Some Questions About the 2008 Election Season

Here are a few questions that I have pondered over the course of the last year. I want to submit them myself since there are not too many people asking them in the media.

1. Why are democrats acting like they have a cohesive platform right now?

2. Why has the Democratic Party been the reactionary party over the last twenty years?

3. Why is it an issue that 90% of African Americans have been voting for Senator Obama? Why was this not an issue when 90% of African Americans supported Gore in 2000 and 84% voted for Clinton in 1996? Does this mean that black Americans are only supposed to support a non-black candidate en masse (and when it is convenient for the majority of Americans)?

4. Is this the reason why there is not a similar discussion about whether or not Senator Clinton could carry the “black” vote? Could one infer that Democrats are taking the vote of African Americans for granted?

5. Why did it take Reverend Wright’s sermons for people to stop thinking Senator Obama was Muslim?

6. Is it a crime for anyone in the American government to be a Muslim or hailing from any nation in the Middle East? What are we saying to Iranian/Iraqi/Saudi (etc.)-Americans? Why are people so distrustful of Senator Obama and not a government that mislead the American public at best, and lied at worst, about weapons of mass destruction and constantly redefined the reasons for an illegitimate war?

7. Why are Democrats letting Rush Limbaugh get away with his “Operation Chaos”?

8. Why is it assumed that Obama supporters are kool aid-sipping, weak-kneed, ridiculously idealistic, and irrational while Clinton and McCain supporters are the opposite? Read this about my encounter with a “rational” Clinton supporter. Would it be fair for me to make similar assumptions about Clinton supporters based upon a few statements or one bad interaction?

9. I cannot take credit for this question, but why do people assume that Clinton has no educated (white or black) supporters?

10. Why is it assumed that black Americans are voting for Senator Obama only because he is black? What would happened if I –as a black American – accused all white Americans of supporting Senators Clinton and McCain only because they were white?

11. Does the Islamic/Muslim/ “Middle Eastern” vote count in the United States?

12. Will we talk more about the Latino/a vote this summer?

13. What will the candidates do to ensure the voices of the disabled are heard?

14. How is the United States so “democratic” when we dismiss Senators Mike Gravel, Kucinich and Edwards?

15. Why do Americans think Ron Paul is a better alternative? Is it me, or does it sound like Paul wants to take the United States back to the 19^th century?

16. How long will it take for Americans to realize that things are changing politically, economically, spiritually, and socially on a GLOBAL scale? With this being the case it is even possible that the Clintons could really return the US to the 1990s?

17. How could the Clintons claim to be the candidate of the “working class” when President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA?

18. Does anyone remember what happened on November 30 and December 1, 1999? Why is not a framework of globalization based upon fair trade an issue in the campaign?

19. Are the candidates afraid to develop a “green” New Deal for the 21^st century?

20. Why did someone ask Senator John Edwards to speak out against the OJ verdictwww.?

21. Why are we surprised that Myanmar turned down aid from the United States? Does anyone remember when the US turned down aid from a variety of nations after Hurricane Katrina?

22. Who will Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain have to denounce and reject next?

23. Why do we praise the “founding fathers,” President John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan for their unbridled optimism, their ability to inspire Americans, and their aspirations for developing a different style of politics while criticizing Senator Obama for wanting to do the same?

24. Why are we acting like the “old” style of cut-throat politics is the solution to contemporary problems?

25. Since when did kids become political props? Will they be allowed to vote?

26. Why will it feel like I am being bought off by the government when I cash my stimulus check?

27. How did the cost of gas quadruple in the last ten years?

28. Why are we not questioning the stagnation of wages in light of the increases in energy, food, health care, etc.?

29. Why are people unhappy with their government but support candidates who will not do much to change the “politics-as-usual” attitude?

30. Is it a valid question to ask whether or not a President Hillary Clinton would affect the income disparity between men and women? Would it actually alleviate the impact of sexism on our society?

31. Where are the leaders who are not just interested in telling us how great we are, but how we could also improve ourselves? Why do we need our “leaders” to tell us how “hard working” and “great” we are?

32. Why do we think a new president is going to help us? Can we not develop progressive organizations that will help us help ourselves?

33. Why am I no longer mad when I hear people say they will not vote because they do not feel they are being represented, or that a particular individual will be corrupted when they enter the system?

34. Why have we not really considered fundamentally changing our electoral system?

35. Why?

Awakening to a Great Revolution?: Dr. King’s Legacy 40 Years Later

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

-Austin C. McCoy

 

As many already know, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was gunned down forty years ago yesterday. I was disappointed that I did not coordinate my schedule correctly in order to take a road trip to Memphis to participate in the march. However, I felt compelled to reflect on the significance of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

While much of the media has focused on a few of his speeches and remarks—his “I Have a Dream,” “I’ve Been to the Mountain Top,” and now his views on the Vietnam War and poverty—I want to reflect on his last Sunday sermon, “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,” in order to draw parallels between his historical moment and ours.

 

Dr. King delivered “Remaining Awake” just five days before he was assassinated on April 4 at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. In the sermon, Dr. King warned of the sleep masses who “…find themselves living amid a great period of social change and yet they fail to develop new attitudes, the new mental responses—that the new situation demands.” From there he outlined three global revolutions—weaponry, technology, and human rights. These revolutions in weaponry and technology were significant in King’s thinking because they threatened to intensify existing domestic and global conflicts. He also argued against the persistence of a racism that remained behind closed doors, denied, “subtle and sometimes not so subtle…” Dr. King also called for a global, interdependent strategy to address poverty.

 

While it would be unfair to argue that King’s circumstances in 1968 match the concerns of different individuals today, I think we too could think of particular revolutions that at least have the potential to adversely affect us. Although we enjoy some of the fruits of technological and political progress, various aspects of globalization have wreaked havoc here and elsewhere. People are losing jobs domestically, nations in Africa are still struggling amid unnecessary debts, and individuals from many backgrounds are being exploited in sweatshop style factories around the world. Our revolutions in weaponry have done little to eliminate death and ensure safety. More than 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq while more than 29,000 have been wounded. It’s also been estimated that over 150,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion. While some conservatives and neoliberals triumphantly claimed revolution in 1995, we all are aware of the 47 million people without health insurance. We are still running the “race to incarcerate” as the justice system has incarcerated over 2 million people. According to the Sentencing Project, one in eight black males are in jail on any given day. While about 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness a year, in New Orleans, one in twenty-five residents are currently homeless. Murder rates in large cities like Philadelphia have been ridiculous over the past year. While it may appear to be less threatening, we are consuming at a rate eleven times more than the Chinese. And hopefully, many of us are aware of the specter of global warming and climate change by now. Yes, all of these problems developed for vastly different reasons, but it is very likely that we all, no matter the color, would have to answer to Dr. King if he were still alive.

 

So what to do? How do we reclaim the dream?

 

The best way to honor Dr. King’s, as well as that generation’s, legacy may be to shift our inquiry. Ironically, we may need to quit asking him. Instead of asking what he would do, we should ask what we plan to do. Instead of stepping right into the customs, tactics, ideologies, and institutions, I would argue that we begin the quest for new forms. These forms can and should come from everywhere—history, experience, action, and mind work. They could also be ideas that were once thought to be divergent. Can we collapse binaries and resolve contradictions long enough to purposefully act? One would think it would be okay if our goal is not naked and unrestrained power. We need new languages. We need new conversations about race that resists descending into arguments to be won or lost. We need new means of organizing and challenging the status quos that are in sync with today’s revolutions of information technology and industry (or lack thereof). Essentially, for all of the action that is required, a lot of mind work also needs to be done. We need understandable conceptions of difference—race, class, gender, sex, disability, etc. We need to develop accessible definitions for the struggles that we face locally and ruminate on how to define and attack overarching problems (“How do we define and address ‘globalization’ anyway?”). Thinking and acting locally and regionally may help us to expand our horizons to attract and include an array of groups nationally and globally. Before the infamous “Nipple Gate,” Janet Jackson—with the assistance of Public Enemy front man, Chuck D—emphatically declared that we needed a “new agenda.” We need to develop a new human rights agenda that accounts for an array of experiences in all of their complexities. We will do ourselves a disservice if we tell people to forget about who they are and come together because we are all simply human. On one hand, that is too easy. On the other, there may be too much at stake for one to do so. We cannot take for granted that identity (-ies) and humanity are both constructed, neither just exists in a vacuum. Maybe the strident beliefs and expressions of monolithic identities are the result of taking our collective selves for granted. I know I have been guilty.

 

I would caution one to hold their breath if they believe this call for a more complicated vision of human rights means shedding whatever identities to which they claim. I am not proclaiming to give up my definition of myself as a black American. Generations before me struggled for the right to determine themselves, both as a group and as individuals. To recognize this historical fact is to honor them and to attempt to make real the idea of a diverse America. This does not mean that all (black or otherwise) Americans should think or act as I do, because they too are also exercising the same right I am. What this is a call for is new ways of building working coalitions with different individuals from different groups in different contexts. Yes, we all have to be willing to compromise some aspects of ourselves, but it should not be in spite of ourselves; it should be for the sake of positive societal transformation.

 

We need to ask tough questions. Yes, black and white people are important, but what about Native Americans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Iraqis, Afghanis, etc? Shouldn’t we be expanding the platform to include as many groups as possible whenever possible? Why are we comfortable with the convention of zero-sum power? Is it too much to ask that everyone could have a chance marry who they want? Why isn’t the media talking about the virtual invisibility of Muslims in our political process? Why do people throw around the words “Jew” and “gay” as if they are funny? How come when someone believes something is wrong with the youth, it seems that all of hip hop culture is to blame? As problematic as some artists are(because not all of them are perfect), there many of them (that often go unheard) who have a lot of poignant things to say, even if it comes out in a rough manner. If elected President, will Hillary Clinton only make 77 cents to a dollar that President Bush makes? Probably not, but how can a woman run for President of the United States while the disparity remains? It will take a great amount of individuals from different backgrounds in a variety of locations to join with those who are already attempting to resolve these questions.

 

There are a plethora of issues that affect people locally, regionally, nationally, and globally: sexism, violence, bigotry and indifference, poverty, war, mass incarceration, globalization, etc that need addressing now. There are also different reasons why these problems exist and play out. Again, the question remains, what to do, and more importantly, how? One place to start, as Dr. King often asserted, is our values. He often advocated for a revolution of values. The human element should be elevated above the profit motive. We should seek consensus building to solve problems instead of engaging in ideological warfare. Is it truly impossible to recognize both the individuality and interdependence of human experience? Even in the height of the Cold War, Dr. King called for a “socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.” This call, if actually answered, could be the most transformative. What if we began to question the values undergirding existing institutions? This is not to say that this does not occur. Government officials do it every time they encounter a plan or department they dislike. A corporate leader does it every time she or he does not get a desired outcome in a business venture. Should we even wait to experience a loss before we do so? We should not. We will have to build new infrastructures that allow for continuous evaluation of existing institutions, the ability to discard the ones we do not like, and the room to build new ones. While doing so, we will also have to reconsider the dominant leadership and organizational models which, depending upon the circumstances, tend to be hierarchical and dogmatic comprised of a few people. Why continue to have the “best” democracy money can buy when we may be able build one using the best of our human resources?

 

We can no longer afford to engage in a politics of indifference, antagonism, and alienation nor a fearful and narrow nationalism if we hope to be successful. War and individual acts of violence will not solve any of our problems. How much more money and “stuff” do we need? Only a positive thrust for a true, more participatory democracy that accounts for the diverse experiences of all people can push us beyond the cusp of human progress that eludes us. Granted, getting to the “mountain top” and into the “Promised Land” will not be easy, especially if there are plenty of people who believe they are already there or that neither exists. However, we cannot be afraid to tell the cynics, the comfortable, or the hostile that we do not need them to get there. We cannot wait. Like Dr. King wrote in “Remaining Awake,” time is not neutral and it can either be used “constructively or destructively.” We cannot afford to destructively waste our time. So, if others want to remain asleep, that’s fine. We should be able to find a way. But, we cannot afford to wait for them to wake up. Besides, I don’t see how a sleeping population can stop anyone alert and hungry for change from declaring their own independence. While I hate to say this, we can leave them behind and graciously leave the door open for them to follow once they awaken from their slumber.

 

Dr. King’s last sermons ironically remind me of a hip hop song performed by a hip hop group you may not have ever heard before due to personal tastes or public perception, the People Under the Stairs: “I feel like the revolution’s already here. It’s just a matter of whether you can hear or don’t hear, some choose the latter…”

 

We can no longer afford to make the choice to remain asleep or tune out the music. We may be sleeping through a revolution and I’m not talking about a Presidential campaign.

 

© 2008 Austin C. McCoy. All Rights Reserved.

Barack Obama : : A More Perfect Union

I will post my response within the next couple of days. Meanwhile here is a complete video and transcript courtesy of his campaign website. It was big.

 

Barack Obama : A More Perfect Union

Not Spitzer’s Girl

–Jessica Winck

 

I’m annoyed with the media’s new fixation on Kristen, the woman whose services New York Governor Eliot Spitzer used and got caught paying for. It’s hard to call this fixation “coverage.” Nothing new has happened except the discovery of her MySpace page, a pretty static piece of information: it hasn’t been altered since she was identified as a prostitute, and we should doubt that it was constructed with the expectation of being identified at some point with a very public name.

The presentation of the information found on her MySpace page is interesting in itself. On CNN, a headline related to the scandal reads, “Spitzer’s escort: ‘I love who I am.’” Why write the headline as if this is Kristen’s response to the attention and judgment she has received because of the scandal, and not a quote pulled from her MySpace page? (We do not even know if her statement is directly in reference to being a prostitute.) Read after the scandal, her statement reveals what we already believe to be true about Kristen: she is a defiant slut, acting in that bold, shameless way that is the only way we ever see prostitutes act. Read before the scandal, the statement reveals a confident woman who has a reason to love herself and who, despite any failings or personal disappointments, does not have unreasonable judgment against herself–unlike many if not most women her age. And the media cannot have that.

The appearance of defiance and shamelessness is extended (if not hinged on) the pictures she posted on her MySpace page. The two most commonly shown as “Kristen” on news sites include her in a bikini, leaning forward with her elbows on her knees. She wears sunglasses and appears to be on a boat. Easily this picture satisfies assumptions viewers have about her as a prostitute: she shamelessly shows her skin out in the open, and her sunglasses, convenient happenstance for media, might act to show her secretive intentions.
The other photo that most often appears on news sites shows a Kristen in profile, holding her fingers in a peace sign. Black nails, brown hair on her bare shoulder and down her back, a provocative look we do that, in our self-aware ways, shows we know someone is looking. Compared to the pictures NOT chosen to represent “Kristen,” these two photos are definitely the sexiest of the bunch. In other photos, Kristen puts her head down on a table in a mock sleeping pose, another looks like a senior picture (black and white dramatic close-up), another of her looking goofy with her hair in her face, and another one with even more peace signs.

No more crazy than the pictures we take of ourselves with camera phones, change dramatically to black and white or sepia, and use for online representation. Look what happens when this woman experiences increased public attention: people view these couple photos chosen by a slut-shaming media and believe all the pieces are coming together–the realization of their assumptions in “reality.”

But can it get any more ridiculous than the assumption that Kristen will capitalize off the scandal? MSNBC headlines read, “Fame of call girl in Spitzer case grows. Vote: Should Ashley A. Dupre grab her 15 minutes?”

Gratitude and many thanks for the new audience? How do we know, and why are we voting on it? Given that she has said nothing to media except the self-conscious, “I just don’t want to be thought of as a monster,” and that the media has lifted her whole MySpace page for use in their news pieces in order to gauge the potential reaction “this woman” (as we know her on MySpace) has to the scandal to which she is central, we need to withdraw our judgment along with our fanatical interest in “The Woman Behind Spitzer’s Fall.”

With at least eight other known events where Spitzer paid for sex, why fixate on Kristen? Why duplicate her MySpace page over and over, combing it for revealing details? And why call her HIS (”Eliot Spitzer’s Kristen”) as if, once her one-time services are paid for, she belongs to him forever and can only be seen as having been HAD by him?

My concern is that the attention on Kristen gives Spitzer way too much respect. Do we imagine that Kristen recognized the Senator and felt privileged to be at his service? Do we imagine that anyone “like her” would have to jump at this chance to cheaply promote herself (the singer and artist) within the confines provided to her by a media that loves to bash “sluts”?

People who knew Spitzer or knew of him have been bemoaning his “fall” day and night all over the news. To be tied to a prostitute forever! Sure, it’s not good for your reputation. Spitzer is done. He mourns “what might have been.”
Kristen, a twenty-two year old artist, still has her whole life ahead of her. After watching the focus on Kristen growing sharper and sharper, it’s hard to feel badly for Spitzer anymore–not that I can’t see the damage done to his career, not that I can’t imagine what must be going on inside his home with his family. But he can’t do much to reconcile all this, and he probably won’t ever save his political identity.

Kristen, on the other hand, might have had her future career and public image ruined because of this negative attention. It might just be too bad that she, rather, will always be tied to him.

Steve King, Republican Congressman: Al-Qaida Will Be "Dancing In The Streets" If "Hussein" Obama Wins - Politics on The Huffington Post

 

Steve King, Republican Congressman: Al-Qaida Will Be “Dancing In The Streets” If “Hussein” Obama Wins - Politics on The Huffington Post

 

Is it me or is King the one reading too much into his middle name?…

Building a World House: A Critical Reflection of a Clinton Rally and American Political Process

On Friday, February 29, 2008, I attended a rally for Senator Hillary Clinton where former President Clinton was the guest speaker. As usual, he was impressive. He outlined Senator Clinton’s positions on health care, education, the war, and her fundamental political philosophy of change and experience. Former President Clinton’s engaging personality and sense of humor also came to the fore when he sought to distinguish his wife’s platform from that of Senators Obama and McCain. However, with all of this said, I walked out of Malabar Middle School and drove out of my hometown of Mansfield with a nasty taste in my mouth.

One would think that one could participate in the political process without harassment from those with whom one may disagree. Is that not what American democracy is supposed to be about? Well, if one had to gauge the prospects of our democratic republic by the treatment I received from a couple of Senator Clinton’s supporters, then I would conclude that it is in dire straits. Yes, I am a critical supporter of Senator Obama (My reasons are forthcoming in another piece.). But, I am not anti-Hillary Clinton. I do not believe in a system of zero-sum politics that say I have to dislike another person because I support someone else. I actually have the utmost respect for the Clinton family, and some people could even point to moments when I have emphatically defended them. And as much as I critically support Senator Obama, I support participatory democracy MORE. I support critical participation over blind faith. I believe it is always important to seek to understand alternative points of view. This is why I accepted my friend’s invitation to attend the rally. Yes, I just happened to be wearing my old and disintegrating Obama for Illinois t-shirt, sticker, and pin, but I was not trying to stir the jug by any means. Yet, despite my intentions, a couple of people thought otherwise. After returning from a restroom break and a brief chat with the local superintendent, one of the volunteers for Sen. Clinton’s campaign tried to block my reentry. Even after trying to let her know that I had entered once before, she insisted that I could not reenter unless I filled out another form soliciting assistance for Sen. Clinton’s campaign. Luckily, one of the volunteers that I worked with during the Kerry campaign intervened and confirmed my prior entrance.

After President Clinton’s talk I sought to visit with some acquaintances. While I was speaking to one of my friends, who happens to be a local reporter, an older woman stopped and glared at me after she noticed my pin. Out of nowhere she asked in a rude tone, “What are you doing here? What are you doing here?” After I asked her what she meant, she pointed to my pin and pretty much expressed that my presence was unwelcome. Once I reminded her that we practice a democratic form of government where I could exercise my right to free speech and disagreement, she began questioning me about Senator Obama’s middle name. I replied that Hussein was a Muslim name. Then I tried to explain that people were trying to emphasize his middle name in order to scare them away from supporting him. I also said that she should not be concerned with that, she should be concerned with “racists”—which was a bad choice of words on my part—who seek to capitalize on other’s intolerance and fears. After saying this, she denounced me as being “racist” and a “confused” voter. And her denouncement came after she told me that she “did not want a Muslim in the White House.” But, I’m racist?

I was astounded and irritated to say the least. I could not believe she would make this accusation, especially since I was trying to explain the situation. I could not believe that in a country that professes to be democratic and ready for “change” that some individuals would take it upon themselves to exert what little privilege they had to make a point. I thought this was the reason why black and white individuals marched during the 1960s? What else is a shame is that it is very possible that her parents and grandparents could have had a terrible time trying to exercise their own electoral rights because they were people of color. Who would have thought that is what the legacy of fighting, marching, and dying for freedom rights in the 20th century would be?

When I originally sat down to write this, I planned on penning an unfavorable piece on Richland County’s Ohio for Hillary Campaign, however, it would not be fair to my friends who support Senator Clinton, nor to the majority of volunteers who may have thought something, but were mature enough not to express anything. As I wrote earlier, I am not a blind supporter of anything or anyone. I do feel, however, that individual and group participation in the political process is paramount. While today reminded me not to take the free democratic process for granted, it also reminded me how much we need to fix the political process. No one should blindly follow any candidate. Not one! Granted, people fought, marched, sacrificed, and died for one to vote any which way they choose. However, we should take stock in the moment and seek to understand the policies of each and every candidate. We should stay away from zero-sum politics which states that if we support someone, or a set of policies, we automatically disregard others. Sometimes the most radical thing to do is to work together in spite of disagreements. Sometimes the most radical tactic is to listen instead of trying to impose one’s (perceived) political will. While many may approach politics as if it were a contact sport where we seek to tear down opponents, we should instead approach politics as if we were building an elaborate house. All people who want to participate are welcome. All skill-sets should be encouraged. Each person can help set the foundation, build the exterior, interior, as well as laying the roof. Only then will a majority of people feel like stakeholders in the process.

Of course people will dismiss my plea for positive political participation over cynical engagement (which people of every campaign are guilty) as probably more utopian than Senator Obama’s call to transcend differences. This is not a call for political softness either. There is always space for “strength,” fearlessness, courage, and ideological self-defense. But we should not ever make room for narrow-mindedness and disrespect in our political discourse. And if any member of any campaign wants to take this personal, then do so. Maybe then we will have dialogue about our approach. It is fine if this is seen as an idealistic plea. Because I am sure that there are people, not just in this country, but the world, who seek to build a 21^st century version of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s conception of the “World House.” In 1967, Dr. King warned that if people of different races, religions, classes, gender and sexual identities, and beliefs did not learn to live together, they would “perish together as fools.” This vision of political participation and global human evolution is as important now as ever before. This moment in time is larger than a “maverick,” “change-agent,” or an “embodiment of change.” It is not about the outcome. The ways in which we participate will ultimately determine how we are judged. If we do not seek innovations in how we participate and relate to one another, then it does not matter who wins the Presidency—Senator Clinton, McCain, or Obama—we will only remain a shaky edifice that could eventually implode, leaving other nations and groups of people to suffocate in the rubble. Could we be so selfish?

Insight to Why I Support Barack Obama

By Jason I. Hale

“I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.”
–Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK, on endorsing Barack Obama

Thankfully the 2008 election is shaping up to be less heated than the 2004 election. With George W. Bush’s approval ratings consistent at 39% (Rasmussen Report), the United States in general appears to be ready for a new president, regardless of who it is. As many of you know, I was fairly active in the 2004 election – registering voters, attending debates and rallies, and canvassing for John Kerry. As the 2008 election coverage began in early 2007 with the candidacy announcements, I once again found myself obsessed with the political game.

In 2004, a young upstart vying for a U.S. senatorial position in Illinois named Barack Obama gave a momentous speech at the Democratic National Convention that blew me away and rivaled some of the most inspirational speeches in political history. Although I encourage you to search and listen to that speech online at www.youtube.com, here is a sample:

For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief - I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper - that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. ‘E pluribus unum.’ Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America - there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America” (July 27th, 2004 – Democratic National Convention).

It was evident from that moment that Barack Obama was a special politician. He was quickly labeled as the “rising star” of the Democratic Party, and subsequently, handily won his position in the United States Senate.

In early 2007, he announced his candidacy for President of the United States. In the months that followed, I read his bestselling book, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. This memoir, written in 1995 (before all of his political fame) is best summarized by Barnes and Noble:

“In this lyrical, unsentimental, and compelling memoir, the son of a black African father and a white American mother searches for a workable meaning to his life as a black American. It begins in New York, where Barack Obama learns that his father - a figure he knows more as a myth than as a man-has been killed in a car accident. This sudden death inspires an emotional odyssey-first to a small town in Kansas, from which he retraces the migration of his mother’s family to Hawaii, and then to Kenya, where he meets the African side of his family, confronts the bitter truth of his father’s life, and at last reconciles his divided inheritance.”

After learning about the details in Barack Obama diverse backstory, I went on to read his latest publication, The Audacity of Hope, which explored his various stance on issues in broad strokes. The following was lifted from the Barnes and Noble Synopsis as well:
“A senator and a lawyer, a professor and a father, a Christian and a skeptic, and above all a student of history and human nature, Senator Obama has written a book of transforming power. Only by returning to the principles that gave birth to our Constitution, he says, can Americans repair a political process that is broken, and restore to working order a government that has fallen dangerously out of touch with millions of ordinary Americans. Those Americans are out there, he writes — “waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them.”

After reading his well-written books, absorbing his electrifying speeches, and witnessing his ability to bring people together, I can only hope that the voters of Ohio will be a part of his exciting push to the presidency. The momentum has been building since Iowa first gave Barack their support in early January. Obama has won 19 of 29 states so far and looks to do well in the three states voting February 12th. The United States of America has embraced Barack Obama, as evidenced by his diverse supporters, who appreciate his call for hope, change, and for a united future.

How does Barack Obama differ from Hillary Clinton? Well, to be honest, on most issues, they are very similar; however, Barack offers a couple of unique characteristics:

• Barack Obama has the ability to bring together Democrats and Republicans. Hillary Clinton, although a fine candidate, is detested among Republican voters and the Republican Party; therefore, in the general election, she will pull very few independent voters in comparison to Barack Obama (who may actually pull some Republicans as well). For the past eight years, Republicans and Democrats have been in keen opposition to one another, mostly due to the polarizing figure of President Bush. Republicans were fierce Bush supporters and Democrats were fierce Anti-Bush combatants. We are at a time in American politics when we need to move past party lines to due what is best for the future of the United States. Hillary Clinton would be a return to the politics of old – the politics of Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other.

• Barack Obama was against going to war in Iraq in 2002 when Hillary Clinton voted to give President Bush the authorization. He recognized that Saddam Hussein posed no immanent threat to the United States and that the real focus should have been a continued effort in Afghanistan to eliminate Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Here is an excerpt from his speech on Oct. 2nd, 2002:

“I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

Barack Obama vs John McCain

Since the beginning of the Iraq war, the Bush Administration has continued to paint Democrats as weak on “terror,” claiming that their opposition to the Iraq war was a signal that they would allow terrorism to run rampant and unchecked throughout the world. Five years into this Iraq war, the United States has ultimately bankrupted itself, allowed Osama Bin Laden to remain at large, Al Qaeda to regain strength in Northern Pakistan, all the while tarnishing our image abroad and making little or no progress in Iraq. As of February 5th 2008, 3,947 U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March of 2003, and nearly 29,092 have been wounded in hostile action (Associated Press). Iraqi Civilian deaths (non-combative Iraqis) number 81,032-88,479 (www.Iraqbodycount.org).

Last summer, amidst all the continuing bloodshed in Iraq and talk of U.S. troop timetable withdrawals, Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain pushed for a “Troop Surge” (or increase) in Iraq under a new general (Gen. David Patreas) to quell violence in an attempt to buy the fledgling Iraqi government and Prime Minister enough time to settle their political divisions and provide the fair division of oil production so ultimate to the restoration of government control over the Sunni-Shiite divide.

To this point, the violence has gone down, as should be expected when the United States increases its troop levels; however, the Iraqi government has made little progress. Stay tuned, the November election will again be about the Iraq war.

Barack Obama vs The Chain Email

I would also like to take a moment to address the unfair anonymous chain emails that are circulating, attempting to scare voters. Barack has been attacked in a number of emails that you may or may not have seen which claim that he is a Muslim and that he refused to be sworn in to office with his hand on the Bible, saying that he was instead sworn in on the Koran. It also claims that he will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance and that when others place their hands over their hearts, he turns his back to the flag and slouches. This is absolutely ridiculous and 100% false, and frankly, I find it incredibly intolerant, ignorant, and offensive. Barack Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ and he and his family have been members of the same church for twenty years now. His Kenyan paternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather were Muslim, but Barack Obama has never been a practicing Muslim. For a complete analysis of these false allegations and the actual truths, check out: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
If any of these claims were true, don’t you think that it would be covered in the actual NEWS? I could start a circulation email today claiming that John McCain actually had homosexual experiences while serving in the military. And although this is absolutely false and incredibly unfair to Senator McCain, it would undoubtedly hurt his campaign. Why anybody would believe a chain email is beyond me?

Don’t let false petty rumors dictate your decision. Vote for a candidate based on what he/she has done in the past and what you believe that he/she can do for the United States of America in the future.

As March 4th rapidly approaches and you prepare to cast your vote in the Ohio Primaries, I ask you to research the remaining Democratic and Republican Candidates before you make your way to the polls. When gathering this information, it is best to examine non-partisan factual sources. Avoid Conservative or Liberal radio stations and opinionated newspaper editorials. These sources aim to persuade voters and will ignore the facts, smear the opposition, and distort the records just to help their candidates cause. If you have access, explore the following:

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/
Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/elections

Thank you for your time,
Jason I. Hale

My Hip Hop Top 25

Well, those who know me are aware of how much of a fan I am of hip hop. So, in the spirit of the new year I thought I would put together my top 25 hip hop albums of 2007. Now, for those who may not know myself and just happen to stumble upon my list, I will preface this by saying that this is not meant to be an “objective” list. You will not find too many albums that feature dance-inspired tracks. I don’t have anything against Lil’ Wayne, but you won’t see any of his mixtapes on this list. Curtis is also M.I.A., I don’t care about Jim Jones, Kanye doesn’t have the best hip hop album of the year, and don’t ask me about Soulja Boy having the #1 music video on BET.

So, to make it somewhat fair for everyone, I did come up with my own rating system. I judged each release that I owned according to the following (on a five point scale): beats and rhymes (that’s simple), creativity (Yep, please don’t try to sound like everyone else–unless you’re better than everyone else. And I don’t mean creativity for the sake of it either.), influence (This is ambiguous and tough to judge but, could this change the game-at least on a small scale? Should other artists take notice of your album?), nostalgia (Was your release memorable in the ‘07?), hype/anticipation (Another tough and self-centered category, but I wonder if your release was anticipated by myself, by fans?), surprise (Did your release just come out of nowhere? Or, was your album surprisingly better than I thought?), cohesiveness (I want a good ALBUM, not just a string of ringtone tracks or I-Pod favorites!), replay value (This is another tough category for recent releases, but not for earlier albums.), and then “bonus” (Again, totally self-centered, but I don’t think any of these albums received less than a 2.5 in this category.).

There it is. It is up to you to agree, disagree, add and subtract albums as you please. I don’t claim to be an expert. I’m just a fan. I will say this, I don’t believe in a perfect album so no artist on this list received a 50, but no one received less than a 25.

 

The Top Ten

10. Cap D, Return of the Renegade (43/50)

 

The Heat: Return of the Renegade, Blow, Bright Lights, Street Knowledge, Ups & Downs, The Come Up, Shabazz, Adrenaline Rush

 

“See people ask me what I ever stop for. I had to rediscover what to rock for. I rock it for the heads who love the hardcore. I rock it for the babies out in Darfur…”

The Word: Natural Elements veteran, Cap D, comes through with his second (or third) solo effort. Originally this album was ranked 13 or 14 but it rose due to all of the “ties” in the top 10. Don’t get me wrong, Return of the Renegade is top 10 worthy. There is really only one hiccup in the album and that was Rhymefest-assisted “Destiny.” I don’t know what it was about the track (maybe it was the sample) that just did not seem to sit well with me. Beyond that, Return of the Renegade is not short of bringing the heat with tracks like “Return of the Renegade,” “Adrenaline Rush,” and “Street Knowledge.” Cap D and Ali also does justice to a sample already used by Ghostface and Raekwon (”Apollo Kids”) on “The Come Up.” The only other problem with Return of the Renegade was that it clocked in under 45 minutes.

9. *Tie* Hell Razah & Blue Sky, Black Death, Razah’s Ladder (44/50)

The Heat: Razah’s Ladder, The Cube, Halos, Audiobiography, Project Prophecy, Painted Jezebels, Written in Blood, Stairway to Heaven

“Most of my fanbase hate Bush, but love kush. The White House will get ambushed…” - Hell Razah, “Stairway to Heaven”

The Word: This is another album that came from nowhere. Hell Razah is a hip hop veteran that should be recognized as such with this release. Production team, Blue Sky, Black Death also deserves their props! Razah’s Ladder includes two tracks (”Razah’s Ladder” and “Stairway to Heaven”) that can compare to anyone’s. The first artist to receive a 5 in any category.

 

Cunninlynguists, Dirty Acres (44/50) *Mood Music*

  The Heat: Never, Valley of Death, Dirty Acres, Wonderful, Yellow Lines, Summer’s Gone, Georgia, Mexico

 

The Word: I remember seeing someone’s opinion of one of the tracks (”Yellow Lines”) where they compared it to tracks on Outkast’s ATLiens. I was like yeah right…that is until I heard the whole thing. Don’t get me wrong, they’re far from Andre 3000 and Big Boi, but if you were a fan of that album, just listen to it.

 

8. Black Milk, Popular Demand (45/50)

 

The Heat: Sound the Alarm, Insane, Lookatusnow, U, Shut it Down, Watch’Em, Action, One Song, Luvin’ It, Home of the Greats

The Word: Dubbed as Dilla’s heir apparent, Black Milk comes through with a strong debut album . One of the better produced albums of the year. One of the few albums that I had to ORDER! I think Milk’s got next!

 

7. X-Clan, Return From Mecca (45.5) *Music With A Message*

The Heat: Voodoo, Why U Doin’ That?, Weapon X, Speak the Truth, Weapon X, Atonement, Self-Destruct, To the East, Locomotion, 3^rd Eyes on Me, Respect

“I circle with street-soldiers that build and plant stakes. Free the land from Babylon, my skills educate. In these United States there stands no debate. The restrictions of law makes us communists of hate…” - Brother J, “Prison”

The Word: While most people either no longer care to hear  modern incarnations of the “pro-Black” music that was popular in the late 80s and early 90s or even remember X-Clan’s previous efforts, I was anticipating the efforts of Brother J and the Clan. Again, I may have to remind the reader, this is MY top 25, not The Rolling Stone, not The Source, not any of the hip hop sites. Surprisingly the production is good and Brother J, while not the ill-est lyricist, reveals his hunger and capacity to pen meaningful lyrics. “Prison” is probably one of best tracks I’ve heard this year, and in a long time. Don’t forget, 1 in 3 black men in the United States end up incarcerated at one point in their lives. In an era where the younger generations don’t respect their hip hop elders, X-Clan’s Return… was one worth making. Boasting well-placed guest appearances from the likes of KRS, Charlie 2na, and Tech N9ne, Return from Mecca is politics with the boom-bap.

 

6. Ohmega Watts,  Watts Happening (46/50) *Mood Music*

The Heat:  No Delay, Model Citizen, Few and Far Between, Eyes & Ears, Roc the Bells, Adaptaco, Dedicated, Gone With the Wind

“I ignite change with the stroke of a pen…Watts is at it again…” - Ohmega Watts, “No Delay”

The Word: Unfortunately, most people probably haven’t heard of Ohmega Watts. Actually, I had not heard of him until I purchased his last cd, The Find last year. That album is still one of my favorites, so when I heard he was preparing to release this album this year I was hyped. I try to talk this guy up anytime one of my closest hip-hop heads asks me about some music. His albums are usually diverse; they include some boom-bap-type tracks as well as the chill. He will throw a couple of R&B-ish as well as some instrumental cuts as well.

I can’t say that Watts Happening blew my mind away like The Find. I would probably classify this as some “mood music” also (like Common’s). This effort begins at a slower pace (with the exception of the first track) with tracks like “No Delay” and “Model Citizen,” but then it picks up later. This really isn’t an “I-Tunes” album where you select tracks and put them in your I-Pod, Watts Happening is a great album that should be listened to all the way through. With that being said, you should put at least “Model Citizen” and “Gone With the Wind” on your mp3 player.

 

5. Cilvaringz, I (46.5/50)

 

The Heat: Wu-Tang Martial Expert, The Weeping Tiger, In the Name of Allah, Jewels/Christ & Judas, Blazing Saddles, The Saga, Elephant Juice, Dumb, Deaf & Blind, Valentines Day Massacre

“So I conceded to Allah to fight Satan, teach Pagans, and diversify Arabians/In the eyes of those victims in the media/giving them an image of a threat made it easier for them to slay us in the eyes of the weak and justify a war with the lies that they speak…” Cilvaringz - “Dumb, Deaf, & Blind”

The Word: One of the few hip hop albums (in English and that’s made it into the U.S.) from the point of view of an orthodox Muslim—a Muslim and Wu-Tang affiliate in fact. Some people may take issue to his poem, “Death to America,” but if you’re open-minded enough not to skip this track, then you may appreciate his efforts of conveying an alternative point of view.

Anyways, this is vintage Wu. “Wu Tang Martial Expert,” again, is up there when it comes to starter tracks. When it comes to the sound of the track, one almost confuses Cilvaringz and Rza. There’s some false advertisement with many of the featured guests. Method Man and Ghostface provides introductions on “In the Name of Allah” and “The Weeping Tiger.” But Killarmy and Killa Sin kill it on “Blazing Saddles” and “Dart Tournament!” I is not devoid of serious tracks as Cilvaringz drops some knowledge on “Elephant Juice” and “Dumb, Deaf, & Blind.” I’ve heard that many of these tracks are not “brand new,” so I may have left a few people disappointed. However, if you’re a Wu fan and you haven’t heard any of his work, then I is a must have for the 2007.

 

4. *Tie* Kanye West, Graduation (47/50)

*Watches for thrown objects*

The Heat: Good Morning, Champion, I Wonder, Good Life, Can’t Tell Me Nothing, Flashing Lights, Everything I Am (I still can’t believe Common passed on this track…), The Glory, Homecoming, Big Brother, Bittersweet

 

“I know people wouldn’t usually rap this. But I got the facts to back this. Just last year Chicago had over 600 caskets. Man, killing’s some wack shit. Oh I forgot, except for when niggas is rapping. Do you know what it feels like when people is passin’?”  - Kanye West, “Everything I Am”

The Word: This is probably the most anticipated review of them all. How does Kanye end up with the sixth best album (At one point in time he was hanging on for dear life at #9)? It could be argued that this is an unfair judgment, however, when one thinks of his previous two albums, it leaves one wondering, was Kanye only trying to win awards with this album? Did he only care about making “stadium-status”-type tracks? Because to me, while the production remains still top-notch, and Kanye is Kanye, Graduation seems to be Kanye’s album where he “dumbed down so he could double his dollars.” So I can’t tell him nothin’. But Kanye should at least take this away, he is so good of an artist that now his future work will be judged among his most phenomenal work and among the best that hip hop and music has had to offer. Graduation is still a great album nonetheless, and it should be considered as  one of the best releases among the real (paid) critics. I’m so glad he defeated 50!

 

El-P, I’ll Sleep When You’re Dead (47/50)

 

The Heat: Tasmanian Pain Coaster, Smithereens, Up All Night, Drive, Habeas Corpus, Flyentology, No Kings, The League of Extrodinary Nobodies, Flyentology (Cassettes Won’t Rewind Remix), Poisenville Kid No Wins

 

“This is the sound of what you don’t know, killing you. This is the sound of what you don’t believe, still true…”  El-P, “Tasmanian Pain Coaster”

The Word: Yes, This is the chic “underground”  pick of 2007. And as my saying goes…there’s some artists who are underground because they’re good and made that choice and there’s some who are underground because they’re just not that good. At first, I thought El-P fell into the latter category after hearing this as well as his previous album. Thus, I’ll Sleep When You’re Dead did not get much burn. Then, I don’t know what happened. This album just stayed in my cd player for a couple of weeks in a row. I can’t explain it. The production is much more cohesive than his beats that were featured on his first album. “Tasmanian Pain Coaster” sets the tone of the album with its intensity; it is probably one of the better opening tracks of this year. “Flyentology” is parody of “scientology” and religious faith in general. “Habeas Corpus (Draconian Love)” is a weird tale about a female prisoner and a guard who seeks a tryst.  “No Kings” makes you want to break out the fat black marker and spraypaint and go tagging. El-P’s I’ll Sleep When You’re Dead is subterranean New York sound. If El-P would’ve included the “Flyentology (Cassettes Won’t Rewind Remix)” with Trent Reznor this album would be rank a little higher (If he wanted to put himself on the hip hop/music map, he should release this song as a single with a hot video, repress the disc with this song as a bonus…that’s what I would do, anyways…). But if you buy this then find that remix and add it to your disc, I-Pod, mp3 player or whatever.

 

3. *Tie* Common, Finding Forever (47.5/50) *Mood Music*

The Heat: Start the Show, The People, Drivin’ Me Wild, Southside, I Want You, The Game, U, Black Maybe, Misunderstood, Forever Begins

 

“I watch Crash and realize that we’re all survivors, no religion or race could ever describe us. My guys do dirt, but never really talk about it. Forever begins, just because I thought about it.” - Common, “Forever Begins”

The Word: Ironically, Common edges Kanye for the 3^th spot (Was originally 8th). As Kanye’s teammate, Common continues to provide his fans and listeners with that melodic, chill, and thought-provoking music. “The People” was probably one of my favorite tracks overall this year—and one of Common’s best. It almost plays like a sequel to the title track from his last album (Be). Actually, this whole album could be considered an extension of his previous effort. The group of producers—Kanye, Dilla (R.I.P.), and Will.I.Am—helped assemble one of the more cohesive albums of the year. I wish he would release “Southside” as a single because both Common and Kanye kill it on some straight hip hop in the park sh…! Tracks like “Forever Begins” & “U, Black Maybe” is one of the more meaningful tracks of the year also. If you’re hip hop or a music fan, then you should buy, and if you’ve only downloaded this album, then you owe Common some cash!

 

Jay-Z, American Gangster (47.5/50)

The Heat: American Dreamin’, No Hook, Roc Boys, Say Hello, Ignorant Sh.., Success, Fallin’, American Gangster

 

“Imus, the part when it stop being about Imus, what do my lyrics have to do with this shit? Scarface the movie did more than Scarface the rapper to me. So that ain’t the blame for all that’s happened to me…So let’s stop bullshitting, until we all without sin let’s quit the pulpittin’…” - Jay Z, “Ignorant Shit”

The Word: Inspired by the MOTION PICTURE (in case some people forgot) American Gangster finds Jay returning full circle to his hustlin’ roots. In fact, this may be more of a thematic album than the infamous Reasonable Doubt. The group of producers who worked on this album—Diddy & the Hittmen, Just Blaze, the Neptunes, and DJ Toomp to name a few, did well to craft a backdrop that harks back to the mood of the 1970s. And in addition to his tales of drug dealing, Jay gets a little more political on tracks like “Say Hello” and “Ignorant Shit.” While it was hated on, his second single, “Roc Boys (And the Winner Is…)” was one of the hotter singles of the year. I guess there weren’t enough hand claps, finger snaps, 808’s, and a dance to go with it. And although “Ignorant Shit” was released after The Black Album via mixtape, it was nice to hear Beanie’s appearance and to have an official version. Overall, this album is top 3 of the year and his best work since The Blueprint. I’m sure, as all of Jay’s work, this will be debated. He ties with Common but if you know boxing, the champion always receives the benefit of the doubt.

2. Lupe Fiasco, Lupe Fiasco’s The Cool (48.5/50)

The Heat: Go Go Gadget Flow, The Coolest, Paris, Tokyo, Gold Watch, Hip Hop Saved My Life, Streets On Fire, Little Weapon, Dumb It Down, The Die

 

“He picked up his son with a great big smile, rapped every single word to the newborn child. Then he put him down and went back to the kitchen and put another beat and got back to the mission of…get his momma out the hood…man it feels good when it happens like that. Two days from going back to selling crack, yessir…”

-Lupe Fiasco, “Hip Hop Saved My Life”

The Word: Here’s another album that I’ve seen catch a lot of flack on the ‘net. While it may not be better than Food & Liquor, I think its top 2 this year. On one hand it’s one of the more complex concept albums, and on the other hand, there seems to be tracks that don’t necessarily fit the concept like “Go Go Gadget Flow” and “Little Weapon,” but, somehow, fits. There are a lot of tracks on here that should be in my list of tracks of the year. “The Coolest,” “Paris, Tokyo,” “Hip Hop Saved My Life,” “Streets on Fire,” “Little Weapon” and “Dumb it Down” all stand out. “Hip Hop Saved My Life” is about an aspiring artist’s struggle to leave drug-dealing for success in the rap game. It provides a great contrast to all of the recent media hoop-la of hip hop (culture) killing young black Americans. Lupe envisions the “streets” a woman afflicted with a mortal illness and he raps from the perspective of a child soldier in “Little Weapon.” As said earlier, this album is not just a great listen, its complex. I’m sure I’ll be picking up on lyrics on this album a year from now. It may appeal to a wider audience, but it’s still a great album nonetheless. No sophomore slump here.

 

1. Talib Kweli, EarDrum (49/50)

 

The Heat: Everything Man, NY Weather Report, Say Something, Country Cousins, Holy Moly, Eat to Live, Soon the New Day, Give Em’ Hell, More or Less, Stay Around, Hot Thing, The Perfect Beat, Listen!!!, Hostile Gospel, Pt. 2, The Nature

“…lend me your ears, start repenting because the ending is near but don’t panic because you can’t function if you’re living in fear. Pay attention you gotta listen to hear…banging on the system. Fighting my kind of war. Loud as a whisper, quiet as a lion’s roar.” - Talib Kweli, “Listen!!!”

The Word: So, here’s my album of the year. I wonder who is surprised. Well, I was. This was another album I was not too impressed with off of first listen. At first, EarDrum seemed all over the place (esp. with all of the producers), but the more I listened to it, the more it seemed to come together. This album includes some boom-bap, straight up hip hop tracks, like one of my favorite songs this year “NY Weather Report.” Talib remains thoughtful on tracks like “Eat to Live,” “Give Em’ Hell,” and the Justin Timberlake-assisted, “The Nature.” Talib also provided listeners with one of the better cuts for the ladies with the Will.I.Am-produced and assisted, “Hot Thing.” There are also great guest appearance from the unlikely of guests like U.G.K. in “Country Cousins” and Norah Jones on the somber “Soon the New Day.” Everyone’s favorite rapper, Kanye West also makes an appearance on the chilled out, “In the Mood.” Hip hop stalwart, Pete Rock brought the heat on the beat tip on “Holy Moly” and “Stay Around.”

So, Talib “I can’t be everything man” Kweli here’s to you in the ‘07!

 

The Best of the Rest

11. Ghostface Killah, The Big Doe Rehab: 42.5

12. Blue Scholars, Bayani: 42 (Music With a Message)

Percee P, Perseverance: 42

The Heat: The Man to Praise, Watch Your Step, 2 Brothers from the Gutter, Ghetto Rhyme Stories, No Time For Jokes, Put it on the Line

The Word: Finally, the long awaited solo album from hip hop veteran.

 

13. Wu Tang Clan, 8 Diagrams: 41.5

The Heat: Campfire, Take it Back, Rushing Elephants, Unpredictable (except for Rza’s guitars!), Wolves, Gun Will Go, Windmill, Weak Spot, Life Changes

The Word: As far as Raekwon’s beef with the guitars and changing beats, he was right when it came to “Unpredictable.” The guitar does take away from it. And I’ve heard another version of Wolves that’s pretty good too, but I may like this beat better. More generals should’ve been on this track. Appearance of Gza on tracks like the Mathematics-produced “Stick Me For My Riches” was unexpected, but I guess Wu is truly unpredictable….

Statik Selektah, Spell My Name Right, 41.5

 

Prodigy, Return of the Mac: 41.5

The Heat: Stuck On You, Mac 10 Handle, Take it to the Top, Bang On Em, Nickel and a Nail

The Word: Prodigy’s Return of the Mac was Jay’s American Gangster before Jay seen the film. I was not impressed with this album upon first listen, but as albums do sometimes, it grew on me. Rife with 70s –era samples, Alchemist produced the whole album. The production helps because I’m not sure if I’ve gotten over Prodigy’s style change after Murda Musik and Infamy. I mean this is the person who said, “My empire strikes with the strength of poisonous snakes…” and has killed it on some of the best hip hop tracks ever made with Mobb Deep. If there was only one groups I can turn the clock back on it would be Mobb Deep. Because Prodigy from 1995-1999 was not just light years ahead of his current boss, 50 Cent, as far as lyrics are concerned, he was up there with the likes of Big, Nas, Wu, and the “American Gangster” himself.

 

14. Blu & Exile, Below the Heavens: 39.5

Brother Ali, The Undisputed Truth: 39.5

15. Mr. J. Medeiros, Of God and Girls: 39 (Music with a Message)

Special Teamz, Stereotypez: 39

 

16. Public Enemy, How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold their Soul????: 38 *Music with a Message*

The Heat: Title Track, Back to Black, Harder Than You Think, Amerikan Gangster, The Enemy Battle Hymn of the Public, See Something,

The Word: Next to collaborative effort with Paris, could be their best album since their Def Jam days.

 

One Be Lo, The R.E.B.I.R.T.H

17. Evidence, The Weatherman LP: 37.5 (Underrated!)

 

18. Little Brother, The GetBack: 37

The Heat: Sirens, Can’t Win for Losing, Breaking My Heart, ExtraHard, Two Step Blues, When Everything is New

The Word: Album grew on me. I was probably just pissed that there was only one 9th Wonder track. But GetBack is more soulful than I thought. The GetBack is in the 40s if they include tracks like “Step Off” and “The Getaway.” It left me wanting more!

 

19. Black Milk, Black Milk Presents…Caltroit: 36.5 (Under the Radar)

 

Joell Ortiz, The Brick:Bodega Chronicles: 36 (Surprise Album!)

Standout tracks: 125 (Pt. 1), Brooklyn Remix, Hip Hop, Modern Day Slavery, Block Royal

The Word: This is another album I overlooked. I was distracted by my schoolwork when I first listened to this album. To make matters worse, I was listening to it through my weak laptop speakers. So, when I decided to sit down to listen to the Ortiz properly I was quite surprised by the plethora of hard-hitting tracks. If this would have came out in between ‘96 and ‘98 The Brick may have had more fan-fare. Dr. Dre needs to put this man out now!

20. DJ Jazzy Jeff, The Return of the Magnificent: 36

21. Wyclef Jean, The Carnival Vol. II: 35

22. KRS-One & Marley Marl, Hip Hop Lives: 34.5 (Music With a Message)

Killah Priest, The Offering: 34.5

DJ Muggs and Sick Jacken, DJ Muggs vs. Sick Jacken: The Mask and the Assassin: 34.5

23. Pharoahe Monch, Desire: 33

The Heat: Free, Desire, Push, Welcome to the Terrordome, When the Gun Draws, Let’s Go, So Good, Agent Orange

Notes: There are three things with Pharoahe: A.) This album was long overdue. B.) Three of the tracks that were leaked plus the Public Enemy cover were the best tracks on an album (”Agent Orange” has been out for years. “Desire” was leaked in ‘06 and “Push” earlier in ‘07. “Let’s Go” may have been leaked too if I’m not mistaken.) That’s a problem. Desire begins with an adrenaline rush and comes to an almost halt towards the end (with the exception of “Agent Orange” or “Book of Judges” depending upon the version you have). And I almost forgot, C.) Is it true that Black Milk may handle a lot of production on his next effort? If so, he’ll be in my top ten if I ever do this again.

24. UGK, Underground Kingz: 32.5

25. Killa Sha, GOD Walk On Water: 31

 

Close, But No Cigar

1. Cassidy, B.A.R.S.: 29.5

2. Sean Price, Jesus Price Superstar: 29

3. Scarface, Made: 28

4. Strong Arm Steady, Deep Hearted: 27.5

5. Boot Camp Clik, Casualties of War: 27.5

6. K-Os, Atlantis: 27

7. Median, Median’s Relief: 25.5

8. Marco Polo, Port Authority: 25

9. Polyrhythym Addicts, Break Glass: 24.5

10. Havoc, The Kush: 24

Grassroots Theories

–Aaron Beveridge

Ideological analysis makes investigating individual perceptions and worldviews a conceptual impossibility. Ideologies, essentially, are categorized perceptions/worldviews of social groups. Individual perception cannot be understood within this sort of analysis, because ideological analysis is a categorization of perception in an attempt to understand the connection between the ways people “see” the world, and the ways they act within it. What does this mean? Categorical systems work based on the similarities of grouped individuals, not on their particular differences. Take for example the taxonomy of various animals—a categorical classification. Categories that separate fish from mammals from insects cannot account, in and of themselves, for differences amongst mammals or within the singular category of fish. Individual differences between different mammals can only be accounted for by creating subcategories within the mammal category like horse, dog, or cat. However, investigating the various differences amongst the many mammals in the mammal category does not help us understand the difference between mammals and fish because it is the similarities of all mammals that allow us to categorize them into a singular group—similarities which are compared to a different category of similarities in fish. Description of individual qualities can only happen within a singular group—the difference between mammal A and mammal B. However, when we find similarities to mammal A in the mammal category, and similarities to mammal B in the mammal category, then we begin to create subcategories to explain the differences between mammal A and mammal B, and again, individuality is erased. Any sort of categorization cannot account for difference without creating new subcategories, and these new singularities, by design, erase difference and individuality.

Grouping people into a single category based on difference is literally senseless. As such, we assign people various ideological perspectives based on their similarity to other individuals; based on a perceived connection between the ways they “see” the world and the ways they act within it, we categorize them with other people who “see” and act similarly. And immediately, according to this system of explaining why and how people act within the world, we are unable to embrace individuality—we are unable to explain individual people in the complexity of their own social-historical position. For example, we talk of the ideology of the Christian Right as if it explains why the individuals within that category think and act the ways they do. Or, we discuss the ideologies of consumerism and capitalism in an attempt to understand why people make various choices.

But do any of these ideological explanations actually help us change the way people “see” the world and act within it? No they do not. In fact, they give us an excuse to not work with people with whom we probably disagree. If another group of people “sees” the world differently, then how can we work together? But this is the problem. Why do we need to see the world the same? Does anyone really “see” the world the same way? This is the point of my critique of ideological analysis. Any categorical explanation (aren’t all explanations categorical?) functions by categorizing things according to their similarity, and as such individual difference cannot be explained by categories or any generalizing theory for that matter. And we all know that we each “see” the world a bit differently. Anyone who has had a close friend or partner knows this to be the case. No matter how well a person knows me, or has experienced the same things as I have, I still “see” and act within the world a bit differently from everyone else, and misunderstandings thus occur. And though I assume this is true for all of us, we still function and interact with our friends and partners even though we all “see” the world a bit differently. But why is it that we are able to function on a daily basis with other individuals that “see” the world differently, when we have such a problem functioning on a societal level between larger categories and theories for “seeing” the world? Because, we pledge our allegiance to the large categories for “seeing” the world. The large theories that describe our place in society, how and why we should function, make us feel safe. We find the category which suits us the best, and we fall in line. And sometimes, the categories choose us. But either way, we wear our ideologies like fascist patches sewn onto our clothes—“I’m a liberal,” “I’m a conservative,” “I’m a libertarian,” or whatever other theory/category we use to define ourselves—and rather than understanding one another as complex individuals in a messy society, we accept our labels and we gladly give them to others. We think that we cannot work with a conservative if we are liberal because they “see” the world differently than we do, but this is just the large theory lying to us—causing us to forget that no one “sees” the world exactly the same way.

The purpose of grassroots theories is to avoid the categorical problems that occur when we understand one another based on broad categories. The smallest theory of how and why the world functions is individual experience. But individual experience is meaningless to society if it cannot be understood by other individuals, and as such, I’m not sure that categorized theories on how and why the world functions can be avoided. But we need to keep our theories small. People with small theories are more likely to work together, and to question the accuracy of their perception of the world as compared to others. People with small theories are closer to the action, and more likely to be effective in working toward a common cause. Large theories have to explain and predict far too much and as such are far less capable of dealing with particular difference and individual circumstance. But we like large theories. They are easier because they are grand, further from the action, and require revision less frequently. We declare our allegiance to large theories, like the theories of ideology, because they explain so much, they help us understand the world, and because of this we feel secure.

But if we realize that no one “sees” the world the same way. If we begin to focus less on the large theories that explain how and why we function in society, then we will be able to do the most radical action of all—“see” the world differently, and still work together. This is what is meant by grassroots theories—we work from the bottom up. We first concern ourselves with common cause not with differences in how the causes are perceived. Both the right and the left have systems for helping the poor—the right tends to favor non-profit organizations and the left seems to favor social programs. And thus the battle ensues over which approach to helping the poor is more effective. One group becomes more powerful, and increases the funding to their privileged means of helping the poor, then the other gains power and it reverses. Rather than approaching the problem from the bottom-up focusing on helping the poor by any and all means, we instead make the battle about whose method is better. Grassroots theories takes a different approach—the pragmatic approach. We ought to help by both methods if in fact both methods do help the poor, but the priority would be the helping the poor and not the method employed.

The point of the grassroots theories is that it is not necessary for people to change the way they “see” the world in order to work for a common cause. We do not have to “see” the world the same to work together because this is impossible in the first place—no one “sees” the world exactly the same as anyone else. This is what encompasses a grassroots theory; groups of individuals working together on a common cause by any and all means—because the cause comes first, and the ideologies, theories, and labels come second. Maybe I’m a bit of an idealist to hope that people would work together on common causes rather than fighting for their various categorized ways of “seeing” society. Yet, I would rather promote systems for change with the potential for real success, instead of arguing the validity of ideologies.

Pragmatic Participatory Politics

Word on the street is that participatory democracy is becoming more popular with the searing issues of immigration, war, and health care to name a few. The idea that regular, everyday, people should have a say in the decision making policies in the local, state, regional, and national arenas have also experienced a boost with the expansion of the blogosphere as well as the explosion of the other means of transmitting information through more direct avenues of influence and power. Wikipedia, You Tube, MySpace, Facebook, and old-fashioned emailing are playing a vital role in balancing the communicative flow between the powers that be and the regular American. And if one couples these developments with the already proliferating mobile devices, the regular person becomes more able to connect with other like-minded individuals in their efforts of exerting political influence and affecting social change. Aren’t these good developments? Yes—partly; potential setbacks—old and new—often accompanies technological advances. While these developments may afford more access to particular groups of people (the youth) who have never had much of a formal say in politics, and the American public in general, this market has not extended itself to those groups of peoples who may need it the most, and it still does nothing to alleviate the poverty in American discourse and action. The notion of American citizenship remains entrapped in the dogmatic web of the “normal” political process, the dilemmas woven by the triangulation of American political ideology and the pervasiveness of fast-food politics and activism. The goals of this piece are to briefly discuss these problems plaguing the American system while providing possible insights to addressing these problems.

The Triangulation of American Political Ideology

Left and right, (neo)conservative and (neo)liberal, and Democrat and Republican are the labels that usually come to mind when one thinks of the American political spectrum. However, the independent tendency has remained relatively strong in the midst of American polarization. Now, with more visible figures in the media (i.e. Bill O’Reilly), in politics (Michael Bloomberg), and everyday people staking out a stance independent from the usual trappings of GOP and Democratic and liberal and conservative politics, it appears that another pole has been driven into the American political soil. While in many ways this should be celebrated—since it gives many on the left or right refuge and it can account for the complexities within ideological positions—this position (like every position) also has its drawbacks. One of the most harmful drawbacks is one that is not essentially independent or moderate; it’s the problems of dogma.

This dogma seems to suggests a socio-political delusion that posits the moderate, or independent, as almost innocent from any socio-political missteps. Proponents of this position cannot be considered insensitive because s/he does not believe s/he is; it is against the law to actually be sexist, or racist. Consequently, if one mentions these, this person may think the person bringing those issues up as racist, hypocritical, and maybe fascist. This position posits itself to be one that is sensible, fair, balanced, and expects everything encountered in the socio-political realm—news, television shows, documentaries, etc.—to be objective, to present both sides to the issue and be free from dogma, hypocrisy, and propaganda. However, what many seem to fail to realize is that human reality is more complicated than just trying to discern what may be contradictory and propagandistic. Also, there is stubbornness in this position itself, and this stubbornness, or arrogance, can affect how one takes in and disseminates information. Consequently, if this person encounters a situation (especially in within the larger media conglomerate) that is perceived to be “fair and balanced,” there may be no questioning of the overall presentation (there may be questioning of the particular individual that this person may already disagree with). This in itself hinders any person from critically engaging within the political process. This person is only willing to ask the obvious questions; the questions about those already depicted as being on the left or the right. This person may not be as quick as to ask the questions of why a particular person, or agency, was chosen to discuss a topic, the purpose of that presentation, and what that particular representation means in the overarching political discourse. Political moderation can be, at times, as arrogant and dogmatic as any political position.

Do not get me wrong, it is admirable to aspire to think outside the box (independent) and/or pursue moderate politics. Yet, just like anyone on the left or right poles of American politics, those who identify with the center or the independents can also become fixated with their positions rather than actively seeking solutions with an open mind. In the moments between publications, I have encountered quite a few individuals who would rather dismiss particular claims, questions, and potential solutions because they were either “leftist” or conservative rather than actually engaging the claims, questions, potential solutions, and the problems. Is it becoming too radical to actually have a conversation with someone who thinks differently as opposed to participating in arguments for no gain?

The Poverty of American Political Discourse & Action

This leads to the second criticism of the American political climate—the poverty of American political discourse and action. This poverty is not anything new; it is a mix of old and new concerns regarding the operating American political system. It is not just characterized by the 30 second scathing sound bite; it has included the advent of “rock-star” politics, polarized representations of issues, fast-food protest, and the traditional anti-intellectualism. Rather than tackling the complexities of individual candidates and issues, many media outlets focuses more on the celebrity status of politicians, thus extending the gap between regular people and politics. Instead of trying to provide a conversation that does justice to complex issues, most mainstream media shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, supposedly provides fair and balanced debates with a few people representing “each side.”

While no approach is perfect, it is very problematic in the sense that many people are expected to accept these people’s views as stand-ins for the actual. This is unacceptable. These representations are often extreme and do not account for any complexity within the particular position. They can also harm a particular side’s case more than help. If I do not agree with the messages purported by some hip hop artists, I would not want to be associated with Jason Whitlock because of how he paints the culture with such a broad brush and seeks to belittle anyone who disagrees. But, as seen on CNN and MSNBC, he was often called upon to provide “balance” in the debates regarding hip hop and the Don Imus controversy. And as Jon Stewart discussed with the hosts of Crossfire, this approach does nothing to foster any critical thought in the media, or the populace. No one questions who is being asked to “represent” these perspectives and how these individuals fit into larger scheme in getting a particular point across. This has been one of the many issues with shows like Hannity and Colmes and the defunct Crossfire where each side is numerically represented but everyone usually knows who is dominant in the conversation. No disrespect to Alan Colmes, but Sean Hannity has the stronger personality, more known credentials (books, radio show, and even hosts his own TV show—Hannity’s America), and is the anchor of the show. Everyone knows who is running the show.

Another aspect of political framing is the manner in which members in the media talk about particular issues. Since much of the news media has begun to resemble entertainment and argumentation, many participants have relied upon particular labels as a means of denigration and dismissal rather than adequate description. It is not too difficult to figure out what Lou Dobbs is trying to accomplish when he says “Communist China.” This is not to say that China is perfect, or “better” (if there is such a thing), but anyone who may passively accept this label seems to forget that China has become formidable players in the global economic marketplace—a long stretch from the holistic imperialism (domination of other countries politically, spiritually, and economically) engaged by the Soviet Union during the 20^th century. His, as well as others, framing illegal immigration as one of amnesty also seemed to have contributed to the deficiency of discourse around the subject.

Fast-food activism also accompanies the polarization of representation, soundbites, and celebritization of fast-food politics. What is meant by fast food activism? Take the rising gas prices for example. Everyone who drives and consumes goods have little patience for the rising prices. They are stretching our already constrained budgets. So, what do we do? We forward email messages to each other instructing us to boycott gas purchases for a day. What? How is that going to lower gas prices? Okay, instead of boycotting all gas, we will boycott a particular gas station in order to foster competition. Realistically, neither of those will work unless we all can demonstrate our willingness to give up gasoline for an extended period of time. The success and failure of political action and movements rests upon the amount of work that we are willing to put in. If one does not demonstrate that they are willing to give up something to get something in return, what incentive does any gas company have to lower its’ prices, especially if they have great friends in high places?

What was missing from the proposed protest was an investigation of how, we, the people can do to alleviate our own individual dependence on gas. Also what are other kinds of action that can be engaged during and after the boycott? Do we write letters to our congress people? How do we educate everyone regarding this crisis? Are any of us willing to make more responsible vehicle purchases in the future? Long term vision is needed for success, not just a good idea.

Bill Clinton’s relatively successful presidency (depending on you ask), his infidelities, and his post-presidency endeavors have catapulted him in the political stratosphere. Al Gore has also experienced similar widespread success. While there is not a whole lot wrong with celebrity politicians—or celebrities themselves—it becomes problematic since concerned citizens are left craving substance because many in the mainstream media are only feeding upon the celebrity status of public officials. The more the public worries about what color Hillary Rodham Clinton wears, the cost of John Edwards’ haircuts, or the amount of wives Rudolph Giuliani has taken in the past leaves little time for vigorous debates surrounding the issues and solutions concerning the most vulnerable in American society.

The Evolution: Pragmatic Participatory Politics

So after describing the contents of the half-empty glass of contemporary American politics, how does one move themselves into position to see the glass half full? The direction is not necessarily relegated to the left or the right. One can seek to retain any position, the point is to become critically engaged and move! It is inspired by the nature of what Dr. Cornel West describes in his book, The Evasion of American Philosophy as “Prophetic Pragmatism.” It is not about the name or a badge of pride. It is about doing; it is about moving and reproducing. One never says they are doing pragmatism, or acting on behalf of pragmatism, they are too busy acting. That is how it is participatory. It is open to all people. It is as open to the bottom fifty percent of America as it is to the fifty-one to ninety. The top ten percent may be too afraid. Human activity is the fuel of the action, of any particular movement. The human activity is also what makes it political since we live in a country where mass political action is rare. One’s action is only called pragmatic afterwards—in the phase of reflection.

Pragmatic participatory politics (PPP) upholds the tangible values of literacy, education, judicious open-mindedness, connectivity and intersectionality of issues, (collaborative) action, community-building, and reflection in the efforts of striving for a common cause. This form of democracy also endorses the intangible values of individual and collective responsibility and independence and self-determination, flexibility, acceptance, respect, healthy criticism, optimism, encouragement, and creativity at it’s best and constructive criticism, and confrontation at its worst. Practitioners of a pragmatic participatory politics seek to have the ability to begin at their own standpoint (chosen or given) and move toward a center, hopefully changing themselves along the way. While not one ideology is the universal corrective for anyone’s problem, we all have the capacity to act and reflect. There is a common cause.

Pragmatic Participatory Politics does not encourage a blind faith in any system, method, or point of view. It is unafraid. Pragmatic Participatory Politics seeks to investigate the problem and explore a variety of means to addressing the issue. It also allows for the reconfiguring of dominant systems with marginal parts. It requires a pragmatic blending of systems in order to account for the realities of the fortunate and the most vulnerable. It requires everyone to think of everyone. It requires everyone to be accountable everyone else. It calls for new ways of lifting all of humanity from the bottom—with each person and group having a handle. It calls for evolutionary systems of community and politics.

So, how is this supposed to be carried out? Well that is for particular individuals and communities to figure out. Pragmatic Participatory Politics is situational. It is far from perfect. In other words, the road map is in keeping up with the world. Pragmatic Participatory Politics is about acknowledging human rights as well as individual and group rights. It is not about the institutional snobbery that can be found in government, business, or higher education. It is risky. It is possible that Pragmatic Participatory Politics can allow someone to be who they are and work with someone else who may consider themselves different. It allowed Aaron and me, who would have considered us to be on the left at the time, to work with a more conservative Hank Osborne on the problems of homelessness. Consequently, it allowed all of us to foster a long-lasting relationship—something that may not have occurred if we would have been preoccupied with getting each other to think in a particular fashion. Ultimately, Pragmatic Participatory Politics is about seeing the world both as a glass half-empty and half full. The most controversial idea has always been defying convention—whether one is a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or even Moderate.