Today the New York Times wrote an article about Michael Brown. In the article they said Brown was “no angel”. Show me an angel among us. They chronicled his aspirations to be a rapper and even his consumption of alcohol and drugs. No it does not sound like the life of an angel but it does sound like the life of a teen. No not all teens do the things Brown did but when he was shot by the police did they know then that he was no angel? We’re not called to be angels. We are citizens of the United States, and some of us try to be model citizens but even that does not ensure your safety. The media is looking for a reason to explain what many people believe is unreasonable, but the he is no angel defense is simply not going to cut it.
Tag Archives: NY times
Republicans often say that black Democrats are tied to the “Democrat plantation”. it is interesting that these same GOP surrogates are often crying about being called names by the left, but they find nothing wrong with this kind of characterization. Plantation politics is an important page in the GOP political playbook, and often the black conservatives are ever so willing to articulate this philosopy. Charles Blow of the New York Times wrote an excellent piece today on plantation politics read it and share your thoughts.
President Obama was descibed as “exotic” during the campaign by conservative commentator Pat Buchanan. The use of the word was meant to define him as different from real Americans, but he does have an interesting background. He is the son of a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya. He is a true African American, but does he really understand the black American experience? Does he understand discrimination? Does he understand how black Americans survived the Jim Crow south? Does he understand the “slave thing”? I just have to wonder. Was he elected in part because he did not carry the baggage of slavery into the White House. Who does the president listen to? If he had a problem with Russia would he consult experts on Russia? If he had a problem with China would he consult experts on China? If he has a problem on race specifically black people who does he consult? Who knows. Axelrod or Gibbs? Why has this White House been so skiddish on the issue? Muareen Dowd wrote an excellent piece on this issue: You’ll Never Believe What this White House is Missing: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2010%2F07%2F25%2Fopinion%2F25dowd.html&h=d7caf
This was a difficult week for the White House and some are asking did the Sherrod case provide a teachable moment? Yes, but one can only be taught if one knows something is lacking, and at this point what seems to be lacking is a diverse perspective.
By now everyone on earth has heard the Susan Boyle story. She is the 47 year old single unemployed woman with the voice of an angel. We met her at her audition for the British show You’ve Got Talent”. We she told her story the audience hooted and the judges rolled their eyes, but when she sang everyone was transfixed. Her video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk
has received over 20 million hits. Her voice is incredible but every time her story is told they somehow feel the need to use words like homely, plain or frump to describe her. It’s as if it impossible to imagine a plain woman with such a gift. Her looks have been the topic of everything from the network news to The View, but what does this say about us? Is America so shallow that only the beautiful should be expected to have talent? Judging from what is heard this week the answer is yes. How many beautiful singers with marginal voices can you name? I’m sure a number of names come to mind. They have the package, but not the pipes and that does not even matter. I applaud Ms. Boyle who put her dreams on hold to take care of her aged mother, but she never stopped singing or dreaming and today she is caught up in an incredible, unbelievable dream that has come true for plain ole Susan.
After almost a week of protest the NY Post finally delivered a real apology. No I’m sorry if you were offended, but if you were that’s your problem. This time they released a full-throated apology that came from the top. Rupert Murdoch said “the buck stops with me.” He went on to say that he is “ultimately responsible.” He did not take the opportunity to take a swipe at the protest leaders like the semi-apology that was released last week. Do I really believe that the Post actually understands the furor this cartoon created? No. What I believe is that the post was on the receiving end of a lot of negative press and Murdoch acted as a businessman today and told the people what he thinks they want to hear. So they finally said they are sorry and it is time to move on, but what will really change? The same editors that approved the cartoon are still on staff. What is going to make them more sensitive to their reading public? Sadly, there was no one in the room when that cartoon was being released to say “hey wait a minute we might need to re-think this on”, and if that void still exist don’t put your protests signs in the attic you might need them real soon.
The old saying goes “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” During the campaign Obama ran a tight ship devoid of drama. His team was effective and efficient, but his transition is seemingly beset with leaks. The Hillary Clinton drama is now in Day 8. All the attention is on her. She has successfully wrestled the decision making from President-elect Obama. The spotlight is squarely on her and that is just how she likes it. If this is how she acts when just considering an offer what kind of control will Obama have over her if she accepts? So what does Team Obama do now? They wait because she has cornered them. Team Obama fought against Clinton for months so we can only say shame on them. As Maya Angelou said “when people show who they are believe them.”
The New York Times published an op-ed by Barack Obama last week. In the op-ed Obama laid out his war strategy, but he was also critical of John McCain. Today, we learn that New York Times has rejected an op-ed from John McCain. New Times editor David Shipley said ‘The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.’ Shipley continues: ‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.’ This all sounds very reasonable, but what it has produced is fodder for the right. The media has already been accused of being in the tank for Obama so when situations like this surface it seems to add credence to their cries of preferential treatment for the Democrat. An editor has a right to accept or reject an article, but I think in the interest of fairness the McCain op-ed should have been printed.