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.

That’s right, folks. It would appear that our president is human after all … not a superman, not a robot, and not a deity. Just a complex, interdependent, and structured mass of flesh and bone. In a moment of bold and sincere honesty, he let his guard down and revealed himself in a manner that might seem shocking to some Americans:

“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

This response came from Barack Obama after a reporter asked, in a nationally televised press conference focusing on the president’s healthcare proposals, about the recent arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge and what it says about race relations in America. Gates is a literary critic, educator, scholar, writer, and editor with a number of notable achievements under his belt, including honorary degrees and awards. He sits on the boards of various arts, cultural, and research institutions, serves as the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard University, directs the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research and, finally, he is a personal friend to the Obama family.

It took only seconds after hearing that word, “stupidly,” before I realized the political firestorm it would muster. I could hear the media blitzkrieg that would follow as radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity took to the airwaves the next day. They would tear the president to shreds on their syndicated “talk” shows, fulfilling assumed roles as civilian officers and arresting Obama for his criticism of the nation’s good men and women of law enforcement. They would brand him a crony for favoring an esteemed intellectual who they likely consider, at least under their breath, to be just another “affirmative action baby” and, as loudly and surely as they accused Sonia Sotomayor, they would label the president a racist. It would come swift, it would come hard and, most importantly for them and their party, it would stir their base into a feeding frenzy, serving up the perfect storm of criticism that would toss a looming cloud over the president’s entire agenda.

Regardless of what the pundits might say, the harshest criticism actually came in the form of a rebuttal from Gates’ arresting officer. In multiple radio and TV interviews, Sgt. James Crowley told the local press that he supports the president “110 percent,” but believed that the president should not have waded into a local issue without knowing the facts. Those “facts,” available on the filed police report, which quickly surfaced on the Internet, indicate that the officer arrested Gates outside his home after he exhibited “loud and tumultuous” behavior. The report states that Gates, seemingly understanding his rights, refused to step outside his home when first prompted by Crowley, who identified himself and indicated that he was investigating a reported break-in. What followed was a back and forth exchange between the two men inside the home, with Gates accusing Crowley of being a racist before finally approaching the officer outside and subsequently being arrested for disorderly conduct.

Admittedly, not knowing the facts of the case and, apparently, not having personally read the police report, Obama would have been smart to steer clear of dispatching judgment so quickly concerning the arrest, but he is our first African American president. I don’t blame him for doing it. More than any presidential candidate or president in recent history, Barack Obama has addressed the subject of race, racism, and the racial divide head-on in speeches to any number of varied populations, from massive, diverse crowds of constituents to middle easterners, Europeans, and Africans to African Americans. Where other presidents, since the years following the civil rights movement, fell short of addressing racial tensions in proper historical context, this president confronts and acknowledges it with the same attention afforded an actual elephant in the room. Hypotheticals flooded the mind as I pondered his and Gates’ current situation. Would circumstances be different if Gates was a white man? What if Obama was white? Would the reporter still ask him about the incident?

The reality of this matter is that, in the eyes of many Americans, Barack Obama is an African American first and a president second. Since race remains a divisive issue in the United States, Obama is forced to address it in manners that other presidents could easily avoid. Still, some pretend to ignore this reality, expecting the president to act as if wearing some sort of impenetrable force field that serves to repel discussions of race and inequality. It’s not fair and, as long as racial discrimination flourishes, we should not expect Barack Obama to ignore it. Minorities are too often driven to the brink of paranoia by their daily experiences in America, constantly being surveyed and seen as different. Evidence of undue racism rears its ugly head on a personal level constantly, and the country experiences it in bulk all too often. It may be watching the American judicial system acquit four LAPD officers after brutally beating a man in broad daylight, or television coverage of thousands neglected in New Orleans after Katrina makes landfall. It might be watching white mothers who kidnap or kill their children only to pass the buck on to the usual scapegoat and stereotypical violent, black male, or seeing nooses strung over tree branches in the wake of racial injustice in Jena. Finally, it might be listening to Republican party supporters fulfilling their personal want or need to holler racial epithets aimed at a presidential candidate in political campaign rallies across the country.

Racism against minorities thrives in America, even in 2009. It’s still here, still real, and still dangerous. The same is true with racial profiling and, for these reasons, I am not surprised to hear our first minority president impulsively jump to conclusions and express relative concern for a friend and fellow African American, whose experiences in this country are uniquely bound and shared to the point of understanding an all-too-often ignored oppressive force that comes at them from every angle. Nobody knows for sure how much race actually played a role in Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s arrest last week but, I’m personally sure about one thing … what Gates said to Mr. Crowley and his Cambridge neighbors as officers led him away in handcuffs is correct. This is what happens to black men in America and, if I walked in his shoes, I might think twice about an officer’s motives as he passed through that threshold between his world and mine. Until the country reaches a point where all Americans can walk its streets without being stopped by an officer or gawked at with little more reason than the color of their skin, I will continue to sympathize with Gates’ and Obama’s concern or, more appropriately, their frustration.

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.

Side-stepping the urge to fulfill my role as a member of the “chattering class,” I thought it might be more constructive to provide Sarah Palin with an annotated analysis of her writing, which specifically focuses on the op-ed piece she wrote for the The Washington Post yesterday.

Edits, notes, and suggestions to Mrs. Palin are visible in red or bold typeface …

The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End
By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy [Now would be a good opportunity to provide examples]. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than over 25 years, and it is expected to continue climbing [Who expects this ... economists, you, your accountant?]. Worries are widespread [Again ... Tell us exactly who's worried ... Americans, Alaskans, garbage workers?] that the recovery won’t bring create jobs, even when the economy finally rebounds. Our nation’s The national debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather prefer to focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges [What challenges?]. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind, and where my focus will be remains:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy [Now would be a good opportunity to dedicate a sentence or two explaining the president's cap-and-trade energy plan in further detail to your readers]. It The plan would undermine our the economy’s recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy [Historical examples would be a good addition here]. Particularly in In Alaska, we understand the inherent links between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge large, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax [Is it a plan or a tax? You should be more clear about what it is and why] would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how].

There is no denying that, as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources [According to who, and why?]. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive [Please elaborate. My understanding is that renewable energy sources are just that ... sources]! Those who understand the issue [It would probably be a good idea to provide further insight into who 'those' people are ... Republicans, conservatives, fifth graders?] know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy [I'm hoping that you will soon explain how the president's cap-and-trade energy plan will destroy the economy].

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax [I'm getting confused ... now it's a "cap-and-tax" plan?] plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years [This sentence is wordy. Try saying this instead ... "The president's cap-and-trade plan ensures job losses by including provisions that accommodate newly unemployed workers from its dried-up energy sector, costing $4.2 billion over eight years." Even after re-wording your sentence, I still don't know what it means]. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising increased cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax president’s plan. For example, it will increase the cost of farming will certainly increase, by driving down farm incomes down while and driving up grocery prices up [Now would be a good opportunity to provide an example that explains how]. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase [Again ... explain how].

What is tThe ironic beauty inherent in this the president’s plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics [You may want to consider explaining "supply-side economics" to your readers (liberal and conservative) and insert relevance to your primary point here].

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket. [Insert quote source and context here]” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year [Please explain your point further in the context of cap-and-trade ... using statistics or numbers would probably make sense].

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent [Redundant ... try another word. Consult thesaurus if necessary] Obama supporter, admitted that, under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity. [Insert quote source and context here]”

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil [Is your inserting God into this sentence relevant to the argument?]. Just as Equally important, we Americans have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation that currently imports our from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America the United States. We Alaskans can could also safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal resources, whose and new technology is continuously making transforming it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally [I think you mean figuratively] sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how the president's cap-and-trade energy plan would outsource energy to other countries].

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how drilling for oil, building new gas pipelines and nuclear power plants, and burning more coal protects the environment], therefore revive reviving our economy and secure securing our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

The writer, Sarah Palin, is a Republican, is and governor of Alaska.

Listening to Robert Reich converse with Bill Moyers on his show recently about the prospect of a public health care option, it suddenly dawned on me that this might actually be what saves American capitalism. After witnessing Wall Street crumble before our very eyes and the banks peel back decades of corruption, unjustified speculation, and unethical lending practices, nobody seems to doubt that the very idea of capitalism took a low blow to the gut last year. It seems to invite a direct comparison to the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, with lack of oversight in the form of government deregulation leading the financial industry to take advantage of its market the same way Bush used the American people to sew the seeds of war.

After unregulated and unchecked financial institutions drove the world into economic meltdown, it doesn’t seem completely irrational to believe that health insurance giants might be just as corrupt and unethical as yesterday’s banks and lenders. Those of us who are not denied coverage outright and can actually afford insurance have the unfortunate privilege of experiencing this first hand, either through denied claims, increased costs, inadequate care, or downright inhumane customer service. In an adequately regulated capitalist system, competition is supposed to mitigate the occurrence of these issues, unless the industry is so corrupt that company executives actually work together to regulate the flow of profit. No example of this cronyism could be more valid than energy in the 90′s, and no event more telling than when the vice president of the United States, former CEO of energy giant, Halliburton, held a closed-door meeting in the White House with the country’s top energy executives, including some from Enron.

With the proposal of a new public option for health care, Reich argues that the current private health care system will be forced into competition with the government and, more importantly, itself to provide better care. That’s right, it’s an option. Despite rhetoric spewed from the mouths of mostly Republicans and health insurance lobbyists on Capitol Hill, nobody’s proposing that the government universally take over or “socialize” health care in the United States. Instead, people would have an option to stay with those who currently provide care, or they can go with the new guy. The one that offers care at lower costs and has the potential to collect and analyze patient information on a massive scale, ultimately leading to improved care in the future. This might sound to you like an unfair advantage but, to me, it sounds like competition, and capitalists always argue that competition is what spurs efficiency and innovation.

So, bring it on. An alternate option to the current system that creates real competition amongst insurance giants sounds like a wonderful idea, and one that will foster tremendous reforms. It almost seems ironic that diehard capitalists would oppose the concept, given that their entire philosophy lives and dies by the idea that competition pushes its industry forward and fosters progress. I would suggest that they stop being hypocrites and put their money where their mouth is, inherit some real risk for a change, and embrace competition like they’re supposed to do. Instead, private insurance corporations seem insistent on denying reality and maintaining the status quo by working together and dispatching lobbyist underlings to Washington in pursuit of quelling talk of reform. The truth hurts, and sometime it takes more courage to acknowledge that fact and make a change than it does to keep doing what you know is wrong. GM learned that the hard way.

Republican talking points seem ablaze after the weekend brought news of the Iranian government’s violent attempts to curb protests ten days after a presidential election left voters questioning the validity of their recently cast ballots. Today, Arizona senator and former presidential rival, John McCain, took advantage of an opportunity granted to him, ironically, by Barack Obama’s veep during last year’s campaign when Joe Biden told a group of donors, “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.”

“The world is looking,” Biden continued. “We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Immediately, McCain fired back by saying that Biden’s statement irresponsibly invited such a test, yet he now seems poised to engage the president in a war of words that suggests an irrational desire to set the wheels in motion for Obama’s “test” to finally flourish. Yesterday, he publicly called into question the president’s response to the conflict in Iran. The president, while condemning the use of violence to quell the protests and expressing deep concern over reports that the election might be fixed, took a neutral stance on dealing with it by stating that the US will speak for the opposition’s fundamental rights to assembly and free speech, but stopping short of military intervention or further sanctions that would serve to enhance the Iranian government’s justification for the use of more violence.

Reading an AP article on protest crackdown before Congress, John McCain, whose knee-jerk reaction to last summer’s Russian invasion of the democratic country of Georgia would have had us launching an invasion the next day, grievingly focused attention on a young woman killed by Iranian authorities while protestors captured her murder on video. The woman, known to the world as “Neda,” was quickly designated a martyr by those sympathetic to the cause of Iranian protestors, but might as well be dubbed, “Neda the Plumber,” in McCain’s own circle. The Arizona senator shamelessly used the Iranian woman’s story as a backdrop to demonstrate his leadership in calling for the president to take a stronger stance against Iran.

However, Barack Obama seems poised, instead, to heed the advise of former president, George Herbert Walker Bush, who recently expressed caution against enflaming tensions with the Islamic republic over the protests. In 1991, Mr. Bush learned the consequences of encouraging homegrown resistance and subsequently failing to follow through on military aid, which led to the massacre of Iraqi revolutionaries. Regardless of influence, there is no denying that Obama continues to demonstrate an incredible capacity to keep cool under immense pressure. Only 154 days in office, no issue on his plate is more toxic than the nightmare of nuclear proliferation, and John McCain seems bitterly fixed on using the conflict as an opportunity to demonstrate a judgmental weakness on the part of the president. Of course, this comes from a man who displayed disturbing lapses in judgement throughout last year’s presidential campaign, including the choice to nominate a highly unqualified running mate and hasty decision to inject himself into congressional negotiations concerning the economic meltdown with no useful insight.

McCain’s motives may be wrong, but Joe Biden’s statement was right. The crisis in Iran is the international test that he anticipated for Barack Obama, and the president’s patience in dealing with it is paramount to his success. Our relationship with Iran has been on shaky ground for decades, with example after example of diplomatic missteps that gave Iranian authorities opportunities to propagate the politics of hatred and mistrust among their citizenry. Then, the Bush administration cut off diplomatic ties with the country entirely. Today, its leadership progresses towards the development of a nuclear weapon that threatens the prospect of peace everywhere and, as usual, Barack Obama must practice reasonable restraint under mounting pressure from the irritable and irrational, whether it’s coming from characters like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or John McCain.

Meanwhile, a new generation of highly motivated Iranian citizens, who matured under false pretenses of freedom, are expressing disapproval over an oppressive regime that they helped muster. It’s their fight, and increased rhetoric from the party that gave us George Bush and Dick Cheney will only lead us down the path towards political and diplomatic self-destruction. Put plainly, it’s ‘dem fightin’ words that John McCain, his party, and the extremist Iranian dictatorship expect from Barack Obama, and their flawed logic follow familiar tones that draw from mistakes made in the past. They are part of an old-school train of thought, which could neither anticipate or fully comprehend the idea that the Internet might play such a significant role in shifting the tides of change. The president knows better than to lead by their example, and understands that the way forward is by learning from past mistakes in order to fully embrace the promise of progress. By exercising reasonable restraint while aligning himself and the American people with the plight of those who stand their ground in the fight for freedom, he will pass the test with flying colors.

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.