You hit the nail on the head and smashed it, with a few exceptions.
Although Sharpton has been a long-time friend of the Jackson family, he is ”milking” the moment.
MJ was just an entertainer to many. Not all Black folks are drinking the kool aid on this one and certainly many of us have not “heroized”, or deified Michael Jackson. Personally, MJ’s life was tragic and he did not live a life that anyone should want to emulate. Human compassion causes the good in us to want to see the good in others. So, even in death, as with most human beings, we don’t focus on all of the gutter talking points on a person’s life. But the reality is, Michael Jackson did not provide an ideal life for celebrity children as they were reputedly never around any other children (while MJ has been quoted numerous times as saying children were the only reason worth living) and significantly deprived them of normal socialization skills. MJ’s conscious construction of his children through ensuring their sperm donors were White and carving their nifty womb-for-hire mothers out of their lives wreak of self-hatred. Self-loathing Blacks could not have had a better spokesperson, being that MJ planned to and did legally procreate non-Black children, and actually “de-Blacked” himself as much as he could. Forget the debt factor in relation to the philanthropic giving. His spending on medication–allegedly because of drug dependency–in what really needs to be examined. Additionally, no well-adjusted stable grown man walks around in underwear entertaining and befriending young boys whether there was literal pedophilic contact or not. People have the audacity to laud MJ for being a great father while living a life allegedly riddled with drug addiction. I will have to agree with you, that only in this country can someone be so visibly inept and then celebrated because he was a paramount entertainer. FYI Bill: Many African Americans raise their children NOT to be like Michael Jackson. Who wants to live and probably not be genuinely fulfilled?
Lastly Bill, you have conveniently overlooked a number of other endearing commentaries from White people during MJ’s celebration of life that was more than delusional. Brooke Shields immediately comes to mind. Please be equitable and just in your disdain for the post-mortem crowning of MJ by his fans, which may be quite difficult for you as is often the case for White folk who try to analyze Black folk. By the way, some of MJ’s largest and most lucrative concerts were played before audiences of people that looked like MJ’s kids, MJ after enough plastic surgery to re-compose himself, and your own (Bill O’Reilly’s) family–White people. So, the absurd international influence MJ has had has never been a Black thing, and cannot ever credibly be characterized as such.
Note: Clearly, MJ’s fan base is not solely comprised of African-Americans and White people. MJ’s influence crossed all so-called barriers and stratifications. This post is specifically designed to respond to the criticism of Bill O’Reilly and his take on the media and public’s reaction to MJ’s death.
There are a number of isolated cases of older women having babies as “seasoned” senior citizens.
So, now one dies and leaves her twins without a mother or father, having conceived them through donated eggs, a sperm donor and the trusty In Vitro fertilization process. Reputedly, after giving birth, the woman developed cancer.
In a nutshell, a mother dies of cancer. Yet, with the kind of journalism we see today, the dialogue leading to the bottom line misses the quintessence of the matter: Her age had nothing to do with it.
The oldest reported British woman to give birth, Elizabeth Adeney, is a brand new mom thanks to In Vitro fertilization. Of course, the new mom has not only the joy of her first child to look forward to, but also the criticisms of yick yackers who feel she is monsterously selfish for having a child at her “old” age.
Although I do not generally think that child-bearing is ideal at 66, again, I ask as I often do, “Who cares?” Adeney has only joined the ranks of an increasing number of senior citizens who raise babies that are their grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Her baby raising is purposed and intentional, not a result of premature death in the family, or some sort of parental neglect. People Adeney’s age get custody and are entrusted to raise children everyday, and do so heroically.
So who are her critics? Is it the same monsterously selfish people who advocate abortion for convenience? Or, the population of classless candidates-both male and female-who contribute to the “who’s my baby’s daddy” talk show conundrum. Thank God for DNA testing, or so many everyday people who live impulsive hedonistic lives would never know who fathered a child. Certainly, Adeney’s critics cannot be amongst the population of people with terminally ill diseases in advanced stages, such as AIDS, that knowingly bear children with slight chances they will probably not be around to raise them, and often bring them into this world infected (although babies can receive treatment to reverse HIV status). How about all of our babies born on drugs or to mothers who drink and smoke? The wonderful people who have children for complying with the status quo with a firm plan for nannies, boarding schools and plenty of photo ops in-between need not register any critques. Their time would be better spent scheduling an appointment to laugh with their own children. There are certainly too many people in this world that are blaring self-advertisements for irresponsible parents to make this woman a guinea pig.
The only real concern is whether this senior citizen is capable of providing a loving, safe, healthy, reliable home for a baby and in good enough health to do so. Adeney just may outlive some of the young everything-goes, to hell with any type of morality people and smile at this child’s college graduation. She just may give this child the kind of devotion, attention and guidance that will produce a good sound human being. At least we can hope. This of course, can only take place if the powers that be and the hipsters don’t cause the world to end before then.
A woman who was raped and gave her daughter up for adoption thirty years ago is suing the state of New Jersey for allegedly assisting the adoptee find her. The thirty year old adopted daughter apparently went to her birth mother’s home, and has attempted to contact another birth sibling from her birth mother. The birth mother had been made aware of the adoptee’s request to communicate prior to the unsolicited home visit, and did not respond to the letter the State of New Jersey sent her apprising her of the same. For the full story, here’s the link to the article:
Every now and again, MULLOVERTHIS gets stumped. I had to think about this one for a few seconds, but only a few seconds. After mulling through the emotional components, this is a clear cut case. This adopted woman, if her story is correct, should get a million plus a few extra bucks. Adoption laws are SUPPOSED to work such that someone like the plaintiff can make the decision that she was prepared to live with, albeit thirty years ago. It is unjust to shift the rules now, because some lackadaisical state employees felt like doing whatever they wanted. Had the daughter found her through some ingenuity on her own, or with private people locaters, then we’d have a different story. This woman had a right to close the door to the rape, and the child that came from the rape, without having to face her at her front door thirty years later.
Once NJ pays, and pays dearly, they might impose some personal penalties to the employees that break the law and get caught up in an adoptee’s personal pursuits. Had this adoptee had a “need” that was life-threatening or considerably commensurate, she should have acquired a court order. The adoptee’s need does not outweigh the mother’s need to live in peace and privacy. This mother has absolutely no bond with the grown woman and should not have been jolted into re-visiting a part of her life that I’m sure she wished never happened.
As one who is not pro-life-but anti-murder and anti-disassociated human depravity through murdering pre-born children-this mother made a courageous decision and should teach the state a good old-fashioned lesson: Keep its word.
A thirteen year old Minnesota boy is allegedly on the run with his mother to avoid chemotherapy treatment for Hodgkins Lymphoma, a highly treatable form of cancer with traditional chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Mom and son allegedly prefer to treat the cancer naturally on religious grounds, because such treatment would involve violating their beliefs.
Judge Judy addressed the issue in a potluck style interview with Larry King and noted a number of important factors. A thirteen year old boy is of considerable age and as a family court judge, she would want to know the young boy’s desire. Also, the young boy must have his own counsel to protect his own interests, irrespective of his parents and other interested parties.
Mulloverthis thinks that this case is one in a line of many, that points to government imposition into socialist areas that break the bounds of individual rights. The government, through the arms of the court, child welfare and social service agencies, should not mandate medical treatments based upon statistics. If I want to lay down and die from a tumor, that is my business. A family who is otherwise well-balanced and informed should be able to choose what types of medical treatments, or lack thereof, they prefer. Provided the parents are aware of optional treatments and have reasonable grounds for pursuing alternative treatments, they should be free to do so on any grounds.
Consider this: the 13 year old boy could take the chemotherapy and die from the cancer. Meanwhile, he would have endured the torture of chemotherapy. If anyone is qualified to roll the dice on his life, it is his parents and those that love him.
There’s more ridiculousness from the political family most commensurate to the Bundy’s (Married With Children): The Palins.
Bristol Palin is on a stupendous mission to convince teenagers that abstinence is the best policy as the Candie’s foundation teen ambasssador. So, Jenny Craig should not have replaced Kirstie Alley. Kirstie’s obesity makes her the perfect spokesperson for the weight loss company. Look at Bristol, brand new teenage mother feuding with the baby’s daddy and his family: ABSTAIN. Look at Kirstie, actress with fluctuating weight: CALL JENNY CRAIG. The anti-Bristol approach to abstinence may be more effective than selecting a fine young popular star who is abstinent. Bristol fell through “the cracks” of her mother’s abstinence-only sex education policies and ended up as the perfect poster-uh, morning shows and CNN live interview-child for abstinence. The young Palin should be working with momma to make sure her son has a relationship with his father and other family. Who has time for the best interest of the innocent baby when she has a call to advocate what she could not espouse and still admits is “unrealistic”?
Maybe Candie’s can find a role for Sarah Palin after her run as Alaskan governor. Should Governor Palin then decide to advocate sex education, the corporation should make her pay for her own presentation kits.
Not really.I don’t believe atheists, agnostics, and people of “spiritual paths” other than Christianity are necessarily fearful of Christians.But since this “homophobia” inflammatory jargon designed to disengage legitimate opposition to the homosexual/gay agenda is now politically correct, I thought the use of the phobia tactic is apropos solely for illustrative purposes.
The truth is many homosexuals/gays-and those who are simply perceived to be homosexual–have been beaten, persecuted, marred, murdered and discriminated against simply because they are believed to be homosexuals.This denigration of humanity is never acceptable.We need not discuss the historical and current persecution of Jews, Christians, and African-Americans through mass genocide and the like.The annals of utter hatred against these classes of people cannot be justifiably encapsulated in one blog post.
Yet, the disdain and intolerance of the homosexual lifestyle and agenda is met with a nifty “phobia” marking. The connotation is as if the logical one who does not agree suffers from some unreasonable fear of what is otherwise simple or normal.I think it is safe to say, most people do not have “fear” of homosexuals or homosexuality.The disapproval, rejection and opposition to a thing are not necessarily synonymous with “fear”.I can’t stand onion rings.My personal preference is to never have onion rings.My failure to order onion rings, or efforts to vote them off of the fast food menu does not mean I fear them.I have made a valuation and judgment that they are not desirable and are not good, although many people may prefer and love onion rings.My personal beliefs regarding homosexuality are clear:it is not a desirable lifestyle.I’m not scared, nor am I ignorant.I just don’t agree.
My belief system is firmly rooted in my faith and commitment to Christianity.Need I be “converted” to another point of reason by one whose belief system is rooted in self by way of intellect, education, philosophical affinity or life achievement?To another woman’s valuations based upon impulse and present life goals and experiences?To another person’s values because he is good?To the current trend of thought because it is increasingly common?The opinionated Christian—not all of us are this involved—has her right to reason to a final resolve just like the non-Christian. We do not enjoy blanket classifications about how we live and respond to the questions of life any more than anyone else.Our opinions and right to be involved in the political process is no less weighty because we serve the True and Living God.We need not cow-tow to those who wake up and go to bed and the world should be as s/he thinks based upon the breadth of knowledge s/he has thusly consumed, or those who heighten the import of the human experience.
There is no civil system of government where the law is not largely composed of moral codes.However a man identifies his own beliefs and morality, and that system of government employs that man’s belief, it is what it is.Christians have every right, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE UNITED STATES IS FOUNDED UPON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, to stand up for what we believe and what we do not believe.A crucial tenet of the faith is that God is the Creator and loves all men.Yet all will not believe what we believe.We are to share our faith because the relationship with God and benefits of being in fellowship with God are available to everyone.We are prepared to encounter those who do as we often do to other belief systems:REJECT the faith. We must simply keep on believing and keep on living.So then, are we dealing with Christianphobia when some atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions do not accept and conform, form interest groups, create and produce programming released through various media outlets to promote their beliefs, lobby for their beliefs to be encoded as statutory rights, file zillions of frivolous lawsuits, actively discriminate against Christians, endanger the lives of Christians, and fight to thwart the values of Christianity because what they believe should be?
MULLOVERTHIS.
Note: Not all Christians share this view. The emphasis of the Christian message is that we have all been born in sin, shaped in iniquity, and have the grace of a loving, merciful God to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
IF PALIN RE-INVIGORATED THE TICKET, that means the Republican ticket represents appealing to the average Joe without DEALING WITH THE ISSUES HEAD ON.
PALIN looked wonderful. Impeccable wardrobing, make-up, and the hair stylist really worked the Palin hair-do and gave her a sharp crisp yet feminine look. Her demeanor, disposition and entire presentation was great. AGAIN, Palin did well with what she can do well with. After three days of intense preparation, she did well with the androidian campaign strategy and image she was chosen to represent mixed with every day sensibilities. However, Palin cannot erase her prior interview performances. She did not have three days of national, not simply Alaskan, politics school before Katie Couric. How much credit does Palin get for dodging questions, crash courses, and uh, NOT KNOWING JOHN MCCAIN’S RECORD? Or, has she been perceived to be better than she actually was because she was engaging and did not flop again?
Joe Biden answered every question. Period. Point Blank. Senate experience prepared him to ANSWER any question Gwen could muster. Somehow over two decades of NATIONAL politics affecting millions of Americans made him the better candidate. Somehow, I think most Americans just feel more comfortable with someone who does not check his podium notes every other second. Biden knew all the issues, Obama’s, McCain’s and his own RECORD on the issues. Biden was a gentleman, well-spoken, warm and for those who minimize congressional expertise, watch the debate again and again. I am glad that Biden capitalized on his vulnerability to the present concerns most Americans experience, just like any woman does. He balanced Palin’s mush card with depicting the real pain hard and fast politicians feel when dealing with the same issues that lipstick pit bull women and beer gut rednecks deal with each day.
Palin debated Biden and played slick dodgeball. Girlfriend is good and masking the duh factor. I’m too tired to even go through the entire debate. Sarah Palin used her energy expertise, her comfort zone, to deflect dealing with questions that she obviously knew nothing about, or chose not to tackle. Her smile, coy disposition, Washington outsider, middle-class status and maverick foolishness was like listening to a broken record. While she constantly scolded Biden for looking at the past, UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, Palin prefaced her non-Washington insider status with constantly referring to the past: what people are sick of, the corruption, greed and congressional performance. The Bush administration and the corruption on Wall Street and all part of the past. Palin is quite arbitrary about what past should be referred to, and what past is not relevant. Apparantly, Palin recognizes the past only when she does not want to beat up the Bush Administration to the degree that she would alienate hard and fast Repubs, while attempting to make everyone else but the Maverick John McCain, responsible for much of what the nation has seen through a poor administration.
Tonight’s debate has helped many to finally draw the line. Biden certainly won this debate in my opinion. I have more confidence that if there was an unscheduled dialogue with no warning, we would find the Katie Couric Palin again. And, ladies and gentlemen, we can’t afford to hire potential Vice President Palin a tutor for real Vice Presidency fulfillment and performance.
Finally, the greatest poop tonight was from Palin’s disingenius re-categorization of her ignorance when she asked what the vice-president does. Of course, now, that was a joke. Yet, her commentary tonight clearly demonstrated she is not aware of the Vice President’s constitutional leadership authority over the Congress. Lord, have mercy.
AIG appears to be making some preventative efforts from seeing its corporate demise, although they issued a statement ensuring that AIG policy holders would have their policies honored.
Merrill Lynch is has been acquired by Bank of America through a corporate buyout to save their “hide”.
In a nutshell, Wall Street has seen better days. Meanwhile McCain still speaks of a strong US economy, which may be necessary to avoid chaotic impulsive consumer choices that could send the market into a greater frenzy.
I hope Americans continue to observe the various Presidential nominee reactions, plans and efforts to respond to the major market trumps we are seeing take place in our national economy. The economy is a crucial relevant issue, moreso than Palin allegedly using state funds to subsidize her moose shooting flight escapades. Many Americans have already lost their homes due to foreclosures, and the credit crunch has crippled others from meeting everyday needs.
Hopefully, we will truly be a kinder, gentler nation. This is a time when those that have, should give to those that don’t have. Not just through charitable donations where overhead may conveniently absorb much of what is given, but also by helping those who we see each day around us who we know are suffering and may not qualify for systematic assistance. Many single working people who have been unemployed, or cannot pay student loans often slip through the cracks. Families who may have lost the income of a spouse through sickness, or layoffs, may be feeling the “crunch” right now.
I firmly believe we reap what we sow. Although many are suffering because of good choices gone wrong, fraud, or bad judgment, the end result is that many are suffering. So now is a good time for people to be kinder and more helpful to their own family, friends, colleagues, and community through giving money, skills, time and prayers for those who need to endure these hard times.
To those who don’t believe abortion has any real significance in this election, or to our “real” political issues, take a look at Obama, who is not aware of any Americans that are pro-abortion:
Now, if there are any men who realize that they are “helped” by Planned Parenthood, please post a comment with your experience.
