Web Commonerprogressive politics, social commentary, and ramblings on pop culture

One day after FOX News released their latest findings inferring that “Americans” do not want Barack Obama’s healthcare plan, FOX News figureheads, Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace, jumped on the air to do some usual fact-twisting, spin-laden analysis, asking why the White House might be snubbing their network in its latest press junket to promote the president’s proposals …

According to O’Reilly, FOX News is the only network today that really matters, thanks mostly to a mysterious migration of so-called “independent” voters recently to Fox’s viewership. In the interview, O’Reilly and Wallace do their best to pretend that the network’s coverage is fair, yet Wallace appears surprisingly unrestrained while making statements like the Obama administration is the “biggest bunch of crybabies” that he ever saw, or blatantly circumventing fact by stating that the number of participants in the recent 9/12 tea-party protests in Washington DC added up to a “million, or hundred thousand, thousands, or tens of thousands.”

Almost in the same breath, O’Reilly attempts to drive home the point that the so-called “power shift” in the media is now with FOX News and talk radio, all because so-called “independents who make the calls” are, apparently, in bed with a news organisation that consistently distorts factual data, intentionally manipulates its audience, and injects subjective opinion into every story that it reports. Of course, what O’Reilly neglected to point out is that the Republican party is in shambles, desperately seeking to separate itself from the party’s pathetic reputation garnished within the last ten or so years, and undergoing an elusive transformation that gives way to a new, so-called “independent” mindset.

By redefining themselves as Independents, disoriented Republican dissidents see an opportunity to save face after enduring eight solid years of embarrassing let-downs under a leader who originally gave them great hope and inspiration. In reality, these so-called “independents” continue to think very much like old school Republicans, which means that they still need to rely heavily on their beloved news network to act as an official microphone for their new and developing political branch. Fortunately for them, specific, strategically placed personalities at FOX are available to serve as official spokespeople for the new, smoke and mirrors faction, despite the reality of their audiences being little more than recycled Republican viewers.

Traditionally, professional journalists steered clear of announcing party affiliation in a more objectively driven industry, holding to an unwritten rule that a journalist might project bias into coverage by revealing their personal views concerning specific policy issues. This is precisely why Bill O’Reilly makes it a point to highlight Chris Wallace’s past credentials, siting 11 years with ABC News, and subsequently mentioning Wallace’s biological father, 60 Minutes staple, Mike Wallace, all to link the FOX News Sunday host’s connections and experience to his assumed ability to host a “fair and balanced” television news show in 2009. Of course, the game is not what it used to be, and broadcast news has come a long way since the days of Mike Wallace and the halfway-objective journalist. Today, personal opinion-driven talking heads rule the 24-hour news circuit and, of course, FOX played a tremendous role in creating that environment.

One of the most prominent and popular characters to embrace so-called “independent” voters at FOX News is Glenn Beck, who took up full time residence there after moving his freakish road show to the network following a two-year stint with CNN. Launching one of the most strange and all-together scary live broadcasts in American television news history, Beck regularly uses the medium as an outlet to spew outlandish conspiracy theories that target the Obama administration and their so-called socialist agenda. He often touts his audience as one that represents all political persuasions, encouraging them to set aside petty political differences, and calling them to arms in a fight to take back a corrupt government. Of course, behind the scenes, Beck is well aware of the fact that his core following primarily consists of bitter, paranoid, and virile Republicans and Republican outcasts frustrated with corruption and bureaucracy, which actually came to a head at the hight of the previous administration. Of course, there is also another sliver of his audience who likely represent nomadic passerby’s, popping in and out on occasion, hoping to witness that predictable moment of self-sacrifice when Beck finally goes off the deep end.

Meanwhile, those who isolate themselves as independents on their voter registration cards are moving away from traditional broadcast news outlets, along with progressives, and taking residence online instead, mostly out of frustration for a devolving medium in television. Unfortunately, the people left behind are those who demonstrate a stubborn unwillingness to embrace new technologies, and subsequently have little choice but to follow FOX’s coverage as competing network ratings fall and content suffers as a consequence. Their pockets ere empty, and they see a government spending unprecedented amounts of money in a sweeping quest to restore the country’s economy. They turn to so-called independent voices like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, or Chris Wallace, and what they hear in those voices, no matter how fantastical or irresponsibly manipulative, stirs emotions into patriotic action and renewed political vibrancy.

Spending a good portion of my day tracking an erroneous article about a new Fox News poll is not my idea of a good time, but sometimes a person has to bite the bullet and endure a little self-induced torture, simply to get the necessary results that they’re so desperately seeking. Yesterday, I found myself halted half-way through a daily ritual of scanning the latest headlines on Google News after coming across a new poll indicating, “Americans Prefer Current System to Obama’s Health Care Plan.” This should be interesting, I thought, and rashly clicked the link.

As expected, the site brought me deep into the heart of FoxNews.com’s political section and their so-called “fair and balanced” coverage of today’s news. I read the article, by Dana Blanton, which concludes that a poll released by FOX News on Thursday, September 17, found that, “Most Americans see no upside for their family in the health care reforms being considered in Washington and don’t believe President Obama when he says his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit.” Given the detailed wording of these and other claims, I decided to let the raw data speak for itself.

Of course, the raw data was not available, and neither was the full poll results. In fact, clicking these links on the page got the following disparaging result:

Page Cannot Be Found

Okay, maybe Safari simply had a brain freeze, so I clicked the ‘back’ button and tried the links again. Still nothing, and at this point, the blood started boiling inside my head. Isn’t it irresponsible for a major news network to publish fact-based claims based on polling data that is not available to the reader? This point of contention was enough to propel me into registering at the news conglomerate’s website for the first time and expressing my reservations concerning the report:

by webcommoner[Sep 17, 2009 5:01:02 PM]
Surprise, surprise … links to view the “full poll results” and “raw data” explaining who, exactly, was polled are dead. Page Cannot Be Found How convenient, and how incredibly irresponsible. 5:00 PM EST

I checked back regularly throughout the day to monitor changes, even reinstating my search on Google News several times, but to no avail. Each time that I returned to the site, the raw data and poll results links remained broken, and more and more commenters saw it fit to note this obvious indiscretion. In fact, one of the last comments on the thread posted by edrivcol2112 at 3:47 AM on September 18, still demonstrated Fox’s indifference to these complaints, despite its grammatic fault:

“Fix the link showing the poll numbers are admit this is a fabrication, Fox News.”

The following morning, a subsequent Google News search yielded even more FOX News Poll stories, all based on the same raw data that was inconveniently absent the day before. Of course, this time, the “Americans Prefer Current System to Obama’s Health Care Plan” story linked to a new and separate page, finally making the poll data available to readers, but apparently ditching the comments that previously accompanied the story. Buried somewhere within the depths of FOX News obscurity, I thought, is a page with accompanying comments that question the story’s validity based on data missing from their website, and only a handful of people know.

Having a quick look at the results, which are now available, I scanned through the raw data and found information that is likely typical of a “fair and balanced” FOX News poll, including nothing that indicates whether or not their sample is random or where the telephone numbers that they used to perform the poll actually came from. Then, of course, there is a significantly high percentage of Independents interviewed, which seemed strange given the size of that party’s constituency, and a proportionately skewed ratio of blacks to whites questioned, which is concerning given the fact that the poll addresses issues of race. Finally, it seems convenient, at the very least, that blacks and whites appear to be the only ethnic groups available when the poll was conducted, which reflects data dating back to January, 2009.

A scan of the questions asked indicate a gross manipulation of verbiage, likely used to evoke emotion and provoke specific answers, like when interviewers ask, “how much attention do you feel Congress pays to what regular Americans think when it decides what to do.” Shouldn’t pollers excuse themselves from injecting subjective classifications concerning who is and who is not a “regular” American? Or, how about when FOX asks its subjects if, “you are more likely to: Vote for the Democrat to help Barack Obama pass his policies and programs,” in the next congressional election. Project much? The question that takes the cake, though, is the one that asks, “what do you think the president should be spending more time on right now – fixing the economy or reforming heath care,” as if he is unable to do both at the same time or, better yet, that both are not linked. I could go on, but you get the point.

Then, of course, there is that explosive cherry bomb that most pollers always seem to neglect when it comes to reporting coverage based on poll results, which is the fact that those questioned are only among “likely voters.” FOX then deems it appropriate to relabel these individuals, “Americans,” in their reporting and headlines, rather than call them what they really represent, a small cross-section of a much larger population. So, does FOX’s label for this group inherently imply that unlikely voters are un-American? Of course, scrutiny of the numbers themselves likely requires an infinite amount of patience, time, and due diligence that I am unwilling to yield at this point, and my guess is that FOX News viewers share the same sentiment, if they even care at all to check under the hood and see what’s driving the engine. Undoubtedly, Fox’s, “We report, you decide,” cabal not only depends on that notion, but lives and dies by it.

What exactly is “judicial activism” anyway? Contextually speaking, it’s a rhetorical catch phrase used by the political right to counter years of judicial precedence. The phrase picked up great momentum during the Bush and Cheney years and, today, Republicans use it when referencing high court nominees who, they claim, may or may not “legislate from the bench.” Behind closed doors, though, operatives within the party use it as a tool to foster change for their base, which sets in motion a concept that conservative court appointees will ignore traditional objectivism and actively seek to reverse ill-favored decisions made in the past. These cases, which set precedence spanning the history of the United States, embody a slew of rulings that touch on issues of civil rights, church and state, gun control, corporate litigation, states rights, right-to-privacy, and abortion.

Washington insiders confined within the rarely seen, but often heard, chambers of political think tanks conjure ways to package complex political concepts into compact, succinct, and portable rhetorical gems like “judicial activism,” which trickles down from the higher ranks of the party, in talking-point fashion, to its outer regions via the mainstream media. Anyone who played the game “telephone” as a child knows that messages usually encounter static as they travel from one person to the next, finally losing their luster and becoming freakish giants of little meaning or substance by the time they reach their intended target. Still, base underlings propagate these loaded words into social settings and family gatherings throughout the country, often inverting their meaning by denying or reinterpreting historical fact, as they relay personal problems in the context of government intervention.

While discussing the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, I recently had an encounter with a person who withheld support for the judge, fearing that Sotomayor might uphold abortion “law” if confirmed. Of course, the government never passed a law making abortion legal, and it actually passed laws to ban the practice instead. However, Roe v. Wade’s significance is that the case interpreted those laws barring abortion to be unconstitutional. Still, regardless of the case’s historical context, most conservative Republicans seem to agree that the case allowed women a private right to choose if they wanted to have an abortion. In this context, the term “judicial activism” simply implies that judges have been wrongly upholding that decision since 1973. It could be more accurately argued, though, that judges have actually been rightly using Roe v. Wade as precedence to guide future decisions.

In Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, the judge explained that the federal court system is constitutionally bound to follow the policy of “stare decisis,” which determines that court decisions must stand by precedent, or acts, decisions, and cases that serve as guides for subsequent situations. Landmark cases like Roe v. Wade serve as precedent for future cases that come before the Supreme Court, and logic dictates that the longer each precedent stands, the more difficult the burden will be on the court to find just cause for reversing it. In fact, this is extremely difficult to do since lawsuits that seek to reverse decisions, which previously set precedence, need to challenge the illegality or unconstitutional merit of laws already determined to be unconstitutional. Ultimately, precedence sets a very high standard that federal judges must use and, contrary to political rhetoric coming from the right, acts that covertly seek to reverse it should be more regarded as attempts to “legislate from the bench” than acts seeking to uphold it.

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.

While nervously stumbling through a nearly 20 minute speech at a press conference in Alaska last week, Sarah Palin officially announced that she will resign from her post as governor in the coming weeks. Despite spewing a hodgepodge of approximately 3,000 words at a news media tasked with deciphering her language, I am hard-pressed to find a coherent quote from Palin that successfully summarizes her reasoning behind the decision.

Fidgeting through the exchange, her reasons for leaving involve (prepare yourself) energy independence, politics, media, federal stimulus money, “frivolous” accusations of ethics violations, wounded soldiers, and her family’s encouragement to positively effect change via outside endeavors. Palin stressed the latter point on several occasions, also arguing that her lame duck status would only influence further squandering of Alaska’s time and resources. The governor is not interested in politics as usual, she said, and her time would be better spent pushing the politics of change from outside the state of Alaska.

So, there you have it. Painfully cryptic yet fairly obvious evidence that Sarah Palin is positioning herself for a 2012 shot at the presidency. Given that Palin’s name surfaces whenever the media seeks confirmation on who will take the lead of her downtrodden party, the entire situation seems best suited for the likes of one Karl Rove. Could it be that he paid Palin a visit and offered free grammar and public speaking lessons in exchange for a White House bid? After suffering through 20 minutes of rambling political innuendo and offensive posturing, I’m 99.9% certain that we have not heard or seen the last of Sarah Palin, and her run from the governor’s mansion will likely lead to a more significant run for the highest office in the land.

In the late nineties, Karl Rove presented another governor, George W. Bush of Texas, with a proposition. He would lead the former alcoholic, average student, lackluster business and oil man, and lame duck governor to the White House based primarily on two overarching pre-requisites … Bush was the son of a former president and an evangelical Christian. Rove, a master of manipulation, understood that Bush could carry middle America with the proper motivation and the right message. Today, the popularity of Palin among conservative Christians reveals a renewed opportunity that could allot Rove a second shot at the White House.

Would it work this time around? If our history is any indicator, Rove would certainly have a chance at success, and it would be unwise not to act. As any good propagandist knows, people with little power also have short attention spans. Rove demonstrated his understanding of this tenet when he brought back some of America’s most loathed and controversial figureheads from the Regan era including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. So, it would not surprise me to see controversial figureheads from the Bush cabinet pop up in a 2012 Palin administration, especially Condoleezza Rice or Alberto Gonzales.

In 2000, a bumbling George Bush charmed and cheated his way into the presidency by appealing to the proud sense of inner ignorance embodied by his constituency’s base. Sarah Palin symbolizes that same spirit of hypocritical moral ambiguity, and it seems safe to assume that Karl Rove might envision the same feat in her that he did in George Bush. All of us can recite that timeless idiom from Texas … or is it Tennessee, “Fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me … you can’t get fooled again.” Well, when the time comes, I certainly hope that Sarah Palin’s opponents, Barack Obama among them, are fully prepared to take on the forces of Rovian rhetoric that fooled us once, stopping Palin and her morally-favored family unit in its tracks and preventing them from fooling us again.

Last week, authorities in Nevada arrested a Utah man after he bragged to bank tellers while clearing his account that he planned to kill the president. This week, a madman strolled into the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC and opened fire on a security guard, killing him before other guards successfully took him down. Shortly after police apprehended and identified the suspect, the press picked up on his predictable ties to prominent Neo-Nazi and white supremacist hate groups. Apparently, he identified most with the cause of people who proudly deny the Holocaust and likely spend a significant portion of their days finding ways to justify their ignorance through the hatred of minorities or, more specifically, African Americans and Jews.

In April, the Department of Homeland Security released a report that warned of rising right-wing extremism. Meanwhile, the country elected its first African American to the highest office in the land, which sent gun-nutters into a weapons buying frenzy that would further empower the NRA and its massive lobby. So, coupled with the rhetoric spewed to the masses from pre-pubescent conservative television and radio personalities, this trend should be a bright, bustling-in-the-wind, red flag to all concerned citizens. Be on the lookout for bitter, right-wing extremists who are incredibly prejudiced and equally pissed about the election of a minority. Their anger might be so potent that they would be willing to lay down their lives and commit atrocious acts of violence against innocent people, which could include you, a friend, or a loved one who happened to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

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.