pride101's Blog

We hear so many analysts comment on what caused last year's murder rate.  There are many reasons they have given for this problem, from easy to get guns to poverty.  I would like to interject a different opinion.

I have observed the slow decompostition of rap music since 1997.  Tupac Shakur was killed in '96, and Biggie Smalls was killed in '97.  You saw after that the vast majority of rap music's content based on guns and violence.  It has always been a part of rap music, but the key difference was the use of a metaphor for violence in the previous years, instead of  the promotion of it in the music from 10 yearsago to today.  This has been 10 stong years of rap music being overrun by this main theme.  There was a time when you could hear storytelling, fun comedic based, dance themed, jazz music infused, political,  not to mention street hard core based.  There was a variety of different styles that you could listen to back in those years, unlike the years after where the majority of rap was based on, drugs, crime, and gun play.  It was as if you went into gap, and they only sold sweats in one color, black.  No variety what so ever. 

The rap industry would have you think that this message is coming from the experiences of the "artists" from the street.  They do not mention that most of these rappers that are aired on major stations are making millions of dollars.  They do not have to live in the communities where those who imitate the lifestyles they display in video, and on CD, live.  The "chicken or the egg", discussion is always used.  The rappers speak about how they are just taking the life experiences, and dramas that people go through in the "hood", and putting it on a record.   Russell Simmons, (sometimes called the godfather of Hip Hop), even described them as "poets", saying that many people in previous times did not agree with the  poets of their day, and that they would illustrate what life was like in the real world.  Using this analogy, then rap should be full of hard working stories about people who work every day, the struggles of raising kids, and holding 2 jobs.  This is the "real" story of the poorer neighborhoods, no matter what color or creed.  There is a small minority who carry guns, use drugs, spend money irresponsibly, disrespect women, have such distain for having a marriage and family, etc. 

Just like the Islamic faith, Christian faith, and other examples, rap music's voice has been pirated by extremists.  Islam is a faith based on family, dedication to the poor, and self responsibility.  Now the story of Islam, to many, is about terrorism. This is due to those who have taken hostage of what it means to be Muslim, by declaring they are the true example of the faith.    The Christian faith is based on forgiveness, and non judgement.  Now the faith's story is about conservatism, berating those who disagree with their views, and almost vicious anger.    This is the problem with rap, whose story is increasingly about  how many people you can kill, money you can make, drugs you can sell, women you can disrespect, etc.

This has been the status quo for a good solid 10 years.  The constant drilling into the mindset of those impressionable listeners, the story that being a man is about using a gun, commiting violence, selling drugs into your neighborhood, sleeping with as many women as possible with no commitment.  Think of the affect this has on the listening demograhic.  Those kids from 5 years old to 15 years old, were raised on these sexually charged, violence based  lyrics in the last 10 years.  Is it no question that those who commit  the most gun shootings are aged 15 - 25?  Is this a coincidence?

It is a scientific fact that a child's mind is extremely impressionable.  If you tell a child, or even a person, they are stupid and will amount to nothing over and over again, it will become a self fullfilling prophecy.  If a child witnesses a family who all go to college, work at jobs, respect others everyday, and hear this in daily conversations, then there is a great possibility that this is who they will be.  The kids today in poorer neighborhood, watch parents work everyday, to only just maintain, and not progress.  Those in middle class neighborhoods, watch the same thing, but at a higher level.  They may see family go to college, work at a fairly good job, or maybe find it difficult to find a job, work hard everyday at jobs sometimes they do not like, but make ok money.   Kids are far more advanced than we were at the same age, and these kids see rappers on videos, who have had histories of selling drugs, going to jail, and they do the math.  They can go to college for 4 years and make $50,000 a year, live a ok life, sometimes at a job they do not like.  They can also sell drugs, make a "ton" of money, maybe go to jail for 2 - 4 years, write some rap lyrics, cut a record from some of the money they stashed away, and get a $500,000 or even 7 figure contract with a record company.   To them it is a "no brainer".  Work hard, just to struggle in life or live the seemingly carefree lifestyle of the rapper with women, money, cars, etc., with the same investment of time.

The lifestyle that you see on videos is actually true.  There are people who sell drugs, hang in the clubs, have sex with many women, carry guns, and willing to use them to show proof of their manhood.  They get into the music business, and treat it like the drug business.  They put out samples of their product, which causes stimulation, (the drugs, sex, toughness or violence), then they get them hooked, and they continue to ask for the same thing even if it is destroying their lives and neighborhood.  The rappers will argue that no one attacks the movie industry, and bring up movies like the Godfather.   They do not look at the fact that although there was violence in this movie, it had more to do with the interaction of a family.  It displayed how the culture was, and the respect they had for tradition and family.   The violence was in context.  In many of the rap music, they are bragging about if the rap "game" does not work out that they could go back to selling drugs in the neighborhood.  Of how many "bodies", they have in the past, before becoming a rapper, how many people from their same race they can kill.  How tough they are, because of the amount of people in their "crew", and how they would attack you if you "diss" them.  There was a time when being a man was standing up for women, the ability to defend yourself one on one, etc.   Now to be a coward, and having to use a gun, or "jump" people with an overwelming force is being tough to them. 

Those in power are trying to fight against a mentality that has invaded like cancer, in so many neighborhoods.  The kids think that having a gun is being a man.  It is to the point of being brainwashing.  You can lock everyone up, but the core thing is to destroy this mentality.   There was a time when you proved manhood by fighting your own battles, now the mindset is that a gun with prove it for you.  The women are prey instead of something to protect.  Only when people have the courage to address this will things change.  It is hilarious how those record stations will have "stop the violence", or "put down the guns" events, and then play the next "hit" on their station that has the "artist" rapping about the many people he has killed, and drugs he has sold.  They have no credibility.  Watch how the kids are repeating the phrases they hear on CDs, in playgrounds, in the school yard.  Many of which are extremely violent.  Unless something is done to give these kids a choice they will repeat the same mistakes of this generation that were raised on these unrealistic ideas of manhood.

I am sure I will get those who have excuses for rap.  Who will attack me as someone that does not understand, or has no experience about the life someone lives in the getto.  For full disclosure, I grew up in what is called now "The Badlands" in North Philadelphia, so I am fully aware of the community.  I did not grow up with wealth.  I remember being sent to the corner store to pay off the credit book. (which was a composition book kept by the merchant who dealt out credit to those who had "slow" times".   So I understand poverty.  We none the less kept our community clean, sweeping the side walk ,and streets.  Block captains who organized the community to plant trees on the block.  Protect from crime, etc.  The poor of today have cell phones, Playstations, and, cable television.  We were not able to mimic the better off by having what they had in their homes.  We were lucky to have a television in the living room, and/or stereo.  There were drugs, and gangs. Zulu Nation, 11th and Indiana, and so on.  I remember gang wars where all the participants would stop fighting if they saw a woman or child coming down the street, and then continue when we passed.  They fought with hands or maybe a club, bat or two.  To pick up a gun was considered cowardly.  Some had hand held zip guns, that shot 22 shells that might as well had been BB's.   Concerning the music, I was there during the creation and cementing of Hip Hop and rap. We were the generation that created and sustained it.   From Kurtis Blow, and African Bombaata - to Rakim - LL - KRS One - Dougie Fresh - Public Enemy - Special Ed - Audio Two - MC Lyte - Cool G Rap - Kool Mo Dee, and on and on.  This was the music we listened to, along with Phil Collins, Elton John.  The excuses of poverty being a catalyst is destroyed by our example.  We suffered far more racism, to the point of not being waited on in stores in Kensington, when we went to Magnet schools there.  There were tough lyrics from people like Schooly D, alongside with Will Smith.  We had a variety.  So if we felt like being tough we could, if we felt like having fun we could also, and most times on the following record played on a radio station.  We hear the argument about how the government has a part in the violence.  Well, there were many times that better jobs were not available to many of us in some neighborhoods.  There was heroin available in the community also.  Again the majority of people those days, (just like these days), worked hard.  Now the criminal element has infiltrated rap, and placed it's values, dress, and behavior as the preferable example.  We had our style of dress, but always had "church" clothes, or dress clothes which we used for special occasions, job interviews, etc.   Now the "kids", do not know how to wear a suit of even have one available.  They wear oversize clothing, that does not fit welll or "present" well at job interviews.  This makes them unemployable, causing them to gravitate toward the "hustle game", and preying on the community.  There is no outside cause for this, it is an internal problem in the community.     

When people start looking at this aspect of behavior, instead of excuses for the behavior, then we may get an handle on the increasing violence. 

I have listened to many whites describing Rev. Jerimiah Wright as a racist.  It is so unfortunate that most whites do not understand what makes black people "tick".  It seems that many whites have the opinion that blacks all think alike.  Their view of blacks is that they are either lazy, criminals, or irresponsible.  The media perputrates this by their sensationalism based news coverage.  Let me try to enlighten those who do not have close black friends exactly what is going on in the average black person's mind.

Concerning Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton:

Most blacks do not believe that either of them represent their views.  Whenever there is a racial incident, either one of them is either called by the media for comment, or someone involved in the situation asks them to intervene.  Most of us do not need or want a leader.  What we want is an equal footing in life, and a real opportunity to prove ourselves without being judged by what others of our race do. Most blacks think that Al and Jessie are beneficial at highlighting a situation that would be ignored by the media, but have some issues with their methods at times.  They are considered a necessary evil, because the media, and officials will ignore situations if a "regular" American comes forth, but if either of them get involved the cameras show up.  What many whites do not know is that most blacks have to go through racial issues, in stores, at work, on the street, on almost a daily basis.  Most of these incidents are not reported.  "We" mainly ignore them.  There are no lawsuits, and calls to the government, because most of us want to keep our jobs, so we can't risk "causing trouble". Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton represent to many of us the old angry black man who was demeaned so many times it has made them angry, (and can I also say bitter) - Many of us think that they are trying to maintain a job and some power by participating in as many causes as they can - Jessie using his association with King as his leverage tool - if he was so loved in the community then he would have had much more votes in the Presidentail election.

Concerning work ethic:

Many whites believe that blacks are welfare cheats, and thiefs.  The truth is alarmingly apparent if you get up a 5 am in the morning, and ride a subway train, el train, or bus.  They are full of people leaving out very early to go to work, or maybe even a second job.  Between 5 am and 7 am there are thousands of working people from black and white neighborhoods taking public transit to work.  This is the overwelming majority of blacks in those neighborhoods.  They are hard working, and dedicated to building a better life, but the income they recieve does not sustain them, even with 2 jobs they just stay even not getting ahead.  There are more whites on welfare than blacks, (check the statistics), but there is a higher percentage of blacks by race in the system.  Most blacks do not want a hand out, they just want an opportunity to show what they can do, without any preconceived notions of their abilitites or integrity.

Concerning political views:

Most blacks are much more conservative than many whites think.  They are very strong on law and order.  (Blacks are more likely to be victims of crime in their neighborhoods.)They are extremely patriotic. Due to money issues they, as a percentage, choice the military to improve their lives, (go to college), and support their country.  They have no issue with giving their life for it. The reason that blacks do not vote, for the most part, for Republicans, is that we perceive this party to have a racist base.  The conservative, in our history, was always against giving the constitutional rights to blacks.  This is not just republicans, it was southern democrats.  They left the democratic party after Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights bill.  So our recent history is experiencing racist attitudes by many republican polititians.  Affiliations with the Council of Conservative Citizens, and groups like that .  Bob Jones Universtity, which had policies against people of different colors dating, and many more.  There was Strome Thurmond who was praised by many high ranking figures of the Republican parties.  The same with Jessie Helms. On the democratic side there was Robert Byrd also.  The issue blacks have with the Republicans is that they do not state publicly that they will not tolerate racists in their  party.  Many racists consider themselves patriotic Americans, and think it is a duty to vote, so who do you think they vote for?  The Republican Party for the most part.   Many whites say it is not racist that they will not vote for Obama, it is his policies.  When Barrack made statements about small town whites being exploited by polititians to concentrate on other's that are not caucasian as part of the cause for job loss, or economic worries, he was called elitist.  If you are black in Pennsylvania, there are areas "we" all know that are not welcome to us.  Most of these are in these small towns in PA, western, and northeastern.  When a black person says to another that they are gointg to an event, or even shopping in one of these areas, they get the same comments.  Watch yourself, you know that is klan country.  If you know a black person personally ask them honestly, and they will tell you this.  Rendell said that there are whites in PA that will never vote for a black person, and he is absolutely correct about this.  Lynn Swann had some of the same policy views as John McCain, when he ran as the Republican representative for Governer of PA, but he received  really low white support.  The Republican party, if they made a decision to exclude racists, would have an influx of blacks that have conservative monetary views, law and order opinions, and social issues with abortions, and gay marriage.  They will feel that the Republicans are honest about wanting them to participate in the party,  instead of just wanting their vote to get their candidates into office.

Concerning Religion:

Most blacks have a base in the church.  They rely on religion to help them get through the many issues in life in America.  Even the rappers who have degrading lyrics, when they are at a award event always thank god, or state that whatever they have recieved is from the grace of Jesus.  Blacks do not complain about the government, for the most part, deminishing the role of religion in life.  They are dedicated to their religion regardless, and do not let establishments tell them how they will worship, or discuss it.  You have people like Oprah, who is a great believer in God, and a dedicated christian.  She does not flaunt it, but is free to wish prayer for others, to say that something that happened is a "act of god", or "had god all over it".  Many blacks are against abortion, and have some issues with homosexuality.  The only difference is that they personally have issues with it, but do not believe it lesiglating polices to force those who are supportive of these rights to not have them, due to their history of having their rights ignored.  The issue that blacks have is their religious dedication is not presented in the media.  The conservative christian is what is shown on the airwaves when someone talks about "family values", and it is mostly a white picture.  This makes the black christian feel thier beliefs are viewed as insignificant when they as a whole are equally church going as whites and sometimes more so. 

Treatment by the media:

Blacks feel that the media does not respect them with the type of exposure they have in the news - there are hundreds, maybe thousands of blacks and other minority missing children, but the only children you will see a concentration on are those little girls that are blond haired and blue eyed, wealthy etc.  Those working class whites, and blacks do not have hours and hours of exposure about a missing child. You go in Walmart and see the wall which displays missing children, most of which are minority, or poor (white or black) -  There are always stories about the crimes that happen by blacks, but very little about good things happening in the community.  If you have a story  about something which has benefit to the neighborhood in poorer communities it is very hard to get it aired TV.  I have witnessed this personally.

Concerning ownership by blacks about thier issues:

Most blacks have issues with the negative stereotypes that some blacks display - this is the basis for the Chris Rock skit "I love black people but I hate N*****S - this is how blacks feel - they love being black but hate those who are irresponsible and embarass us by their actions - we cringe when a big crime is commited until we find what race the person responsible was - we also cringe when something happens in a black neighborhood and the media alwasy finds the most ignorant, ghetto acting black person to put on camera, this gives those who watch this a vision that this is a representative of black people in general - whites do not have that burden - if a white person does something horrible they are considered and anomoly - if a black person does the same thing  it is considered typical - whites can come to this country from many areas of the world loose their accent and assemulate - blacks can never shed their "uniform" (which is their skin color) - just like a postal worker when someone see's this uniform they think about the few examples of a postal worker having mental issues and shooting multiple people at thier job (we even have a phrase in our culture "going postal")   -  we hate people who cheat on welfare and social programs just like every other American, and even more so, because a lot of times they are associated with us as a people - although this is not true -

These are just a very few.  If every white person asks black friends what they really think, there will be so much enlightenment by both.  Blacks need to understand why whites have issues also.  This was talked about by Barrack in his race speech.  I hope this gives some light to what many blacks discuss when they are amongst themselves.

Please feel to respond and disagree or agree - I value your opinions 

I find it interesting that so many people weigh in on issues that they have no idea of what they are talking about.  We hear people on the left and right making statements without having any idea at all of what the facts are. 

You hear religious people talk about the 10 Commandments, yet they could not repeat them by heart, and in order - 

People talk about the middle east, and our fight in Iraq, but could not draw a rough map of where these countries are or a basic history of any of these states - 

People talk about Islam without knowing what is actually in the Quran - do you have a Quran, and Torah in your home along with the Bible to know the truth, or do you watch biased people talk about it and think you know?

Do you know the history of Israel or any country in the Middle East - Iran - Iraq - Syria - Lebanon etc. or is your view based on what you are told? 

You have those who talk about the constitution have no idea what it says.  They can tell you what the Second Admendment is if they are fighting gun laws, but can't tell you where it is from - (constitution body or bill of rights) -

Most of the people that talk about big government do not know what the government actually is - they could not tell you the succession in order if something happens to the President - then the Vice President - could not tell you what happens after that - how the branches of government work or it's responsibilities -

For those who are Liberals and repeat everything that you hear someone who is an activist say with your views - ask yourself can you honestly do these above things - if not then you must question the validity of your views.

For those who are Conservative and repeat everything they hear on talk radio, and FOX news - ask yourself if you can speak honestly about the above situations without looking up the information - if not then you have to question the validity of your views.

Only you can honestly say if you know these things and just saying you do or looking it up just proves to yourself how much of a fraud you are. You will have to live with the fact that your cause is suspect due to your lack of knowledge -

I teach my son these things at his young age of 6, because I do not want him to grow up to be a idiolog, whose views are created by the statements of others no matter if they are true or not......

I will not tell you you are wrong, it is time for you to prove to yourself  you know what you are talking about, and if you do not, then learn.  Anyone that can go on the computer and post comments, can also find all this information. I learned it early on in school, and in my Encyclopedia Brittanica set as a young man.  There are no excuses now.

I watched the debate at the constitution center with 40 friends at my home.  We were a mixture of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.  (I have been a Independent since my first vote in 1980.  The year 1980 was a presidential election between Reagan and Carter) -

To a person we were all extremely disappointed about how the debate was moderated by Charles Gibson, and George Stephanopolis.  The first 46 minutes of the debate was about nothing.  The questions were about controversial comments by both candidates.  There was nothing concerning the important issues like...the economy - food and gas prices - the war in Iraq - health care.  The questions were all geared toward trivial matters that most voters do not care about.  There was a online chat, and those who contributed were outraged that the moderators spent so much time on nothing of substance.  You could have had TMZ moderate it, and done a better job, because the moderators seemed to be concerned with the "gotcha" questions, instead of real issues. 

After the debate, Ed Rendell, (who is a Clinton supporter), was incensed about how the debate was run, and in true Rendell form, commented on it to a reporter that asked him who he thought won.  He exclaimed, "what are we doing", when questioning the direction of the debate's questions in the first hour.  Rendell has the rare ability to be  loved by Obama, McCain and Hillary supporters all at the same time, due to his honesty, and straight forwardness.    Everyone in my home were so happy that he spoke up about how poorly it was run.

Even after the debate, when the local network did analysis of the debate. They practically ignored the issue about content.  In the online comment room, they had a reporter ask university professors who were taking the questions, and answering them, what type of questions were asked.  Some of the professors spoke about how the online commentors wrote about how angry they were that the questions did not have anything to do with the issues.  The reporter even made a comment that "they" (the voters), could go online to "their", (candidates), sites to get information on their stands on the issues.   

This is typical of the "out of touch" mindset of the media.  I know that they, (the local station), were caught in a tight spot, because they would be critiquing their national network news organization, but it was absolutely ridiculous how poorly it was moderated.  It seemed both moderators were more interested in ratings instead of issues.  There was a comment by George Stephanopolis about 9:03, a complete hour after the debate started, that the next question was about "the most important issue for voters today", the economy.   My living room exploded with anger.  If this was the most important issue, why did it take over an hour to get to it, was the question everyone  in my home asked. Even after asking questions about some real issues, the moderators did not spend enought time on them.  They spent far more time on the "gossip" questions.  They even started rushing the candidates, because time was running down, and commercials had to be run.

(since the network has a public good responsibility - they must answer how they meet this each time their license comes to be renewed - how better than to run debates commercial free?)

It was hilarious how the commentators made comments about how the candidates concentrated on certain issues at the beginning of the debate.  The debate is run by the moderators.  If they asked substancial questions, then that will be the direction of the debate.  The candidates can only address issues that they personally want to when they have free time to make opening statements or closing statements.

We were all excited about Philadelphia being the showcase, the debate being on national TV instead of cable, and the importance of  the issues.  Everyone left angry and disappointed, although we had a good time talking about the issues to each other, and enjoying some good food.

I would like to know how others felt about the debate, and it's direction by the moderators. 

It troubles me to hear the rhetoric our car companies "push" out to the public.   We always hear about how the Japanese are using the fact their government provides health care to workers to prove they have an advantage concerning costs. Out companies say they cannot be competitive due the what American workers require concerning benefits.  The fact is that it is true Toyota and Honda do not have to worry about the cost of health care contributing to the profit per vehicle.  Is that the reason for the market share change that those companies have aquired over our companies?  This is not the case.  Americans have taken an exodus from Ford, and GM due to poor decisions by those who head the company.  Honda and Toyota, to break into the US market, priced their product lower, allowing a lower profit to themselves.  They stuck with the small engine concept, and listened to what consumers wanted, and make changes accordingly while also working on reliability yearly.  Due to their consistant concentration on technology, the engines became more powerful, and effecient over the years.   Americans continued to stick to Ford and GM for patriotic reasons, but as quality and reliability suffered, people consistantly moved to Japanese products.  This was very heart wrenching for many, because they wanted to support American cars, but could not afford the repair costs.  It seemed that American cars would have major issue after the initial warranties expired, requiring enging or transmission repairs, which are major expenses for the average family.  I myself searched for a used mini van for traveling with the family for the summer.  Upon researching the vehicles available, I found that Ford and GM consistantly had Transmission and Engine issue.  When looking at reviews by actual consumers who owned the vehicles, I found head gasket issues that cropped up around 60 - 80 thousand miles, and transmission issues on both Ford and GM products.  I wanted an Olds Silhouette, but this had head gasket issues, related to a poor design of the engine that was used in a variety of GM Mini Vans - Chevy Venture etc. I looked at the Chrysler /Dodge Mini Vans and found fire hazards, brake issues , engine problems.  Ford Windstar, transimission problems.  I bought a 1988 Chrylser Lebaron coupe new, which was a beautiful car, but had many issues with the K - Frame, which the company would not repair.  They used many excuses why.  After trading it in I found 80% of the people that I meet that owned one said they had the same issues with the car and found the same results when complaining to Chrysler.  I traded the Lebaron in for a 1999 Chevy Nova, because I wanted to stick with an American product. I choose the Nova because it is a rebody of the Toyota Corrola. It was one of the most reliable cars I ever owned.  I traded it in for a 1996 Dodge Intrepid, again another beautifully designed vehicle.  I said I would never buy another Chrysler product due to the Lebaron problem, but was open to give it a try.  I had numerous issues with the suspension. Something I have heard from many people that own this same car.   I finally traded this in for a Honda.  I started shopping for a Mini Van for summer group trips, and ran into the issues.  I finally found a Mercury Villager, but again it had a Nissan engine and did not have any issues.  I have known people who had the same vehicle with a Ford engine, and had issues with it.  I have over 100,000 miles on it and it runs like new.  All the people that I know that own Chevy, Chrysler, Ford, mini vans have had issues with them beyond regular maintenance.  They have to buy a warranty which adds to the cost of the vehicle, and if they do not they run into major issues.  I think the designs and many of the features of the American cars are great , but they do not have very good mechanicals.   The Japanese continue to stress mechanical reliability, and because of this are well ahead of us in their engine designs.  They get great power from small engines,  while we continue to deal with mechanical problems in our products.   Now they are working on Hybrid technology, and are years ahead of us, due to the investment they made in it.  They sell Hybrids like the Prius for very low if any profit, and refine the technology constantly.  Simular to what they did when introducing 4 cylinder cars in our market which were used to 6 and 8 cylinder. The Japanese achieve their MPG figures by way of true actual MPG car ratings, while we achieve it using gimics.  We have "Flex Fuel" vehicles that are supposed to run on normal gasoline, and ethenol.  The issue they don't tell you is that using the other fuels the engine is not as efficient.  It will average 3 - 5 fewer MPG when using alternate fuels, but the US companies get credit which lower their total MPG ratings artificially.  Using this "fuzzy" engineering we continue to fall behind.  Then they blame cost for the Japanese dominance, when in fact most  Americans  discount, and rebate their vehicles while the Japanese products usually get retail for theirs due to demand for them in our country.  People also choose to buy them because they are familiar with the reliability,  by personal experience of testimonies by family and friends.  They also find that the Japanese stand by their products, and don't make excuses for defects, like many American companies.  Recently the head of GM, Bob Lutz, made a statement about the Prius, saying it does not make any economic sense.  Exactly the same thing they said in the 70's and 80's about the imports, while the Japanese made small profits, and refined the vehicles which caught on with the public, and we are now in the situation we are in now.  His attitude is what causes the decline of market share for our American companies.   He featured small efficient vehicles at the Detroit Auto Show, that were only for the "World Market" and not available in the US.  When critizied on why he would not make them available for US buyers, he made arrogant statements about people not paying attention, and berated people for not understanding that the reason he had them at the show was to prove GM was not only an Norh American auto company but a global company.  I can't understand why teasing us with small efficienct cars that we could never buy at an American auto show makes any sense.  Until our company leaders start respecting the public we will continue to decine.  We have great engineers, and designers, but the push for profit against reliability is a major issue.  I am now looking at of all things the new Dodge Caravan.  Another great design, I just hope the reliability will match.  I never have given up on my American products, but like many people in the US cannot afford to strand my family driving an unreliable vehicle.   My neighbor just traded his Durango for a Pathfinder due to unreliability, instead of trading it in for another Durango. He would have saved money by buying the Durnago, but had his family stranded multiple times, and was given poor service by the dealer and Chrysler after complaining to them.  Let me know what you think about this issue.    

I think a drastic change is needed in our political system.  Please post your comments on the following idea. 

I honestly believe that whatever party wins the Presidency should have to put aside 50% of his cabinet for the opposing party or independents. This is how my cabinet would look if I had my way in order of succession......

President  -  Barrack Obama (D)

Vice President  -  John McCain (R)

Secretary of State  -  Bill Richardson (D)

Secretary of Treasury  -  Michael Bloomberg (R)

Secretary of Defense  -  Colin Powell (R)

Attorney General  -  Joe Biden (D)

Secretary of the Interior  -  Russ Feingold (D)

Secretary of Agriculture  -  Chuck Hagel (R)

Secretary of Commerce  -  Newt Gingrich (R)

Secretary of Labor  -  John Edwards (D)

Secretary of Health and Human Services  -  Ron Paul (R)

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development  -  Christopher Dodd (D)

Secretary of Transportation  -  Dennis Kucinish (D)

Secretary of Energy  -  Thomas Kean (R)

Secretary of Education  -  Jane Nelson (R)

Secretary of Veteran Affairs  -  Bob Dole (R)

Key One - I would establish a commision simular to the one that attacked the issue concerning travel to the moon which would address the issues concerning energy.  The meetings would include major oil companies - environmental concerns - senators and congressmen - and citizens.  All of the transcripts would be available immediately on the web.  It would be broadcast on CSpan or any station that would like to air it.  The Secretary of the Treasury would co-chair with the Secretary of Energy.  (Bloomberg / Kean) - participants that have unreasonable confrontation would be immediately excused from the commission for good, and the decisions would be binding.

Key Two - There would be a commision established addressing health care co-chaired by Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of Commerce (Paul / Gingrich) - it will establish a reasonable program to provide health care for all citizens - it will not be a fully government funded program but would provide care at a reasonable price based on number or participants (single - husband wife - family) - voulchers would be established for those below poverty line which would lower but not eliminate costs to them

Key Three - A commission would be established concerning education - co-chaired by Secretary of Education and Housing and Urban Developement (Nelsen / Dodd) - Teacher's performance would be based on student performance - non performing teachers would be subject to disapline, retraining, and if no progress dismissal.

Key Four - Attorney General would establish a "triple fine" for law suits which are found to be frivilous - (triple the posted suit to be paid by the law firm) - Frivality would be determined by proof the plaintant was not injured

Due to McCain's age I would be prepared to switch positions with he and Obama . Considering his age Obama could be fine to take charge in 4 of * years.

I know some would have an issue with some of my picks based on their political views, but considering the mixture, those in the cabinet would be forced to work together. 

Some points -

Richardson has the experience to make a great Sec. of State

Gingrich would do do great things for business as Sec. of Commerce

Colin Powell as Sec. of Def. is a no brainer (if Bush has listened to  him we would not be in the current state in Iraq)

Hagel would make a great Agriculture Sec. he could fix the waste with substities

Jane Nelsen (Texas) is a former teacher and administrator and would do great things as Education Sec.

Biden's clarity and fairness would change the moral in office of Attorney Gen.

Bloomberg's business sense would be indespensible as Sec of Treasury - we may be able to get control of our financial markets

Ron Paul is a doctor and talks straight forward he would be great in Health and Human Svcs

Edwards has compained for workers for years - he would be a very good Sec. of Labor and would move more toward the middle as he finds the complexities fo the position

Dole is also a no brainer for Sec of Vereran Affairs - his history and great support for our veterans would be perfect

Let me know what you think, and maybe what your cabinet would look like.  Too many people have opinions on the presidency, but do not think about the administration, and cabinet. 

I would also like to know what people think about the requirement  to mix the cabinet with opposing parties.

I wanted to weigh in on the Barrack Obama's speech.  I was very impressed that FOX aired it live, and not one other local station did so.   I found the speech remarkable, and candid in a way that no one has done so in such a postition as he is.  The watched the coverage at most of the morning news shows, and since I don't subscribe to cable, could not see how Fox News or  covered it. 

Just like Barrack mentioned in his speech, show hosts on the news shows stepped carefully around the subject.  They had commentators of all pursuasions disecting what he meant or how they felt it would be viewed by the many perspective voters.  What was also evident is how the blacks who are on the different shows were caucious about praising the speech as much as I invision they did.  It is like every situation when race is discussed, where blacks and whites hear and feel something different.  Barrack mentioned OJ Simpson, and his feelings that he was guiltiy.  If you talk to the vast majority of blacks they would say the same thing, (probably 97%), but if you listen to the news shows they would replay over and over the same scenes when he was found not guilty and some blacks were jumping and happy.  It is always the same group of people, in the same film clips, but they were portrayed as representative of how blacks felt, when it was not true at all.  Barrack said later that evening, when interviewed for Nightline, that when there is a dramatic event of crime or killing that blacks hold there breath until a picture is shown of who it is that commited the offense.  We know that all blacks would be viewed differently if the perpertrator was a black person, unlike when the person is white. 

Example :  Timothy McViegh who destroyed the building in Oklahoma - there was no mass pulling over of white males after or the implication that  white males were naturally violent.

I myself have been told by a camp counseler, (after he burned a book on Martin Luther King Jr), if I was upset that he burned the n*****r book.  This is as a child of about 13 and away from home.  This is just one of hundreds of examples of what my reality is as a black man in the US.  I had white friends that could come over my house, but I could not come to theirs, because some neighbors did not like blacks or their parents did not.  I remember an Eagle football player (I believe Troy Vincent), after visting a location in a perdominately white neighborhood of Philly with his wife, having bottles and rocks thrown at him.  It was not until he approached the people and they recognized him that they requested autographs. He was all of a sudden ok with them. 

This is a never ending story in the life of Americans.  Barrack is the only one with the guts to attack this subject.  It took Gwen Ifill to go on Meet the Press and confront Tim Russert and reporters like him who were complicit with Don Imus by appearing on his show.  Just like after this speech, it seemed whites were grappling with how to address this Don Imus issue.  It took someone with a black perspective to explain it, simular to what Obama was trying to do, explain it.  With all her success as a journalist, Gwen Ifill when reporting at the White House was called by Don Imus a cleaning lady, or specifically, "now they have the cleaning lady reporting at the White House".  Just like in the Gwen Ifll, and Troy Vincent cases in some ways they are  saying that no matter what you do or position you reach you will always be a n****r in white society. 

Being black in Philadelphia I am aware of places that you can drive or not drive without being harrassed.  (Route 309 - Lower Merion - Pennsauken - many places in NJ until it came to light about racial profiling) - I have friends in perdominately white areas and have been stopped numerous times for nothing, when visiting.  I have even been stopped for having a pair of my son's shoes hanging from the rear view mirror.  (new born shoes) I was told by the officer that it was obstructing my view, and was questioned on how I could afford such a nice car.  I always remember being told by my parents how to act when stopped by the police, I have never heard my white friends being instructed by their parents on conduct to prevent them from being hurt by police.  I am an advid golfer, and have done an experiment where my friends and we have gone to a high end Golf Club  and they go in first then sit in the clubhouse, and observe when I come in.  They heard so many racist and ignorant comments by some of the people.  They had more anger than I did because I became so used to it, because these people could not say it openly to me, but would comment in what they really thought in private.  Many of my friends are of different polictical views, Republican, Democrat, and I have always been registered Independent.  I have voted for Republicans, and Democrats in my life, and found it funny that there was such a buzz when Oprah made the statement that she had voted for as many Republicans as Democrats.  Some whites think that blacks are non thinking , and reactive people who would just vote for Barrack because he is black, but would not say the same about whites.  When Gov Rendell said that some whites in Pennsylvania would never vote for a black, he was just speaking the truth.  In the black community we talk about travelling in Pennsylvania for vacation, and speak of areas to watch out for in western PA, and other areas.  Some we label as Klan country, although there is no Klan there, we are just describing the mood there.  This is a reality that whites are not aware of, but if you spoke to  your black friends then you would have an awakening, but like Barrack said it is not spoken amongst friends, it is ignored.  My friends and I talk all the time, and they are honest in their concerns with some in the black communtiy that use the victim stance.  I explain to them that Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are not the voice of the black community, although the media will go to them to get the "black view" which blacks just hate.  Most blacks I know do not like the approach that both of them take, but the media does not take this approach.  Oprah, Tiger Woods, Jordon, are some of the most prominent blacks and represent more the average black person.  They don't walk around attacking race, but work hard to be the best they can be, and show by example who they are

I hope finally that this opens a dialogue amongst people privately so they could start to understand each other.