Like the 3 AM text message that announced Barack Obama’s Vice Presidential choice, the apology arrived in the wee hours of the morning. The statement Rupert Murdoch submitted may have moved an American agenda forward. The magnate personally addressed the toon that appeared in the New York Post on February 18, 2009.
Many thought Mister Murdoch’s paper published a racist rant. Black Americans feared the signal this might send. Anger was expressed. Citizens of every color showed great concern, People protested. Collectively, there was a sense that only Rupert Murdoch could change the culture, he, and his companies promoted. Yet, no one thought he would. Shockingly, he spoke out. He admitted to “his” error, and promised his paper would be more sensitive to its readership.
Some were skeptical. Several suggested News Corp owner, Rupert Murdoch, had ulterior motives, or perhaps he has a crush on the President. People wonder if his affection for the new Commander-In-Chief prompted this move. Persons who know the enigmatic executive personally recall the day, in May, when Mister Murdoch “effusively” spoke of the Presidential aspirant. The often less than candid Murdoch praised Candidate Obama. Although Rupert Murdoch is a well-established Republican, in the Spring he was quoted as saying, “He [Barack Obama] has become a rock star; it’s fantastic!”
The formidable media mogul who usually leans far to the Right, poignantly identified himself with a Progressive candidate. When asked, Mister Murdoch admitted he was responsible for the New York Postendorsement of Barack Obama. In January 2008, long before President Obama cinched the nomination Rupert Murdoch was there for the Black man who may or may not have been the subject of a February 18, 2009 cartoon published in his paper.
While the theory that Rupert Murdoch admires the current President may hold weight, a few wonder why would a man who is known not to apologize for any missteps, make such a dramatic statement. Why might Mister Murdoch do as he has never done.
Several cite the influence of his daughter. She must be the cause for such a strange decision. Many cannot imagine change has come to a man mired in Conservative causes. Commentators and news analyst dug through the archives, looking for evidence that might explain the unexplainable. They found it.
The headline in the April 1, 2008 edition of The New York Times was not a joke. Murdoch’s Daughter Hosts Obama Fund-Raiser. Nonetheless, most do not believe this remorseless man would offer a sorrowful statement. Yet, he did. After days of debate, newspaper proprietor Rupert Murdoch delivered.
As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.
Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.
Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you – without a doubt – that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.
We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.
Whatever the reason may be , the request for forgiveness, the act of contrition, a possible admission of guilt, for the appearance of a cartoon that offended many, it occurred. Economically, the nation has not yet recovered. Discrimination against one ethnicity or another has not ended. Civil Rights are still not granted to all equally. Especially persons of color will continue to experience great pain in America. Nonetheless, ethically, in this hour, America has found reason to believe Rupert Murdoch’s apology may have moved a more moral agenda.
Perchance, on another day in the future, a message will not be sent. No text will announce the arrival of a new era. True change will likely occur over time. Nonetheless, in this moment, there is reason to believe; we, the people of the Untied States, will evolve.
A good friend of mine was telling me a story about some new people he met recently – he was the first Jew they had ever met. In their curiosity, they had a laundry list of questions based on anti-Semitic comments they had heard probably their whole lives.
“No, we do not own the media.”
It is good that uninformed people seek to find the truth, but in the 21st Century, one would hope this level of stuff would no longer be necessary. But alas, Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish. Steve Jobs, the largest shareholder of Disney is not Jewish. Steven Spielberg is Jewish however, but he does not own the media – he is a filmmaker. Robert Rodriguez is also a filmmaker but he is not Jewish and neither of them run the Evening News.
So my ultra-patient friend sat through the eye-rolling questions. No, they do not sacrifice babies. They do not have a secret base on the dark side of the moon.
And no, Israel does not have a fleet of flying saucers.
In my desire to support a Progressive candidate, I can quickly rule out the Senator from New York.
I have long thought that the possibility of her running for President of the United States of America was a Republican plot, a Conservative plan. She would be their dream contender. Missis Clinton is a divisive candidate. She has long been considered a person people love to hate. Simultaneously, there are those that think of her as a celebrity. They cling to her side. The First Lady has some allies though perhaps, more enemies. With such a fractured fame Republicans can and will massacre her and likely, the Democratic Party.
The select few that appreciate Missus Clinton are coastal residents. Among these, some think she is swell. Actually, there are Conservatives that truly like her. They fund her and follow her lead, or is she cementing theirs.
The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.
The endorsements Missus Clinton receives are from the elite. Her backers have millions, perhaps, billions. They write checks to her campaign regularly. I believe in abundance and want this for all. However, it seems to me, there are those with big bucks that lean left; yet, their sway is very slight. These affluent advocates crave limited liberal policies. They support open-minded options, as long as they do not detract from their expansive executive powers. Thus, these wealthy wonders like, some love, Hillary. They long to secure the connection to her ever-charismatic husband the former President, Bill.
Rarely does Senator Clinton express or act on the ideas espoused in her book, It Takes a Village. Oh how I long for a glimmer of liberalism from the author, the legal eagle, that I once thought wonderful. I am ecstatic that Missis Clinton supports Net Neutrality and that she dared to co-sponsor the bill preserving our right to free speech. However, my heart hurts when I assess other stances this woman takes.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the “liberal” label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.
Mrs. Clinton – who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband’s presidency – is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans.
“Bush has done everything he can to leave the doors wide open,” said Robert Kunst, president of HillaryNow.com, a group dedicated to drafting Mrs. Clinton to run for president. “Hillary is the only one taking a position on immigration. She will win that issue hands down.”
In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not “think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better.”
In an interview on WABC radio, she said: “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”
“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them,” she said.
Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
“People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,” she said. “I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”
So much for a global village, a planet where we work together for the greater good! Rather than “protect our borders” I continue to ask, why not help to create a surplus for all people in all nations. Nature does this. Mother Nature cultivates growth continually. It is only man that thinks of scarcity and then establishes this mantra. I have written on this topic often. Hmmmm, I thought Hillary once did!
Since Missis Clinton arrived in Washington District of Columbia as a Senator, I have been disillusioned.
Clinton has worked hard to take the edge off her reputation as a card-carrying liberal. She has collaborated with congressional conservatives on some pieces of legislation, called for a “common ground” on abortion and cut a political figure some on the left see as decidedly un-liberal.
Clinton, who made her debut in the Senate Armed Services Committee four years ago, has never voted against any major Iraq military spending legislation. She has also taken two high-profile trips to Iraq – journeys that may have helped to strengthen the credentials of a senator with no military background or experience.
Clinton, who says she’s “always been a praying person,” has moved into the territory John Edwards had hoped to claim as the moderate Democrat who cares about the average American.
Ah yes, I remember. Was it not days ago that Hillary, the “elder statesman” traveled to Iraq and returned, telling her fellow hawk, President George W. Bush what she thinks. Possibly, in anticipation of today’s announcement, she quelled her earlier desire for escalation in Iraq. However, I am sorry and I surely am, Hillary Clinton is a chameleon!
Let us look at her recent reflections on Iraq and contrast these with her consistent votes. More importantly, realize she does want to send more troops to Afghanistan! She is a warrior and wants a concerted effort towards escalation. She only argues where soldiers might be sent.
Senator Clinton takes many troublesome and discordant stands. Apparently, Hillary wants to divide a region. No, there is no desire for global unity for the woman that states “It Takes A Village To Raise A Child.” Senator Clinton seeks to build walls. Mike Odetalla writes
My name is Mike Odetalla. I am a Palestinian/American and a father of three, who was born in 1960 in my ancestral village of Beit Hanina, which is a suburb of Jerusalem, and according to internationally recognized laws, conventions, and resolutions, is considered part of the occupied Palestinian Territories that were invaded and captured by Israel in the 1967 war. I was a child of war, having lived through the 1967 war, whereby my mother, my siblings, and I were forced to flee our home and seek refuge in the scorpion-infested caves that populate the hills that surrounded our village.
During the first night of the war, our family and the other 20 odd women, children, and the elderly, which included my 6 days old nephew, barely escaped getting blown to bits by an Israeli fighter jet that circled over head, its metallic body glistening under the full moon lit sky, which then proceeded to fire a missile into the mouth of the cave a mere few moments after my mother grabbed us, imploring the others in the cave to follow, as we scampered into a nearby olive grove, clinging to each other for comfort as the flash and deafening thunder of the blast rang in our years.
We spent the next 20 odd days moving from cave to cave as my mother and the other women tried to sneak back into the abandoned houses in our village, managing at times only gather flour and precious water for their children. Jews celebrate Passover by eating unleavened bread, which signifies their hurried Exodus out of Egypt whereby they took and baked the dough before it had time to rise. My mother baked our bread in the same fashion since we also did not have the luxury of waiting for the bread, as we were on the move, trying to stay one step ahead of the Israelis.
In 2002, when my American born children were old enough to fully understand and comprehend, I took them back to the hills of Beit Hanina and the to the very same caves that I huddled in with my family 35 years prior. We retraced our steps as we fled our homes in that June moonlit night, stopping in front of the cave whose mouth was destroyed by the Israeli fired missile.
It was important for me to show my children and tell them of my experiences as well as the experiences of their grandparents on their mother’s side who were ethnically cleansed from their homes and lands by the Zionist founders of Israel in 1948, forcing them and more than 750,000 other Palestinians to become homeless refugees, living in squalid conditions in refugee camps. Their grandparent’s home in the village of Lifta still stands today, even though their grandparents are not allowed to move back, contrary to UN Resolution 194, and other internationally recognized Laws, and conventions that deal with the refugees Right of Return to their homes.
I know that these details might not be of importance to you, but they are very important to me and to the millions of other Palestinians, especially in light of your recent trip to the Holy Land, whereby you reiterated your support for the Apartheid wall that Israel has been building to imprison my people into discombobulated walled off ghettos and in the process, steal their precious lands.
You stood with your back to the concrete wall and had the audacity to say to the Palestinians people, “This wall is not against the Palestinians. This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism.”
Your words proved yet again that neither you nor anyone else in our government has any grasp of reality of what is actually happening in the ground in Palestine. The victim is once gain placed in the unenviable position of having to guarantee the security of his oppressor, while being denied his own basic human rights and security or for that matter, the freedom to of movement in his or her own town or village.
Contrary to what you, dear reader, may wish to believe, I am not against Israel or Pro-Palestinian. I am an assertive pacifist. I want no war. For me, physical combat is not an option. Unlike Hillary or George W., I do not see those dissimilar to me as enemies. I consider others my teachers. I thrive for I think, mutually, we are all mentors.
Gurus are vital for our growth. We all need good guardians. Many of us find these in our family homes. However, some do not. Abusive circumstances can lead even the most christian [or Christian] among us to turn to divorce. The Religious Right is in favor of laws making divorce more difficult. Rather than consider in depth counseling for couples, pre and post marriage, some organizations propose that we merely make the dissolution of nuptials less possible. The zealots among us care not for familial distress. They only seek to secure the construct of “domestic tranquility.” Perhaps, an image of unity is the optimal. As organizations such as the Family Research Council espouse
Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family. Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
They look to the esteemed Senator Clinton for greater support.
For example, the Family Research Council questions what message no-fault divorce laws provide about the sanctity and permanence of marriage. “What are we communicating when it is easier to divorce your wife of 25 years than it is to let go that employee you hired two weeks ago?” We have undergone a significant shift, they contend, from a culture of marriage to a culture of divorce. And Hillary Clinton has been quoted showing support for some form of divorce reform: “I think getting a divorce should be much harder where children are involved . . . Divorce has become too easy because of our permissive laws and attitudes.”
While I agree with Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly and I even embrace the idea of divorce law reform, I do not think we can be so black or white. Circumstances dictate the need for deliberation.
I am a child of divorce. I feel the pain of parental separation deeply. Even decades later the split effects my soul, my sense of stability, and perhaps esteem. Nevertheless, I know that who I am today is who I would wish to be. Much of what was in my birth family was not the best. It did not benefit me as much as what came later did.
I totally believe in family, in the strength of a union. Even same sex unions can be wonderful, contrary to Senator Clinton’s strong reservations against these. Still, I acknowledge that people make mistakes. Life is a progression. Lessons are learned. Years ago, I might have endorsed Hillary for President. After studying her acts and realizing her rhetoric, this woman will not get my vote!