Web Commonerpolitics, social commentary, and ramblings on pop culture

While young people took to the streets of London and beyond this week, politicians and the news media appeared blind to the irony that the rhetoric chosen to describe the events seemed reserved only for the young class of criminals looting shops and not for the thugs at the top of the food chain looting the world’s currency.

Speaking to the House of Commons, Prime Minister, David Cameron said, “Responsibility for crime always lies with the criminal, but crime has a context, and we must not shy away from it. I have said before that there is a major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong.”

Since the global economy’s near collapse several years ago, corrupt bankers, politicians, police authorities, media owners, and other establishment officials have been prioritizing wrong over right, demonstrating consistently bad and mindless behavior. There should be little surprise when young people, with little hope for the future, pray on the vulnerability of others, especially given the example set by those who, conveniently out of CCTV range, hold the reigns of power.

“The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken,” said Mr. Cameron. “To the law abiding people who play by the rules,” he continued, “and who are the overwhelming majority in our country, I say the fightback has begun. We will protect you. If you’ve had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you. We are on your side.”

To date, of course, very few corporate criminals have been brought to justice or even taken responsibility for their roles in the global economic disaster, and their victims continue to lose their homes and livelihoods. In fact, most of them continue to reap the financial benefits of their actions in the form of tax giveaways and corporate bonuses while government cutbacks take their toll on the poor and less privileged.

Acting with little difference between themselves and the people that they like to label as “mindless criminals” and “thugs,” a small minority of increasingly wealthy individuals, who often looted their way to the top by taking from others, create the conditions that lead to such strife in the streets. “It is criminality pure and simple,” as the Prime Minister put it, “and there is absolutely no excuse for it.”

As homes and buildings burned, merchandise vanished, and livelihoods changed, too many people were quick to point out the criminal nature of youths rioting on the streets of London while ignoring the criminality of people who set the socioeconomic order in the first place. Fortunately, we have politicians like David Cameron to filter through the noise, find the “criminals,” and make empty promises to ensure that “they” get what’s coming to them!

“And to the lawless minority, the criminals who’ve taken what they can get, I say this: We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you’ve done.”

Riot Noise

The first Matt Damon tongue lashing that I had the pleasure of witnessing came nearly three years ago when John McCain first introduced Sarah Palin to the world. In a heavily circulated interview on the Internet, Damon accurately described the absurdity of the media circus surrounding Palin’s nomination for Vice President, comparing it to a “really bad Disney movie,” and indirectly submitting an unofficial script proposal for a spectacularly horrible straight-to-DVD movie featuring the folksy hockey mom. My personal favorite swipe, though, was Damon’s desperate and rather simple plea to the media, asking that somebody, anybody, find out if she, “really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago.”

Fast forward to 2011, when the country is no longer threatened by the prospect of a Palin presidency but continues to deal with the toxic Tea Party movement that she helped shape during the 2008 campaign. This time, Damon is forced to contemplate the absurdity of those who argue in favor of continued tax cuts for American millionaires and billionaires while military, domestic, and entitlement spending gets slashed. Interviewed in Washington DC at the Save Our Schools march protesting education policy, Damon laid into the conservative mindset that increased taxes on the ridiculously wealthy is a bad idea.

Lest we forget, Matt Damon is an actor, and nobody should assume that he spends his days scouring the Internet or news networks in search of truth. Still, you don’t have to be a politico or newshound to know how much the Bush tax cuts, which have been in place for ten years, have benefited the upper class and sacrificed everyone else. Indeed, you only need to be poor, out of a job, or incredibly rich with a conscience, like Damon.

His observations, while well-intentioned, are not completely accurate because there was a time in the last century when the wealthy paid exorbitant amounts in taxes. Throughout the last thirty years, the top tax rate rested between 28% and 35%. Before the presidency of Ronald Reagan, though, the wealthy paid nearly double that amount under numerous Republican and Democratic presidents. Given this historical context, Damon’s argument that, “so little is asked of people who are getting so much,” could not be more accurate concerning today’s rich. According to the IRS, tax payers making more than $33,000 annually are expected to pay nearly 100% in income tax while those making more than half a million dollars pay nearly 60% less.

Finally, as Damon notes, there is no reason to believe that the wealthy are so-called, “job creators.” One only has to examine the total number of jobs created under the Bush administration to know that.

I was only four years old when Walter Cronkite relinquished his post as anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” and it would be many years into his retirement before I would understand and appreciate the true value of his character, or the full weight of his worth in terms of contributions that he made to the world of journalism and the respect he received from a nation of millions. My memories of Cronkite’s most popular moments are not unique, just recorded glimpses of the man’s stern yet warm delivery of the news as captured in time for the history books to later relay. Many in the baby boomer generation held him in such high regard that he earned the nickname, “Uncle Walter,” a testament to his ability to invade their living rooms each night with the sense of a beloved family member. They welcomed him with open arms, sometimes to receive some of the most disheartening news to hit the nation in the last half-century.

In Cronkite’s time, television was different. People peered into CRT monitors spilling duotone images of black and white into their living rooms. Sound came from a single channel, and “rabbit ear” antennas topped TV sets to receive the only signals available to viewers at the time, broadcasts from three major networks captured over the air. Of course, three networks meant three channels, which broadcast news programming for little more than 30 minutes each night. There was no means for recording what you missed, which meant that information-savvy citizens always knew exactly where they would be and what they would be doing once Walter hit the airwaves to deliver the daily news. At the evening’s end, the sound of a single tone and a screen-saver-like image indicated the end of a network’s daily programming, as if acting as an alarm to alert sleepy Americans that they overstayed their visit to TV land.

This nightly ritual between Cronkite, his network, and his constituency continued for nearly twenty years, through the civil rights and women’s liberation movements, the first lunar landing, Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon impeachment, and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He endured sweeping change within the business of broadcast news, including the introduction of new competing networks, finally relieving himself of his duty not long before federal action brought cable technology to people’s homes in droves, along with a multitude of new channels. Cronkite seemed to disappear from public life temporarily, but a new generation of news hounds were fortunate enough to rediscover the man after he broke silence to deliver opinion-oriented editorial pieces in publications and on the radio throughout the last decade, which focused on everything from politics to the media.

It was in these moments, on the quiet drive home from work, that I welcomed Walter Cronkite, now a seasoned veteran, into my world. I listened intently as his signature voice, confident and adept, brought me into those old living rooms to relive crucial turning points in our country’s sorted history. His radio essays drew heavily on decades of professional experience, reflecting the challenges that he and his colleagues faced as reporters tasked to cover emotionally charged and politically sensitive events with objective eyes and ears. As I look back at Mr. Cronkite’s career, it would appear to me that his legacy is not really about how he delivered the news to millions each night. Instead, it’s about how he delivered information to people that was pure and unfiltered. Walter leaves this world at a point in our history when an evolving news landscape seeks to, once again, change how we organize and deliver new information. His legacy will serve as a sort of signpost, steering us clear from selfishly seeking out information that we want to know and instead pointing us in a direction towards getting the information that we need to know.

Thanks Uncle Walter. We will remember you always.

New evidence of Michael Jackson’s influence is popping up throughout the Internet in the form of tributes to the deceased entertainer. Friends and fans alike are passing along links to websites like Eternal Moonwalk, where a continuous loop of home videos shows people performing Jackson’s signature move. Other homages highlight his artistic genius, and one particular YouTube user is publishing video mash-ups that combine Jackson’s music with old footage of song-and-dance icons perceived to be his artistic inspirations from entertainment’s past. Check out the following series of clips that chronicle evidence of a historical evolution behind what eventually came to be Michael Jackson’s “Moonwalk.”

Other videos on the page carefully combine edited clips of “West Side Story” with Jackson’s “Beat It” and “Bad,” or clips of Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse dancing to Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal,” all skillfully crafted to demonstrate the entertainer’s obvious affinity towards show tunes, and their influence on his music, dance and videos. The significant difference between those historical gems and Jackson’s own art are the media that presented them, the silver screen versus MTV and the boob tube, which invariably led me to ponder how artistic influence gets recycled over time and through different mediums. As technology evolves and cultures change, valued art from the past gets passed on to succeeding generations, and shared influence continues to turn the wheels of inspiration, progress, and innovation.

Recently, Coldplay’s smash hit, “Viva La Vida,” sparked controversy over whether or not the British band lifted their song’s signature tune from an earlier recording of Joe Satriani’s “If I Could Fly.” The Internet and, more specifically, YouTube, became a sort of advanced interactive medium for fans to compare the music, discuss its transference, and indirectly share its inspiration and influence. To make matters more interesting, convincing compositions by other musicians including Enanitos Verdes and Cat Stevens got thrown into the mix, spanning almost twenty years of artistic works that seemingly influenced other works. Much of the matter’s discussion seems reminiscent of conversations that took place at the turn of the century when advances in production technologies brought Hip-Hop culture from block parties to the recording studio as artists began sampling old recordings to create entirely new music compositions.

In a society that sets high standards on the use of copy-written material, technology is once again testing the limits of artistic progress, and rekindling conversations that take place over the influence of past works. In the United States, arguments over copyright material are historically settled within the confines of America’s courtrooms, but new ideas fostering the free sharing of information via the Internet threatens to blow the hinges off the system’s doors. In the not-so-distant past, peer-to-peer sharing showed signs of destroying the business of record companies, which held a monopoly on music distribution, and lawsuits only gained them enough time to restructure their business models. Today, social networking sites like YouTube are excellent examples of mediums that allow for gross sharing of artistic property and ideas. Meanwhile, a new generation of entrepreneurs is setting aside outdated practices of intellectual protectionism by embracing a culture of sharing, most notably in open-source software development.

Regardless of which way the wind blows on future copyright law, shared influence among artistic works remains a powerful force that inspires human progress and innovation through time, a sort of transference of such subtle references to the past that they can quickly and easily be forgotten. Throughout human history, the past is what shapes our future and, since the day we learned to stand upright and speak, that yearning to share what we know and how we came to know it lingers within, like the blood flowing through our veins. It’s generally accepted that you cannot get something from nothing, especially within the spectacular realm of the shared human experience. So, without Copernicus, there would be no Galileo. Without Greek philosophy, no Roman democracy. Without Chuck Berry, no Beatles and, of course, without Fred Astaire, no Michael Jackson.

For some, Michael Jackson’s sudden death at 50 was sweet in the sense that it fostered a tremendous sense of love around the globe. He was such a beloved figure by so many people, and that love is reciprocating itself tenfold in their remembrance of a man who inspired and encouraged them to be better human beings. For others, it was bitter because he led such a tragic and tortured existence, one that was oftentimes difficult to witness and even harder to understand. For me, it was both. Many years ago, I let go of a person so incredibly admired throughout my childhood, not because of the legal accusations filed against him or the media crucifixion that followed, but simply because I no longer recognized him.

As I grew into adulthood, my childhood obsession with the King of Pop faded with his physical appearance, a face that no longer seemed to resemble the one I came to love and respect. At times, when I thought about Michael, it brewed within me a battle for my own conscience, fought over whether or not physical appearance should matter when it comes to respecting a good friend, or at least the perception of one. When all is said and done, I don’t think it was his physical appearance that truly bothered me. Instead, it was this nagging feeling from within that the man was on an inevitable path towards self-destruction, altering his body in what seemed to be a perfectionist’s pursuit to manifest the impossible. For many of us, the haunting question when it comes to Michael Jackson is what made a person so talented, loving, and caring drive him to do such unspeakable things to an already flawless appearance.

Much of the short term blame is placed on an alleged addiction to drugs, specifically painkillers, which may have contributed to Jackson’s visibly increasing physical frailty. The long term blame, though, is often directed at Joe Jackson. His brutish nature is no secret and many tabloids drew attention to it throughout Michael’s career, long before I matured to a point of understanding its effect on a child’s growth. In fact, most people don’t seem to deny that any of the Jackson kids really appreciate their father for relentlessly pushing them into superstardom long before they were ready to accept and understand the consequences of that reality. Joe Jackson forced his youngest son into the spotlight at the age of five, who proceeded to spend his entire childhood singing and dancing on stage in front of adults, and mingling with adult entertainers. Throughout his career, Michael made it known to the media and his fans the physical and mental abuse that he suffered at the hands of his father when he was a young boy.

So, the King of Pop spent close to 50 years trying to manufacture a childhood that he never had, and he wanted to spend that childhood with others in the same manner that he imagined spending it all those years back. Michael’s tragedy lies in the fact that his physical form matured much faster than his mind, which was seemingly held to stagnation at some point in his turbulent past. His brain was poised to keep the man a child, with a child’s heart, while his body compelled him to physical feats that undoubtedly made him the world’s most favored entertainer. He became an unprecedented and unbelievable talent, and his new fame brought with it a lavish lifestyle that most people, let alone children, would ever have the opportunity to experience or even dream. Ultimately, it skewed the balance between reality and fantasy, and tragically led to Michael’s bittersweet demise.

Michael, may you rest in peace, and may those who never truly understood your brilliance or even sympathized with your situation at least come to accept the unfortunate circumstances that made you different. As we continually seek to someday heal the world, we need only look as far as the mirror to do it.

In today’s digital age, the Internet’s near open exchange of information never ceases to amaze, and I feel fortunate to be a member of the generation that stood front and center as the web progressed from infancy into adulthood. As a teenager, I remember feeling stunned the first time a friend messaged me in real time using a desktop computer. Now, we carry the computer in our pocket and rely heavily on the Internet to communicate, conduct business, educate, and entertain. In hind sight, it isn’t shocking to know that entire industries would be forced into an evolutionary state of emergency as they struggled to stay afloat in a rapidly changing environment, and the two we hear about most are music and print.

Both were unequipped and ill-prepared for the mass exodus that occurred after digital technology freed their subjects, and forced a need to update their business plans and models. People who felt used by an industry profiting twofold on the sale of compact discs, which cost pennies to produce, suddenly had the upper hand and simply stopped buying music. Still, all it took was an organized, reasonably priced distribution system built off the convenience of the Internet to revitalize the market, and it was an innovative computer company that put the first foot forward. Meanwhile, the music industry was caught, virtually, with its pants down.

Now, it’s the print industry’s turn to share some of the embarrassment. Sure, publishers made moves years back towards digitizing their business by offering content online, but they clung desperately to the newspaper model and refused to strip off the blinders in anticipation of a time when subscribers would ditch the big front page for a smaller, more personalized screen. Almost ten years out of college, I can recall professors in my own communications courses who predicted a future without traditional media, focusing instead on “the box,” a single-unit device that would contain everything a person could possibly need. So, was it straight denial or simple ignorance that prevented media owners and managers to effectively plan for the big changes that awaited their industry.

What seems most ironic about their lack of preparedness is their density when it comes to understanding how Web 2.0 technology might help sustain their survival. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the media mergers and acquisitions that permeated the industry throughout the last two decades provide the necessary momentum for companies to invest heavily in new technologies and research ways to reach evolving demographics, you know, before it’s too late? Three years ago, Amazon introduced the world to Kindle, a portable reading device with the ability to download published content. That’s right, folks, Amazon. A company that has been in existence almost 15 years stepped up to the plate and met a challenge that major newspaper conglomerates, whose roots could technically classify them as antiques, claimed they didn’t even know existed.

Now, these entities are in trouble and many argue that the fabric of free press is unwinding as they reach to the state for assistance. Industry gatekeepers are quick to shine a light on companies like Google as the source of their problems, an organization whose innovative technologies actually help to direct traffic to their websites and organize advertising into a profitable source of income for online businesses. These dispatches of blame are little more than scapegoats for industry captains who knowingly ignored the coming tide of change, choosing instead to focus on diminished quality to increase profits in the short term. Today, the result is a digital transference of industry, with ideas of promising Web 3.0 technology plowing forward towards an updated press that utilizes interactive social networks, blogs, and online forums to produce and deliver the next generation of news, despite a lack of participation from its traditional counterparts.

In January, shortly before Barack Obama took the oath of office, legendary Hip-Hop pioneer KRS-ONE phoned into the Alex Jones Show and offered an interview. Jones hosts a syndicated radio program and he is a conspiracy theorist who propagates warnings to his listeners daily. These warnings predict that the world will fall victim to a global restructuring of power, a New World Order. Currently, there exists a sect of followers in the world who blindly submit to such theories, and the primary prerequisite for this class of individuals, it appears, depends mostly on the group of people they seem to hate (or fear) the most. It could be foreign entities, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, socialists, communists, or capitalists.

Regardless of who they believe is piloting the black helicopters that they claim are flying overhead and transporting weapons in preparation for a government take-over, they are content to recess into the cracks and crevices of civil society and stockpile weapons arsenals and ammunition. They exist in all shapes and sizes, but the one specific message that seems to reign consistent across all of their rhetorical musings is revolution by force. They are your paramilitary militias, neo-Nazi skinheads, Underground Weathermen, Black Panthers, Branch Davidian sympathizers, Oklahoma City bombers, anthrax mailers, Minutemen, and even your modern-day tea baggers.

While Alex Jones may not align himself with any of these specific groups, the whispered undertones of his message remain the same. He sits within a circle of conspiratorial shock jocks who willfully pollute the airwaves with piercing propaganda, and he is among a privileged few radio personalities who rose to great heights by lying for a living, utilizing the power of language to manipulate vulnerable minds. Previously, I wouldn’t dream of associating KRS-ONE with this same category of misfits, but his recent alignment with Jones on the subject of New World Order conspiracy theory made me think twice.

It can be unsettling, at least, to learn that a single interview might crumble the perceived understanding a person has of someone they admired for so long. To some degree, I believe that Jones used KRS-ONE as a prop to embellish his own distaste for so-called “bad” Hip-Hop and its “shoot ‘em up” culture. Despite his praise of the emcee on the air, it seemed apparent the guy was not a familiar fan of KRS-ONE’s work, referring to DJ Scott La Rock as simply, La Rock, and fumbling to get KRS-ONE’s own stage name right, calling him KSR on several occasions.

In the interview, I was surprised to learn that KRS-ONE dismisses Barack Obama as a mere puppet. Last year, I was proud after stepping into the voting booth and casting my ballot, not for an African American, but a person who I felt represented me and my generation better than any politician before him. Barack Obama is young, intelligent, educated, humble, aggressive, cultured, and admittedly imperfect. He had a reputation for standing up against strong and powerful forces, and he knew how to organize people into action. He was my candidate for President and, like many others, I did whatever was in my power to ensure his election.

When Obama’s administration took office, they inherited the largest deficit this country had the misfortune of experiencing, which was the unfortunate bi-product of a pro-capitalist, anti-socialist regime that raped tax-payers, nullified the Constitution, and metaphorically crapped on the world’s carpet as they tromped through its house uninvited. Nobody in their right mind would want to be the person responsible for cleaning this mess. Still, rather than offer the man some benefit of the doubt, the legendary Blastmaster gave Americans, specifically blacks, his harsh assessment of Barack Obama as a cunning agent of the devil. At this point, I’m positive that I could hear my neo-conservative, fanatically religious in-laws cheering loudly within the deep recesses of my brain.

I get it, man. I really do. The rich don’t care about the poor, Barack Obama is just another politician, and young people won’t get anywhere by placing hope in anyone but themselves. It’s a message that all people should heed, but there is something inherently wrong with encouraging young people to stop the violence in one ear and telling them to have their guns ready for the revolution in the other. It’s a counterproductive and damning message, which implies the country cannot overthrow the incredible forces of industry through non-violent means. Nobody argues that democracy is perfect, but when it works the way it should, suddenly a nation of millions have clean water to drink, health labels on their food, traffic lights at dangerous intersections, and maybe even clean air to breath. These things only happen when people have faith in their ability to govern, and that is Obama’s message.

In the Jones interview, KRS-ONE compares the presidency to a management position at Burger King, which is ultimately beholden to the franchise owner. In America, he says, the banks and corporate executives own the franchise. This is where I respectfully beg to differ. In the real world, it is the American people who hold that title and the inherent problem lies in the fact that too many of us don’t care, understand our potential for influence, or take advantage of the powers granted to us by the Constitution. The evidence lies in the number of citizens who actually vote, and how often they contact their so-called representatives.

Barack Obama is “our” president because we put him there. African Americans are one of many groups that elected him and, for the first time in their history, a great majority of blacks now share the awesome burden of holding their President’s feet to the fire. KRS-ONE points out in the Jones interview that Americans should not stand idly by and “mindlessly” follow Barack Obama. An excellent point. Still, he doesn’t seem to offer any useful advice for newcomers to the system that lies outside the realm of conspiracy-driven doomsday scenarios that predict a New World Order.

I once read that KRS-ONE dreamed of taking over a small town and building it into a Hip-Hop City. I’m curious to know who would manage that city, and how they would tend the store. How would they work with their neighbors to accommodate the flow of commerce and exchange of ideas? Would they publicly repudiate technology, apparently a tool of the New World Order? This is really what the new world fear is all about. Globalization is, as KRS-ONE would say, “truth.” Human beings populate the Earth at an exponential rate, and cultures collide as a consequence. Yes, it is frightening, but it’s also reality. Ignoring lavish theories about a looming New World Order, the problem we actually face today has everything to do with how we construct a system that maintains our sovereignty while responsibly addressing the influence we have on those outside our borders.