Well, obviously not really. But there maybe a connection between two events.

The Rev Wright controversy occurs at the same time as the Sean Bell police shooting verdict. The role of African-American authority figures in both may have interesting implications.

Sean Bell was a young African-American man who was mistaken for someone involved in drug trafficking. Bell was innocent and unarmed, but felled by some of the 50 bullets aimed at a car he was driving accompanied by two friends. A judge acquitted the police officers of any criminal wrongdoing.
As long as you are gulity in the minds of police, it is legal to kill a young unarmed African-American male. Two of the police officers were African-American, two were Caucasian, and one was Hispanic.

Michelle Bernard an MSNBC analyst, Eugene Robinson of the WaPo, and Bob Herbert of the NYT are all African-American. All either feel that Rev Wright is scary or an egomaniac. It cannot be that Rev Wright is trying to have a conversation on how a significant segment of the African-American population views events compared to what we see in MSM.

I connect the Bell and Wright events by noting the African-Americans participate in the death of another African-American in the Bell case and in ignoring a larger message in the case of Rev Wright. In order to rise through the ranks of detectives in NYC, African-American officers have to become part of the mindset of the deartment. In that mindset Bell, even though unarmed, was a threat.

Bernard, Robinson, and Herbert rose through the ranks of their particular organizations. Each realizes that their is only so far one can go in bucking the trend. The meme is that Obama is in political trouble because of Rev Wright. None is obligated to attempt to explain in a larger context what Wright is trying to convey, and none does. A Texas twang is cute. The twang even got a Connecticut yankee with a faux Texas ranch created by a Presidential campaign idea man to King Arthur's Court (aka the White House). Urban dialect is not cute. It's Ebonics, something  dark and ugly. We cannot have a discussion of that and other topics becauseit is just not allowed.

I don't thing that anything I'm suggesting is that radical. Take, for example, what happens in the Bush administration. The EPA decides it will handle global warming in a particular way. Most of those who may realize that the policy is in error do not quit, they comply with the edict. The difference between these individuals and the police is that the impact of the environmental bullet will not be fully manifested for decades.

Similarly, reporters of all hues know what the conventional wisdom happens to be and dutifully fall in line. Reporters who do not comply do not get TV access. Note that there are very few Progressive columnists, fewer still seen on MSM. African-American voices with a different view of Rev Wright's comments can only be found in talk radio and the internet. These voices are not welcome on TV.

The Bell case will continue. Legal decisions have yet to be made in Civil and possibly Federal courts. It is unclear if the pilng on by MSM on Rev Wright will fell the candicacy of Barack Obama.

My moring humor was provided by Mika Brzezinski and Willie Giest. Mika was hosting Morning Joe this morning. Mika made the point that different parts of the viewing audience viewed Rev Jeremiah Wright differently, indicated White/Black and possibly age differennces in reaction.

The "Morning Joe" producer chimed in that most of the e-mail responses the show had received was positive. The snapshot sample thought that Wright's message had been a good one.

We next had analyst of Wright by two people. The first from Rev Eugene rivers III of the Azuza Church in Boston. Rivers, an African-American preacher, felt Wright should not have made any comments until after the election. Wright's comments were too fiery, according to Rivers. The second analyst was Pat Buchanan. We don't have to wonder what Mr Buchanan's sentiments regarding Wright would be.

The interesting think about Rev Rivers as an analyst is that he was a supporter of the White House's Faith Based Initiatives outreach program. He left the program after John Dilulio left.

http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/resources/profiles.html


Two glaring facts present themselves. We know Buchanan's Conservative bias. Rev Rivers is a relative unknown to most viewers. His Bush WH association should have at least been mentioned. We had two Conservatives attacking Wright. The viewers never had their viewpoint expressed in the segment.

This is as "fair and balanced" as one can get.
I am mad as h*ll. MSM is now a bad SNL skit.