change because the issue is trivial.

In stating that the White officer can’t have cornrows, the police department is stating that Black officers have to be treated with different rules. That they are not the same as any other officer. It’s an insult to EVERY non-White officer.

What other rules and regulations are not the same? What else might one officer be allowed that another cannot do? And would that include violations of the law? Because it seems to be credible that such disparities might just exist.

I am a man. A Black and Latino man. Which makes me no better or worse than anyone just on the basis of my skin. Or my hairstyle. To judge me as such is to insult me.

The same is occurring in this case. Every officer in the department has been insulted and ranked. They have been told de facto that they are not the same and therefore better or worse because of skin and hairstyle. I can think of little more explicit examples of bias. It should not be allowed to happen.

Johannes Mehserle may still face justice in Oscar Grant murder

Following up on the news of a story that the national news media has avoided like the plague since it happened, I will discuss the latest events in the Oscar Grant murder case.

As long-time readers are aware, I started covering this case back in January shortly after former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle shot and I believe purposefully killed Oscar Grant while he laid face down (and I believe handcuffed behind his back) on the ground with another police officer kneeling on his neck. It was an outrageous display of police overreaction, violence and abuse. And it was all caught on video by at least 4 sources I am aware of.

Many people still are completely unaware of the events that happened on January 1st at 2am. That’s because the national news media has never covered even 30 seconds of this news story. In fact the media made it obvious that they were willfully concealing this news story when national coverage of riots in Oakland, California – directly the result of the apparent attempted police cover-up of this murder – failed to mention this case or any of the people involved.

But I have followed the case. Including the sudden attempt by Mehserle to avoid investigation by resigning from the police, the extended timeframe required for the D.A. to press charges – after serious local pressure, the long-term denial by prosecutors and defense (and the news media) of multiple recordings of the entire murder, and the more recent changing excuses and blatant lies by police officers at the scene of the murder.

I am doing this because Justice needs to prevail. And I truly believe that if we do not continue to watch this case, and scream at the top of our lungs for justice, Johannes Mehserle will walk away from this without so much as a slap on the wrists.

Thus I reported that the preliminary trial in June of 2009 found that there was a wealth of evidence to go to trial. That trial date was November 2, 2009. But all has not been quiet in this case.

Johannes Mehserle, who is out of jail on bail – something you and I would likely not have the ability to do based on the nature of this crime and the video evidence – and his lawyers have tried to get the entire case thrown out of Court. Their argument is that Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay unfairly allowed evidence into the hearing. They claim the ruling to go to trial is “arbitrary, capricious and patently absurd”.

The defense stated

“Rains said Mehserle shouldn't face murder charges because there's no evidence that he exhibited malice during the two and a half minutes he was on the station's platform before the shooting. He said that at the most, Mehserle should face a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But at the end of the hearing, Clay said, "There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mehserle intended to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun, not a Taser" because Mehserle had both his hands on his gun when he fired that shot that killed Grant.

Rains said on Friday that Clay's remark was an error because the defense's Taser expert would have testified that Taser users are trained to use both hands on their stun guns while firing.”

Judge Thomas Reardon obviously did not agree. Something I am greatful for and was worried about. Because shooting an unarmed man in the back while they lay face down with an police officer on their back and not resisting tends to seem malicious to me. And the testemony of a Taser expert does not change that.

So the case will again start on November 2. Unless the Mehserle defense team can win on another motion they are presenting. Which is to move the trial out of Alameda County. Which harkens to the move of the Rodney King trial police retirement community of Simi Valley. And we know how that verdict came out. This will be decided on October 2, 2009.

Keep you fingers crossed and pray the Scales of Justice are not rigged in Johannes Mehserle’s favor by the legal system.

From Right and Left, the media gets Hillsboro town hall wrong

On August 18th, Bill O’Reilly discussed the charges of racism at a Missouri town hall. This is a news item that first surfaced on CNN, and has since risen in controversy. O’Reilly, and Dr. Marc Hill went over several of the facts of this case.



The problems though are many. Foremost is the fact that it seems all the details of what happened have yet to be accurately described. Yes, the White male was arrested for assault. Yes, signs are not allowed at that town hall meeting. Yes, the woman was in violation, and it is unclear what was in the mind of either individual involved.

The fact that the poster was of Rosa Parks does not instantly mean anyone knew who she was on the poster. I bet many of my readers wouldn’t be able to pick out Rosa Parks picture without help. Still that does not give anyone else a right to assault someone for the poster either. Even if they disagree with the poster. But that doesn’t make it an outright racial event. Especially at a highly heated debate as the health care reform issue is.

Based on those facts, CNN is wrong in allowing a depiction of this being a racist act. But O’Reilly is wrong to dismiss the accusations of signs with the N-word. It is something that is being reported, though not visually backed up, and thus is questionable as to veracity. So Dr. Hill should have stood stronger on that point.

But when Dr. Hill makes the claim that the town halls, across the nation as he implies, are all racist – I think he is channeling Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There is no proof of this. There is no way to even make a credible argument for this. So in effect all he is doing is fanning racial flames. Which is wrong.

But O’Reilly goes off the deep end when he assumes that the only possible way a person can find there to be racial animus at a town hall is if a White opposes President Obama’s health care reform – and thus must be assumed a racist by anyone Black. It is illogical and fallacious and insulting. Such reasoning is as bad as the claims of Dr. Hill. If this is not what O’Reilly meant, he did a supremely poor job of making his position clear.

But there is more to this, as I found on Youtube.



Given the additional video evidence, the question of racial discord seems far more credible. To a degree.

There is the fact that the initial incident looked to be approaching an explosion point. Which would mandate the separation of both parties. But if the excuse for the removal of the Black woman is the fact that she had a sign, why were the others with signs and flags allowed to stay? Why were police so forceful with the Black woman, once she was separated from the man assaulting her, and adamant in expelling her? Why were police so uncaring in dealing with other sign holders in the crowd?

And from the evidence I was able to find, I did not once see anything that included the N-word. Nor am I aware of any credible source stating that. Still there was a remarked difference, which should be addressed.

Was this event a blatant racially biased event? I think not. Though there was plenty of insensitivity and more than enough emotion – for various reasons. And I think that CNN, Tim Wise, Fox News, O’Reilly and Dr. Hill are all equally at blame for sensationalizing what happened at Hillsboro. Which just makes it that much harder to really address obvious issues when they appear in the media.

In all honesty, the major media can kiss my buttock when it comes to covering racial bias in this nation. The major media has a blind eye to what really should be discussed, and a knack for sensationalizing the more trivial events. I mean I still have yet to watch coverage of the Oscar Grant case, or Adolph Grimes and Robbie Tolan, which took place this year. Yet there was no end to coverage of OJ, and the spin on that was anything but a witch hunt.

This event is a tough call. It is obvious that there is a disparity. Much like the systemic disparity I have often spoken about. But if we only get to see the edited versions the major media provides we are left with an equally biased and unfair view of events from either side.

Perhaps that is the most important thing to keep in mind. Today the problem is not only the systemic problems that we as a nation have carried forward over centuries, but the overreactions of media in (rarely) both directions when they do choose to hype a situation. Ultimately neither helps resolve anything. And everyone loses.

I don’t think all town halls are like this. I don’t think everyone is like this. But until we deal with the underlying issues, and the ideological propaganda of the major media, it will only get worse.

Would you call Michael Vass a racist?

Recently I received a comment from my discussion of the upcoming Disney film The Princess and the Frog, that made several claims and challenges that I though would be best to deal with in total as a post. You can see the comment from Logan Calder at http://www.blackandwhiteblog.net/2009/04/22/movie-preview-the-princess-and-the-frog/ and in quotes below.

“Ok, fair enough. I want to add that I have no problem with your issues of unfair treatment of Blacks in this country. My issues and responses are based on what I see as your Afrocentrism, which basically is racism against Whites in a costume - why you need to concentrate on diminishing Whites can be understood if you are a racist Black person, but is no different than a racist White person.”

Ok, I am confused. Are there people in America that believe this? That they can state that they understand that African Americans have, and continue, to be treated with bias and prejudice; but if you identify such abuses, and are Black (or Black Puerto Rican in my case), then it is Afrocentrism and racist?

Let’s be clear. I am Black and Latino. I am an American. I love my country, and my heritages. But neither stops me from pointing out that in the greatest nation on the planet – a country I would readily die for as is – there is systemic abuses and problems in regards to people of color. Being American, of any color, does not preclude facts.

By the way Afrocentrism is defined as

“a world view which emphasizes the importance of African people, taken as a single group and often equated with "Black people", in culture, philosophy, and history.[2] The roots of Afrocentrism lay in a reaction to the repression of Black people throughout the Western world in the 19th century and as a backlash against the scientific racism of the period, which tended to attribute any advanced civilization to the immigration of Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants.[3] Part of this reaction involved reviewing history to document the contributions that Black people made to world civilization.”

I do not see myself as such, though aspects of this are surely part of me. As it should be for anyone of any particular group. I am proud of who I am, and what I do, and my ancestors. I will never apologize for that.

And I see no reason not to note the contributions of African Americans in this nation. Something that is all but ignored in basic educations, the media, entertainment, and general life in this nation. America tends to ignore people of color, especially African Americans, because to not do so means the nation has to deal with past and current biases. Which America is unwilling to do.

But is it racist? Am I racist?

Over the years of my writing I have had a multitude of people I know across the world, of most every nationality and background, read my writing. Only in America has anyone found my writing, about race relations, even somewhat disturbing. And of those in America, only those that don’t know me have ever made accusations of racism. Generally after reading just one post, instead of the thousands I have written. And generally they have taken a statement out of context or reinterpeted my words to fit a pre-existing view they have.

Still I wonder about this. When I discuss the fact that a photo of a Black man wading through post-Katrina waters with a bag is called a looter by national media, and an exactly the same photo of a White man doing the same thing is called foraging to stay alive, am I being racist? When I discussed the fact that repeatedly African American males are shot by police, across the country, in a hail of dozens of bullets while unarmed, and that I am unaware of there ever being similar treatment to White males, is that racist? When I note that some 90%+ of all media ignores completely people of color, or that specific and often insulting references are made just for people of color, is that too racist?

Or am I just commenting on a racial bias that is so ingrained in the society that most people ignore it as commonplace. Am I hoping to note the inequality and systemic problem that prevents true respect and societal bonding, or is it just one guy screaming Black Power?

“Ultimately I still dont know why any of this matters, pointing out who is Black and who is White. Blacks and Whites both want to claim king Tut, Jesus, and Bob Marley as theirs, as if they would justify that the race they belong to is the better. It is still a racist thought that is driving the force, to need to claim someone of mixed race is theirs. Do you get it?. Do you need to claim that “we are Gods first” if you are Black?? you are really saying “we are Gods real children and are therefore better than you” and then that same person gets mad if a White person is a racist.”

First off, Jesus, Bob Marley, and with some question King Tut are all Negroid (which I will call Black to simplify). Why is that important? Because in American society, where almost all positive actions and contributions of history and the nation’s development have been either ignored or rewritten, the truth is necessary. In fact the truth is always important. Because lies always lead to a problem down the road.

Plus I think that correcting misconceptions is important. Queen Nefertiti never looked like Elizabeth Taylor. To assume as much steals away the history of my ancestors and perverts history. It diminishes people when you relegate them to nothing. And any people that are nothing can be treated as less than human. Which American history is rife with. Such was the excuses to justify slavery and the invasion of “savage” people across the world. Not to mention the “saving” of Native American Indians. I don’t think it’s racist to correct that.

Though I have never claimed anyone was God’s first. I dare anyone to find such a comment on any post or comment I have ever made. To say that I have is to totally misunderstand everything I have ever written and to place words in my mouth I have never spoken. It is insulting.

“I simply get tired of a racial debate, that continually attacks White people in a racist and/or degrading manner for being racist. It is my belief that racism is absolutely equal among races, and that 80% of us dont really care too much, but do have racial or prejudcial views. The other 10% of radicals are at both ends - one hates their own race and the other hates everyone else. It is definetly NOT a White only thing. In fact, Whites are the only race taught (by the same media you claim is so racist) to be ashamed of being proud of who they are!!. If it were equal we wouldnt have Obama or Sotomayor in office.”

I don’t agree with attacking anyone, without cause. I am as willing to take on the Government, racists, corporations, global warming, political lies, and bad entertainment. The question is not the color, but the content. But I will not back away from critiquing President Obama because he is Black, just as I have no problem taking on ex-officer Mehserle because he is White.

But it is not racist to point out the systemic problems in the nation. Problems that benefit some, and hinder others. Generally those that are people of color. Is it racist to ask why the nation is so focused on Mexico and the potential threat from terrorists, when all terrorists that have entered the nation have come from Canada which is ignored? That’s not an attack on White people, but it does bring up the question of what factors are involved in such a mentality.

Is racism really equal among all people? I don’t know. But in America, my experience says that it is not. Partially that is because there are so many things taken as commonplace that it is not recognized as bias. But there are indeed those that are prejudiced. And it’s not 10%. If you recall the polls done before the election of 2008, fully 20% of those polled directly stated they could not vote for a Black man. And that’s those (in both political parties) that were willing to answer the question.

Because America has not move that far forward since the 1960’s, as much as we try to imagine so. We just generally prefer to avoid the questions or answers. It’s more PC and no one will feel socially awkward. This is not the same thing.

But you are right. Racism is not solely a White thing. While not nearly as common it does exist in some people of color in this nation. And I don’t support that either. But that is not the same as being willing to address the issues in this nation. Black or White or whatever, the issues exist – pointing them out is not racist.

As for Whites being ashamed, where do you see that? Maybe I missed it. Which you might understand as 95% of all characters in movies and television are White. 97% of all commentators and pundits are White. I believe that some 80% of all politicians are White. 97% of all major CEO’s are White. And on and on.

So where is the media saying it’s bad to be White? Considering that most people of color are not addressed in almost every form of media, except when a negative is expressed, how are we being lifted above anyone?

As for President Obama, and Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, they are political and I have addressed my thoughts of both at my political site VASS. Though I will ask, how was a bias of their color created to benefit them? If every African American, hell every person of color in America voted for President Obama (which they did not) he would still need an overwhelming number of Whites to be elected (as he was). And Judge Sotomayor got nominated because she is a woman and liberal, not due to some benefit of her race.

“Lets say we all wake up tomorrow and agree with you, on the absolutely ridiculous notion that America is here because of Africans and would never have made it into the greatest country on earth without slave labor - a completely absurd notion and belief but it is yours, and based on a need outlined above.

Does anything change??? No!! - why not stick to current and the future instead of using the past to make wounds?? I have never yet met anyone, who has told me that their family had been on American soil long enough to have been a slave owner.”

First, you do wake up in that reality. Without slave labor America could not exist. That’s not opinion, that’s fact. Do the math, check the population numbers (where African Americans were counted). Add up the money that the labor of slaves should have made. Remove the manpower they provided and see what would have been left of the nation at the time. To deny the facts is absurd and revisionist dreaming. Thus my need is for people to accept nothing more than what has happened. Because less is insulting, and something that most Americans would not stand for if it were them.

As for families that were slave owners, you are either being obtuse or uninformed. Millions have traced back their lineages to find they were either slaves or slave owners. My family line goes back to about 1860, and the records end because the slave owners before that did not see a need to document their “property”. But I do have that slave owners name in 1860. So do a lot of people.

It’s just that a majority of people don’t want to face that truth. They don’t want to know. Just as they don’t want to know about racism, or prejudice, or bias. Because they feel bad. Because the system helps Whites and hurts people of color. And who wants to have to have that on their back – since the system is not being changed.

So the past is the present. To address one is to address the other. To fix one is to start on fixing it all. And to do nothing is to bask in the benefits some have at the cost of others. Which I do not agree with.

Am I a racist? No, I don’t think so. Those that know me across the world don’t think so. I’m just upfront about addressing what is and is not really going on in America. Which is not an accusation, just a reality. And for some such honesty is too harsh to deal with. And thus I must be at fault since their worldview cannot be so corrupt.

It still doesn’t make me a racist, but I understand why I absolutely have to be for some people.

Bill o'Reilly discusses Black man shot 43 times by police

Tonight Bill O’Reilly will be discussing the shooting of a Black man by police. He was shot 43 times. It’s about time such cases get attention.

I decided to check out which case of shooting O’Reilly might be investigating. Considering the time and number of shots involved I know it was not the Oscar Grant case (which O’Reilly did not cover), Robbie Tolan, Adolph Grimes (the last 3 being all at the start of the year 2009), Sean Bell, or several other more recent actions. So I decided to google it.

Under the term police shooting black man 43 shots there are 221,000 responses. On the first page of Google the time frame covers 2009 – 2001. That’s a hell of a lot of time. But it denotes the number of cases that never get national attention.

I have long stated that there is a national epidemic on-going. That young Black males are the target of police abuse and overreaction. In fact studies have found that the darker the skin, the more likely police are of reacting with violence, where or not the individual is armed.

So which case might Bill O’Reilly be discussing?

As I said before, it’s not the 1 shot in the back of an unarmed Black male in Oakland. Its not the shot against the unarmed Black male in his driveway in Texas as his mother was assaulted by police. But there is no scarcity of incidents across the country where an African American male has been shot by police officers several dozen times.

In fact, when was the last time that an armed White male was shot by police more than 3 times? Seriously. I can name at least a half dozen times where an unarmed African American male was shot by police at least 12 times or more in the last year and a half. But I cannot recall a single instance where even an armed and dangerous White male was shot by police more than 3 times. Not in a decade. Maybe more. Anywhere in the country.

So what will Bill O’Reilly say tonight at 8pm? Do you think it will be a highlight of the national response of police forces towards people of color? Or will it justify a singular case of police action?

No matter which it is, the ultimate truth remains. Police are prone to overreaction towards people of color. They react as if young Black males are the most dangerous people in America (which is factually White males 18 – 30, proven in another post). And that same reaction is also the consistent call of White violent crime criminals trying to obfuscate their own actions (how many times have we heard a supposed White victim claim that some ambiguous Black male did it?). Hell, almost even in the most extreme cases White actively dangerous armed criminals are treated with more care and firing restrictions than people of color – armed or not.

What do I want to hear O’Reilly say? That there is a problem. That the justice system is skewed in the nation. That across the country there is a predisposition towards violence against people of color, and that this needs to be addressed.

Will I hear that? Not likely. Not from O’Reilly, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or any other major news organization.

And that is the key point that sticks out in my mind. What about you?

Michael Vass comments on President Obama "beerfest"

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

The transcript of the video is below.

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

(Sorry, the audio appears slightly muddled.)






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of which promotes nothing positive and benefits no one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black superheros - where are they?

While I was checking out some photos for my post on the Black Panther (new lead actor) I ran across a blog post at Bam! Kapow. And it got me wondering.

Black superheroes. It’s almost an oxymoron. I mean just look at all the media. In virtually every venue it’s obvious that African Americans are either villains, bad guy henchmen, drug dealers, or just don’t exist. Which is about 1000x better than how Hispanic/Latinos, Asians, Native American Indians, and any other person of color is presented.

But comic books are supposed to be different. It’s a world where literally anything is possible. That anyone can become far more than the limitations and expectations of society allow. Because in the world of comic books, at least, everyone can be super.

Except that really isn’t true. The abovementioned post was from 2008. It was made in dedication to the film Hancock, one of a handful of film featuring a Black hero lead. A superhero that is drunk over 50% of the film at that. And in this case, as I recall, the only film besides Blade to feature a Black superhero.

That post listed the top 15 greatest Black superheroes. But take a moment and tell me how many superheroes are non-White? I mean really think about it...

I decided to double check the Marvel and DC encyclopedias. Both are books that purport to cover all the major and minor recurring characters (and more than a few one shots) of these major comic book universes.

For DC, there are 886 White characters – which includes aliens that just happen to be White. There are 5.5% (55) that are Black, 2% (18) Hispanic, 1.5% (15) Asians, and .9% (9) Native Indians. I did not count any aliens that were blue/pink/covered in fur/or non-human in appearance. Of the aliens that are of some non-human coloration, 90% were drawn to exact White features.

Of these characters that are people of color, 85% came into existence in the past 25 years. The exception is for the Native Indian characters, which 50% are older – from discontinued comic books like Jonah Hex.

In total this covers DC comic books from the 1930’s until 2004.

For Marvel, in 2006, we get a similar breakdown. Out of 642 characters that have a discernable race (IE not green like Skrulls or blue like Kree) it works out that there are 543 White, 7% Black (46), 3% (19) Hispanci/Latino, 1.7% (11) Native Indians, and 3.6% (23) Asians. Part of the difference in the numbers goes to the fact that Marvel has far fewer alien characters than DC.

Again these characters of color begin to appear roughly 30 years ago, and prior to that time were virtually none existent. Part of that might also be a result of the fact that Marvel is not as old as DC Comics (roughly 5 years fifference). But like DC, the overwhelming majority of aliens are drawn to specifications that would match a White character.

I won’t even bother mentioning how many of these characters of color happen to be villains. Suffice to say that the further back in time you go, the more likely they are to be a villain. In addition to which Marvel seems to love Asian villains, thus having the higher numbers there.

So when I read about a list of the top 15 Black superheroes, well it seems a bit silly. There is only 101 to work from, of which some 80 of them only appeared within the last decade or so and have little fanbase. There are barely enough of them to not be on a top list in the first place. Extend the list to 20 and you are forced to include Sunspot (Brazillian and Black - and little known), M (very relatively new), and Bumblebee (DC, from the 60's, minor support character little seen or known) as examples.

But what does this say about America? What does this say about the way we not only view the world, but the worlds we dream of and fantasize about?

It tells me that we have taught our kids that people of color are lucky to be included. That only the very few might be lucky enough to reach for the stars. That to even be recognized is achievement, versus being recognized for achievement.

Yes some will think this all silly. But the fact is, when television, movies, and even comic books all say the same thing – something you have blasted into your brain every day of your life – plenty of people might eventually believe it. It's a brainwashing, and everyone in the nation is involved every day.

I am happy someone looked through Marvel and DC to create a Top 15 list. I’m exuberant that not only do Black superheroes now get a chance to shine on the big screen, but that they are wildly successful when they appear. And I am looking forward to see more characters, like War Machine or Luke Cage or Black Panther, take the forefront. (I can definitely live without another drunk Black hero)

But the one thing that cannot be escaped is that in a world that claims improving race relations, at a time when many of the youth of the nation believe that the playing field is flat, the media – especially the entertainment media – projects an image that can only be best described as 1950’s segregation overall.

That’s nothing to be excited about. It’s nothing to be proud of. And it will not change until the day we all pay attention and demand it to change.