Keeping It Right

Keeping It Right is for thought provoking conversationist. It's for those who love to talk about today's issues, yesterday's history and tomorrow's future.

Location: Moreno Valley, CA

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Played During Segregation? Asteriks


Now some of you are going to fall out of your chairs when you read this...But I am having a huge a problem with sports stars back in the day, who played while the country was practicing open segregation and racial discrimination. Now I know Jackie Robinson broke through when the US was still going through civil rights issues, discrimination and what have you. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the players who "dominated" while there was no one of color in sight. I take that back, they were the caddies, waiters and the dudes cleaning up the locker room. No, I'm not talking about Howard Dean's house. I'm talking about the Babe Ruths, Joe Dimaggios and now the late Byron Nelson. All of these names are revered in White American sports. Babe Ruth is a god and untouchable when it comes to pointing out his flaws. He always played in not so good shape. His ego was bigger than Yankee stadium and when he was knocking homeruns over home and visitor fences. A part of Americana was not allowed to even witness this feat by competing against him. Joe Dimaggio by all accounts was not a nice person, he trusted noone and was stand offish. He has a 56 game hitting streak. Did he bat against the best pitchers....Hell No! Yet he is placed in the annuls of all time greats in baseball...And now the late Byron Nelson, who passed today, he won eleven golf tournaments in a row, when he played. Do I have to even say the rest? Won eleven tournaments in a row and no one of color besides the caddy.
All three men were big time sports figures and yet no where have I read that either one of these men spoke up about the issues of their day. Racism, Prejudice and Discrimination. Not one.
So why do I have to hold these men in the same standard? Each one could have said, "hey look, it's great for all the accomplishments, but I wonder what it would be like to compete against everyone."
Could it hurt their status? maybe, but what it will do is ask the question. Hey I heard that there was this Negro player who pitches likes the dickens, how come he isn't in the majors to see if he can stand up to the Ruth, Cobb and Dimaggio. That question never came up? Instead what we got, was Mr. Dickey why are signing a Negro ball player? And let me set this straight, in my opinion, Dickey knew the majors was losing money to a league that was more exciting and entertaining. Signing Robinson was a financial move and it eventually saved baseball.
So this is how I have it...Played during segregation? Asteriks!! If the media is going to put the onus on Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan to speak out on today's issue...Than I have the same right to hold Ruth, Nelson and any other white superstar athlete accountable.

Too Skinny (Repfanz)


A little change of pace for the group here, I wanna talk about the ban of "skinny" runway models by Spain. Personally I applaud the ban. Now don't get me wrong, RF23, loves the ladies, but he needs some meat...And RF23 believes all meat ain't good for you. RF23 prefers not to have a lot of meat in the freezer...And maybe thats society's fault, we look at magazines and videos and see what we're supposed to look like.

How many of you had the grandmother tell you to get a "light skinned" girl with big hips? I guess the hips tell whether or not the woman can carry kids. But the folks most effected by self image are women and girls. I don't think guys worry about their image as much as women.

Guys do worry about the image of the woman they are with or prefer. For instance a great poet, Sir Mix A Lot once said, "I'm tired of magazines..Saying flat butts are the only thing...Take the average black man and ask that.....She gotta pack much back."

Now RF23 is talking to the fellas, Fellas what do you prefer? what makes you say dayum!!! and I don't want to hear no sorry cop out that I'm married and I don't look...RF23 is married, and Mrs. F23 has caught me looking and reading the expression on my face. Shoot there was one time, when this fine azzz woman walked by and we both said dayum!!! So spare me that line cause we know....

You'ze lyin'......


Monday, September 25, 2006

Even Tom Cruise Thought It Was Funny

Repfanz's Take:

Watching former President Bill Clinton melt down on Saturday was worth the admission at a theater, plus popcorn. "I failed!!" yelled an angry Bill Clinton after a little diatribe as to why he failed to even act on fighting terrorism. Red faced and wagging that famous finger that he wagged to the country when he looked dead at the camera, eyes a little squinted, told the country to listen carefully and said the most famous words besides Rodney King's, "Can't we just get along?" Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I guess he had to say the name because much of country was trying to figure out which woman. Remember he was fighting a civil suit for sexual harrassment. But to see Clinton melt down like that was priceless, even Tom Cruise thought it was funny and wondered if Clinton will be dropped like he was from Paramount.

Dick Morris once wrote that Clinton is very concerned about his legacy as President. It was his legacy and scandal that prevented him from effectively fighting terrorism or at least make the country aware that such an attack could and did happen. Theres no way he can oil himself up and wiggle himself out of the this vice. He's stuck in it, just like George Bush. Only thing is that in the future Bush will come out fine in history and Clinton....well theres always that finger waggin' and lie to follow thought...

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Commentary: What Do You Do?


"The devil was here yesterday, he stood right here. You can still smell the sulfer" - Hugo Chavez - Veneluezan Dictator

I got a laugh over that statement by a woman today, while watching a local news cast. And after that laugh. She said "I agree, he is the devil."

The sad thing about it is that, so does Sean Penn (he actually said it first), Rosie O'Donnell, Harry Belefonte, Danny Glover, Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Ice Cube, Janeane Garofalo, Michael Moore and last but should be least, Cindy Sheehan. So hearing this woman say she agrees with Penn and Chavez's name calling of our president is not surprising...sad...but not surprising.

So what do you do? what do you say? I could have got into some dialect with this woman to see why she believes that the president is the devil. Than again, why? I already know what she is going to say, which is:

1. He stole not one, but two elections

2. He lied to get us into the war, so he and his Haliburton and Oil buddies could make more money.

3. He's stupid

4. He's an idiot

5. He doesn't care about black people; therefore making him a bigot.

6. He's a draft dodger; oh wait, his daddy got him out of the Vietnam War.

7. He can't pronounce "Nuclear".

8. He's a war monger.

9. He said Iraq was a "Iminent" threat

10. We're in Iraq because they tried to kill his daddy.

So what do you do? All of the above was brought up way before he was elected for the second time! and yet 59 million people voted for him and dismissed the liberal top ten talking points. Which leaves them starting at talking point number one revised: He's the devil.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Keith A. Owens: Lessons of Stringer Bell

If you're a fan of HBO's The Wire, you can relate to my distress. If not, then let me say briefly that this is one of the best TV programs in a long, long time. To call it a cop drama would be an extreme disservice, although that is the basic framework. What the Baltimore-based series does is portray the uglier realities of urban America with a precision and honesty that has never been attempted before. The result is a phenomenal cast of characters that gives individual voices and humanity to people many of us might otherwise ignore or, worse, write off as being all the same. And of all the characters giving the lie to that assumption, Stringer Bell took that lie and tied it up in knots.

Read more of the article:

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Black America Web: Greg Kane

Monday, September 11, 2006

York: Clinton's Record on Terrorism

The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism
You don’t need a movie to see his failures.
By Byron York

Editor’s note: When it comes to Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism, there’s no need to invent fictional scenarios to show how ineffective he was; the truth is bad enough. A few months after 9/11, Byron York went through the record — including the former president’s habit of taking polls to see how he should respond to terrorist attacks — and came up with this report, from the December 17, 2001 issue of National Review: June 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. When news reached Washington, Presi dent Bill Clinton vowed to bring the killers to justice. “The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished,” he said angrily. “Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished.” The next day, leaving the White House to attend an economic summit in France, Clinton had more tough words for the attackers. “Let me be very clear: We will not resist” — the president corrected himself — “we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them.”

The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism

As Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public’s reaction to the bombing. “Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll,” Morris recalls. “I was concerned about how Clinton looked in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him.” The bombing happened in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign, and even though Clinton enjoyed a substantial lead over Republican Bob Dole, Morris worried that public dissatisfaction with Clinton on the terrorism issue might benefit Dole. Indeed, Morris’s first poll showed less support for Clinton than he had hoped. But by the time Morris presented his findings to the president and top staffers at a political-strategy meeting a few days later, public approval of Clinton’s response had climbed — something Morris noted in his written agenda for the session:

SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great Approve Clinton handling 73-20 Big gain from 63-20 on Friday Security was adequate 52-40 It’s not Clinton’s fault 76-18

The numbers were a relief for the re-election team. But soon there was another crisis when, on July 17, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris. There was widespread suspicion that the crash was the result of terrorism (it was later ruled to be an accident), and Morris’s polling found the public growing uneasy not only about air safety but also about Clinton’s performance in the Khobar investigation. Morris found that the number of people who believed Clinton was “doing all he can to investigate the Saudi bombing and punish those responsible” was just 54 percent, while 32 percent believed he could do more. Morris feared that White House inaction would allow Dole to portray Clinton as soft on national security.

“We tested two alternative defenses to this attack: Peace maker or Toughness,” Morris wrote in a memo for the president. In the “Peacemaker” defense, Morris asked voters to respond to the statement, “Clinton is peacemaker. Brought together Arabs and Israelis. Ireland. Bosnia cease fire. Uses strength to bring about peace.” The other defense, “Tough ness,” asked voters to respond to “Clinton tough. Stands up for American interests. Against foreign companies doing business in Cuba. Sanctions against Iran. Anti-terrorist legislation held up by Republicans. Prosecuted World Trade Center bombers.” Morris found that the public greatly preferred “Toughness.” So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough.

Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism. At the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his administration was just beginning, and he was embroiled in controversies over gays in the military, an economic stimulus plan, and the beginnings of Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. Khobar Towers happened not only in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign but also at the end of a month in which there were new and damaging developments in the Whitewater and Filegate scandals. The African embassy attacks occurred as the Monica Lewinsky affair was at fever pitch, in the month that Clinton appeared before independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s grand jury. And when the Cole was rammed, Clinton had little time left in office and was desperately hoping to build his legacy with a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whenever a serious terrorist attack occurred, it seemed Bill Clinton was always busy with something else.

The First WTC Attack Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president’s reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against “overreacting” and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who “did something really stupid.” From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government’s most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. “Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access,” says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. “It was all under grand-jury secrecy.” Another problem with Clinton’s decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in the new administration was in turmoil. When the bomb went off, Clinton did not have a confirmed attorney general; Janet Reno, who was nominated after the Zoë Baird fiasco, was awaiting Senate approval. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration. The bombing barely came up at Reno’s Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case. (Instead, Clinton praised Reno for “sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others to do better.”) In addition, at the time the bombing investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing-out by Clinton. A new director, Louis Freeh, was not confirmed by the Senate until August 6. Amid all the turmoil at the top, the investigation missed some tantalizing clues pointing toward a far-reaching conspiracy. In April 1995, for example, terrorism expert Steven Emerson told the House International Relations Committee that there was information that “strongly suggests . . . a Sudanese role in the World Trade Center bombing. There are also leads pointing to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, the ex-Afghan Saudi mujahideen supporter now taking refuge in Sudan.” Two years later, Emerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same thing. In recent years, according to an exhaustive New York Times report, “American intelligence officials have come to believe that [ringleader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman] and the World Trade Center bombers had ties to al-Qaeda.” But the Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship. Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold — “I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful,” Woolsey recalls — and some of the nation’s most critical intelligence capabilities went unused. In the end, the U.S. tried six suspects in the attack. All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government. Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they will probably never know who was behind the attack. Khobar Towers “In June of 1996, it felt like an entire herd was converging on the White House,” wrote Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos in his memoir, All Too Human. A herd of scandals, that is: In late May, independent counsel Kenneth Starr had convicted Jim and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker in the first big Whitewater trial; in June, the Filegate story first broke into public view, and Sen. Alphonse D’Amato issued his committee’s Whitewater report recommending that several administration officials be investigated for perjury. It was also in June that the White House went into full battle mode against a variety of allegations contained in Unlimited Access, a book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich. All these developments were heavy on the minds of Clinton, Dick Morris, and the other members of the re-election strategy team when the bomb went off at Khobar Towers on June 25. As it had after the World Trade Center bombing, a distracted White House gave the case to law enforcement. But there is significant evidence to suggest that the White House was even less interested in finding answers than it had been in the World Trade Center case. In the Khobar investigation, the Clinton administration not only failed to follow potentially productive leads but in some instances actively made the investigators’ job more difficult. From the beginning, the administration ran into significant Saudi resistance (the Saudis quickly identified a few low-level suspects and beheaded them, hoping to end the matter there). According to a long account of the case by Elsa Walsh published earlier this year in The New Yorker, FBI director Louis Freeh on several occasions urged the White House to pressure the Saudis for more cooperation. More than once, Walsh reports, Freeh was frustrated to learn that the president barely mentioned the case in meetings with Saudi leaders. Freeh — whose own relations with the White House had deteriorated badly in the wake of the Filegate and campaign-finance scandals — became convinced that the White House didn’t really want to push the Saudis for more information, which Freeh believed would confirm strong suspicions of extensive Iranian involvement in the attack. Walsh reports that in September 1998, Freeh, angry and losing hope, took the extraordinary step of secretly asking former president George H. W. Bush to intercede with the Saudi royal family. Acting without Clinton’s knowledge, Bush made the request, and the Saudis began to provide new information, which indeed pointed to Iran. In late 1998, Walsh reports, Freeh went to national security adviser Sandy Berger to tell him that it appeared the FBI had enough evidence to indict several suspects. “Who else knows this?” Berger asked Freeh, demanding to know if it had been leaked to the press. Freeh said it was a closely held secret. Then Berger challenged some of the evidence of Iranian involvement. “That’s just hearsay,” Berger said. “No, Sandy,” Freeh responded. “It’s testimony of a co-conspirator . . .” According to Walsh’s account, Freeh thought that “Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing.” Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that “by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration.” Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the “masterminds” of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment. Both the Khobar investigation and the World Trade Center bombing presented Clinton with daunting challenges; there were sensitive political issues involved, and in each case it was not immediately clear who was behind the violence. But in neither instance did Clinton press hard for answers and demand action; Berger would not have taken the position he did if the president fully supported a vigorous investigation. In the coming years, Clinton would be faced with clear acts of terrorism carried out by an organization with undeniable state support. But again, busy with other things, he did little. The Embassies On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans. The morning of the attacks, Clinton said, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes. . . . We are determined to get answers and justice.” Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks. On August 20, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. But the strikes were at best ineffectual. There was little convincing evidence that the pharmaceutical factory, which admin istration officials believed was involved in the production of material for chemical weapons, actually was part of a weapons-making operation, and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies. Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton’s motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton’s critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called “wag the dog” strategy. Some of Clinton’s allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton’s decision. The accusations came as no surprise to the White House. “Everyone knew the ‘wag the dog’ charge was going to be made,” recalls Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert on the National Security Council. But Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified. “I remember being shocked and deeply depressed over the fact that no one would take seriously what I considered a grave national-security problem,” says Benjamin. “Not only were they not buying it, they were accusing the administration of essentially playing the most shallow and foolish kind of game to deflect attention from other issues. It was astonishing.” In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration’s evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production. The attack came to be viewed, by consensus, as a screw-up. In a new article in The New York Review of Books, Benjamin suggests that that skepticism, particularly on the part of reporters, scared Clinton away from any more tough action against bin Laden. “The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al-Qaeda threat,” Benjamin writes. “That in turn meant there was no support for decisive measures in Afghanistan — including, possibly, the use of U.S. ground forces — to hunt down the terrorists; and thus no national leader of either party publicly suggested such action.” After the cruise-missile raids, the administration restricted its work to covert actions breaking up terrorist cells. Benjamin and others say a significant number of terrorist plots were short-circuited, preventing several acts of violence. “I see no reason to doubt their word on that,” says James Woolsey. “They may have been doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes.” But breaking up individual cells while avoiding larger-scale action probably had the effect of postponing terrorist acts rather than stopping them. Woolsey believes that such an approach was part of what he calls Clinton’s “PR-driven” approach to terrorism, an approach that left the fundamental problem unsolved: “Do something to show you’re concerned. Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking the ball down the field.” The Cole The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.’s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk. Clinton’s reaction to the Cole terrorism was more muted than his response to the previous attacks. While he called the bombing “a despicable and cowardly act” and said, “We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable,” he seemed more concerned that the attack might threaten the administration’s work in the Middle East (the bombing came at the same time as a new spate of violence between Israelis and Palestinians). “If [the terrorists’] intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly,” Clinton said on the morning of the attack. The next day, the Washington Post’s John Harris, who had good connections inside the administration, wrote, “While the apparent suicide bombing of the USS Cole may have been the more dramatic episode for the American public, the escalation between Israelis and Palestinians took the edge in preoccupying senior administration officials yesterday. This was regarded as the more fluid of the two problems, and it presented the broader threat to Clinton’s foreign policy aims.” As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden’s organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action. Yet he did nothing. Perhaps he didn’t want to endanger the cherished goal of Middle East peace. Perhaps he didn’t want to disrupt the 2000 presidential campaign, then in its last days. Perhaps he didn’t know quite what to do. But in the end, the ball was kicked a bit farther down the field. In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris’s first tier. Clinton asked Morris where he stood. “I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category,” Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president’s standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. “Yeah,” Clinton responded, “It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it.” Clinton then asked, “What do I need to do to be first tier?” “I said, ‘You can’t,’“ Morris remembers. “‘You have to win a war.’“ Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. “I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism,” Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.) But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris’s polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why? “He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.” And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton’s handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn’t his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He’s right about that, too.

9-11 - We're Not Angry Anymore

Looking back to five years ago, when we witnessed on every news channel the attack of our country by al qaeda. I remember being angry and wanting to revenge. I wasn't interested in hearing why, I didn't care for the reason of why. Because in my mind, whatever reason these animals had to express themselves to our country of why they hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001 and flew two into the WTC, one into the pentagon and crashing another in Pennsylvania because of their beliefs or perceived anger at our country is inexcusable. I can't think of one person who was interested in "wanting to know" what made these animals do what they did. The country didn't care. Me being a veteran was ready to pick up a ruck sack and weapon and be pointed to the person most responsible for these attacks. And if not that, the only answers I wanted to hear from countries in the middle east, was from the question, of who is responsible? and where is this group? And if we didn't get those answers, the middle east would really be straight desert, with a radioactive twist.
Thats how angry I was. Thats how angry I am. The country was angry because it happened here. We saw people jumping off the buildings to survive. They would rather jump to their deaths from the top of the WTC'ers instead of perishing from the fire, heat and eventual collaspe of both buildings. And who can forget about the passengers who looked each other in the eye and said hell no, we are not going to be victims, hell no we are not going to die at the hands and controls of these animals and they fought and died in great valor and bravery. Died on their own terms and sacrificed their lives to save possibly hundreds if not thousands of lives.
You see America has the resolve and when treaded against will show the world her power. It doesn't matter what race or what the circumstances. History shows that. And history will show that when things don't go the way some people think it should go or when we have leaders who don't have the resolve or intestinal fortitude to show our enemies our might. History will show the rest of the world that we're bullies or thugs. History shows that in Vietnam, we were there to assist the French and to preserve the democracy of the South Vietnamese, but at home, there was no WWII or Korean War support and unlike the Korean War, our veterans were given the label of baby killers, war criminals and the most damaging, losers. American accepted and was okay with a draw with North Korea and turned it's back on our brave men who went and served in Vietnam. No resolve was what Bin Laden saw. You see if we had just licked our wounds of the incident that happened in Somalia and commenced to wiping them out..I don't think Bin Laden will be banking on the wait game, the media game and the thinking that if we (USA) lose more men than the America who bitched and moaned about the Vietnam War will show up and cry about this war. Hell he's right.
Five years after his planned attack on our country, 9-11 is like "Pearl Harbor" just another date on the calender and one more day closer to this year's Christmas, excuse me, Winter holiday shopping days. We're not resolved anymore and we want to run, hide and act like what happens in the Middle East is not our business.
This is not our grandparent's america, hell they wouldn't recognize it if they were here today. If 9-11 happened in the 30's, 40's or 50's, I have no doubt that Bin Laden would be in wikipedia with a born date and death date and not from being sick! That America despite the segregation, women's right and lack of jobs, would have come together and with great anger would have ended it, despite the great loss of life. I'm just thankful the Union soldiers didn't give up in the Civil War after they lost 2000 or so men at Fort Sumpter. I'm pretty sure the rest of world is thankful that we didn't give up in Europe and in the Pacific after we lost 2000 or so men in ONE BATTLE!!.
I'm just shameful that after 2000 or so lives of brave men and women, that our America want to forget what happened five years ago, bring our troops home and most likely label them as losers......

Because we're not angry anymore.....

Friday, September 08, 2006

LA TIMES: Absolutely Amazing

This story is absolutely amazing. An eleven year old girl gang raped by at least 20 teen-agers and a 40 year old man in Milwaukee, Wisc. This crime and along with others caps off a long summer crime spree in Milwaukee...,0,5668650.story?coll=sns-ap-topus

Race and Conservatism

Interesting Read:

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Is It Us? Or Them? (Repfanz)

Listening to shock jocks, Steve Harvey and Tom Joyner is becoming more and more difficult to do every morning. I mean I get their positions and their right to express their opinion. I get that and I will fight for their right to say them. However, listen too, I don't think so. I do have the right to change the freaking station and listen to something else, but I live in Los Angeles. We only have three stations worth listening too. And unfortunately two of them have black radios top shock jock Joyner on one and shock jock Harvey on the other, so I'm kinda of stuck listening to one of them until I get closer to downtown Los Angeles to switch to the third station. Which by the way hosts a early morning talk show which is just as brutal as Harvey and Joyner combined.

The comments and opinions expressed by these people are killing me! It leaves me wondering if it is us (or me) or them? Let me fill you in on what I'm talking about. Week before last, the nation looked back on the one year anniversary of the floods that devastated New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina. Joyner took the opportunity to slam the federal government of its role in responding to people who either chose to ride out the storm or were just left behind. Joyner and his crew all but, one thumbed upped Spike Lee's, I don't want to call it a documentary, "When The Levies Broke" and validated it as gospel according to Spike. On Harvey's show, Spike himself was on the show and gave everyone a quick glimpse of what the show was going to be about. Blame Bush and by the way Blame Bush, the end. It's amazing that these men who have a forum can continue to give half truths and passes to parties, who too were the blame. No mention of Nagin or Blanco. No mention of the unnecessary looting by the very people who these shock jocks placate to. No mention of after one year of this country's pouring of compassion, donated time and monies of the individuals who squandered the opportunity to make a new life for themselves by getting jobs and taking advantage of classes to get a skill. No, these group of individuals continued their dependance of the US Government by remaining stagnant. No mention of the City of Houston's rise in crime and the huge strain on their social programs. No, not a peep out of these shock jocks. And don't be Bill Cosby or a conservative and say something. Then the Big Joker aka The Race Card will come out and that person is labeled out of touch with the poor [blacks] or someone who is out of touch of the [black] community.

Oh it doesn't stop with the floods that devastated New Orleans. Next week is the five year anniversary of 9/11. Today on Joyner's show he played a mix, I guess dedicated to 9/11. On it he had quotes from elected black leaders and self elected black leaders. Also on the mix was the sound of the terrorists on the hijacked planes and Marvin Gaye's "What's Goin' On?". After the mix was played, Joyner commented and said, "After that, we were together, and all of sudden we went after Saddam. What happened to getting Bin Laden?" In essence Joyner went to the "Bush Lied-People Died" card and "War for Oil" card.

So I'm left wondering if is it us (or me) or them? Because Joyner, Harvey and others who still don't get why we are in Iraq is quite frankly, mind boggling. What about the war are they not getting? And it doesn't make sense to try to explain over and over again. It doesn't make sense to give articles and quotes from people most knowledgeable. Because in the end, they still won't get it. I could write e-mails to the both of them and remind them that the day when we were all together, filled with emotions ranging from anger to sadness that not only did we have to destroy the Taliban which was harboring Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That we had to remove the one man who was a sworn enemy to our country, paid thousands of dollars to terrorists, already attacked and invaded his enemies and by the way have used chemical weapons. I could have wrote them and told them that on September 12, 2001, that Saddam's world changed. Although Iraq was not connected with the attacks, Saddam was under UN Resolution to allow inspectors in Iraq to inspect his weapon's capabilities. We now know that France, Germany and Russia was trading weapons for Iraq's oil trove. We know that after the first Gulf War, Saddam continued manufacturing his weapons capabilities and everyone, including the administration before GW Bush came in said so. Harvey and Joyner probably didn't get that memo. What's even sadder is that Harvey and Joyner probably won't get the fact that once we were attacked that fateful day, that Saddam should have allowed inspectors in with open freakin' arms and jugs of water. Those two shock jocks probably didn't get the memo that once Saddam got defiant and attempted to man up to save face with his people, that a pissed off U.S., after getting the necessary votes, promptly removed him and his regime, 2 hours faster than the Germans invaded and got the French to do what they do best, surrender. They totally ignored that Libya, a country who was/is on our s-list gave up their WMD's and said that Iraq had them. I'm thinking that Khadifi didn't want to give up his power and end up where Saddam is.

You see it doesn't matter how you explain it. Joyner and Harvey are still going to be stuck on 9/11, Bin Laden and Afghanistan. Never mind that there are memos from Zarqawi saying that Al Qaeda is losing and probably won't hold up much longer. Last week, one more Al Qaeda key member is in paradise errr!! Hell. It's a matter of time before Bin Laden is either captured or killed. But regardless of what happens....

Those two will continue to voluntarily be misinformed and guilty, along with others, of spreading it like a bad secret.

18 Ways To Be A Good Liberal

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Great White and Black Hope (Repfanz)

The state of the heavyweight division in boxing is crazy. And it's all Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe's fault. Why those people? Because each one of these fighters let the boxing world down. Tyson got himself arrested for allegedly raping a woman in Indiana, went to prison and came back a different fighter. Riddick Bowe's meltdown was for all to see, his ineptness to not get into shape for fights and his eventual joining of the Marines, dishonorable discharge and his jail sentence would bring back a stuttering Bowe. And speaking of stuttering, Evander Holyfield, one of the people responsible for the fall of Mike Tyson, captured the minds and cheers of many. His battles and willingness to take a punch to give one, may have cost him his faculties to even put together coherent sentences. One thing is for sure if Holyfield was in the children making contest, he would be hands down the number one contender behind Shawn Kemp. Which brings me to the man who really stuck it to the heavyweight division. Lennox Lewis retired from boxing as champion and on his two feet. Unlike the others mentioned, Lewis still has his common sense and not stuttering and stammering to say hello. After his fight with the Vladmir Klitschko in Los Angeles, Lewis ignored the big money thrown at him and exited. He action left the heavyweight division wide arse open with a bunch of no-names and should never be's. I mean someone by the name of Lamon Brewster was a champion. Chris "I only slap box" Byrd was a champion. John "Why They Always Pick Me" Ruiz was a champion. As a matter of fact, out of the three champions, Ruiz was the person to see if you needed to be called former World Champion. Ruiz is responsible for us having to place Roy Jones, Jr., as arguebly one of the greatest boxers in history. Jones beat Ruiz soundly for his portion of the heavyweight title. James Toney, was champion for exactly 48 hours before steroid use stripped him. And Ruiz is responsible for a seven-foot Russian being a champion today.

I don't think this happens with the guys mentioned earlier. I don't think this happens if white and black American athletes who just want to beat people up. Granted Lewis wasn't American and this country didn't accept and appreciate him.

But we sure as hell miss him.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Washington Times: Are Blacks Liberal Enough?