Since then it appears that a law suit has been filed and the swim club is now filing for bankruptcy. It’s good to know that in the age of the tea-bagger movement, hannity & glenn beck, and orly taitz; that enough people would be infuriated about the treatment of black and brown kids to the point where an organization has to shut it’s doors. They claim that they’ve been struggling for some time. I’ve been working on a documentary, that started in South Africa, about the economics of racism and this story just proves my premise. Racists are so evil that they would rather go out of business or see a country destroyed rather than doing what’s right. Racism is bad for business.

From the Huffington Post

PHILADELPHIA — A suburban swim club accused of discrimination last summer after revoking the memberships of mostly black and Hispanic children plans to declare bankruptcy, a newspaper reported Saturday.

Valley Swim Club president John Duesler sent an e-mail to club “friends and families” Friday saying the board of directors had voted to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy this week, The Philadelphia Daily News reported.

Duesler wrote in the e-mail that many would blame the bankruptcy on legal proceedings and negative media exposure, the newspaper said. But, he said, “the truth is that the club has struggled to stay out of the red for at least the last decade” and owes more than $100,000 in operational expenses and legal fees, the newspaper reported.

Duesler declined to comment to The Associated Press on Saturday.

Members “are all tired and beaten down and just sickened by how our club has been improperly portrayed,” he said, according to the Daily News. “After speaking to many members, my sense is that mostly everyone wants to move on.”

click here to read the rest

I believe that the founding fathers included the press in the Constitution because they expected the press to be a watch dog of the government for the people. The Constitution was written by men who were trying to avoid an autocratic governmental system like the systems found in Europe at the time.
During the time the Constitution was being drafted, “the press” was not these mega corporations, controlling 35 or 65% and often as much as 75% of a given market, it was in most cases a one man shows. And often some guy with a printing press in his barn. It was the existence of these independent journalists that helped keep the larger papers honest. The same was true with the invention of radio, television and now the internet. It was the independent stations that could be counted on to have the least amount of tendentiousness and it is often blogs that call out the mainstream media outlets.

By the 1990s, with the help of the FCC’s lack of scruples, the industry was deregulated and large corporations were allowed to own the majority of media outlets in any given market. With the power of deep pockets behind them; the large conglomerates swallowed the independents. This can be seen in all areas, from theatrical distribution companies to radio to newspapers. However, what is most concerning and what threatens the health of this nation is not only that some markets only have one journalistic voice but also the redefining of what is considered journalism and news.

There was a time when news organizations were so concerned about their integrity that they had a separate Board of Directors from their sister entertainment arms. Today, it is hard to tell what is considered news and what is supposed to be entertainment. However, the Society of Professional Journalists have established a code of ethics to act as a guide. They read:

Journalists should:

• Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
• Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
• Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
• Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
• Never plagiarize.
• Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
• Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
• Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
• Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
• Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
• Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
• Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

These are the guidelines that journalists have placed on themselves. With these rules in mind let’s evaluate some of the organizations that call themselves “news”.

In the last 10 days the White House finally spoke up about the dishonest media outlet called Fox News. Several of the Administration’s spokespersons, including president Obama himself, have admonished that Fox News is not truly news and should not be treated as such by real news agencies. FINALLY, someone says what we have known for a long time. Not surprisingly other news agencies jumped to Fox’s defense explaining that their nighttime commentary is very different from their daytime news reporting. This discussion with Jake Tapper of ABC and White House Press Secretary is telling:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one -

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say -

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/jake-tapper-challenges-wh_n_327820.html)

Shame on Gibbs for not having the facts to back up “their opinion”. So, Press Secretary Gibbs, others have done your homework for you:
Fox News: A 24/7 Political Operation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU

The first ethics rule:
“Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

• Statutory Rape – INACCURATE (a lie)
• Veteran Death Panels – INACCURATE (a lie)
• Sotomayor is a reversed racist, DISTORITION (a lie)
• 9/12 Tea Parties – DISTORITION (a lie)
  • actually organized by Fox News and then staged with applause signs and the works
• Czar mania – DISTORITION (a lie)

The litmus test for accuracy at Fox News must be akin to the test to see who will play short stop in a 1st grade kickball game…nonexistent.  On Sunday, November 1st Fox reported that Dede Scozzafava, GOP candidate for NY’s 23d District, endorsed the teabaggers choice Matt Hoffman, once she suspended her campaign.  The truth is, as everyone knows,  she endorsed the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who went on to win the Congressional seat for that district. The fact of the matter is that their ‘news shows’ often echo their commentary shows with distortions, mistruths, and outright lies. What’s worse is that CNN and to a lesser degree MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS continue the misinformation distribution. This is not my opinion this is fact and thank God for youtube and organizations like: Media Matters, Brave New Films, Fox Watch and others.
FOX Attacks! Obama – Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjvNSpsPu1k

And because the true art and nature of journalism seems to be a dying art form the rest of the mainstream media has once again picked up the latest Fox News talking point – “the White House has declared war on Fox News”.
Fox News’ War on the White House

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ

October 29, 2009: For Fox Sake! – Jon Stewart

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-

It is interesting that the right-wing of America has decided that they’re no longer interested in the freedom of the press nor a government for and by the people. Their actions say they are only interested in power. They realize to retain power you have to control the message and the only way to control the message is to control the media. Lessening the amount of media outlets enhances their ability to control the press; hence deregulation. I’m not sure when this began but I noticed the signs during the Reagan administration; the mantra during those times was “the liberal media”. As a progressive, the media has NEVER been liberal. It might have been center to center-right as opposed to far right; but NEVER liberal. With this campaign, to paint the right-wing as the victims, came the founding of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). One quick perusal of their website and it is obvious that they are not at all about advocating fairness and accuracy in journalism; they’re interested in forwarding the right-wing agenda. However, I never hear the press calling them an “extreme right-wing group” as they often refer to Media Matters and the Daily Kos as an “extreme left-wing or extreme liberal group”. This rhetoric from the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the spokesman for the right-wing, is almost laughable except too many Americans get all of their news from these men whose commentary fuels racism, anti-patriotism and to a few…violence.

Net neutrality is now under attack. For those who don’t know what net neutrality is, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia;

Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3]
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access

Basically, what this means is that corporations cannot pay the people who control the pipelines (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner et al) to give them preferential treatment. Corporate greed and the need for some groups to control the media lets us know that left to their own devices, corporations would pay the pipeline controllers to allow their content to be accessed faster and more easily than other content. So Joe Blogger would not be able to have his content accessed as easily as say, Fox News. This is part of the fight, this is what we must stop.
Mac vs PC: McOld Prefers his abacus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNehRSWmvJM

John, “I’m computer illiterate” McCain has introduced a new bill:

“Today I’m pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation,” McCain said. “It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy.”

Don’t you love how congress chooses the names for bills that are the opposite of what the bill is meant to do/be? The Internet Freedom Act allows as much freedom as the Patriot Act. For a guy who is quoted as saying:
When asked if he went online himself, the Arizona senator responded: “They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2403704/John-McCain-technology-illiterate-doesnt-email-or-use-internet.html
It seems to me that anything that he introduces regarding the internet should be laughed off the Senate floor. However, knowing how our congress works, unless we intercede this might actually become law.

I believe that we need to start another revolution! A take back the media revolution, we need to urge our congress to re-enact the rules and regulations surrounding news organizations, anti-monopoly laws for media outlets, and of course keeping net neutrality. We can fight indefinitely for health care reform, regulation of the financial industry, prosecuting those who allowed torture, etc.  But unless we have a news industry that is, dedicated to the tenants of the Professional Society of Journalists, with a strong and healthy independent media industry we will find ourselves in this position again. We need the media to help us shed light on the racketeering that has infected “Wall Street” and is now threatening our system of governance.

Write your representatives and let them know it’s time to Reclaim the Press

Brad Blakeman:

The “public option” is dead, but birth has been given to the “co-op” by Senator Kent Conrad.

Cesar Conda:

The public option has flat-lined. As for the legislative outlook for health reform, the Senate will approve a bill without the public option. The current House version includes the public option, but I’m not so sure the Blue Dogs will want to walk the plank and vote on a provision that won’t become law.

Thomas J. Whalen:

The public option appears deader than the pennant chances of the Kansas City Royals. Nonprofit cooperatives will now take center stage in the health care debate and from the White House’s perspective, this may not be such a bad thing.

Sen. Kent Conrad:

In the Senate, the cooperative plan is the only one that has the prospect of getting 60 votes.

Conrad again:

“The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. There never have been,” he said. “So to continue to chase that rabbit I think is just a wasted effort.”

One more Conrad, just because I don’t like the guy:

“It is very clear that in the United States Senate, the public option does not have the votes,” he said. “If we have to get to 60 votes, you cannot get there with public option. That’s why I was asked to come up with an alternative.”

Jane Hamsher:

Of course he’s not going to include a public option — as DC’s beltway class well knows, it’s been gone for a long time.

…

Rahm and the Baucus Caucus dealt the public option away months ago in order to keep stakeholders at the negotiating tables, and from filling the coffers of Republicans in 2010.

Newt Gingrich:

“I think the president has a real opportunity to fundamentally change the tone of his administration,” Gingrich tells NRO. But, he says, “I think it takes deeper change than simply yes or no on the public option. Frankly, if he does come out against a public option — given what the Left and the ACLU have said — it would be a very significant moment, and we should not understate how significant that would be.”

to read the rest click here:  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/26/797441/-List-of-Pundits-who-Declared-the-P.O.-Dead-(more-added)

 

Our President has so much that he must fix that it is up to us to remind him of his promises.  And one is to address the issues that are only felt by African Americans.  I have patience, because the things on his plate are so great.  In the meantime it is up to us to keep our eye on the media and on the majority.

A while ago I wrote you to alert you to what I knew was coming.  1.  the obliteration of affirmative action and 2. the consequential lie that racism is no longer an issues.  The Wall Street Journal went so far as to say:  “One promise of his (Obama) victory is that perhaps we can put to rest the myth of racism as a barrier to achievement in this splendid country. Mr. Obama has a special obligation to help do so.” (emphasis mine) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586244657800863.html

While I don’t believe that racism is necessarily a barrier, it is most certainly a HUGE HURTLE.  Take this story that broke today, July 8^th:

Pool Boots Kids Who Might “Change the Complexion”Campers sent packing after first visit to swim club

By  KAREN ARAIZA

Updated 11:22 PM EDT, Wed, Jul 8, 2009

NBC Philadelphia

Dymire Baylor says he overheard a woman ask, “What are all these black kids doing?” when he and his friends showed up.

More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.

Kids at Creative Steps Day Camp were thrilled to go swimming once a week at the Valley Swim Club. But after only one trip to the private club, they were…

“I heard this lady, she was like, ‘Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?’ She’s like, ‘I’m scared they might do something to my child,’” said camper Dymire Baylor.

The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers’ first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.

“When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool,”  (click here to read the rest)

I said it before and I’m going to say it again.  Racism is alive and well in America.  Read some of the comments left by your “average Joe-six pack”:

“I do not like when kids are bussed in by their parents on Halloween to my neighborhood. Is that racist? I doubt it, I pay good money for my home and do not want people that are not residents using our place to get better things. By the way, they are all black and Mexican.”

“Does anyone actually wonder WHY some people in a PRIVATE club wouldn’t want blacks in their pool? It’s not the color in and of itself, it’s how they act. Get any group of them in public, and how do they act? Would you want that around your children?”

What impact will this event have on those children’s lives?  Or will this be just another event in the many events that reinforces the lie that their lives are not as valuable as their white counter-parts?  One idiot posted a comment on the above article stating that African Americans on average have lower IQs.  Not withstanding the fact that once again we are being judged by another group’s standards; I wonder what IQ scores whites would have if the situations were reversed?

Until we have no disparities within the justice system, until we have no disparities in urban schools vs. suburban schools, until Raheem gets the same career opportunities as Tyler we must fight for affirmative action to remain a part of the system.  We must make sure that we are involved not only in our children and grandchildren’s school but attend school board meetings from time to time.  We must also make sure that we do our research when voting for the justices that send our kids to jail at a rate 10x that of their white counter parts.

“Time ain’t as long as it has been…”

Map Room

5:46 P.M. EST

Q Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to theMiddle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you’ve been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens — as the history of peacemaking shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.

And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table.

And it’s going to be difficult, it’s going to take time. I don’t want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I’m absolutely confident that the United States — working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region — I’m absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

Q You’ve been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues — like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region — you’ve been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques — at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side — is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you’ve indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia –

Q Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage –

Q Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: — to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated. And what I’ve said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there’s a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

Q I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me — one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because — mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories. Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state — and you know the contours of it — within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state — I’m not going to put a time frame on it — that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

But it is not going to be easy, and that’s why we’ve got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that’s what’s going to be necessary.

Q Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter.) If you have anything further, that would be great.

How concerned are you — because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America — in some parts, I don’t want to exaggerate — there is a demonization of America.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q It’s become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts — like a new religion has its own high priests.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q It’s only a religious text.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q And in the last — since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and — and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q How concerned are you and — because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know — a chorus –

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they’ve been using against me before I even took office –

Q I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: — what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There’s no actions that they’ve taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you’ve built, not what you’ve destroyed. And what they’ve been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

Q The largest one.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I’ve come to understand is that regardless of your faith — and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers — regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.

But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration’s actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I’m not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what’s on a television station in the Arab world — but I think that what you’ll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I’m speaking to them, as well.

Q Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m not going to break the news right here.

Q Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now. We’re going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

And you’re going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you’ve already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we’re going to do so on our terms, and we’re going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.

Q President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, “war on terror,” and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people — Islamic fascism. You’ve always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of –

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you’re making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations — whether Muslim or any other faith in the past — that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda — that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it — and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Q Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?

THE PRESIDENT: It’s up to the team –

MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter.)

Q Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Q Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just –

MR. GIBBS: Yes, let’s — we’re past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.

Q Sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q Thanks a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

END 6:03 P.M. EST

————————————————-
Slavery didn’t end in 1865, book explains
By Leonard Pitts
July 29, 2008

This is how John Davis became a slave:

He was walking one evening from the train depot in Goodwater, Ala., when a white man appeared in the road. “Nigger,” he demanded, “have you got any money?”

The white man, Robert Franklin, was a constable. He claimed Davis owed him. This was news to Davis.

“I don’t owe you anything,” he said.

But what Davis said did not matter. He was arrested that night and summarily convicted. A wealthy landowner, John Pace, paid the alleged $40 debt and a $35 fine in exchange for Davis’ mark—Davis was illiterate—on a contract binding him to work 10 months at any task Pace demanded. For all intents and purposes, the one man now owned the other. For all intents and purposes, John Davis was John Pace’s slave.

This was September 1901, 36 years after the end of the Civil War.

It would be appalling if it happened once. Douglas Blackmon says it happened hundreds of thousands of times in Alabama alone. Blackmon, Atlanta bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, is the author of a compelling new book, “Slavery by Another Name.” Yours truly flatters himself that he is well-versed in black history, but this book introduced me to a chapter of that history I did not know.

I didn’t know, for example, about the so-called convict leasing system of the South, wherein poor black men were routinely snatched up and tried on false, petty or non-existent charges by compliant courts, assessed some fine they could not afford, and then “sold” for the cost of that fine to some mine, turpentine farm or plantation. The money went back to the judges and sheriffs.

I did not know that when men served their time, they were sometimes subject to prompt rearrest on even flimsier charges, such as “stealing” the jail clothes they walked out in.

I did not know the system was so elaborate that businesses could put in orders with local sheriffs to arrest the number of men they needed.

I did not know about black men chained up in swamps and workhouses, held under armed guard, fed gruel, worked beyond human endurance, beaten beyond human decency, subjected to cruelties that made antebellum slavery seem merciful by comparison. After all, in the antebellum years, a slave represented an investment of up to $2,000, but in this new economy, slave labor was cheap, which made slave life cheaper still.

Blackmon says white men were openly buying and selling black men under this system until after World War II.

And is it too fanciful to draw a straight line from that perversion of the justice system to six black kids charged with attempted murder in Jena, La., for jumping on a white boy, or to dozens of black men and women lied into jail by a fake cop in Tulia, Texas, or to Marcus Dixon sentenced to 15 years for having sex with a white girl near Atlanta, or to studies documenting beyond refutation or debate the systemic racism of the nation’s cops and courts?

Small wonder, says Blackmon, “there is a fundamental culture of skepticism, cynicism, fear of the judicial system among African-Americans.”

As Blackmon sees it, the revelations here reset the clock on the old argument over how much progress blacks have or have not made since slavery “ended” in 1865. “It changes all the math of racial progress and racial achievement. Huge numbers of people who are alive today were born into a world where de facto slavery was still a part of American life.”

Which is an astonishing notion but then, “Slavery by Another Name” is an astonishing book. It will challenge and change your understanding of what we were as Americans—and of what we are.

I cannot recommend it to you highly enough.

Buy the book here

I did not want my first communication to you post the election to be about this kind of nonsense; but so be it. There was one thing that I warned about prior to our victory and not even 24 hours passed before what I predicted would happen, happened.

Just to remind you: I predicted that after Sen. Obama won the presidency that the racists would begin to not only fight affirmative action but basically call us whiners. Well they tried to defeat affirmative action here in Colorado, but thank God it didn’t pass. And we shall hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on that one. Because until there are no disparities between how laws are applied from group to group, and until the white guy with the GED and felony will not be considered for a job before the black guy with a 4-year degree and clean record (both of these are verifiable facts) then we will continue to need affirmative action. But leave it to the ReTHUGlican-run Wall Street Journal – one of its journalists writes: “Obama has special responsibility to get blacks to stop complaining about racism.” Oddly the link that I saved to this article is the same article but that line has magically vanished. Hmmmm. Well a Google search shows cross posts of pieces of the article but their links no longer work either. Perhaps WSJ realizes that this time is different. This time we will not take our eyes of the ball. I most humbly reminded the author on November 5th that he did not note that for an African American to become POTUS the conditions had to be in line:

1. The African American candidate had to be top in his graduating (Ivy League) class. (unlike Bush, McCain or Palin)

2. The African American candidate had to raise more money than any other campaign in history

3. The African American candidate had to run a near flawless campaign, or as McCain’s manager said, “the best run campaign in history”

4. The African American candidate had to mobilize the masses like no other in history

5. The African American candidate had to succeed the worst president in history

6. The current president had to be the one who would help cause the worst financial crisis in history

7. The current president had to be the one who allowed the worst domestic tragedy in modern history (Katrina)

8. The current president had to be the one who started the most incomprehensible, reprehensible, inane war in history

But we should stop complaining about racism. How about let the racists stop acting like racist. Hmmmm, what a concept?

So then we get to today and good ole CNN is taking their post as being “non-partisan”. (what a bunch of malarkey) Since one of my fellow Kossacks has already done the work I will just forward his transcript and link:
———————————————————
CNN Does A Hit Job On Obama
by Mash [Subscribe]
Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:00:15 PM PST
I just watched a hit job on Barack Obama on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360. In their “Keeping Them Honest” segment Tom Foreman looked at Obama’s press conference and said that Obama was pulling back on his campaign promises. This was news to me since I had listened to the entire press conference and did not notice this at all. So, I went to the transcript to make sure.

Mash’s diary :: ::

It turns out Foreman made use of some fancy editing to create facts for his news story.

Tonight, this is what Foreman claimed about Obama’s tax plan:

Foreman: Time and again out on the trail he said we need tax reform right now.

[Plays campaign video of Obama talking about giving the middle class a tax break.]

Foreman: And he said again today early in his press conference tax relief cannot wait. But when asked later on in that press conference, does that mean he will pursue tax reforms in 2009, he dodged the direct question and repeated again that he still wants to help the middle class.

[Video] Obama: But, obviously, over the next several weeks and months, we’re going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what’s taking place in the economy as a whole.

Foreman says Obama was asked about whether he would pursue tax reform in 2009, and he suggests Obama dodged his commitment to tax cuts for the middle class. But that is not what Obama was asked. This is the actual exchange:

Question: Mr. President-elect, do you still intend to seek income tax increases for upper-income Americans? And if so, should these Americans expect to pay higher taxes in 2009?

Obama: The — my tax plan represented a net tax cut. It provided for substantial middle-class tax cuts; 95 percent of working Americans would receive them.

It also provided for cuts in capital gains for small businesses, additional tax credits. All of it is designed for job growth.

My priority is going to be, how do we grow the economy? How do we create more jobs?

I think that the plan that we’ve put forward is the right one, but, obviously, over the next several weeks and months, we’re going to be continuing to take a look at the data and see what’s taking place in the economy as a whole.

But, understand, the goal of my plan is to provide tax relief to families that are struggling, but also to boost the capacity of the economy to grow from the bottom up.

He was asked whether he would initiate tax increases on upper-income Americans in 2009. In response he reiterated his commitment to tax cuts but did not say he would raise taxes on the wealthy in 2009. He wasn’t asked about “tax reforms” in 2009. Of his commitment to lower taxes for middle income Americans Obama was forceful in the press conference:

Finally, as we monitor and address these immediate economic challenges, we will be moving forward in laying out a set of policies that will grow our middle class and strengthen our economy in the long term. We cannot afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign, including clean energy, health care, education, and tax relief for middle-class families.

On Iran, Foreman claimed that Obama was backing away from his position of direct talks:

Foreman: During the campaign he strongly called for talks with Iran. His website, which is still up by the way, says “Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.” Asked today, however, if he will launch those talks as soon as he takes office he said this:

[Video] Obama: Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee- jerk fashion.

Again, Obama was not asked the question Foreman claims he was asked. Here is the actual exchange about the letter sent by Iran:

Question: Senator, for the first time since the Iranian revolution, the president of Iran sent a congratulations note to a new U.S. president. I’m wondering if, first of all, if you responded to President Ahmadinejad’s note of congratulations and, second of all, and more importantly, how soon do you plan on sending low-level envoys to countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, to see if a presidential-level talk would be productive?

Obama: I am aware that the letter was sent. Let me state — repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign.

Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. And we have to mount a international effort to prevent that from happening.

Iran’s support of terrorist organizations I think is something that has to cease.

I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately. It’s only been three days since the election. Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee- jerk fashion. I think we’ve got to think it through.

But I have to reiterate once again that we only have one president at a time. And I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals to the world as a whole that I am not the president and I won’t be until January 20th.

Obama was referring to Ahmadinejad’s letter when he said you should not respond in a “knee-jerk fashion”. Obama also reiterated that President Bush is still President and he did not want to send mixed signals before he is inaugurated. Foreman simply made up a question and answer that did not happen.

Foreman concludes with this bit of nonsense about what would be “unfair” and perhaps these “changes” are due to Obama now having a “deeper understanding of the issues”:

Forman: Now, no one should expect him to deliver on his pledges until he takes the oath. That would be completely unfair. And, maybe these slight changes reflect a deeper understanding of the issues from his briefings. Maybe the situation will really change by the time he takes the oath. But, keeping them honest we will keep watching to let you know if the promises he ran on survive intact until Inauguration Day.

Perhaps Tom Foreman needs a deeper understanding of journalism. Or perhaps he should actually read the transcript before he broadcasts disinformation over cable news.

CNN should be ashamed of themselves. “Keeping Them Honest”, my ass.

Anderson Cooper saw the press conference. He knows what was said. Why didn’t he dispute Forman’s assertions?

Look folks, we have only won the battle, not the war. Each of us that has been involved must stay involve. Keep the press honest. And let’s help our new President make his vision for America a reality. (go to: www.change.gov ) Oh, and by the way – we should also pay special attention to who we elect on a local level. The thought that Palin’s ignorant self is actually running a state is downright scary. Heck my teenaged son has a better understanding of the relationships between us and foreign powers and a much better understanding of what this so-called rescue package was all about. Of course he has something Palin does not – intellectual curiosity. She is not alone. I’ve seen far too many interviews with U.S. congressman and Senators that left me without any doubt of how this country has ended up in the predicament it is in. We’ve been asleep at the wheel, but we’re awake now. LET’S STAY AWAKE! Instead of depending on Anderson Cooper and the like, how about WE KEEP THEM HONEST!?!