Saddleback Civil Forum: My impressions

Now I’ve discussed my thoughts on how Senator Obama and Senator McCain answered questions about taxes and Darfur, but there were other observations from the Saddleback Civil Forum.

On of the most obvious things I noticed in comparing the 2 Presidential candidates was the amount of expirence they had. While Senator Obama had some ideas and tried to answer all the questions as best he could, Senator McCain had tons of experience. In almost every question asked McCain had a reference of something either he or his wife did. Not idea or proposals but actual facts and actions that related to the question at hand. That spoke volumes.

Another point that was divergent had to be the questions on abortion and gay marriage. The position of Senator McCain was pretty obvious on these questions. He is pro-life (now) and against gay marriage.

Senator Obama made me a bit surprised. He stated he was against gay marriage in a rather emphatic manner. I had not expected him to be so cut and dry on this issue.

“I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.”

As the most liberal Senator sitting currently, and with the huge financial support of far-left groups like Moveon.org, I expected him to have a more soft position. That is sure to cost him votes.

[Let me answer a question I inevitably will be asked. I do not support gay marriage. I do support civil unions. My reasons are different than what you may think.

The fight for gay marriage is a fight for a word. The purpose of marriage is the monogamous union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation. Everything else associated with that is a societal/cultural addition. Since a gay couple is incapable of procreation, they cannot be married.

In fighting for the word marriage, an attempt to force others that disagree with gays in general to be forced to acknowledge them, the real fight is obscured. That fight as I understand it is for the right to be treated with dignity and equal rights under the law. That right can and must be covered by civil unions.

To fight for a word is to thus fight religious beliefs of some, which is a never ending fight as we can see in Iraq and with Muslim fanatics, and distracts from the real issue. It in fact prevents some from reaching a middle ground and supporting civil unions.

That simply put is my position. Let the hate mail begin.]

Senator Obama was incredibly ambivalent on his answer about abortion. He never answered where he believes life begins. I realize that he was opposed to angering some voters with his answer, but I think his response angers everyone since he did not give an answer.

“So for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform -- is, how do we reduce the number of abortions?”

Thus he fails groups on both sides of the argument. I dislike answers like this as I find it polispeak of the worst form. It’s an attempt to hold or gather votes without providing the public with a basis to form an opinion and make an educated vote. I dislike when any candidate pulls this kind of stunt.

A similar thing happened with the first question that Senator Obama was given. When asked to name 3 people that were the wisest he has known in his life, he gives 2 names. His wife Michelle and his grandmother. I have no problem with the women he chose, I just wonder who was the 3rd person?

He bypasses the 3rd person on the list to then discuss the people he would rely on in his potential administration. Why did he skip the 3rd person? Who was it? Was it Rev. Wright and he was afraid of the controversy? Was it another figure that politically was derisive?

Mind you I don’t like the way McCain answered the first question either.

“First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history, who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq -- one of the great leaders… John Lewis was at the Edmund Pettis Bridge… Meg Whitman; Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay.”

His answers were equally filled with polispeak. That does not mean they aren’t true, just that the obvious political benefit is too much to not notice.

The Iraq war, thus backing his views on how to have handled the conflict from the start and the Surge which was called a failure by Democrats before it ever started. John Lewis who was hurt during the Civil Rights Movement, and a nice pick for the Black vote. Meg Whiman, very positive for business, women, and those concerned about the economy.

Again they might all be true, but the groups the answer plays to is far too obvious.

Especially in the first answer.

Now while I think McCain showed far more experience, and was ready to answer tough questions with direct answers he was a bit to blunt. Some of his answers were too much dead on Republican talking points. They may be his views, but it just seemed that his campaign banged in his best response too well. It was like he was springloaded to respond to certain questions with exact answers. That does not mean they knew the question in advance, just that he was prepared overly-well.

What do I come away from this all? Basically that Senator McCain is far more experienced and ready to lead ther nation. That some of his views are far more defined and closer to the centrist nature of the general American public than Senator Obama.

And sadly for Senator Obama he gave a strong reason not to vote for him. His reason to not accept Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is exactly the reason that you can oppose him as President.

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.”

If inexperience is a disqualifier for Supreme Court, how can it not be a disqualifier for the highest elected office?

What did you think of the Forum?

Moment in time 40 years after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - repost

**originally posted at Black Entertainment USA**

Today, 40 years after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and 2 days before my birthday I pause to reflect on what has happened and what could have.

I’ve read a lot on Dr. King in the recent days, far more than what was written during this past Black History Month. And I’m reminded of comments made by Jeff Johnson when I saw him at Ithaca College this year. I consider what Dr. King was moving forward to do at the time he was killed, and how he has been frozen in time. I look at the society of America and of African Americans.

I am a child of the Civil Rights era. I have benefited in numerous ways from the struggles and strife made by those before me. And there are numerous things today that have gone backwards in time or have wasted the efforts made. Those children beyond my generation have no idea of what has changed, and seemingly few have an appreciation that they don’t know things have changed only recently.

If Dr. King had not been killed 40 years ago, do you think there would be a BET today? Perhaps there would be, and a TV One as well – but not the only 2 and not in the manner that we see now on Black Entertainment Television I imagine. I doubt that Bob Johnson would have been the first with a national cable channel, and it would not have been built upon the back of scantily clad Black women gyrating to lyrics promoting drugs and violence.

If Dr. King had lived, he honestly would have diminished in some of his stature – as all great leaders do as they age. Yet his voice would hold more power than all the so called Black leaders of today combined and then some. He would long ago have questioned the infusion of drugs into our communities, the ridiculous face value actions of “Just say no”, and the promotion of money over education values that have integrated into our communities via music videos, video games, and other genres.

If Dr. King had lived, there would be a voice to speak with fanatical Muslim extremists. Perhaps there would never have been a 9/11, nor a war in Kuwait, nor a bombing in Lebanon. And even if these events did happen, there might have been a voice to provide an alternative just a step short of war.

If Dr. King had lived unions would be far different than they are now. There would have been a powerful voice questioning America’s involvement in Viet Nam, and questioning how the Government ran the war.

I imagine that television networks and movie studios would have rushed to integrate the big and small screens for fear of boycotts. Today there would not be worlds of imagination segregated to a virtually uniform racial make up of the world. There would not be just 2% of the entertainment industry representing every person of color combined. Spike Lee would not have to be heralded as a unique and groundbreaking director (based on his color), but just a great director among others.

I imagine that the African American middle class would not be a ghost, but a viable and growing community. I imagine that I would not have been able to get through high school with a college preparatory physics class textbook that was 3 years older than me. I imagine that a better alternative to Affirmative Action may have been found.

I would hope that had Dr. King lived, America would have come to terms with the need to apologize for slavery, something that I think still festers in the background causing separation and ill-will. I would hope that America could realize that reparations are part of that contrition and the fact that every American today benefits from the 246 years of work that built the foundations of everything that exists today. I would hope that we all would further realize that another 100+ years of segregation and prejudice were instead built upon the back of slavery with Jim Crow laws and that the cycle of judgment based on skin color needed to be broken.

I believe that as some of these things came to pass the history of the nation, the full history, would be revealed. Men like the Tuskegee Airmen and every other African American that has fought in every war America has ever had would not be new revelations to our children today. That the innovations and inventions that make life modern would be attributed to the Blacks that created them. That no person in America would wish to use a word like the N-word because it had no relevance and its meaning is too vile to repeat.

I believe that there would be no need to be distinguished by skin color when being described as an American. I would not need to be African American or Mexican American and so on. We could simply be Americans, one and all.

I believe that the Tuskegee Experiment would not have lasted until 1972, and that the Government would have been smitten for such actions. That there would not need to be a question of whether the government had made AIDS and brought it into communities of people of color because we could be sure they would never act in such a manner again.

I believe that Dr. King would never have become a politician, but other people of color would have been inspired, supported and welcomed as such. That there would be no place in America that could still herald the fact an African American ran for or was elected to a political office. That the first viable Black Presidential candidate would have ran, and possibly been elected long before the 21st century – 388 years after the first recorded slave was sold, 235 years after creating America, 142 years after abolishing slavery, 85 years after lynchings became a crime, 42 years after Jim Crow and segregation laws were declared illegal, 23 years after the first Black Miss America, 8 years after the first Black Secretary of State, 7 years after the first African American President of an Ivy League College and first Black billionaire, and 1 year after the first Black American (and youngest person) that flew around the world solo [which went virtually unreported].

There are many things I think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. could have done had he lived, and others that he would have influenced that would have benefited America. But I am left with one other thought.

Why haven’t these things happened even without him?

Beginning to move on from Rev Wright - 3.24.2008.1

As the nation moves on to the news of Bill Richardson endorsing Senator Obama in a move to probably get a nod at the Vice-Presidential I want to step back. The fact is that Senator Obama needs the change of direction to be nominated, but the issue is too important to fade.

The immediate anger that was expressed across the media, and the nation via poll results, makes it clear that America has issues with people of color. When a couple of words, spoken by someone other than Senator Obama, creates a furor it is obvious why. And let’s get the facts straight.

Rev. Wright was a pastor for 35 years. He has made perhaps thousands of sermons in that time, each perhaps 1 or 2 hours long. But the media was able to find roughly 5 sermons, and within those sermons 1 or 2 snippets of 10 seconds each, to crucify the entirety of his career. And what was so objectionable in those 10 seconds of commentary without context? That America is run by White Americans, that Senator Clinton has never been called the N-word, that American government did nothing to retard crack until the drug spilled over to White neighborhoods, and so on. In effect, many got angry over hearing truthful comments – and to be fair there were a couple of 2 second blurbs that were a bit harsher that I did not agree with, from my own research.

Then Senator Obama was forced to respond. Though the media did not provide coverage of what was said by the pastors of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, or any other elected official. Not even the most recent and current comments. Because they were fine – at least we are lead to believe so in the absence of coverage.

So Senator Obama made a speech about race. And it was a good one. And the nation was astounded, it would seem, that the Civil Rights movement did not resolve every issue for people of color any more than the Equal Rights movement for women resolved issues of pay or treatment. And as the conversation continued it was warped.

I have already had several personal conversations where the actual words of Rev. Wright or Senator Obama have been misquoted towards a more racial bent. Some are angry at what they chose to hear, and not what was said. And the Clinton campaign delighted as they finally achieved a goal they have struggled to employ for months. The polling for Senator Obama dropped.

Then Senator Obama made a reference to “a typical White person”. Oh, the outrage. How dare he lump White Americans like this. I mean the fact that television and movies are dominated, as they always have been, with these amorphous amalglamations of society is not important. The fact that across the country people of color can tell the same exact kinds of stories of racism, prejudice and hate is not important. The fact that the deaths and beatings of people like Diallo and Bell are so similar to deaths and beatings in California like Rodney King is just a coincidence I suppose. Actual acts against me personally based on race are just an oddity, though I cannot count the number of people of color that have had the same experiences across the nation over the last 40 years.

Nope, it is just a horrible thing to point out truth in America. And responses like this one are seen

“Poor guy – whose middle name and lack of executive experience we’re never supposed to mention, and who was not aware of the insane, anti-American, racist rantings of his spiritual advisor of 20 years – now blabbering incoherently about “typical white persons,” simply needed a little shut-eye.

Perhaps Sen. Trent Lott was tired when – at Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party in 2002 – he paid Thurmond an innocuous off-the-cuff compliment by mentioning the aging senator’s run for the presidency more than a half century earlier.

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him,” Lott said. “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

Lott’s statement meant absolutely nothing. It carried no weight. It wasn’t meant to. It was simply an innocent “attaboy” for an old man who was at the end of his career and nearing the end of life.”

This was in response to the typical white person comment of Senator Obama. The above quoted writer is obviously upset. And a bit obfuscating of the truth.

The reason that Senator Obama’s middle name is an issue is that – 1. none of the other middle names of candidates are ever used, 2. His name is used in a manner to imply and provoke fear in those less educated and more prejudicial in America.

The experience issue is commented about constantly. By and about both Democratic candidates. Neither has experience. And every one mentions it.

As for Rev. Wright, he is far from insane (just like Jerry Falwell, Robert Grant, or Pat Robertson), was American enough to fight in the Marines, and never made a disparaging comment about race or gender to my knowledge. That fact was apparent when Greta van Sister of Fox News was challenged to find racist comments while in an interview with Rev. Sharp ton, and 24 hours later was incapable of doing so.

And the comparison fails with the comments supporting the Senator best know for his racist stance for the last half of the last century. Sen. Strom Thurmond’s Presidential bid was hardly nothing or innocent. It was an attempt to support and reinforce segregation. That is a historical fact (which the writer touches on briefly) as is the fact that Sen. Thurmond changed his stance after privately coming to terms with his illegitimate Black daughter.

The point is that America wants to hide its head in the sand, and deny any negative about race in current days (let alone the past). This is the real 3rd rail of American politics, and potentially Senator Obama’s biggest hurdle.

Is it important that Gov. Richardson endorses and/or joins Sen. Obama on a Presidential ticket? Sure, because it’s about race. Getting Hispanic/Latinos to be active in his campaign. Because the Clinton campaign assumes they are already going to get those votes, as they assumed they would get the Black, White male, and college educated vote. But if you say that this vote is about race, prepare to be shunned.

Because I cannot tell you how many of the “typical White people” that I know who have come to me and are upset about Senator Obama’s comment and Rev. Wright. How often they misquote both, and how few actually ever heard of Rev. Wright before the mishmash of videoclips. Nor can I tell you how many of these same people cannot understand the privilege and advantage they enjoy simply because of the color of their skin. But I can tell you, that long before this current debate over my 40 years of life, maybe 10% of these same people have confided in me that they do act in exactly the same manner as Obama’s grandmother from time to time. It’s just the fact that it’s being brought into the light that is the problem I suppose.

So let’s do this. Accept that race is a continuing issue in America. It has been since the 1619 and it has not ended though the degree and manner has changed. And because of that White Americans are not the shining images that movies and television wishes to portray. Equally people of color are not without fault either, and they are not the images of poverty, violence and anger that television, movies and the news media try to convey to the world.

Given that, this election should not be about the race or gender of the candidates. It’s about what is best for America. Issues like oil dependency, pollution, Social Security, mortgages, the economy, jobs and others are all colorblind. Only the best choice for America will resolve even some of these issues.

If we focus only on the least important factor of the candidates, we may lose as a nation. So vote, not for your race or gender, but for the best choice for America. And if that vote is for a non-White male, so what. America is neither one color (no matter what the media portrays) nor gender. If we remember that we remember that we are the greatest nation in the world because of that fact.

Vote and keep America great. Vote and pick the best choice for the nation’s path to the future.

Clinton vs. Obama - is there a real difference?

So I was working on a couple of projects for clients and I was listening to a couple of pundits talk about the Democratic candidates. The specifics were that they were contrasting the positions of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

I wasn’t paying deep attention to the conversation, but after a bit I wondered why I didn’t notice hearing any real difference. Nothing really came to mind besides experience. And honestly neither has much experience. Unless you count Senator Clinton’s time as the wife of the President, which last I heard was not an elected position. I don’t count that, but I do count the time that Senator Obama spent as an elected Illinois State official.

So a while after the talking heads were off, I suddenly realized that I heard no substantive differences. And I thought about it for a few seconds, and realized that there are no differences. They are the same political position, the only difference being who you might believe can actually pull off the many promises each has made over the nomination process.

But my realization is not enough. I follow politics everyday, up to 20 hours a day. I don’t get distracted by mind melting crap like American Idol, so I actually recall and hear all the conversations the Presidential candidates have had. Most people neither have the time nor desire to do this.

To that end I decided to provide research on the subject. Looking at the voting records of both candidates I checked 16 categories (including Health, Abortion, Campaign Finance, Education, Gun Issues, Civil rights, Civil Liberties, Crime and more). Out of 152 votes over almost 3 years (2005 up to February 2008) there is a difference of only 9.9%. That’s 15 different votes in total. That’s 5 votes a year.

To me, that means they are exactly the same type of candidate, neither being more qualified nor providing a greater benefit than the other. No matter how the polispeak is spun, or what 30 second soundbites are used they both are planning to do the same exact thing to America.

Both Senators voted exactly the same on Abortion, Agriculture, Campaign Finance, Congressional Affairs, Crime, Environment, and Civil Liberties.

There were one or more vote differences on the following:

Appropriations:

• Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment (Vote to adopt a non-binding, amendment that expresses the Senate's will that future military operation funds be included in the regular budget proposal and not in an emergency supplemental appropriation bill.) – Obama voted NV (not voting), Clinton was Yea
  
  
  
  Civil Rights:
  
• Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces (Vote to pass an amendment to reaffirm support for all men and women of the United States Armed Forces, to strongly condemn any attacks on General David Petraeus and all members of the US Armed Forces and to specifically condemn Moveon.org’s advertisement about General David Petraeus.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted NV. NEITHER would condemn the personal attack made by Moveon.org against our military! To me it’s the same vote.
  
  
• Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act (Vote to pass a bill that amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to implement certain recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
• REAL ID Funding (To make $300,000,000 available for grants to States to carry out the REAL ID Act of 2005.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
• Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees (Vote to pass an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society or transferred into detention facilities on American soil.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
  
  Education:
  
• Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants (Vote to pass a bill that makes changes to regulations and funding of federal student financial aid.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
  
  Energy:
  
• Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (Vote to pass a bill that allows offshore oil and gas leasing in the 181 and 181 South areas within a year and plans to expand into the Eastern Planning, Central Planning and Western Planning areas at some future date.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted No
  
  
• Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Vote to adopt a conference report that develops an energy policy that addresses tax incentives, conservation strategies, regulatory standards, research and development programs, energy efficiency, and alternative sources of energy.) – Obama voted Yea, Clinton voted No
  
  
  
  Executive Branch:
  
• Attorney General No Confidence Vote (Vote to invoke cloture on a joint resolution that that expresses a loss of confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
• Thomas B. Griffith, US Circuit Judge (Vote to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of current Assistant to the President and General Counsel of Brigham Young University Thomas B. Griffith to be the new United States Circuit Court Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted Yea
  
  
• Richard A Griffin, US Circuit Judge (Vote to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of current Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Griffin to be the new United States Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth Circuit.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
  
  Family and Children:
  
• State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization (Vote to pass a bill that reauthorizes and expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
  
  Guns:
  
• Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment (Vote to pass an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters. (Sec. 540)) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted Yea
  
  
  
  Health:
  
• FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment (Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify the safety of imported prescription drugs.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted NV
  

Now this is not to say there are no other differences between the 2. Nor am I saying this is good or bad. But I am giving you the chance to see what are the real differences between the candidates.

Polispeak is one thing, but actual performance of their elected positions is another. Check out the laws and their records. You decide if they match what they claim and what is important to you. You have the knowledge now. Use it.

Let me know what you think.

What if they took away Black History Month?

This is a repost from Black Entertainment USA and can also be seen at Black & White Blog

What if Black History Month was removed? Would anyone have noticed? Would anyone complain?

It seems not.

Why would I say this? Because I just learned that the school system in Endicott New York has removed all Black studies in the curriculum. There was nothing discussed in this past month about Black History, not even Dr. Martin Luther King, because the entire subject was deemed unimportant.

Hello, stop and read that again. Unimportant and having no place in the minds of any of the children, including those that are African American. And this was all done without a single word to the parents, a single complaint from ANY of the students. It was just wiped out without a concern as if it was no more than a piece of errant string found on a piece of clothing.

Why am I upset? What if the school decided not to discuss the Holocaust, or Native American history? What if all the history about England was removed, or France, or Ancient Rome? What if history in schools forgot about President George Washington, just not ever mentioning what he did, or the Constitution?

People would be up in arms. Parents would be inflamed. Jewish communities would claim its anti-Semitic, Native American Indians would say it’s a slap in the face. Whole communities would demand a reason why their rich pasts were being denied their children. Cries that the fundamental based of what is America was being corrupted.

And I ask, in what way is this different? How are the lives and blood of the African Americans that helped build and shape this nation any less important than anyone else? I am not just talking about the Slaves that literally built the foundations of the nation, but the inventors that created thousands of items we use every day, like the stoplight, or save millions of lives, like blood transfusions. How can we value the lives of soldiers like the Tuskegee Airmen, or those that fought in the Civil War, or the American Revolution with any less honor than every other American.

I don’t know how we can equate those lives and contributions as less, but obviously this town in Upstate New York has. I’m willing to bet that they aren’t the only ones. What are the odds that kids in Montana, or Florida, or Ohio, or any other State have no idea about these inventions or people? How many believe that being a slave, less than a dog or piece of furniture, was no different than having trouble getting a job? I know there are more than a few as I’ve read comments that insist that the trouble the Irish had in getting a job was the same as working 20 hours a day for your entire life, with no days off or concern for your health, without pay, and with the reality that at any moment your entire family may be sold away from you and that you can be killed for no more than amusement or the crime of looking at the wrong person.

If we can allow these schools to just toss away a piece of American History, a history of an essential people that helped found and defend this nation, what will go next? Dr. Martin Luther King’s Holiday? A holiday that over half the nation fought from coming into existence, and many still ignore? Maybe the laws dealing with segregation could be next. And if we get that far, why not restate Jim Crow? Hell, just bring slavery back and make it national.

It’s not that crazy. Slavery was just 5 lifetimes ago for some families. Jim Crow was just 2 or 3. Segregation was just 1. And a people without a history aren’t really a people are they?

And this was so important an issue, that not one child mentioned it. Not one parent noticed. Not one meeting was held. It was just understood that it was ok. As long as no one spoke about it, and no one asked why.

So as long as no one asks you if you are Black, or Hispanic, or whatever color, religion, or background you claim, you are nothing. And you can’t hurt nothing. You can’t defend, offend, steal from, brutalize, rape, murder or anything to nothing. And in Upstate New York, that’s what they are equating being African American with. Perhaps the Jews will be next?

Are you nothing? Is your history, your family nothing? Are you sure?

“Don’t learn Black History because of what you know, learn it because of what you don’t know” – C. Miller

I don’t have children. I’m not a teacher or involved in the school system. Maybe that’s a cop out, maybe not. But I am now aware, and so are you. Part of my responsibility is to let you know, and ask for your comments. What will you do?

What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

Well the Clinton political machine seems to have finally got in a pissing match they could not win. Polispeak aside, the endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan is a massive action. The entire Democratic nomination race may have taken a new direction that no one expected.

The power of the Kennedy family is without question in American politics. They stretch from New England to California. They include Congressmen, Senators, and the Guvernator. Their supporters range in age from the pre-baby boomers to the first time voters that are a force in this election. The name of the family alone has more political clout than most candidates have had.

According to some sources the Clinton machine had been looking to court the Kennedy endorsement. But they assumed too much. With the constant attacks on Senator Barack Obama based on the divisive issue of race, the insult to Dr. Martin Luther King and the slighting of JFK’s role in the Civil Rights movement, and the potential of driving a wedge in the Democratic party separated by race I think the Kennedy’s got fed up.

I have no doubt that all of the above played a part in the decision of JFK’s daughter in endorsing Senator Obama. Then came what may have been the final straw if it’s true. President Clinton supposedly called Senator Ted Kennedy and asked him not to say anything. Which led to 3 Kennedy’s endorsing Senator Obama today.

Arrogance can only take you so far. Manipulation and derogatory comments are only so effective. Especially when the Kennedy political machine spans the nation and decades in public office.

The Northeast is now probably Obama country. California may be a new stronghold. Older Democrats, liberals, poor and all the other categories that the Kennedy name affects, that Hillary Clinton has previously had an edge on, are all in question. The Clintons must be as angered by these events as they are unsure of the win a mere year ago they presumed.

Ted Kennedy’s speech was powerful and clear. He is a Democrat. He will support the nominee of the Party. And he is dedicated to do everything he can to make sure Senator Obama is that nominee.

I’ve said before that I felt Senator Obama might not win. I’ve mentioned that the use of race as a tool to divide the Democratic Party and provide Hillary the win is an effective strategy. I know that the comments by Bill and all the various staffers have angered many. I know the attempts by Bill to minimize the wins of Senator Obama, and a great leader that was Dr, Martin Luther King polarized the Democratic Party. But this was unexpected. This is a wildcard that could be the beginning of a landslide that is enormous.

Will this be close? Of course. Is momentum changing sides? I don’t think it’s stopped since the nominations process started on January 1st. But this is the first time I seriously think that the math and support behind Senator Obama is enough to give him the win.

Regardless of political affiliation or guidelines you may hold, this must be impressive. And you have to say that now, more than ever before, that Rev. Jesse Jackson is not Senator Obama. That 2008 is not 1984. That we may see a Black President and that first Black President will actually be African American.

It’s not exciting because I may or may not agree with Senator Obama, or that I may or may not want/need him to win. Rather it’s exciting because it means that in the highest office, and in the most visceral manner, America is becoming a land of the free and equal. And that is something that I think every American can appreciate and look forward to.

How do you beat an African American Presidential candidate? 1.25.2008.2

How do you beat an African American Presidential candidate? This is not just a question that the entire Clinton political machine is working on or should be concerned with. Be assured, Republican strategists are paying full attention to some of the most effective and base tactics being used currently. And the future Presidential candidates, or even more local level election hopefuls, should take notes.

The precedent is being defined in front of our face right now. And many of the tactics will appear again. I would even state as a near guarantee that in the future the attacks and tricks will even be worse than what we are seeing now, as future opponents will push the line further than where it is being actively drawn now. I expect that the truly low points of what this could mean are angering, demeaning, and divisive.

What are some of the tactics?

One of the first that will be used is to attack the heritage of the Black candidate. Their family tree will be examined and any past actions, made by any member of the family, will be fair game. The education of your parents, their nations of origin, how much money they make, and more will be brought up.

If you have a parent that believed in getting in touch with their roots and gave you a more traditional African name, expect ridicule. If that name has any connection to any religion other than Christianity, you will be labeled by that religion without regard to what you may devoutly believe. If that religion is out of favor, or in any way attached to a negative, you will be attached to that as well. And even if you are Christian, your faith will be questioned, as well as the type of Christian faith you observe.

If you have any parentage that is not African American, or recent predecessors that are not, then you will be in a vicious circle attack. Like sharks in a feeding frenzy you will be attacked on one side for not being Black enough, separated from other African Americans and the struggles of the Black community. At the same time you will be assaulted for being Black, and thus only interested in a specific pool of issues that many non-Black Americans fear and disagree with.

To counter any of these actions, in fact to even mention that they are being used will open you to media attacks stating you are playing the race card. That any defense you offer is merely lowering the issues to claims of prejudice and inequality. It doesn’t matter if your defense is true, you are still to blame.

If you are successful, as virtually every politician is independently of the office they hold (at least at the state and federal level), then you have no understanding of what inner city African Americans go thru. You are a sell-out, and a wanna-be. Opponents will line up Blacks that are no less successful, well spoken, and recognized to boast your ignorance to Black audiences. The media will highlight these attacks, placing your life into question.

If you have made any missteps, admitted or not, they will be taken to stereotypical extremes. Today in America 31% of high school students have used marijuana, 66% have used alcohol, and 6% have used cocaine. That says nothing of the millions of adults that used cocaine in the 1980’s (the most popular drug at the time) or the uncounted masses of adults that used marijuana (and inhaled) in the 1960’s and continue to use it today. But be an African American and you will not be a mere user like the millions of other Americans. You will be presumed as a drug pushing dealer, the equal of the stereotypes promoted in movies and television for decades.

And at every step your opponent will be above the fray. Subordinates, associates, and ‘unrelated’ parties will be making the attacks for your opponent. The major news media will populate these smears for weeks, and views of these attacks will be front page items. The apologies and firing of these outside ‘rogue’ operatives will be far less popular. Any attempt by you to connect the dots will be called race baiting.

And then the biggest part will come to play. In every vote, if you gain non-Black support you will be called a sell-out and will have abandoned your heritage. If you gain Black support you will be defined as singularly a candidate of only African Americans, and out of touch of the needs of the rest of America.

Every item I have mentioned has not only occurred since 2007, but continues to happen now. And I expect that if a woman were in contention similar attacks will be made. But the tactics really play out best when the candidate is Black, or a minority. The obvious and entrenched racial disparity in America really comes to the top when any aspect of race is even hinted at. It even goes so far as to attack acclaimed and recognized leaders that sought peace and equality.

So I want to know this. Are we as American citizens so blind as to not see the tactics being used? Have we traveled so little since the days of segregation and fire hoses being used on peaceful Civil Rights supporters? Or do we expect so little of our political leaders that when shameful and base tactics are used we ignore it?

Really, I want to know.

Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 6 - 10.9.2007.6

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 5...

6.THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA. – F*** you Medved. I’m sorry but I had to say that as my anger is huge. How dare Medved say that. How could he possibly assume that?

If there were no African slaves, I feel it’s obvious there is no America as it exists today. There would have been fewer and smaller cities everywhere, incredibly less agriculture would have been grown to be traded. Less money means less arms and ships to defend America from the British, or others. Perhaps the effect means no America at all. And that means world history from that point completely changes in manners NONE are able to accurately comprehend.

But of the things I can say, my ancestors would not have died by the millions. I’m sure the children and families of those lost would have been better having their father or mother still live. I know that without slavery MILLIONS of families would never have been broken up. That would be better. I know that MILLIONS would not have had to live worse than cattle and livestock for their lifetimes, nor would they need to see their children born into an equal life and taken from them. I know that untold numbers of women would not have been raped (men too for that matter), and their children from these forced encounters viewed as non-existent. I know that untold thousands upon thousands would not have been mutilated and murdered for sport or as punishment for trying to be free or not doing their job properly.

I can imagine that the word N***** might not have the same meaning it does today and has for centuries. I can imagine that I would not be treated as an object of fear as I go to and from work. I can imagine that my ancestors would not have had to strive to be considered equal for 100+ years. I can imagine that my father, mother and grandparents would not have been denied a place to live solely for their color of skin.

How much are those things worth? How much more when multiplied by 346 years?

It is only the greatest level of conceit and self-aggrandizement that could allow anyone to claim that the lives of anyone is better with 346 years of racism, murder, abuse, mutilation, sexual abuse, degradation, insults, and I fear to imagine what else. If this was such a positive effect on the African Americans of today, I ask that Medved, his family and friends all be sold into slavery under the same conditions of the past for the next 346 years. I’ll even grant him just 89 years. I’ll guarantee that at the end of that time his descendant s will live in a nation of stronger economics and greater education than now. Is he willing to volunteer? Would anyone of sane mind?

But wait, your descendants will have better lives. Isn’t that worth it? According to the all-knowing and generous Medved, and those that think like him, it is. Someone give him Prozac.

**I will end this line of discussion here, but I will continue the response under another title - Real points on reparations**

Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 5 - 10.9.2007.5

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 4...

5.WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION. – That is just insulting. Of course America did not create slavery. Medved insults the intelligence of his readers to again debate this issue. It is not the question of the existence of slavery that is in question. It is the actions of America with slavery that is the subject. Again this is obfuscation of the subject.

The blame is the fact that American slaves had no rights, unlike indentured servants, and were not considered or treated as human beings. That is indisputable. Unlike slaves throughout history, such as the Romans, the Greeks, and others where slaves were considered 2nd class citizens and were able to either integrate or elevate themselves to part of the society American slaves were considered property similar to chairs. Livestock were more ingrained in American society.

Even today, the concept of a cowboy (a term created to describe slaves that worked with cattle) and movies of them feature more scenes and plot involvement with cattle than African Americans. From start to finish it’s denial and obfuscation. Even for over 100 years after the 13th Amendment African Americans were not able to integrate into American society due to segregation and Jim Crow laws.

Perhaps if Medved considers time according to geological parameters he would be correct in saying it was a quick change. But to my knowledge there is no other society that had slaves or indentured servants (which are quite different I say again) that treated them in the same manner as American slaves. They may have been treated badly, but they were human. African Americans were not. So the comparison is flawed, because being a 2nd class citizen for 500 years (exaggeration) is not the same has being less than a cow, horse, pig, or chair for 300+.

And I will add that, if other nations had slavery, of any form at any time in history I could care less. The discussion is American slavery. The issue is American reparations for American slavery. What the Roman, or the Brazilians did and for how long is an interesting side note but it does not justify nor resolve the American issues. This may be a wonderful way to avoid the actual argument, but it does nothing to resolve it. It’s sidestepping the issue. Medved should realize that most of us can see this and should stop insulting us. Deal with the issue.



“When magistrates in Massachusetts discovered that some of their citizens had raided an African village and violently seized two natives to bring them across the Atlantic for sale in the New World, the General Court condemned “this haynos and crying sinn of man-stealing.” The officials promptly ordered the two blacks returned to their native land. Two years later [1648], Rhode Island passed legislation denouncing the practice of enslaving Africans for life and ordered that any slaves “brought within the liberties of this Collonie” be set free after ten years “as the manner is with the English servants.” ”



Oh how kind and merciful. Thank you Medved for showing me the compassion that America had at the time. 2 slaves out of MILLIONS that died in forced transit, and countless others killed on American soil, were sent home. I can sleep better now.

The kind people of Rhode Island decided my ancestors should ONLY be enslaved for a decade. Well that is better than a lifetime, how gracious of them. Too bad that the number of slaves in Rhode Island did not approach the perhaps hundreds of thousands that were sold for a lifetime of slavery during the very same time period.

Continued in Part 6...

Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 4 - 10.9.2007.4

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 3...

3.THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT. – Slaves that arrived in America had a value. Those that died in the slave ships were just flotsam. To ensure profitable trips, cargo ships overloaded their ships planning ahead of time for the deaths of a portion of the Africans.

By your own admission, probably millions of Africans died and there was no accounting for them. Just as there is no accounting of the chairs that were lost on those same voyages. How many people need to be killed for how long to claim genocide? How many died in the Holocaust? How many Serbians died before American troops were sent with the U.N. to stop the genocide? In Darfur today, it is considered genocide in action with over a million dead and that has been ongoing for 4 years at least.

By your own admission slaves died en route to America for 300 YEARS, creating millions of dead, not counting untold numbers being killed once in America. Remember, you don’t need to account for, nor is it a crime to kill livestock. Slaves were less valuable than many livestock and there was no full accounting of them. How do these numbers not reach Genocidal numbers?

Is it not a genocidal act because a far smaller number of Slaves lived than the total dead? By that logic some have denied the Holocaust. That is no less an ignorant answer. Just because the total population of Africa was not killed does not make it less of a horrific and despicable act.



“By definition, the crime of genocide requires the deliberate slaughter of a specific group of people; slavers invariably preferred oppressing and exploiting live Africans rather than murdering them en masse.”



As you stated slavers overcrowded their ships because they knew as many as 1/3 would die in the forced transport. That sounds like a deliberate slaughter. Causing the expected death of hundreds if not thousands of a specific people at a time, each time they moved their ships. While you try to drive sympathy to the slavers, I fail to join in that opinion. They committed knowing Genocide, without pause since they claimed that Africans were not human.

Your further argument, implying that ALL slaves were considered as valuable as livestock, fails as well. First I’m not grateful that some slave owners felt as much pride in some of their slaves as they did their cattle or horses. The fact that some were selected as breeding stock does not make me feel better either. It is inhumane.

Further it means that some slaves were NOT given this favored status. Much like some horses and cattle were put down to improve the heard, your logic means the same happened to slaves. The loss was considered acceptable. Since the value of ALL slaves was not the same, murder of some was par for the course as it would be with any livestock.

4.IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES. – Again you lie. America was not a manufacturing economy. That is a fact. America at that time was an agricultural nation, exporting sugar, cotton, and tobacco. Those were huge cash crops. Those crops came from slave labor.



“50% of U.S. exports in 1855 were cotton”





“American cotton production soared from 156,000 bales in 1800 to more than 4,000,000 bales in 1860… the number of slaves in America grew from 700,000 in 1790 to 4,000,000 in 1860”





“New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.”



While the North made huge amounts of money from providing slaves, equipment, insurance and trade for the South, it was the crops of the South that was the source of American income until the industrial revolution took hold.

One of the primary causes of the Civil War was the fact that the North, without the agricultural trade from the South could not sustain itself. Prosperity in the North was only attained from the slave labor in the South. From 1619 until well in the 1800’s America was a farming nation that is fact. We made virtually all our money at that time from that income source, again a fact.

Another fact that needs to be noted is that Northern slaves were used to build the infrastructure that became the North. They were used to build city, streets, buildings and everything else. Similar work was done in the South. Jim Crow laws were in massive effect in the growth of the West. There is no aspect of the nation that exists today that does not have its roots in Slave labor. That is a fact.

America could not exist as it does today without slave labor. Thus all the wealth that exists today has at its roots African Americans and their unpaid work, their blood, and their inhumane treatment and living conditions. There is no amount of double talk or distraction that takes away from these facts.

Continued in Part 5...

Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 3 - 10.9.2007.3

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 2...

2.SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS. – Not only is this absurd, it is a lie. It is factually in accurate. American history includes and is part in parcel tied to the 13 colonies. We accept as American history everything from the first colonists beyond. In fact the ‘discovery’ of America by Christopher Columbus (who was not the first European here and thus why we are called America and not Columbia) is considered a national holiday. To deny that portion of our accepted history is to minimize everything about America.

The 13 colonies all have slavery. That is a fact. The northern colonies had more indentured servants, but there were slaves. To deny that is a lie. It is an attempt to romanticize the facts. It is also true that the northern colonies took on abolition after a time, to deny the initial action is to sidestep history. You know better.

Further the first African slaves were recorded in the American colonies in 1619, which does not mean slaves were not here before then. 89 years later as you claim, they were still slaves before the Declaration of Independence. In fact slavery existed in America from 1619 until its formal end in 1865. That’s when de facto slavery took over with Jim Crow laws and sharecropping. The Jim Crow laws were in effect, to varying degrees, as late as the 1970’s. If we only count until the Civil Rights acts (which should not have been needed if the 13th and 14th Amendments were actually enforced) then slavery lasted roughly 346 years.

Math and time do not change because you prefer to view it a certain way. If you wish to parse split hairs you can, but that does not change facts. It just allows you to view things in a manner that will let you sleep at night and live with your head in the sand.



“Of course, a hundred years of Jim Crow laws, economic oppression and indefensible discrimination followed the theoretical emancipation of the slaves, but those harsh realities raise different issues from those connected to the long-ago history of bondage.”



How can you not connect the cause with the result? Without slavery there is no Jim Crow. As you admit, slavery continued de facto under a different name for over a century after the 13th Amendment. For something ‘indefensible’ you seem to provide many defenses.

As for your claim of



“Even in the South, more than 80% of the white population never owned slaves.”



Exactly what time frame are you using for that claim? Given the fact that slavery existed for some time in all 13 colonies, then was predominant in the south for at least the 89 years you are willing to provide for, and then continued de facto under Jim Crow, there are centuries of Whites that owned slaved for some period of time. And those that owned slave did not own just one. They owned several families, working in the fields and the homes. So to say, arbitrarily and for your conscience, that only 5% of today’s White population is descended from slave owners is a farce. I would guess that if you count from the start of slaves in America, which includes the colonies that we count as America, then I would guess that the number could be at least as high as 25%.

I submit the extended family of Thomas Jefferson. Denied acknowledgement for centuries yet proven as descendants, how many other African Americans share tied ancestries to White American slave owners going back centuries. Oh, and don’t forget that many slaves were not documented as they were not considered humans, so you cannot give an accurate guess as to who owned slaves where and when.

Continued in Part 4...

The apology part 2 - 3.9.2007.2

continued from part 1...

But that is not the end of it. From 1865 to 1965 the American government actively pursued policies of denial of rights, Jim Crow laws, duplicity, separatism, inequality, and racism. Whether it was sub-standard education, restrictive laws, and misrepresentation in laws, miscarriages of justice, denial of existence or other acts of racism the fact that being an African American for 100 years meant that you were also a 3rd-class citizen is undisputed. Was that not true the Civil Rights Movement, and multiple laws enacted since 1965 would not now exist. An apology for this treatment and abuse is also required. And as to the question of connection to this, some 60 million Americans have lived through at least a portion of that time period [based on my estimate of Americans age 57 or older giving them 15 years or more life in a Jim Crow, segregation enabled American society]. There is a connection and that is a fact.

Now some may question my last statistic. Perhaps it is not perfect, but there is no question that those 57 or older lived in and benefited from the system that existed. Those 60 or older had the ability to vote and maintain the status quo. Those who were 15 in 1965 had been indoctrinated in the system that existed. That does not mean that everyone in that group acted in a manner that promoted the situation, but the fact is most did. If not then the changes that came afterwards would have happened far sooner. The challenges I’ve had to live through in my youth would not have existed. Change is slow and takes generations, but there is more than just one generation still alive today that lived through and actively promoted the pre-1965 environment in America. They benefited and are directly connected. That much is a fact.

I think that anyone can see that this is not an old, unconnected, long past issue. I am old enough to have felt some of the effects of the pre-1965 Civil Rights world. This is no long forgotten event to me. I believe that there are some 82 million other Americans that fall into the same time range and have had the chance at the same situations growing up to varying degrees. I submit that ~142 million Americans are more than enough people to make this a relevant and current issue. To say it isn’t is to be in denial of facts.

Yet given this relevancy, there are constant refusals to provide an apology. There are adamant arguments made to reject any concept of reparations. Yet no one wants to address the efforts towards reparations in the past, such as where the cry “Where are my 40 acres and a mule” come from. Almost no politician want to even whisper on this subject, with the noted exception of Representative John Conyers Jr. and the above mentioned Rep. Tyrone Brooks, yet they have no problem using the concept of Slavery to their advantage.

finished in Part 3...

Letter to Senator Obama

This is an exact copy of a letter sent to Senator Obama. Any response will be posted unaltered.

January 22, 2007
Dear Senator Obama,

I am contacting you today as part of an ongoing series of letters that I am sending to many of those that are planning to run for President of the United States. To date I have written letters to Senator Clinton, Mr. John Edwards, and Mr. Mitt Romney.

I am the author/writer of several blog sites including Black Entertainment USA (www.blackentertainmentblog.com). My letter to you, as well as any response from you will be posted on these sites without alteration.

Senator Obama I am aware that you are a junior Senator, having served 2 years at this time, representing Illinois. As I am from New York I am not familiar with the platforms you were elected for. What was the main issue that you campaigned on, and what progress have you made in attaining that? What laws have you helped to pass, or prevented from passing, that have directly benefited your constituents and African Americans in general?

As a fellow African American I’m sure you are aware that there are several issues that are of great impact to the Black community. One of the most important may be the issue of education. What have you done to improve the number of African Americans that finish high school and/or seek higher education? If you were to be elected President, what plan would you follow that will improve the education system in America?

In terms of your own education I ask a question that has recently been in the news. It has been stated that during the 4 years in Jakarta you had attended a Madrasa. I wonder if you feel this has any influence on the education you received, or more importantly do you believe that having lived and studied overseas provided you any benefit that your peers may not have had?

It has also been stated that you are a smoker. If this is true do you believe that has any effect on your views on healthcare? In addition how do you feel about the current trend to leave businesses without a choice and disallow smoking? Do you believe that the smoking ban is fair to businesses, and does it make sense to have a ban while also allowing adult citizens to purchase cigarettes?

As a lawyer that worked on civil rights issues, what do you believe you can do, or are doing currently, to improve the rights of African Americans and Latino/Hispanic Americans or any other people of color in this nation? What do you feel is the largest obstacle and what plan do you have to remove it?

In terms of national healthcare, do you agree with the push for a national healthcare system? If you do how would you have this program funded? What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?

What role, if any, do you feel religion plays in the government? Do you believe that the fact you have never served in the Armed Forces would have any effect on your ability to perform as Commander-and-Chief?

Speaking of the Armed Forces, at this time there is a general feeling that the war in Iraq is going badly. President Bush has just announced a plan that would elevate the number of troops serving in Iraq. The democratic party is generally opposed to this plan. What exact alternative would you implement in place of this current plan, and what plan would you establish to ensure the safety of Americans if Iraq becomes more unstable (thus promoting terrorist attacks on America)?

Do you feel that the fact you have little experience in the Senate, or with dealing with international politics, is a hindrance to your ability to act as President and if not why?

Recently there has been a growing apprehension among some in the nation about the number of immigrant that are allowed into the nation for non-European nations (as per Rep. Goode). How do you feel about this? Also there is a strong debate on what to do about the large numbers of illegal immigrants. What plan do you have to deal with this issue?

I thank you for taking the time to read and to respond to this letter. As I stated earlier this will be posted on several sites, particularly Black Entertainment USA (at the address noted above).

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
Author – Black Entertainment USA and Vass
info@blackentertainmentblog.com

Where were we and where are you going in black culture

There are a few things that I’ve recently thought about. I ran across an interesting article by Mr. Johnathon E. Briggs on teen boys. At Roosevelt University clinical psychologist Lance Williams asked teen boys to take a critical look at Hip-hop. Mr. Williams seems to feel “hip-hop today has been usurped by rabid commercialism and musical celebrations of mayhem, misogyny and materialism. He reminded the teens that from its early origins three decades ago in the South Bronx, hip-hop was meant to raise one's political and social consciousness, not dehumanize or degrade. “

Now those that have seen my www.blackentertainmentblog.com site are familiar with my views on the current state of hip-hop and the commoditization [not a true word I know] of Black African American culture. I have long held the thought that the proliferation of songs that celebrate the lowest aspects of life in America, or as human beings, has been a negative factor in the lives of Black African Americans as well as all of America’s youth. It’s nice to know that I am far from the only one to see this.

In any critical glance at Black culture today it is obvious, I think, to see that women are purely objects of sexual gratification and respect is only viewed as gained through violence. Material gain is valued over mental, and the actions of an individual more important than anything else. This is a cementing of a different thought I have also long held. Some may have heard this before.

I have thought that originally a plan of selective breeding occurred in America during the 200+ years of slavery. Much like the breeding practices used in farming, stronger Black African males were bred with the stronger Black African women in the hope of stronger slave children. In addition to strength, temperament and intelligence were no doubt factors as well. I can only assume the goal was to created the equivalent of a human pitbull. But of course we are human beings, with intelligence and emotions that expand the human experience beyond that of animals. Thus it was necessary to also break the bonds of family, and to create the impression of a lesser stature of these Africans in the American culture.

The effect was the economic prosperity of this nation, agriculture being the primary source of income for the nation at the time. In addition the growth of commerce and industrialization that occurred at that time led to the America that exists today. The economic consequences are no speculation, you can see my post on reparations to see more on that.

The effects of dehumanizing, disruption on the core family unit and forced lack of education continued well past slavery with the Jim Crow laws and segregation. The virtual non-existence of Black African Americans in any media with the exception of caricature helped reinforce the early views and efforts. Job opportunities in menial manual labor help to continue the selective breeding efforts.

But as human beings, with minds and souls, resistance to these efforts existed. The human spirit rose in spite of these pressures, leading to the Civil Rights movement. And during this time the minds of Black African Americans flourished in ways not openly seen in some time. That is to say that millions were able to gain more education and better education than ever before. Growth in every aspect of life was experienced and positive exposure in media was accepted on a wide scale.

I’m not saying that there were no intelligent Black African Americans prior to this time, nor would I ever say there were none that were successful. Rosewood (and other cities or areas in cities like Harlem) and hundreds of patents (colleges as well) prove that as being false. But the prosperity was not as widely felt by the average person. This is my opinion only, I may be wrong and my older readers can definitely correct me on this.

But as media accepted and barely included Black African Americans, as Equal Opportunity laws were enacted, and the sacrifices of millions were being accepted something changed. Most notably, in the 1990's a fledgling music genre created a splinter form that started to gain traction immediately. As that splinter grew, it became commercialized and promoted. It’s affects were to promote specific business industries, and separate the youth from the mainstream. I do mean ‘gansta rap’ as it was called then, rap hip-hop music in general today.

While there have been benefits, and the expression of thoughts is an absolute right (guaranteed by the 1st Amendment) there are problems as well. Media capitalized, and continues to do so, on this by promoting the violent and disenfranchised nature of this music genre. Unlike any other music genre, the objectification of women - especially of color - was/is on display frequently. The artists creating this genre were/are selected from violent areas of the society, above and beyond those from other parts of society. The message of this genre was promoted at the exclusion of the main music form, that had insisted on inclusion, support of the community, empowerment, education and enjoyment of life. Narcotics, long held as a cause of destroying a society, were/are now considered a positive. Consumer products associated with this genre became the new Dutch tulip craze. Forms of clothing that were long held as inappropriate for anything but sporting activities (which they were designed for) became not only common place but disproportionately expensive (sneakers have gone from $10 to $150 in my lifetime as an example). And the importance of improving oneself with education has evaporated.

The overall effect is that Black culture has become a commodity, and an expensive one. While media does contain more diversity, its focus is predominantly on the most violent, addictive and separatist nature of the Black community. Education of the youth is reaching lows not seen in decades at the least and the core family unit is more unstable than ever before (at least in my lifetime) with both being portrayed as positive actions.

All of this cannot be laid at the feet of what was once a splinter of a music genre. But that cannot be dismissed either. The effects do seem to be promoting an old theme, as I mentioned above. Stronger Black African American males (or at least more violent ones), less education, no core family units, economic dependance and the promotion of specific commerce industries, and dehumanization. Added to that is the rampant addiction of the Black African American community.

No one thing is a cause of the ills found today. In some respects acts of the past can be seen again. The question of whether this is the past repeating itself because some lesson has not been learned (or that an apology has not been given) or a new aspect of the world I cannot say. But if we do not address what is happening, if we refuse to acknowledge its existence, if we continue unabated on this path then the outcome will only be our fault.

This is what I think what do you think?