I'm Mad At What 9/11 Has Become...

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm mad at what this day has become, and how it's been exploited.

I'm mad that the Republicans have exploited this tragedy at every opportunity, and used it to perform an end-run around the Constitution and declare war on a nation that had nothing to do with these attacks.

I'm mad at that propaganda snuff film shown at the RNC. That so-called tribute was, and is, a disgraceful way to "honor" anything involving these attacks.

I'm mad that on the one hand, President Bush decided that Osama bin Laden wasn't important enough to focus his (and our military's) attention on, yet John McCain (through his own words and that snuff film) proclaim that he's the only one that can bring Osama to justice. Contrast this with the idiotic Bush press secretary saying that the U.S. doesn't have "super powers" needed to expedite Bin Laden's capture.

I'm mad that this administration chooses to "honor" its soldiers by sending them into conflicts that have nothing to do with this attack, and then subjecting them to the worst-possible care possible. Of all people, veterans of this war should NOT have any health-care woes, period. Veterans of this war should NOT have to deal with treasonously sluggish administrative hang-ups just to get the care they've earned and deserved. Veterans should not have a candidate like McCain claiming to be supportive of them when his criminally tragic voting record (ESPECIALLY considering that -- in case you didn't know -- he was a POW) says otherwise.

I'm mad that the American public fell for the okee-doke boogey man of gay marriage and allowed President Bush to get reelected, especially considering how he catastrophically botched all things post-9/11.

I'm mad that the talking head media nitwits and so-called journalists failed to do their job and allowed the Bush Administration to continue unchecked in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

I'm mad that the Democrats punked out when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, granting this administration carte blanche to continue its disastrous foreign policy, all under the guise of a 'war on terrorism.'

I'm mad that there is more conversations about lipstick, pigs, fish and pitbulls while this administration "celebrates" 9/11 as "Patriots Day."

The Rebirth Of A Nation -- The RNC Propaganda Piece Disguised As A Tribute Video

Propaganda. It's defined as "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." To add a little bit to the context of what I will discuss, I will take it one step further.

Hate Propaganda. It's defined as "...the systematic dissemination of doctrine, rumour or selected information to promote or injure a particular race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin."

The Republican Party just finished their National Convention, in which John S. McCain and Sarah Palin were officially nominated as the Republican candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. Now, there is much to be said about McCain, Palin, how she was picked, whether or not McCain is ready, whether or not Palin is qualified, etc. ad nauseum. But this isn't about those two, specifically. This is about a piece of propaganda that aired during the Convention. The piece was propaganda on the same level as D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation." If you're not aware of the film, it was basically a recruitment film for the Ku Klux Klan. Don't believe me?
This is the poster.

So yes, "The Birth of a Nation" is not exactly progressive in it's approach to race relations. What does this film have to do with the Republican National Convention's "Tribute To 9/11 Video"? Absolutely everything. If you wish, you can click here to see it in its entirety. The link also has journalism's Prophet of Rage, Keith Olbermann apologizing on behalf of his network. Olbermann may have one of his patented Special Commentaries about this, but I decided that I couldn't wait for Olbermann to express what I was feeling. Let's begin.

The piece is supposed to be a "Tribute To 9/11."

See? It says it right there: "9/11 Video Tribute."

The house lights dim, and an ominous piano sets the stage for what we're about to see. So, how does this Tribute To 9/11 begin? Of course, it should begin with showing the courageous efforts of First Responders, the police, the military, and common everyday citizens showing remarkable courage in the face of an unforeseen catastrophe. That's what a tribute's supposed to be, right? Well, THIS piece of propaganda filth begins with...
A shot from the Iran Hostage Crisis. The ominous Narrator of Doom tells us "The first attack occurred in Iran... 444 days America held hostage."

Stop right there. My first reaction was that, as usual, the Republicans in this God-awful administration are tying together pieces that have nothing to do with each other. I first thought "What does the Iran Hostage Crisis have to do with 9/11?" If you said "nothing", then you get a silver star. However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll see that this video is designed to anger up the blood against Iran, who is on President Bush's "Axis of Evil." Pretty sneaky, sis. They are reminding us about how we were attacked by Al Qaeda by opening with images of Iranians holding Americans hostage. In other words, the Right is hammering the point home that Iranians are bad, too. The Republican Party sets the tone by tying an event from 1981 to the United States being attacked on 9/11. It's clever in its wickedness.

They move on from there to show all sorts of shots of terrorists rallying against the country, including this one:
...and the narrator reminds us that those big bad terrorists have been always pushing our buttons. The attack on the USS Cole is pictured, but the attack on U.S. troops in Beirut was oddly missing. My speculation is that since this attack happened under the watch of President and Patron Saint Ronald Reagan, it would undermine the current theme of this film. Even if it's not the case, it's strangely odd that an attack that killed 241 American servicemen was not featured as part of how "the terrorists" have been picking on poor ol' U.S.A. A shot of this terrorist is also featured in the video:
...you remember him, right? Osama bin Laden? The guy who actually ORCHESTRATED 9/11?!? The guy who is still making "Death To America" mixtapes in the caves of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan? Moving on...

Then, we get to the meat of this propaganda sammich.

Clips from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are shown over... and over... and over again.
Is it really a tribute to show horrific catastrophes over and over again? That's not a tribute, to me. That's like showing a tribute to police officers by airing footage of them being killed in action, or showing a tribute to firemen by watching a burning structure collapse on them and entomb them. What's next? A tribute to Hiroshima by showing mushroom clouds and the entire region being vaporized? A tribute to JFK by showing the assassin's bullet ripping his skull open? The Ominous Narrator chimes in on the attacks, and accompanies the footage by saying "...and kill us, they did. This time, on American soil. The date was September 11. 9/11." To bring the point home, the Evil Narrator of Doom also reminds the good citizens of the Republican Party of some more points, that need to be analyzed and dissected before it's swallowed whole like the poison it is.

Quote: "This enemy sworn to our destruction has been at war with us for decades. This we now know."
Analysis: For one, "decades" is a bit of a stretch, especially in the context of this video. The video opens with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which is about as far from 9/11 on every aspect as President Bush is from competence as a President. Remember, Al Qaeda is NOT based in Iran, and there wasn't even such a thing AS Al-Qaeda when the U.S. hostages were taken. Furthermore, it should be noted that the U.S. hostages were freed in the absolutely scandalous Iran-Contra Affair, in which "members of the Executive Branch (of the United States Government) sold weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages." It's not only disingenuous to paint Obama's ideas as appeasement, but it's downright hypocritical, seeing as how the Republicans TRADED WEAPONS WITH OUR "ENEMY."

The "decades" line is also a lie because the first public reference to Al Qaeda occurred in 1998, under an Executive Order from Bill Clinton, two weeks after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Furthermore, the first attack involving Osama bin Laden occurred around 1992, when bin Laden attacked a hotel.

This "decades" line is a propaganda piece because it lumps any Islamic faction that has anything to do with enmity of the U.S. into one lump of "Islamofascist terrorism." This video fans the flames of xenophobia wrapped in the comfortable blanket of Old Glory. It fails to underscore the differences between the Iranians that held the U.S. hostage, Al Qaeda, and Iraq. It also misleads the average person into ignoring how Americans' own actions precluded the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the attack on 9/11.

"We know this now" is another problematic phrase, because it misleads the average person into believing that we were blindsided and 'poor old Uncle Sam' was minding its own business when the bad guys attacked. But the Iranian Hostage Crisis...

...was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.

Furthermore, a little research into Al Qaeda shows that its origin started as a result of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, that began in 1978. At the time, and leading into the 1980's, the Soviet Union was the big bully on the global block. And the U.S., wanting to stop the spread of Communism, did its part by funding the mujahedeen and the Taliban through Pakistan. So, once again, the U.S. sowed the seeds of terrorism by funding groups that would eventually turn on her. But the U.S. has yet to reap the whirlwind.

Trouble began to brew according to this account:

Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait,^[60] and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent. In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.^[61]

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked.^[62] His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.^[63]

There's no need to get into further detail about the events that led to the attack on the World Trade Centers, but bear in mind something else: The Bush Administration had an explicit warning from the Clinton Administration about bin Laden's plans. The Bush Administration did nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. Research will also prove that the line from the film where the Evil Narrator says "It is a war we never chose to fight ...for too long, we looked the other way" is equally misleading. We only looked the other way after we interfered in matters that were none of our concern. We kicked the kerosene lamp onto a bundle of hay and we looked the other way when the structure burned to the ground. We lit the short fuse on a catastrophic bomb, and looked the other way when the bomb exploded. We looked the other way, like a bully would after wreaking havoc. We then feign surprise when the people we bully decide to fight back. "We never chose to fight"? Hardly. We chose to interfere. We chose to sow poisonous seeds, and we can't take it when we reap cataclysmic fruit.

And lest you forget just how low the Republicans will go in order to tug at the heartstrings of the simple minded, the film includes graphic photos like this:
What better way to show just how horrific the events of 9/11 were, than to show blood-stained signs where people were looking for loved ones or paying tribute? To say that this is in bad taste only marks the tip of the iceberg at my disgust for the Republicans. Again, would they show a tribute to a cop by showing a bullet-riddled uniform of a cop killed in a hail of gunfire? Of course not. But there is no problem with them including blood-stained images as a reminder of just how horrific and terrible the attacks were.

The video ends with this image:...and Darth Narrator saying "...the enemy is wrong. This is a war America will win. And we'll have a president that knows how. And... we will never let it happen... again."

Yes, to make sure that you're completely sold on the War on Terror, the propaganda spinmeisters end with footage of the World Trade Center, pre-9/11. And the Darth Narrator's screed underscores the necessity to understand the concept of cause and effect, actions and consequences. "We'll have a president that knows how"... the thinly-veiled implication is that Barack Obama's Presidency will give rise to more attacks on U.S. soil, and that the U.S. will surrender in the War on Terror. First of all, a war on a "belief" or "action" can't be won. You can have victory against Al Qaeda or any other group that's an enemy, but to win a war on "terror", you have to make sure that "terror" is destroyed across the globe. It is utterly impossible to do this, especially with this hamfisted approach to foreign policy.

For example, this criminally negligent administration decided to fight the war on terror (tm) by first circumventing the Constitution of the United States. The congressmen and Senators abdicated their ability to keep the President in check, by giving him the authority to invade Iraq. And as we all know, Iraq has been a complete disaster, even while Republicans crow about the success of "the surge." But what has toppling Saddam Hussein done, but create a power vacuum filled by Al Qaeda insurgents - who HAD NO PRESENCE IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION - who then continued in their civil war. And while we were busy declaring "Mission Accomplished", the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (remember them?) has been not-so-quietly regaining strength.

"We'll have a president that know how"? Oh, you mean the same future President that declared the following:

How would American troops be greeted? "I believe...that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (March 20, 2003)

Did Saddam Hussein have a nuclear program that posed an imminent threat to the United States? "Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon." ( October 10, 2002)

Will a war with Iraq be long or short? "This conflict is... going to be relatively short." (March 23, 2003)

How is the war going? "I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical." (September 10, 2003)

How is it going (almost two months later, from the war's "greatest critic")? "I think the initial phases of [the war] were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise." (October 31, 2003)

Is this war really necessary? "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war." (August 30, 2004)

How is it going? (Recurring question for the war's "greatest critic") "We will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year." (December 4, 2005)

Will the President's "surge" of troops into Baghdad and surrounding areas that the senator had been calling for finally make the difference? "We can know fairly well [whether the surge is working] in a few months." (February 4, 2007)

The same future President that knows how to win a war will be the same future President that declared that Iraq was safe by walking the streets of Baghdad... without mentioning the soldiers, helicopters, and gunships that accompanied him on his leisurely stroll. THIS is the man that the Republicans say "knows how to win." And his second-in-command is a woman whose "foreign policy experience" includes living in Alaska, because it's so close to Russia.

This propaganda is "The Rebirth of a Nation", because it caters to the lowest common denominator of demonizing "radical Islam" by tying all Middle Eastern conflicts to the spectre of the Islamic boogeyman. Just as "The Birth of a Nation" demonstrated how the valiant knights in shining robes known as the Ku Klux Klan will save virtuous White women from the scourge of Black men, "The Rebirth of a Nation" will show how the valiant knights of the Conservative Republican Evangelical movement will save virtuous White Christian citizens from the scourge of Islam, and the scourge of a Black American man with a funny name running for President.

We know better, so we should do better. If we don't act to stop a Bush III Administration, we have to make sure that propaganda such as this is nipped in the bud. It's up to us to understand this video, as well as the election, for what it is... a chance to begin correcting the wrongs of this administration, and an opportunity to return us to credibility on the world stage. This is one Rebirth that we should not allow to happen.

Hillary And The RFK Connection...

...a collaboration of thoughts I expressed elsewhere:

I'm not sure which is worse... invoking something as horrible as RFK's assassination (I didn't know that she had a pattern of mentioning this), or her "apology"... to the KENNEDYS... because she said that she had Ted Kennedy on her mind.

Let I get this straight.

She says that she is staying in the election because there is precedent for campaigns running until June. To prove her point (on several occasions), she not only invokes Robert Kennedy's campaign, but also emphasizes the fact that he was ASSASSINATED in June... she then says that she apologizes for this 'gaffe' because of how it offends the Kennedys, and that Ted Kennedy's brain cancer somehow tragically transmogrified in her mind into "hey, ANYTHING can happen in June, so why SHOULD I leave?" This is despite the fact that assassination (especially of progressive Black men who are breaking new ground) is all too real in this country - so much so that Obama has to have Secret Service protection.

Am I missing something?

This woman is campaigning for the Presidency of the United States, and her once-inspiring (to some) campaign has now denigrated into catering to the absolute worst attributes of human nature, and a series of lies -- not mis-speaks, flat out lies.

The woman who was accused of murder has embraced the endorsement of her accuser, the man who orchestrated the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against her and her husband.

The woman whose husband's activities mobilized activist Democrats to create a website to convince the country to not wast resources on Bill's impeachment has now expressed utter disdain for such activism, because it doesn't suit her.

The woman who once spoke lovingly in a prominent Black church about the impact of the Civil Rights movement and didn't "feel no ways tah'rd" has gone on record minimizing the front-line soldiers of the Movement, and is now clinging (yes, I said clinging) to the ignorance, venom and hatred of racists as her last-ditch effort to clinch the Democratic Party nomination.

The woman who, with her husband, earned over $100 million since Bill left the Presidency has made a Black man who grew up in a single-parent home and had to depend on food stamps at one time an "elitist."

The woman who feels that "every vote should count" is relying on the "independent judgment" of the superdelegates to overturn that very same vote, look beyond the metrics that are used to select the party's candidate, and use a very elitist system to anoint her as Grand Ayatollah the Democratic Party nominee.

After all of this, the most tragic thing of all is that it's still OBAMA that has to somehow "PROVE" that he's qualified to be President.

=-=-=-=

(after seeing Terry McAuliffe on Fox News, blaming the Obama camp for the firestorm of Hillary's RFK comments)

The arrogance of the Clinton campaign is appalling. Terry McAuliffe is on Fox News Sunday, and he's co-signing Clinton's assertion that stripping Florida and Michigan is similar to slavery and Zimbabwe.

"This election they're having is not going to count for anything."
-- Hillary Clinton, after agreeing to the DNC rules about stripping Florida and Michigan of its delegates.

Chris Wallace (one of the few voices of reason on Fox News) was also taking McAuliffe to task on the "assassination" issue. McAuliffe's arrogance was especially repulsive, saying that "hey, Robert Kennedy Jr. wasn't offended, so why should anyone else?" McAuliffe kept saying that Hillary's comments were strictly regarding the timeline, and had nothing to do with Obama.

Really?

The only way that she can win is if something catastrophic happens to either Obama's campaign or Obama himself (personally, I think that Hillary and her camp are banking on the former). She mentions RFK, assassination, and June on multiple occasions and her camp is surprised that people are looking at her sideways? She's surprised that people other than RFK Jr. are offended? She kept talking about "...we remember what happened in 1968..."... does SHE not remember that King was assassinated in that same year? She must have, since she spent time at the Civil Rights Museum. Even Charlie Rangel, a Clinton supporter, said that her comments were unacceptable.

McAuliffe, in true Rovian form, said that the Obama camp was all over this. That would be true, if it weren't a bold-faced, outright lie. Obama himself said that the comments had no place in the campaign. David Axelrod gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt, saying that he didn't believe that Clinton was harboring any sort of death-wish fantasies regarding Obama.

This woman who claims to be "Ready On Day 1" does not have the common sense to not utter the word "assassination" while in the middle of a very heated and very close campaign expects to be the leader of the free world? If she can't recognize how her choice of words will sound to people who have lived through those horrific moments in history, how can she expect to be effective in a post-Bush administration?

And given her zeal in which she feasted on "bitter", "clinging to guns", Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, Rezko, and Ayers, can she really be surprised that people are looking at her mentioning the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and saying "WTH did you just say?!?" McAuliffe expects everyone to "just get over" Clinton's comments regarding RFK, but it's a crying shame that when she had the opportunity to do so regarding Rev. Wright, she chose the opposite approach. As the Wright issue was dying down somewhat, and as she was being grilled about Bosnia, someone asked her about Obama and Wright. Rather than take the high road and talk about respecting someone's right to privacy regarding religion, she said that she "would've left that church."

Hillary's chickens... are coming home... to roost.

Hypocrisy Is The Greatest Luxury -- Raise The Double Standard!

Let's play catch-up. Not too long ago, douchebag commentator Glenn Beck caused a bit of a stir when he interviewed Congressman Keith Ellison. During the interview, Beck all but asked Ellison to take a vow of loyalty, seeing as how Ellison is a Muslim. In fact, what Beck asked and said to Ellison was this:

"prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," saying, "And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

From that point on, I dismissed Beck as a third-rate Hannity wannabe, looking to make his bones by being "controversial." So, why am I bringing him up again? Well, because this time, Beck not only proves to be a douchebag, but he demonstrates the amazing ability to project an extreme double standard that can only be described as hypocrisy.

Mitt Romney made a "Big Speech" about how his Mormon faith will not influence the decisions he would make as President. OK, so far so good. But here's the good part. Beck had the audacity to say "Why are we going to a candidate and asking about religion?" Hm. Let I get this straight (tm -- Homey The Clown). It's OK for you to question a duly-elected representative to Congress, and ask him to convince you that he's not a terrorist, simply because he's Muslim... despite the fact that there was nothing in Ellison's record to even raise an eyebrow regarding his faith... it's OK for you to call into question whether Ellison's faith will affect his judgment and *gasp* his loyalties to the country and the citizens and constituents that he represents. But let someone question Romney about HIS faith, and now it's "aw, who cares?" As you can see, Beck is a hypocrite. I guess I should mention (if you haven't clicked on the Glenn Beck link I posted) that Beck is also a Mormon. So, the message that Beck is sending is that it's OK if I question YOUR religion in regards to politics, but don't you dare question MINE.

Here's the second part of Beck's double-standard and hypocrisy. "Who cares about religion?" Beck asks. Well, Mitt is running for President on the Republican ticket. And who is it that makes their party out to be the party of God, faith, and family values? The Republicans. Who won the election based on boogeyman-like scare tactics regarding immoralities like gay marriage (despite a war going horribly wrong across the globe)? The Republicans. Who makes the biggest (usually hypocritical) fuss about beingthe standard-bearers for what's decent in America? The Republicans. Who have the prominent Evangelical Christian ministers across the country aligned themselves with? Yep. You guessed it. When you have Right Wing nutjobs like Pat Robertson praying for the deaths of Supreme Court justices, so more "righteous" judges can be appointed, and when you have insane commentators like Ann the Coultergeist claiming represent Christianity, then it's only fair that (especially for a Republican) religious conversations will come up.

Beck can't have it both ways. He can't throw other people's faiths under the bus because he doesn't agree with them, and then shrugs his shoulders like it's no big deal when someone that shares HIS faith is also questioned. Especially in a climate where the candidate who happens to share his faith make it a habit of invoking their "faith" at almost every opportunity, usually lording it (no pun intended) over those who they feel morally superior to.

Celebrities As Activists... Is It A Good Idea, Or Should They Shut Up And Dance?

The situation in Jena has brought out the best in people, and the worst in people. There was a huge protest march a few weeks ago, and a few celebrities were there. Rapper Mos Def was one of the hip hop artists that was spearheading the movement. He was also quite upset that very few celebrities (especially in hip hop) made their presence felt.

This (and a discussion on my favorite message board) got me to thinking. SHOULD celebrities speak out on social issues? I'm split on the issue. On the one hand, it shows that they're not all self-absorbed twits and malcontent, and it shows that they are concerned about more than just how well their records or movies are doing, or who is dressing them. On the other hand, if they drop the ball, they come across so poorly that it would've been better if they left the deep topics to the grown folks.

A recent example is Adrienne Curry. Her attempt at unity by calling for a boycott of Black History Month and B.E.T. was so poorly worded and muddled that it did more to encourage hardcore racists to spew their venom and idiocy about their race. In her case, she was clearly and unmistakably uninformed about Black History, how Black people feel about B.E.T., and the fact that other cultures celebrate their heritage as well.

The best examples of celebrities speaking out, or dedicating their music to an issue, shows that there is actually depth to an artist. Pick a song by Public Enemy, X-Clan, Paris, and KRS-One, and you will see material that approaches the subject matter with depth and intelligence. Recently, there hasn't been too many hip hop acts that have united for a cause since the "Self-Destruction Movement" (as an aside, the fact that they never generated an album or two from all of those artists collaborating continues to be one of the greatest missteps in hip hop). The last time a collaboration of great artists popped up was during the Amidou Diallo killing, when rappers like Mos Def, Common, De La Soul, Pharoahe Monch, Kool G Rap, and others joined forces for Hip Hop 4 Respect, and released "One Four Love" as a response. Another excellent example speaks on the same subject. Bruce Springsteen's "American Skin - 41 Shots" addresses the issue of police brutality in a poignant and authentic way.

It seems that the best examples occur when the artists put themselves to the side for the sake of the bigger issue, and try to not make themselves bigger than the issue that they are speaking about. But when it goes wrong, it comes across as mealy-mouthed pandering, sycophantic blubbering, or ignorant jibberish. Adrienne Curry was just one example. Kanye West inexplicably received accolades for the simplistic "George Bush doesn't care about Black people" comment during the Katrina aftermath. The best part about it was that it was a live, unscripted moment. The worst was that it (temporarily) elevated Kanye to being more than just a whiny little brat who doesn't get enough recognition from industry circle jerks. One local critic (Jim DeRogatis, for those who read the Sun Times) even compared Kanye's outburst to the groundbreaking commentary by Chuck D. Seriously. Someone has to break it to DeRogatis that Kanye's "George Bush doesn't care about Black people" doesn't come close to the incendiary commentary from "Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos", "Prophets of Rage", "Welcome to the Terrordome", and "By The Time I Get To Arizona." What was more disturbing was that people were applauding Kanye, as if he was the first rapper to speak about something other than being the Louis Vuitton Don.

Another example of a blurb being mistaken for in-depth social commentary came from Janet Jackson. In her "Rhythm Nation" song, she sang "Racism -- NO!", and the critics collectively wet their pants at Janet being so "bold" and "provocative." This was during the time that PE was in their heyday, so it's not as if she was the only one who ever spoke out on racism. "Racism -- NO!" is fluff and pandering disguised as outrage. It's like Frankenstein's monster giving a physics lessons on the properties of fire by saying "Fire BAD." That reminds me of yet another Kanye moment. He released two versions of "Diamonds are Forever." The first one was the typical ode to all things shiny. But he released a different version that came about as if someone whispered in Kanye's ear about what happens in Sierra Leone so that he CAN have those shiny trinkets. It came across as a bit contrived. Yet another example is Oprah's "Crash" moment. Now, I haven't seen the movie, but Oprah raising a ruckus about not being able to shop at a fancy couture store to get a purse after the store is closed is hardly comparable to being targeted for harassment by bigoted policemen.

Curtis Mayfield, James Brown, The Last Poets, Gil Scott Heron... all of these greats have tackled social issues in one form or another, and have done it well. These days, few are speaking out about things that affect them.

I kinda agree with Mos Def that more people should've been down there. His point about people only showing up en masse to promote their material (movies, TV, music) or their material gains was excellent. But conversely, you don't want a cerebral misfit speaking like a goofball and shifting the movement into reverse. You get enough of that from idjits like Quannel X (no, I haven't gotten over his peeing match with douchebag Guardian Angel Curtis Sliwa). I do appreciate the fact that Ice Cube sponsored buses to go down to Jena, almost under the radar (he could've easily made a big issue about it, and drew attention to himself, and using it to promote a project that he's working on ["Are We Played Out Yet?"]). David Bowie donated $10,000 to the defense fund. John Mellencamp has angered up the blood of the "good white folk" in Jena with his song "Jena (Take Those Nooses Down)." I can't imagine celebrity boobs (no pun intended) like Paris Hilton or whoever's starring in "Spiderman 4 -- It's Electro!" trying to pontificate on the ramifications of a racist power structure affecting the criminal justice system.

What would I love to see? A united hip hop front where feuds are buried and the best lyricists and producers come together to be modern-day Prophets of Rage, creating a brand new Terrordome. Imagine the fury of Paris, Ras Kass, Vakill, Jay Z, Kanye, Chino X, Pharoahe, Chuck, Brother J, The Lady of Rage, Bahamadia, and others coming together to lyrically indict and condemn what's going on down there. Imagine DJ Premier orchestrating the soundtrack for the new revolution.

Do I EXPECT celebrities to speak out on social issues? No, especially in this era of mainstream music and movies catering to the lowest common denominator. I would like to see especially Black entertainers take more chances and speak out on real injustice. The things in Jena, police brutality, racism, these are things that will affect a Black person, no matter how many Bentleys they own, or no matter how often they get Hermes purses on special order. Mos Def shouldn't have to scream from the mountaintops about the lack of participation. But sadly, that's the case. And these days, Chuck D's words from from PE's first album ring even more true: "Just growin'/not knowin'/about your past/now you're lookin' pretty stupid while you're shakin' your @$$..." (from "Rightstarter")