Hip hop comes to take back America
"Hip Hop Artists and Activists: Politically Empowering a Culture of Resistance" was the name of a panel at the Take Back America Conference in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. Cherryl Aldave from National Hip Hop Political Convention MC'd.
Speakers included Billy Wimsatt from the League of Independent Voters in Chicago, D Labrie from Hip Hop Congress in the Bay Area, Jay Woodson from National Hip Hop Political Convention in Philadelphia, Dave D from HardKnock Radio in Oakland, J Period - a Hip Hop DJ from Brooklyn, DJ Chela - a Hip Hop artist from Brooklyn and North Carolina, Wise Intelligent - a Hip Hop artist with Intelligent Music, and GRIME - a Hip Hop artist and activist and student and MC.
GRIME: "Hip Hop really did save my life. There were songs that made me care about history and about people. Hip Hop is the reason that I'm not dead or in jail, which is where a lot of people are who came from the community I came from." GRIME said he became a student activist but wanted to reach more people and turned to Hip Hop. That's what a lot of us are doing.
Speakers included Billy Wimsatt from the League of Independent Voters in Chicago, D Labrie from Hip Hop Congress in the Bay Area, Jay Woodson from National Hip Hop Political Convention in Philadelphia, Dave D from HardKnock Radio in Oakland, J Period - a Hip Hop DJ from Brooklyn, DJ Chela - a Hip Hop artist from Brooklyn and North Carolina, Wise Intelligent - a Hip Hop artist with Intelligent Music, and GRIME - a Hip Hop artist and activist and student and MC.
GRIME: "Hip Hop really did save my life. There were songs that made me care about history and about people. Hip Hop is the reason that I'm not dead or in jail, which is where a lot of people are who came from the community I came from." GRIME said he became a student activist but wanted to reach more people and turned to Hip Hop. That's what a lot of us are doing.
War at the remote
It’s a popular notion: TV sets and other media devices let us in on the
violence of war. “Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their
television screens,” President Bush told a news conference more than three
years ago. “I don’t. It’s a tough time for the American people to see
that. It’s gut-wrenching.”
But televised glimpses of war routinely help to keep war going. Susan Sontag was onto something when she pointed out that “the image as shock and the image as cliche are two aspects of the same presence.”
While viewers may feel disturbed by media imagery of warfare, their discomfort is largely mental and limited. The only shots coming at them are ones that have been waved through by editors. Still, we hear that television brings war into our living rooms.
But televised glimpses of war routinely help to keep war going. Susan Sontag was onto something when she pointed out that “the image as shock and the image as cliche are two aspects of the same presence.”
While viewers may feel disturbed by media imagery of warfare, their discomfort is largely mental and limited. The only shots coming at them are ones that have been waved through by editors. Still, we hear that television brings war into our living rooms.
Barack Obama takes over the take back America conference
Obama got a packed house and huge applause before saying anything about what he would do as president. For a while it was all about the influence of lobbyists in Washington, the tragedy of Katrina, the tragedy of Iraq, the need for a politics of the people, the need for hope and optimism. All opposition to the way things are, and the need for something vaguely better.
All feel good. And a lot of people clearly felt good in the room. A lot of people shouted "all right!" "you said it!"
But what did he say? He talked about what he did in Illinois. He talked about how bad things are. He said he believes in hope. But what would he do if he were president? For a while, Obama gave us no idea, other than hope, which he said is the cause he will work for every single day as president.
Finally, Obama got to some substance. He said he wants to bring together businesses and unions and insurance companies to solve our health care crisis. He promoted his "universal health care plan that covers every American." But his plan does not cover every American, and as long as it includes the insurance companies, how much hope can there be for it?
All feel good. And a lot of people clearly felt good in the room. A lot of people shouted "all right!" "you said it!"
But what did he say? He talked about what he did in Illinois. He talked about how bad things are. He said he believes in hope. But what would he do if he were president? For a while, Obama gave us no idea, other than hope, which he said is the cause he will work for every single day as president.
Finally, Obama got to some substance. He said he wants to bring together businesses and unions and insurance companies to solve our health care crisis. He promoted his "universal health care plan that covers every American." But his plan does not cover every American, and as long as it includes the insurance companies, how much hope can there be for it?
Obama says he'll use force unilaterally to protect "vital interests"
There is much that I can agree with or tolerate in Barack Obama's new article in Foreign Affairs. On the occupation of Iraq, he does not favor completely ending it, and he does not mention the ownership of oil, but he does say:
"[W]e must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."
Obama is no George W. Bush. But then, neither was candidate Bush what he and Dick Cheney have been in office. And preferability to Bush is far too low a threshold, I think, to merit support as a candidate for president. It is an indication of how far to the right Washington opinions on war and peace have shifted, that a Democratic candidate for president can write the following:
"I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense…."
"[W]e must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."
Obama is no George W. Bush. But then, neither was candidate Bush what he and Dick Cheney have been in office. And preferability to Bush is far too low a threshold, I think, to merit support as a candidate for president. It is an indication of how far to the right Washington opinions on war and peace have shifted, that a Democratic candidate for president can write the following:
"I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense…."
Belief and doubt
Cindy Sheehan’s temporary withdrawal — in exhaustion and frustration — from a leadership role in opposition to the war that claimed her son has at least given the mainstream media something to talk about: the antiwar movement’s lack of a “face,” or celebrity void.
That’s news, I guess, while mere abysmal poll numbers, which indicate that the war is lost on the home front, seem to have little more than curiosity value. And, indeed, the American public’s two-to-one opposition to the war and a presidential disapproval rating of nearly 70 percent have so far barely caused a sputter in the Bush war machine. Its vigor and ability to intimidate Congress haven’t flagged, and plans for a 50-year occupation of Iraq proceed apace, under cover of impenetrable cliche: Our troops have to be allowed to complete their mission.
That’s news, I guess, while mere abysmal poll numbers, which indicate that the war is lost on the home front, seem to have little more than curiosity value. And, indeed, the American public’s two-to-one opposition to the war and a presidential disapproval rating of nearly 70 percent have so far barely caused a sputter in the Bush war machine. Its vigor and ability to intimidate Congress haven’t flagged, and plans for a 50-year occupation of Iraq proceed apace, under cover of impenetrable cliche: Our troops have to be allowed to complete their mission.
Sen. Clinton wants troops in Iraq for at least 10 years
On Monday, Ted Koppel offered a report / commentary on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" which can be found online ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947954 ) with this headline: "A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War," and this introductory text: "Democrats are telling voters that if they are elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senor military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty."
Well, someone is trying to force dishonesty. I'm not sure it's politics.
Well, someone is trying to force dishonesty. I'm not sure it's politics.
Father's Day, peace, and masculinity
The most creative, energetic, and effective peace activists in the United States right now are women organized explicitly as "CODE PINK: Women for Peace." While CODE PINK welcomes the participation of men (and when I'm in DC I stay at the CODE PINK house), the group is organized around the idea that women have a special role to play in working for peace. So, every once in a while I ask a bunch of Code Pinkers "Why don't we have a group of Men for Peace?"
Rep. Jerrold Nadler: President and Attorney General are engaged in a criminal conspiracy
Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, said today that there is no question that the warrantless wiretaping engaged in by the Bush Administration is a felony offense and that the President and Attorney General engaged in a criminal conspiracy worse than Watergate. Nadler was referring not to the mysterious program that the Acting Attorney General refused to support, but rather to the program the Attorney General approved of. Nadler said he finds the lack of attention to the obvious criminality of the President "incredible." The same could be said of Nadler's failure to support impeachment.
VIDEO
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014509.php
TRANSCRIPT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/23392
MARSHALL: Hi, this is John Marshall from TPM Media. We're here this morning with Congressman Jerrold Nadler of the 8th District of New York, which covers...lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn?
VIDEO
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014509.php
TRANSCRIPT
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/23392
MARSHALL: Hi, this is John Marshall from TPM Media. We're here this morning with Congressman Jerrold Nadler of the 8th District of New York, which covers...lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn?
The conscience of Los Alamos
I looked up when Ed pointed to the butte that loomed suddenly in the bend of the mountain road and said, “See. That’s where they should go, right there.”
And for an instant I imagined them towering against the big sky over Los Alamos, N.M.: two white granite “peace obelisks” 30 feet high, signaling to everyone entering or leaving the Atomic City, birthplace of The Bomb and home for 60-plus years of the national weapons lab that bears its name, that a counter-consciousness has staked its claim in the heart of the nuclear weapons industry. Their inscription begins:
“Welcome to Los Alamos, New Mexico, the United States of America, the city of fire. Our fires are brighter than a thousand suns. It was once believed that only God could destroy the world, but scientists working in Los Alamos first harnessed the power of the atom. The power released through fission and fusion gives many men the ability to commence the destruction of all life on earth. . . .”
And for an instant I imagined them towering against the big sky over Los Alamos, N.M.: two white granite “peace obelisks” 30 feet high, signaling to everyone entering or leaving the Atomic City, birthplace of The Bomb and home for 60-plus years of the national weapons lab that bears its name, that a counter-consciousness has staked its claim in the heart of the nuclear weapons industry. Their inscription begins:
“Welcome to Los Alamos, New Mexico, the United States of America, the city of fire. Our fires are brighter than a thousand suns. It was once believed that only God could destroy the world, but scientists working in Los Alamos first harnessed the power of the atom. The power released through fission and fusion gives many men the ability to commence the destruction of all life on earth. . . .”
Ritter's repudiation ritual
In March 2006, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter posted an article online proposing that the antiwar movement learn techniques from warriors. Ritter developed the article into the recently released book "Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement." At the same time, Ritter has just posted online a new provocative article urging the impeachment movement to advocate instead for "repudiation." There is some reason to hope that this new article will not come back as a book in 2008.
Whatever Ritter writes about peace and impeachment, he has already done tremendous service through his truth telling about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction. Ritter spoke up prior to, as well as during, the occupation of Iraq. He and I have spoken on panels together, and I find him a much better speaker than writer. While the peace movement is very far from victory, it has made more progress than Ritter believes, and he himself has been a significant part of that.
Whatever Ritter writes about peace and impeachment, he has already done tremendous service through his truth telling about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction. Ritter spoke up prior to, as well as during, the occupation of Iraq. He and I have spoken on panels together, and I find him a much better speaker than writer. While the peace movement is very far from victory, it has made more progress than Ritter believes, and he himself has been a significant part of that.