Race relations in 2009 and beyond

“Many ___ feel that the country their forefathers built has been ... stolen from them, so there's in some places a real boiling rage, and that can only become worse as more people lose jobs."

This is about President Obama, the economy, and America. But not exactly the way you might be thinking. The above comment is a quote missing just one word. And that word changes the meaning completely.

That word is “Whites”, placed after many in the first sentence.

But take a moment and imagine that in its place the word African American. The meaning changes, but how it changes might be really interesting for the nation.

The reason why this is important is because since the election, 200 racially motivated hate incidents have occurred. Each of these incidents are crimes, of varying degrees and severity. And the offenders have been across the gambit of age ranges from teens to far older adults. And of course some are small minded racists.

The thing is that most of these people, though White, are not the stereotypical image the media has created of modern-day racists. Many are high school and college educated. Some are from middle class or higher income homes. Of course the traditional isolationist, less educated, poor, weak willed, and essentially backwards racist still have not disappeared from the earth yet.

It seems that since the election many Whites are coming to the view that the current status of the Government is exemplified by the Presidency of Barack Obama. And that’s without him having taken the Oath of Office, or serving a single day in office yet. Which is even more baffling when the fact that Government has been run by Whites for 232 years is ever considered.

But I started this conversation considering the quote. And I asked what you thought when you interject different races into the spot where Whites was stated.

As an educated Black Puerto Rican the change in the word makes the statement make sense. It is the anger of living in a nation that was literally built on the bones and blood of ancestors – and never receiving a thank you or I’m sorry. It’s the anger of being kept from schools, jobs, homes for hundreds of years. It’s the way America has been everyday up to and including today. And tomorrow looks only slightly better.

Considering history, especially any aspect of Black History in America beyond the paragraph that existed when I was in school, it makes sense for that statement to be said by Blacks. And it seems foolish for Whites to say it. It actually sounds laughable when I hear it worded that way.

But if some Whites, who today have a greater potential to achieve virtually anything they want than I do after 40 years of work, believe this statement to be true what does that mean for America? When people who enjoy ownership of 99% of the wealth of the nation, 90% of the Government positions, 95% of ownership and executive management positions, start to get anxious where is the nation going?

I had a statement back when I was a kid

“If it takes more than 1 guy at the same time to beat me in a fight, I must be a badass and damn intimidating.”

President-elect Obama has yet to pass a law, take an Oath, or even pick a Cabinet. But the fearful are already reacting, shifting blame of any perceived or real ill on Obama’s back. This isn’t about politics, this is just racial. And Obama must be the biggest badass of all.

The more I hear of these things, the more concerned I become for the nation. Because if we do not speak about and come to terms with the issues of race that pervade every instance of life in America, we are going to have an explosion. Maybe not during the Obama Administration (though it could be), but at some point in our collective future.

And it will be bad. For everyone.

But what does that quote make you think?

How does media bias affect Presidential election

For as long as Democratic candidates have been mentioning their desire to run for President most of the major media has been promoting them. Going back as far as 2006 the media was virtually guaranteeing Senator Hillary Clinton would be the next President of the nation. Once Senator Obama took the national attention they began they love affair with him.

While that is not as important a reaction when we are speaking about bloggers, though many of my colleagues are more than capable of swinging independent votes as I believe I am, the major media is meant to be independent. It is the purpose of the media to ask questions, tough questions, of the potential candidates. It is their purpose to inform the public of facts and comments of note by the candidates. It is the fact that they receive more attention and response than bloggers of most any size that we rely on them.

But the media has been remiss in their responsibility. There is no question about this. From the New York Times refusing to allow Senator McCain to write editorials, while approving 8 of Obama’s, to the failure of the media to investigate the relationship of Bill Ayers, the media has failed America.

Gov. Sarah Palin has had her kids, her husband, and her friends investigated by the media. Senator Obama has yet to have his friend Bill Ayers confronted. Yet audio tapes of Ayers decry his belief in anarchism, and interviews has clearly stated his lack of remorse and desire to have inflicted more terrorist acts against America. All of that while he served on a board with Senator Obama, and while he was supporting – if not creating – Obama’s political career.

We have heard about every aspect of Senator McCain’s health. His reports have been reviewed and questioned multiple times. So we know that he is in excellent shape for a man of younger years than he is. But there was no question asked of Senator Biden, who denied to present information about his health which is important because of his past health problems.

And just this week Senator Biden directly stated caution if Senator Obama is elected President. He directly stated that Obama, AND ONLY Obama, would be challenged on the international stage because of his inexperience. He further went on to state that the response of Obama would look inappropriate or bad initially. He even went as far as to say that there are 4 or 5 scenarios that could happen.

The major media failed to ask what those potential national threats might be. They failed to ask how America might protect itself, regardless of who is President. They even failed to notice this dramatic and important fact. Because they don’t want to affect those that might chose to vote for Obama. So they would spite America to satisfy their own wants.

In fact, in a moment of honesty, while interviewing Gov. Sarah Palin one of the few honest views on this matter was recorded.



So think of this. What else is the media not telling you about on the Democratic candidates. What other facts that are they withholding because it can affect your vote. What gain are they expecting in return for their targeted help and support of Democrats?

When the media is willing to ignore facts, and report polarized views, how is the public served? And where will it end? Will they ignore important facts about laws that Democrats want to pass that the public may not support? Will they gain tax or other incentives for their support? Are they being bought or allowing themselves to be compromised?

Most importantly, is Senator Obama and Senator Biden really the best choice for America if the public is not being told all the facts? Or are they the best choice for selected groups with targeted agendas that can mold public thought through deception and omission?

Presidential race coverage - John Edwards scandal raises questions

So we are in day what 6 now of the John Edwards sex scandal. Almost every angle of this story has been covered by the media by now, except one. One particular aspect of this case kept bugging me until today I noticed what it was.

The bias of the major news media.

Forget the fact that the 24-hour nature of news today means that cable news is more about a rush to ratings than journalism. Forget that a sex scandal is primetime news. Even forget that some Clinton supporters are trying to use their best polispeak to spin the idea that had this come out during the primaries Senator Clinton would have beat Senator Obama (a fallacy proved incorrect by polls showing an overwhelming number of Edwards supporters – then and now – prefer Obama).

The bias is of the major news media to protect and fail to report negatives of Democrats and Liberals, and to highlight the same type of actions of Republicans and Conservatives.

Senator Obama is unquestionably favored by the major news media. He has been since at least January of this year. And the news showers praise on his every move, covering his actions better than our current President in some instances. And the tone of all the coverage has been overwhelmingly positive.

But John Edwards was a liberal and Democrat as well. And his press was very good for quite a while. And to preserve the image of all liberals and Democrats the major news media ignored the news we now know to be true. It took the National Enquirer to break the story – though the rumor was around for months at least.

Think about that. All the news media knew of the rumor. Not one media outlet, except the Enquirer, bothered to follow-up anything, accepting the denial of John Edwards verbatim.

Yet the New York Times was more than willing to run a story alleging that Senator John McCain was cheating on his wife, without proof or even a rumor. Without anything to back up the story they sought to destroy the career of one politician while at the same time protecting another.

That’s not reporting, that’s creation of news. That’s manipulation of facts. That’s yellow journalism. And it’s an attempt to coerce voters to make a decision that the media industry prefers. So much for the rights of the public.

And the bias has more ramifications than just that. The major news media is effectively admitting that it changes the truth to suit their ends. So how much can you believe about what they have said about Iraq, Afghanistan, or nationalized healthcare? If they would bias the public to a position they prefer in one story, why not another – or a dozen?

Do I mean that there is news about Senator McCain or Senator Obama that we don’t know about right now, or that has been altered to fit their desires? I can’t say with 100% assurance. It is quite possible that the facts reported in the polispeak 10 second soundbites the media loves is accurate, or not even close to the truth. So we have to ask what is probable.

Well it is fact that the media loves Senator Obama. And his own words and speeches do sound quite good – in a general, unspecific, ultra-liberal manner. But given their bias as displayed by the disparity between similar accusations against Senator McCain and John Edwards I must pause.

Ask yourself these questions:

What has Senator Obama done to show he is a bi-partisan politician? Pundits laud his ability to work with Republicans, but where is that in his voting or Senate record?

What plans has Senator Obama actually provided on issues like funding for national healthcare, funding for Social Security, the consequences of leaving Iraq without a victory under preset timetables? The media has lauded that he is for all these items, but not mentioned how he will do them or what the effect will be.

The media has followed Senator Obama for months, like puppies around their master, but when was the last time he had an interview that seriously questioned any policy he has touched on? How many news organizations have pursued answers on issues that will affect America, like they have with Senator McCain?

I’m not saying that Senator Obama is a bad choice for President. I am saying that relying solely on the major news media to give an unbiased presentation is like handing an alcoholic a bottle of vodka and expecting them not to drink it. They might not, but I wouldn’t go to Las Vegas and take odds on it.