Music and Politics

This song was performed by "The Jigga Man" Jay-Z hours before President Obama's Inaugural speech after winning the Presidency.  The intent of the song may have been noble, however, some of the lyrics are anything but presidential.  I wonder how the President of the United States feels about being associated personally,  not to mention how he feels about the position of President being associated with vulgarity such as this.  What would happen to the hip-hop community if Obama publicly disapproved of the message of the song?

Someone acknowledging in song the fact that our country has elected its first African-American President is a great thing for our society.  Just, maybe not the best choice of words by the veteran rapper.  Check out the link below to see the reaction of an individual who heard this song on inauguation day.
"And you wonder why some of us don’t believe MLK’s dream has been completely fufilled…" (Michelle Malkin)

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/19/feel/



One of my favorites, this song performed by Rage Against the Machine screams "anti-establishment" just as much as the name of the band.  Many have associated this song with the LA riots in 1992 and the assault of Rodney King.  With a Harvard grad (Tom Morello) killing it on guitar, Zack de la Rocka screams about officers hiding behind a badge and metaphorically "burning crosses". 

A law that requires courts to only rely on federal and state law; Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/22/oklahoma.islamic.law/index.html

Check out the link above.  It is a story on the issue out in Oklahoma dealing with court cases where a referendum was past that prohibits the use of Islamic religious law in state courts.  The referendum states that courts will only use applicable state and federal law during trial proceedings.  Apparently an Islamic individual violated a state law, was prosecuted for it, but claimed that under his religious beliefs that he had done no wrong.  I say so what!  Our country is, basically, made up of a system of laws that were implemented to serve the greater good of the nation to the best of their ability.  And we must uphold these laws.  Some religions around the world still practice human sacrifice.  Are we as a society going to allow that to occur here?  I don't think so. 

I am all for religious freedom, that is one of the founding principles of this country.  But when certain religious practices violate state or federal laws, in place for a purpose, there must be no exception.  If we start allowing exceptions for religious practices, where would it end?  Various faiths of all kinds would spring up declaring an otherwise illegal act (i.e. smoking pot etc) as a normal cerimonial or religious observance.

The Counsil on American-Islamic Relations is challenging the referendum as an unconstitutional measure against their freedom of religion.  The goal of this challenge is for Islamic law, known as Shiria, to be accepted by the OK State Courts.  Maybe counsel for the Council should tell them about the Lemon test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 61213 (1971).  The third criterion of the test indicates that no statute can foster an excessive entannglement with religion.  A statute that allows Shiria to be taken into consideration during court proceedings would clearly incite entanglement beyond excessive.  I believe that the referendum is in concurrence with Supreme Court precedence and does not violate the First Amendment due to the fact that the actions of the individual violated an aplicable state law.      

"REPUBLI-CAN OF WHOOP ASS!!"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-17-2010/-adult-spin-
The Tag on the video is broken so check out Jonh Stewart in the link above!

Ever since the Republicans made their huge push in the mid-term elections, "talking heads" across the country have been asking one simple question to all Republicans willing to sit down with them.  "What do we do next?"  It is a logical question, but if I hear the response "we need to sit down and have an adult conversation" one more time I am going to lose all hope for American politicians!  Come on people, give us ONE straight answer!  I know that no one has all the answers but why cant they try to explain a simple tactic or strategy that they hope to suggest?

This has also been seen when many new politicians are asked about what cuts they plan on making to the budget in an attempt to decrease the deficit.  They respond by saying "cutting across the board". What does that mean exactly?  This response is far too broad when addressing the National Budget.  Does this mean that some areas will be cut more than others, what are the losses at risk for the American people?  No clear answers have been given for this issue.  It could also mean that every item on the budget will be cut by .00000001%.  This would be an "across the board" cut but it is safe to say that the effects would be minuscule.  All we wan t are some straight answers.  It would be nice if politicians would start acting less like politicians and more like regular people!

Is Obama Over-Professional?

Earlier this week President Obama attended the G20 Summit in South Korea.  This is where leaders from around the World meet, mingle, build relationships, and discuss practically everything.  But is Obama actually connection with foreign leaders?  President G.W. Bush was known for his close personal ties with diplomats, inviting them to his ranch and even rubbing the shoulders of Germany's Chancellor, really.  I know we are in very tough times right now.  But Obama must never forget the personal aspect of leadership

The right relationship with the right people can prove to be extremely advantageous given the right circumstances.  Foreign leaders are people, not just heads of state.  Our President must relate on this level  in order to form a possibly more trustworthy relationship with others.  Obama has not completely failed  in this area, he has drank beer with a foreign leader before.  But the eyes of the wold are always on the leaders of the United States.  I know it is a tall order, but he must always form trusting and personal relationships with those in powerful roles that parallel his own.

Why Was This Left Out?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTMZXa-Y5PQ

Click on the link above and check out this clip from Larry King Live earlier this week. 

Why was this issue not covered by campaigns in all of the political races that took place in this country, and why were they not asked about it?  It may be that, to Americans, this election was all about the economy and improving the unemployment situation that we are in.  If this be the case, then it seems as if we have developed a form of tunnel vision and events that take place outside the boarders of the U.S. are unimportant at the moment.  No one asked Republicans if they would continue the war or try to back out in an attempt to cut spending if they gained control of the legislature.  Maybe this has been going on so long that the American people have forgotten about this issue, or just dont care anymore. Or perhaps they completely agree with the actions taking place in Afghanistan.  As of now we do not know the answer to this question seeing as how not a single election revolved around this issue.

I feel that this should have been addressed somewhat in this election because of its importance to the American people, personaly as well as economically.  I hope someone askes the Republican party what their plans are on this issue, the Country needs to know!

KEEPIN' IT REAL

As I watched President Obama on The Daily Show, I couldn't help but to acknowledge the fact that every thing seemed to revolve around the "battle" between Democrats and Republicans for political power.  My judgment may be a little clouded after writing a paper compairing the two parties websites and being frustrated with the bickering I saw.  To be honest, when I turn on the news, no matter what program, I like the "Party System" of this Country less and less.......and less.

The power of party affiliation is one of the most absurd concepts of politics I have ever seen.  Since when is casting a vote or taking a stance on an issue, simply to conform with party agenda, right, moral, or even democratic?  Shouldn't a political representative represent the people that voted them and not an organization of self proclaimed leaders?  I believe what the Republican Party claims when they say our government needs serious change, but they need to make just as many changes as the Democrats do!  No wonder their mascots are asses and elephants, two of the dumbest looking animals on the earth!

I guess what really did it for me was when I heard about Democratic politicians taking pride in voting against their own party, like the Senator from West Virginia putting a .308 slug in the Cap and Trade Bill.  Give me a break! Why do we even have parties?  I know it is a great way to raise campaign dollars, but is it really that important when it impedes democracy?  I will admit, I have no clue whatsoever on the issue of an alternative method. But is this really the best we can do?

Oh, and while we are at it, whats up with all of these ignorant,  incompetent politicians running for office and actually being allowed to do so ? You know who I am talking about.  Is this the best we, The FREAKIN' United States of America can do? Are these really, seriously the best and most qualified individuals we can produce to lead our country out of the hard times we find ourselves in? Think about it, Really!! 

 

The latest New York gubernatorial debate was, different to say the least.  This was no traditional debate where the two most favorable candidates face-off one on one about certain issues, but rather all parties with a candidate were represented.  Even this guy from the "Rent is Too Damn High" party, who has a unique personallity, and an "ex-maddam" who is the embodiment for all the reasons not to get botox. 

Other than the strange appearances of a few of the candidates, what is wrong with this open forum style of debate?  It is possible that the best person for the job does not associate with Democrats or Republicans. Shouldn't voters have the right to see all candidates given equal time with the most popular parties so their stance on issues may be heard?  Nowhere in the constitution does it specify the use of a two party system, yet we as a country have legitimized this system.  In regard to election candidates, I believe that all should be presented before the public for voters to draw their own conclusions as to which individual best represents them.  Isn't this basically what democracy is?  And by the way, rent is too damn high, not only in NY!