Steve

http://news.yahoo.com/team-obama-skewers-romney-tax-fairness-220349951--abc-news-politics.html "Romney supports tax policies that reward people like him, and now he's trying to obscure just how much he would benefit, by hiding his own financial records," said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. "Our message to Mitt is simple: if you don't have anything to hide, release your taxes just like every other candidate for president does," he said. Romney has released his 2010 and 2011 income tax returns but fewer from previous years than any of his recent predecessors. The documents show he earned roughly $42 million over the two year period and paid $6 million in income taxes - or an effective tax rate of 14 percent. Got no problem with Mitt paying as less taxes as he can...as long as its done legally. I also view Obama's campaign person of playing politics. It will happen on both sides in this upcoming election. I just find it a bit hypocritical for millionaires in politics to claim the rich are paying too much when in pretty much every case we see multi-millionaires paying far less than any one else. I hope to be a mulit-millionaire one day (as unlikely as that is). Obama is now a mulitmilionaire and I'd be interested to see what he actually pays in taxes as well. My guess is he'll pay a high amount (if he's smart), knowing he can make a lot on the speech circuit, etc. after he leaves office plus he gets a lifetime salary so he won't have to really work again anyway.

Sad news about Mike Wallace. I'd sit there and cringe at how hard he went after some folks. Deservedly but still, it was tough journalism. As for the way time employment numbers are counted, they have been cooked for a long time. They need to be changed. The guy is right. My only question is the timing of it. It was all well and good for 6 years when it was Republicans using those same calculations. The timing of it is hypocrical and the bit about Republicans having to use the same number is exactly what he wants since it will be used to get Obama out. The Martin-Zimmerman case has opened up racial wounds and animosity again. This sign appeared in Michigan recently : http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11102214-racial-slur-on-mich-road-sign-targets-trayvon-martin?lite Some would argue it was always there under the surface and just needed an event to bring it back out. America and South Africa have such painful, bitter racial histories I fear it will take a century to get rid of, at least in America. There is hypocracy and insensitivity on both sides. Blacks don't seem to share nearly as much empathy or sympathy when Whites are targeted for racial animus. We cater to the fringe elements too much (the Rev Als). We are often over sensitive. That is subjective. There are things I don't think are a big deal that others have. I will say its changing. I see far more Blacks today saying what's the big deal over all manor of things. Younger blacks especially and I think its because we have a larger part of the Black population growing up in diverse communities, schools, etc. where they have friends from different races, unlike a generation ago. My nephews are a prime example. Their best friends were non black kids growing up. There are some things many whites are still a bit to callous about. Many have a 'get over it already' view of things and I can certainly understand that. However, I saw a pic once that kinda sums it all up to some blacks. There was a picture of the German concentration camps and under it, the caption read 'Never forget' and the next pic was of the towers burning in NYC at 911 and the caption said 'Never forget' and the last pic was of slaves being marched chains and the caption said 'Get over it'. It kinda sums it up the view by many Blacks. My view is that continued integration is the key. Moving more Blacks from poor to working and middle class and kids growing up going to the same schools and living together in the same areas is the key. There will be growing pains but continued interaction and open and frank exchange of views and mutual empathy is the only way. Going back to the Martin case. Politically its bad for Obama. Socially, while I empathize with the parents of the slain Martin and can understand their cry for Zimmerman's arrest. I don't think the rest of 'us' should be inflaming things. Wait to see how it plays out. Demand a fair, impartial and thorough investigation and then see what happens. America has made great strides. I think that Rev Al and others would have us believe things haven't for their own personal benefit. Zimmerman is being labled, probably falsely, as some junior member of the KKK. No evidence in his background to suggest that. I recall a black friend of his saying he's no racist. Too much overreaction and emotion on the Martin side. I also think some people are supporting Zimmerman's view of things, no matter how implausible, because of animosity towards the often one sided media coverage of any interracial violence which usually shows Black victims and minimizes or ignores whites who are accosted by Blacks simply because they are white. Also supporting Zimmerman out of distaste for the Rev Als out there supporting Martin.

He doesn't want to run for office. There was a rumor that its because of his wife. She fears for his safety and I've also heard she has taken medication for some sort of depression or other such malady. Nothing concrete that's the reason but I've heard it said.

Unless an incredible game changer happens between now and election day, Obama wins fairly easily. Not as easily maybe as before but easily enough. Game changers can happen. It was touch and go until the financial mess and that handed it to Obama 4 years ago. Even though McCain had very little to do with the mess he was guilty by association with Dubya. Obama leads in these swing states. Florida seems the only one that Romney could take. Shockingly Obama leads big in Michigan where Romney's dad was Governor and liked. The press won't say its all Obama's to lose now. But the RNC and the DMC know it. Furthermore, Obama has a war chest that will probably be the biggest in history so he can buy the airwaves in the swing states. Obama v. Romney - Ohio http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html Obama v. Romney - Florida http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html Obama v. Romney - Penna. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html Obama v. Romney - Michigan http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html Obama v. Romney - Wisconsin http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html Obama v. Romney - Virginia http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

Wow! How did you get the RNC monthly meetings on video?

Are you sure? I thought it became a word when '80s hair bands were popular and they wore tight tiger striped tights, eye liner and big hair sprayed hair in videos?

Interesting thing is how homosexuality is treated in the Bible. There is a lot of misinformation about it. First of all, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexuality. The Bible says for wickedness but I am sure homosexuality was amongst the reasons. The law of Moses spoke of being punished for homosexuality but also for a wide variety of things including just simple fornication. I don't recall where there was an extra emphasis stating homosexuality was any more sinfu than other things mention. Finally and I would say surprisingly, Jesus never mentions homosexuality specifically. All kinds of things he spoke of and against but gay isn't one of them. Its assumed but not addressed spedcifically. My guess is that with the social restrictions between sexes then as it is now in places like Afghanistan, that homosexuality was fairly prevlent. Just my guess. I've heard from teachers in Saudi Arabia say how their male uni students speak casually at times about having sex with a feminine male in their teen years because of the limited access to women. It was very common in Afghanistan during the taliban reign and even now to some extent. It seems the most restrictive the society the more prevalent you find that sort of thing.

The government has never told churches, temples nad mosques who they can and can't marry so I don't think there is an issue there. Its the same issue as interracial marriages. Many states didn't recognize interracial marriages between blacks and white even if another state honored it. I believe (and I could be wrong) that there is a federal law that no state can say they don't recognize an interracial marriage. Tehre are numerous reasons why you can be treated as a 2nd class citizen if a state does not honor the marriage. Wills and testaments and the rights of heirs is the most obvious one. Buying insurance and spousal insurance in a state to think of a second. Every adult has a right to have a public service at their city hall I believe. I don't think a city hall can tell an interracial couple they can't get married. They'd have to do the same for gay couples I imagne. If the feds recognize the union, and I'm not sure about this, the states are compelled to arent't they? The problem is if a gay person pays taxes in a state or municipality and that municipility will not perform a civil marriage for them. Its discriminatory. They are denying a service that they do for another tax paying person. At the root of it all, is a religoius issue if we're honest. That and a personal taste one. Lets (Americans that is) at least be honest about why its an issue.

You know, I don't mind laws that give us more freedom to be stupid (no seatbelt, helmut, etc.). Although I would draw the line at minors. Same with drugs. You should be able to do whatever you wish your body up to and including suicide. Can't see how cigarettes and alcohol are legal and pot isn't. Medically alcohol is far, far more dangerous to your body when abused. Logic flies out the window on that. Its laws that tell us we can't do something is what we have to consider very, very carefully. Republicans and conservatives storming the streets about being forced to pay for insurance for the health care plan but have no problem forcing a woman to keep a baby or denying another person their right to get married which is a private thing. I don't see how legally you can tell two or more people they can't get married for example. So forcing a woman to keep a baby is okay but you'll defend her right not to have to buy health insurance. Something strangely twisted about that line of thinking in my book.

What scares the sh*t out of me is that that the Republicans have learned nothing. Dems made an effor to to move to the center about 20 years ago. Despite what conservatives will tell you, Clinton and Obama are centrists. Clinton was part of the movement to take the party away from the far left. Goldwater was right. You can't compromise with fundmaentalists. So the GOP will be fundie for a while unless they kick the fundies out and they dare not do that. Obama is a few things but socialist he is not. Not even close. Not with all those Bush layovers and his keeping the status quo with Guantanamo, etc. Conservatives who claim he is are either so blinded by ideology to see anyone left of Pat Robertson as socialist or they know and just think if its repeated often enough that Obama is one we'll believe it (some truth in that method working if we study history).

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/04/1640215/arizona-attempts-to-make-trolling-illegal "Though unlikely to pass any First Amendment test. Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer has a bill on her desk that would in essence make 'trolling' illegal. The law states 'It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.'" So, this (amongst the myriad of other things Arizona and Wisconsin) is what life under Republicans will be like if they controlled all 3 branches? I'm moving farther left ideology then. As friggin' far away from this kind of crap as possible.

Scientologists and Moslems are against abortion and gay marriages as well. Fundies gonna vote for one?

http://news.yahoo.com/video/cincinnatiwlwt-18191085/student-sues-to-wear-jesus-is-not-a-homophobe-shirt-28823305.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fcincinnatiwlwt-18191085%252Fstudent-sues-to-wear-jesus-is-not-a-homophobe-shirt-28823305.html A gay student in Warren County is suing to be able to wear a T-shirt that says "Jesus is not a Homophobe" to school. Were I a HS principal I would have a very broad view of what one can't wear. I don't see the big deal in this. And if a parent called me to complain about such a shirt, I'd tell them I don't see the problem. My line would be swear words. The F bomb for example or racially charged words like the N bomb, and a host of other lables (kike, spic, gook, chink, fag, etc.). I'd have as much of it spelled out BEFOREHAND. The same would go for types of dress. Skirt and short lengths, how low a blouse could be, etc. I'd have some t shirts in my office in case I saw something offensive and tell them they had to change or wear their gym uniform or something. Suspension would come only AFTER meeting with the parents.

As I've said for a while. It doesn't matter one iota what the national polls say. It ONLY matters in the 10 swing states. Its mathematically possible to lose the plurality in terms of voters and still win the election. 40 of the states are already decided. Of the 10 swing states. Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the most important of that bunch. If either wins both Ohio and Florida its over. The press likes to play these games and they know full well its only about a handful of states and that's it. They like to keep the suspense to have us tuned it. I was calling the last election well before it happened and it was just a matter of how much not if. I was no great political strategist. Anyone who cared could determine the same thing. ALL that matters are the polls in those 5 states. The rest is conversation. If Romney loses a great majority of the swing states then possibly even winning Ohio and Florida may not help if he loses the other 8 states. Not sure of the math but it may be possible. Right now its Obama's to lose but his lead in the some of the swing states is not a commanding one. Its reversable. However, the econmic numbers are improving. People seem to be feeling that things are getting better. Romney doesn't inspire much. Many independents and centrists have to be saying to themselves 'why change?' My guess is they don't see a clear improvement with Romney so far. If that's the case people will stick with the devil they know. Another thing I find amazingly hypocritical and I've mentioned before is the religious right that will eventually back a Mormon, a religion they oppose and would probably label as anti Christian over someone who is a professed born again Christian. I'd like to hear how they would explain that when they've always said they'd vote for a Christian over a non Christian. Of course some will argue, like how Santorum hinted that they don't view Obama as a 'real' Christian. Easy for them to do that as they're blinded by ideology and hatred. What thoroughly hypocritical people. The black churches on the Dem side are no better. They've backed Jews over Christian opponents as well. Again, I'm not saying they should. I hate religion being part of the equation. I don't give a rats ass if someone is atheist or worships a head of cabbage. I'm a born again Christian but I also believe in the constitution and I believe we should be voting for the person best able to do a job and there are non Christians who can do a better job of governing and follow the constitution than Christians can. The bible even says as much but you'll never hear Christians say it. Can't remember the exact chapter and verse but the new testament talks of non believers who are honest and love their families and such as Christians do. That's plainly obvious anyway. The more I studied the Bible, the more I saw how much those that profess to be Christian do not follow it. The greatest commandment Jesus had was to love everyone. Don't see much love coming from many of the Christians I've met in my life as I traveled. Judgmental? Yes. Holier than thou? Yes. Loving? Very few and when most loved it was selectively. I was very fortunate to grow up with a mother who I saw as the true example of the faith. She loved everyone. Anyone I brought home, she (and my Dad) treated as well as I was and often better. Never a prejudicial word based on someone's color or religion ONLY on their behavior. Its why I have such a dim view of the Christians I see these days.

I don't see Biden running in '16. The field is wide open. Hillary has to be the favorite right now whether Obama wins or not. I think her supporters are bitter and they are disapppointed in Obama's performance which has exasperated them, thinking Hillary would have done much better (probably, I think. Domestically).

If I were Obama's campaign strategist, I'd love this. Creats sympathy for Obama. What is eery are the Hillary supporters helping him. Are they that damn bitter? They'd rather see a Republican than Obama? If they honestly think Obama does not meet the test, so be it. There wasn't enough proof for Billary to make an issue out of it. His being President already says who ever matters doesn't think there is enough to say he doesn't qualify or they believe he does. I would love to meet the Billary supporters who are still on this. Personally, it would crack me the hell up if it actually turns out he was not born in America.

You know what? I think Romney is a moderate with regards to religion. Which is saying a lot for a Mormon. Those folks are pretty devout. I like the reasons why he is not liked by the fringe of the party. They don't like that he doesn't let religion into politics. You can't govern Massachusetts as a fringe right. Bostonians don't play that. This is Kennedy country. Its why Santorum is doing so well. He appeals to the religious zealots in the party. That said, I don't see much else in Romney. There is nothing else there. No ideas. Its the same old mantra. Cut taxes for the rich. Drill oil everywhere. He doesn't offer me anything.

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/ford-posts-best-march-sales-5-years-ford-160740190.html Ford Posts Best March Sales in 5 Years: Here’s How Ford Averted Bankruptcy in 2008Ford's biggest savior in 2008 was Alan Mulally who left Boeing in 2006 to become the CEO of the number two U.S. automaker. What did he have that others didn't? "He had an outsider's perspective," says Hoffman. "He was able to come in and really assess what was wrong with Ford because a lot of the people who had grown up in the company's culture weren't able to take a real objective look at it." Mulally also had a "real strong leadership approach" and was able to "cut through a lot of the board room politics. The company's corporate culture "had held Ford back for so long," says Hoffman. They did not cut back on product development during the crisis," says Hoffman. "That was key to Mulally's strategy." But Mulally didn't keep Ford from the brink all on his own. "They had some real financial talent on their board," says Hoffman. In particular, he cites Carl Reichert, former head of Wells Fargo, who saw an industry crisis coming in 2006 and advised Mulally to take out a $26 billion line of credit. As a result "[Ford] had a cushion that GM and Chrysler did not have," says Hoffman Hoffman also uncovered a number of other surprising things about Ford that was never before reported, including: • Ford's secret alliance with competitors Toyota and Honda (HMC) "They worked with their arch rivals, their bitter enemies to kind of help each other keep the suppliers that were critical to all of their operations in business," says Hoffman. • Ford's secret negotiations with the UAW that led to "game-changing" labor contracts in 2007 and 2009. • The board's push to sell the company or file for bankruptcy as well as their desire to have Bill Ford step aside in 2006.

You know what my biggest fears are about Obama? That he keeps doing the same things that he's been doing in some cases. These are things backed by Republicans: foreign wars. piece by piece destruction of our civil liberties. Maintaining the power of the HSA. Increasing the power of the executive branch. Giving big money the final say in Washington. These are all things the top 3 Republican candidates would do and worse yet, they would legalize religious views as a bonus. Because no matter how you slice that pie, anti gay marriage, anti abortion and the like is a religious issue. Their basis has NOTHING to do with the constitution and EVERYTHING to do with religion.

I had to chuckle. Romney is worse than Obama. He's the worse of Obama with none of the benefits from a party that is controlled by the Christian equivalent of fundamental moslems. Not even a choice. Clearly Obama. Santorum staying as viable as he is tells us everything we need to know. He speaks of Tyranny? So, we re-elect the party that gave us the Patriots Act, Homeland Security, etc? LOL....I'd laugh if I didn't want to cry. Crying would be more appropriate. Ron Paul should have run as a Democrat. They'd at least listen to him. And I guarantee you in 2016 he'd do better as a Democrat than he would as a Republican. I recall the demonization of Clinton in the '90s. A boon decade for America and when they couldn't fault him economically, they went after him personally. The argument being, yeah, I know the country is doing great but the guy leading it isn't moral. SO we got a 'moral' guy in '00 and the complete opposite happened economically. I used to vote Republican on occasion. Kicking myself for doing so now. The old mantra of 'the other guy is the anti christ' but no mention of how your guy is better is far from old. Fact is Romney, Santorum and Ginggrich suck ass. They make Obama look like a Mt. Rushmore candidate and that's pretty hard to do but they found a way. The republican masses are brainwashed far, far more than the Dems are. The Democratic machine was 100% for Hillary. The people heard a different voice and it made sense to them. Like or hate him, I admire the Dem masses for going with whom they felt was best even if they weren't sure he'd even win. The Republicans on the other hand go with who they think will win. I will admit though that Santorum is who many want knowing he won't have a chance and so I must acknowledge that even if its someone who will further divide us. Obama is beatable. He's beatable with reason, logic, passion and ideas. The three stooges don't offer us that. Paul and Gary Johnson do and they are rejected. One of my other reasons for an Obama win is that I don't want to see religious extremism, division politics, classying American citizens as more 'American' than others and big money cronyism rewarded. If you're born in America or naturalized you're a real American. Any other definition is bullsh*t.

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/landlord-beats-abortion-protesters-own-game-voice-choice-185200305.html?fb_source=hovercard&code=AQDduLU3iFI8c_NnZiyq-CRURVcCrNiuz3OZ0uQXEXzDcmU65F6pVd0hmHRt4Kni1wR5g7Tg5NY_8-Dn-ty9AKaplNQZpXGaSuT6F0qcuu1xVyl6XDO6_3UfdDNR1sZFGWafGreTmy8aSp3-1iBm45vb4CO1hasu0pw8OoRLRcyc-T--3v_S49ESqWtDVz_zbRI#_=_ Voice of Choice: Landlord Counters Harassment from Abortion Protesters by Turning the Tables on Them understands why protesters target the clinic he leases to a late-term abortion provider in Germantown, Maryland. He owns the building, not the business inside it, but still: Even though the protesters' signs are graphic and disturbing, and even though he does not agree with the point they're trying to make, he acknowledges that they should be able to protest his tenant's work. [Related: Georgia lawmaker counters abortion bill with one restricting vasectomies] "Totally appropriate. It's their right," he told Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak. "They are protected by the First Amendment. And outside the clinic is probably the most appropriate place for them to express their views." But when the protesters showed up at his daughter's middle school in Rockville, Maryland, last September, they took things too far. One large banner featured his photo, his name, his phone number, and the words "Please STOP the Child Killing" -- even though he's the clinic's landlord, not the doctor. The posters didn't name his children but, since they share his last name, it's an easy connection to make. (Since the protesters did not set foot on school property -- though their graphic signs and photos of mangled fetuses were visible to students -- the presence was not against the law.) "It's horribly outrageous that they're going out in front of a middle school," he told The Washington Post at the time. "It is way crossing the line. I very much respect the right of the protesters to do so in front of the clinic, or the steps of Capitol Hill, or the courthouse. But in front of a middle school is really not an appropriate place to do anything except protest for better teacher wages or the school budget." Harassing children in the name of protecting the unborn? Apparently, anti-abortion group Defend Life is fine with that. Jack Ames, the director of the Baltimore-based group that organized that protest, told the Washington Post that he thought the middle school was "a very good public venue" and complained that picketing the clinic Stave owns is difficult because it's located inside a private office park. Soon after that, Stave started receiving dozens of harassing phone calls at home, day and night. Rather than bowing to the bullies, who demanded that he terminate Dr. LeRoy Carhart's lease, he wrote down the names and numbers of the people calling him -- and then he and about 20 friends started calling them back. Politely. "In a very calm, very respectful voice, they said that the Stave family thanks you for your prayers," he told The Washington Post. "They cannot terminate the lease, and they do not want to. They support women's rights." Stave's supporters did their research: During these calls, they would politely ask how the anti-abortion protester's children were doing and mention their names and the names of their schools if they could find that information easily. "And then," Stave explained, "we'd tell them that we bless their home" and mention the protester's address. At first, only a handful of friends were making the calls on Stave's behalf. But more and more people offered to help. Soon, more than 5,000 volunteers were returning the harassing calls with polite words of thanks, and Stave founded Voice of Choice so they could help do the same for others. "We use email, telephone, and social media in peaceful, person-to-person counter-protests against groups that target abortion facilities, providers, and patients, as well as their families and communities," the group's website explains. "We don't question anyone's right to express opinions and ideals; we challenge their bullying tactics and their contempt."

There are tons of hispanics that physically are no different than your average white person. I grew up with some Cubans and they run the gamut from very black to european white, even blonde blue eyes although its rare. However, I've seen tons of white latinos. Oscar De La Renta is Domincan for example. As far as Zimmerman's being accosted, it still doesn't exonerate him. We don't know what he said to Martin. Some guy asking you what you're doing in your own Dad's girlfriends housing complex. If I was in a bad mood I may tell him its none of his GD business. If such a guy came towards me (assuming he was smaller than me..haha), I'd tell him get the bleep out of my face. Or if the guy was pestering me. I'm a lover not fighter...but I've been in more fights than I have been in love.

The media has been tweaking news to varying degrees for decades. Its so sad because we look to the 4th estate for an objective view. I recall one of the major news magazines (either Time or Newsweek), darkening a photo of OJ Simpson to make him look more threatening. The Spanish-American war was started by newspapers. 'Yellow Journalism' I think it was called. Be that as it may, and while still awaiting all the facts. What I find the most difficult for Zimmerman to explain away is the fact that he ignored the 911's operator suggestion and went after Martin. Even if Martin fought him and hurt him it was Zimmerman who created the situation in the first place. Even if he was defending himself he was defending himself in a situation that he created. I don't know the specifics of the law to defend yourself but I would be interested to know if the law is applicable if you confront someone on your own. I would assume its when defending yourself in a situation if someone confronted you or if you were aiding someone else. I would even see the law applicable if you were asking someone for directions or something like that and they took the opportunity to rob you. The little I see so far 'smells' like involuntary manslaughter at the very least. He would not have to discharge his gun and Martin would have still been alive had he not confronted him for reasons outside the scope of routine human interaction. Were I a juror I would be inclined to that charge even if Martin acted angrilly, physically to being questioned as to his being in that neighborhood and what he was doing there. If he asked Martin for directions and Martin reacted physically I'd find Zimmerman innocent for example. It seems to me the only thing we have to determine is if Martin 'overreacted' to Zimmerman's questioning. If he did, involuntary manslaughter. 'Overreacted' is subjective.

Jesse and Rev Al invite themselves a lot of the time. The Martin case had a life of its own and certainly didn't need either. My guess is intermediaries at the behest of Jackson and Sharpton got them close to the family. As I said in another post they prey on distraught families. They peddle their 'expertise' to 'manage the media'. Also, you're a distraught Martin family, you're not going to alienate them or tell them not to be involved. Also, at these marches, its the issue people are marching about. They'd be there with our without Jackson or Sharpton. In times of what is deemed an event that affects all Blacks, we tend to come together as well. For instance, the Million Man March. It was never about Farrakhan. It was about the need for Black men to step up. I seriously considered going and it was Farrakhan being at the forefront that made me wary of attending. It was a noble idea. The people showed up for the reason not the person. I didn't go and at the time kinda regretted but I am not a fan of Farrakhan, not even close and his involvement made me reconsider. I don't preclude to speak for the 40 some odd million Blacks in the U.S. but one thing I know is that both of them are not highy regarded, especially Sharpton. Most blacks won't admit to someone white because many of us take a certain pleasure in any Black person who scares White folks. I try and be honest, brutally so because I want to encourage it from the other person and I don't think we can solve or understand each other on any myriad of issues until we are. Jesse or Rev Al are called at times but its almost always for something that the people affected feel is not getting enough media and political attention. My sister (who is fundamental right politically) had a friend in Orange County, California who felt she was the victim of some racist act. I can't recall the specifics but she felt no one was listening and called Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and was told by his office that for him to get involved it would cost 'this much'. It wasn't about the issue or the validity of it or the importance of it. As much as I don't like him if something happnened to me and I was say held in jail because despite facts to the contrary and I believed it was based on my race and no one was listening, I'd call both of them in a heartbeat out of desperation. The fringe voices get the attention. Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh on the right. You'd be surprised at the views of today's Blacks HH. I know this one Facebook page that is all college educated Blacks and you'd be (pleasantly) surprised at the number of people who support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and who are not happy with Obama. Also, the number of 'wait a minute, lets hear both sides' posts about racially charged news items. Also, the number of posts speaking about the opportunism of Sharpton and others. Just like in a lot of groups, the educated read non traditional news, etc. Ask a poor, trailer white guy in Mississipi and a black guy in a housing project something and its two sides of the same misinformed coin. Funny thing is both would often think Obama is a moslem and like or hate the guy for the same misinformed reason. There are instances when a community unites on an issue. Gays, Blacks, Jews, Gun Owners, Christians, etc. They may fight and bicker but will unite on an issue and the mass media who usually ignore such groups assume they are always united when in fact they aren't and this is the exception to the rule. There is a whole generation of blacks that grew up in suburban America with very few Blacks and whose friends are mostly white. Tons of them, my nephews amongst them. The Black middle class exploded in the '80s and '90s and those kids are the ones that no one has considered. I think in a generation you'll see a number of Blacks that will emulate the Irish a century ago. Part of the mainstream socio-economically. The visible ones now are the Children of Obama, Will Smith, the former CEOs of Merrill Lynch, Time Warner, etc. these kids have mostly non Black friends, will go to the top schools, will have more in common with the Kennedy kids than the kids in Harlem. 90% of the Blacks on my San Fernando born and raised nephews are family members. If you told them anything that suggests they can't do something because they're black they'd think you're nuts and would see you as the same as telling some italian or irish kid the same. Thoroughly self confident and sees the importance of race in the grand equation of life the same as being left or right handed. I wonder at them and there are now millions of those kids.

I've had discussions with fellow blacks about the law of unintentional consequences with regards to hate crime. I think if it can be reasonably determined that a person targeted a group specifically because of personal malice then the judge or jury should be able to increase the penalty up to and including the death penalty if its murder. Maybe that's already done. I don't know. However, if you commit any kind of physical crime against anyone outside your own ethnic/religious/ group it can be a hate crime. Black on black crime is high but there is a fair amount of black on white crime. (not so much much the other way around). And just like how black pols wanted the penalties for crack to be increased dramatically in the '80s thinking it would punish the higher ups who brought coke into the country, the result was that the blacks who did the street sales spent the most time in jail. The same could be of hate crime. There was a case in LA where a couple black guys were targting bar hopppers in West Hollywood. They were going to be charged with a hate crime because it was a gay area. The kids said they did't care if they were gay or not the area had a lot of drunk, seemingly well off people and thats why they were targeted. There is a special prosecutor and its going to be handled with the utmost of care. I still don't agree with an arrest. As far as Rev Al and Jesse, as I said, its the media that gives them their power. Jesse was viewed with a chuckle years ago as a guy that scared white folks. But as I said, he was an is largely viewe as an opportunist and is tolerated in cases of interest because he gets results or media attention but he isn't seen as any sort of leader. Obama has clearly minimalized his role. Rev Al has always been viewed as a buffooon who only appealed to the fringe. No one of note claims him if you notice. If you're desperate you call Al.