Too bad you stopped watching...
it's 30 min. long.

Re: speaking English.

Go for it... How does one "talk white" anyway?

The death penalty has been proven not to be a deterrent to any crime - murder, rape...whatever. So you really have to think about the political motivations behind someone supporting it. On the other hand, as you often reminded us during the primaries - we need a Democrat in the White House, so it's about calling him to task on this, and not necessarily beating him up on it.

I think he has it 1/2 right...no pun intended.

As a black person operating in predominately white circles - you learn how to "play the game". That's been my entire life to the point where I don't even recognize it anymore. I'm guessing that's where Obama comes from. What's the game? As horrible as this is to say, I think it's being as non-threatening as possible while getting your point across. Then when you're certain you've been accepted you let your guard down and you can start to talk about "economic exploitation in the ghettos". If Obama started talking about issues that specifically dealt with black people - a good number of people would be in an uproar shouting "Obama only cares about black people".
As for "talking white"...I've been accused of that before. I don't talk white, I speak English.

My post was about local news - not nightly news. That's why i said "I live in Los Angeles" but you don't deal in specifics - your purpose is to discredit. I get it.

And when I say handled atrociously of course I mean not enough troops.

actually...Spike Lee is a documentarian
<href>4 LittleGirls
<href>When the Levees Broke

Not an atrocious endeavor - but being handled atrociously.
I don't think that the American people should be forced to watch countless tragic events on the news every night anymore than I think the American people should be forced to know what is happening with Britney Spears and her children every night. Or who Mariah Carey married this week. It's about balance. We haven't found that yet.

Anonymous - you really are backwards on this argument. According to your argument - Spike Lee is equally at fault for not showing the black experience during Summer of Sam or the black experience post 9/11 in 25th Hour. Eastwood isn't responsible for doing anything in his films he doesn't want to. Just like Lee isn't. Again, what you're forgetting is that before he's an activist - he's a filmmaker. A businessman who has built his career on being controversial. Otherwise why hasn't he taken on other WW2 films that failed to portray soldiers of color? Because they weren't Academy Award nominees last year. Any publicity is good publicity.

Honestly, the fact that this whole contrived argument is taking even a second of time on any "news" channel is ridiculous. This is a story meant for E! News Network. The only part of this that was actually about race was the MSNBC reporter slipping up and using a term she didn't understand - which didn't involve Lee OR Eastwood. It's not a story about race, it's not even a story about WWII accuracy. It's a story about how the studios are LOVING the fact that DVD rentals for Iwo Jima and Flags are going up and Miracle at St. Anna has a curious audience - before anyone has even seen a frame of the film. Welcome to Hollywood. This is how it goes. It's such a non-story.

Unfortunately this is a classic example of how history was taught in the "olden days" vs. the way things really were and how history is being taught now. I think GOD for my US history teacher in high school and shudder to think that there are still kids learning from history books published in the 1960s. BTW - Spike's no fool. He's got a movie coming out about WWII and Black soldiers. He knows a publicity opportunity when he sees one.
Miracle at St. Anna

Phillip, Mark -

I understand your frustration, but people will read what they want to read and hear what they want to hear. McCain's answer the the question during the debate was a classic example spin. He answered the question so briefly and cut right to a more broad issue our dependency on foreign oil and global warming. Most likely because of his big oil ties. We're in an energy crisis and big oil is profiting from that crisis. They should be required to look for alternative energy methods.

No Charles, what Sen. McCain went on to do was change the subject;
From the debate:
MR. HARWOOD: You would not require the oil industry to use its profits to help pursue alternative energy?

SEN. MCCAIN: I would not require them to. But I think that public pressure and a lot of other things, including a national security requirement that we reduce and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil -- and we stop the contamination of our atmosphere, which is -- and climate change, which is real and is taking place.

tombro -

The oil companies are in the energy industry. They should be involved in a way to resolve the energy crisis we're in and not just be profiting from it.

Michael -

You're right! Oil will eventually run out. Should we wait until that happens, until we're in a dire situation to respond, or should we respond now while we know what's ahead? The time to put our resources toward finding alternative solutions is now. That's not something McCain is interested in doing.

Mr. Lennon and Mr. Helfreht,

Unfortunately you're speaking before you have full knowledge of the statement. Not only was Sen. McCain NOT cut off, he then took the opportunity to change the direction of the question from alternate fuel and requiring oil companies to find alternatives to more broad environmental issues. We aren't Fox News. We're going to bring you the facts...without fancy editing.

From the debate:
MR. HARWOOD: You would not require the oil industry to use its profits to help pursue alternative energy?

SEN. MCCAIN: I would not require them to. But I think that public pressure and a lot of other things, including a national security requirement that we reduce and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil -- and we stop the contamination of our atmosphere, which is -- and climate change, which is real and is taking place.

I don't care what anyone says, Amy Poehler is the best female anchor on SNL Weekend Update yet...wait a second...

Jake, the most disappointing thing about your first post is that I most often find you insightful and funny. Like your last comment. You're right - sometimes you can't even give a person a compliment like articulate without being called a bigot. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm over sensitive sometimes.

IndecisiveJake, age has nothing to do with it. I'm not that much older than you are. My only comment in response to yours is that you also missed the nuance of the post. I'm not policing anyone's words. I clearly said I don't hold anyone responsible for using phrases they don't understand. I'm actually sticking supporting your argument. You didn't realize that uppity was a racist term because you weren't taught it. Did you read beyond paragraph 4 or just enough to make you angry? Read more, assume less.

IndecisiveJake - I don't even know that you're worth responding to. Your comment is so dead on as far as the point I'm making. "someone is a little uppity today."? If it's not racially charged, you've certainly become the group of people who a) have decided that racism doesn't exist and that we should all turn a blind eye to the past and b) that anyone with a progressive thought in their head that doesn't jive with yours is elitist and therefore out of touch. Both are bad, I just can't figure out which is worse.

FlowerGuerilla
1. what makes him an uncle tom? back up your statement
2. what gives you the right to call him a such a prerogative term as uncle tom? you clear understand the kind of baggage such a statement carries.