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!

Number of Competitive House Races Doubles from Recent Years... SO???

We are in an election year, as most with a brain and actively living in the 21st century would know. And the media is hyping this as one of the most inportant elections in recent decades. Hold on, aren't ALL elections held in a democratic society of major concern? We, educated Americans, get that! I believe media outlets are placing far too much emphasis on who will have the majority in Washington after November and far too less on what they plan to do, whom ever wins. 

I stole the title of this post directly from an article in the New York Times http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/number-of-competitive-house-races-doubles-from-recent-years/?ref=politics. Don't we need competition? Is that not a major factor which defines us as a liberal democracy? I wish all elections in this country were as competitive as the ones to come. Competitive elections fuel a need and hopfully a want for knowledge on the public's behalf of what exactly is going on in our Country.

Christine Being Christine

Ep. 190: Sept. 24, 2010 Clip - Christine O'Donnell

Just when we thought Christine O'Donnell was in a hole with the "whitchcraft" thing, the hole became larger when HBO's Bill Maher vowed to show a clip of Christine from "Politically Incorrect" on his current show "Real Time" as long as she refuses to appear on the show.  The above clip is simply ridiculous!

This is a prime example of how the media can sneak up on you later in life, especially if you have no regard for self image, as O'Donnell clearly lacks.  It is obsurd when we realize that these are the people in contention for government positions, in OUR country! I hate to say it, but maybe a form of the Miranda Warning should be given to some of the idiots out there going on the record in regard to television and/or the press.  "You have the right to remain silent, really it's ok. You have the right to shut the **** up and not say a word. You can ask for advise as to if you should speak or not, but if you have to ask, just dont say anything! Whatever you say can and more than likely be used later in life, if the opportunity presents itself, to bring shame on you and undermind any task set before you!" Something simple like that.  People need to realize that in today's age of technology, you can't just say anything you please. The Assistant District Attorney of Michigan is another prime example of what I am now referring to as "Political Ignorance".  The defamatory remarks he made toward the University of Michigan Student President were just uncalled for.  Why individuals put themselves in these kind of situations is beyond sane comprehension. Are these people the best we can do for political office. I hope the answer is no!  

"If it pleases the Committee........"

Stephen Colbert was invited to Washington earlier this week to testify during an Immigration Committee hearing. The invitation came after he allocated a segment of his show "The Colbert Report" to "investigate" immigrant workers here in America. In the typical Colbert fashion, he spent a day working on a farm with laborers from South America. Every single effort was made to bring all humor conceivable to light.

Now I love Stephen Colbert and what he does! He’s a funny guy. But asking him to testify on an immigration issue is just absurd!! First of all, his “expertise” on the matter is ridiculous to the point of nonexistent. Second, he is a professional comedian! What jokester wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to do a stand-up routine in front of Congress in session with the world watching? It was the chance of a lifetime and he took full advantage of it. What did the Representatives that invite him think was going to happen? I applaud him for his efforts, the idiocy of the members of this committee should be known. This hearing was not the venue for a Stephen Colbert to be invited to speak. However, since he was, I would not want him to act any other way. His show brought enough attention to the issue of immigrant labor, so why him and why Congress? Watch, and decide for yourself.    

Georgia baby sitter, 11, charged in death.

I know that this post has nothing to do with politics, but I hope Prof. DeWitt will indulge me. First of all, who the hell would leave a 2 year old to be cared for by an 11 year old?! I am 24, given I'm a guy, but I dont have the confidence or maybe knowledge to look after a child of that age for 15 minutes. Maybe if I have been around small children more in my life time I would be more suited for such a task. But an 11 year old, are you kidding me!! Parents, wake the *#^@ up!!

One aspect of this case I do not understand is that if you listen closely to the video above, the child was left in the care of the 11 year old, AND the 11 year olds mother. Shouldn't that woman be held responsible for an infant child left in HER apartment? If I, at my current age, was taking care of a baby for a friend at my mothers house she would be right beside me the entire time making sure I was doing everything correctly and safely for the sake of the child. For a mother to pawn off that responsibillity, which is a cosiderable one, to another child is a gross act of criminal negligence in my book. Charge the right individual Sandy Springs!!

"MUDSLINGING" 101

Politicians have been slinging mud at one another for centuries.  We have all seen it and now it seems like every other political campaign ad on television is aimed at bashing a candidates opponent; many of which are ruthless in character.  In South Carolina, Elizabeth Dole claimed that her opponent was an honorary guest at a meeting held by the “Godless Americans Pact” and accepted money from this organization.  However, this was not the case.  The actual meeting being referred to had nothing to do with Atheism and was even attended by Senator John Kerry.

The methods of “mudslinging” by modern would be politicians have become amusing and in one specific case, hysterical!  The video below is an actual commercial by Dale Peterson who is running for Alabama Agriculture Commissioner.  This commercial is real, no bull!  On the other hand, the link below (embedding was disabled) is a parody playing on Peterson’s personality and “charisma”. This Danny McBride look-a-like is hilarious!!  Remember, the link you HAVE to check out is below the video! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDwNrp1-B-Q

LEAVE IT TO STEPHEN!!

September 8th and 9th Stephen Colbert honored returned troops from the war in Iraq in a fashion which only he could do. Who else would hane the Vice President of the United States serve Miller High-Life and hot dogs to war veterans while placing a hair piece on the "offensive coordinator" of the war, Four Star General Ray Odierno!

Although The Colbert Repot has it own humorous way of doing things, the entire country should follow this example of exalting our service men and women for the courage and sacrifice they have shown throughout this tiresome operation. It is no secret that many Americans were hesitant to show support for the war, however, we must not fail to support the soldiers that risked it all to carry out the task asked of them by our government. 

What caught me by surprise was the appreciative and gracious remarks made by Joe Biden when asked if he would like to give credit to former President George W. Bush for his attitude towards the troops he chose to place in harms way. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Check out this Clip!
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7d5dIQ3mr6A?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7d5dIQ3mr6A?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

Why Do We Lose???

Let’s think about something for a moment. And in no way is this meant to be disrespectful, I fully support all branches of the Armed Forces. But there is something that should be addressed. Why is it that almost every major international conflict the U.S. has been a part of has been placed in the "Loss" column? Why do we have a recent history of losing war and/or leaving people to ask “what did that actually accomplish”? Vietnam, loss. Dessert Storm, stopped Iraq from being a bully, but didn’t fix the problem (Saddam) so, most consider that a loss. The “War on Terror” made a significant dent in the ability of Al Qaeda, but did not lead to the capture of Bin Laden. This is classified as a lost by most as well. It is the same thing with the recent war in Iraq. Yes, it did away with a sadistic dictator, but it also left many scratching their heads. So, let me offer one examination in the form of a question. What do all of these conflicts have in common? I’ll tell you what. A complete lack of support from the American public! Look, I know that war is a horrible thing but throughout history we should know that it is inevitable. It is my opinion that the wars involving the U.S. were warranted, something needed to be done. But with the lack of support from the public, our leaders had to tip-toe through the tulips when dealing with these situations in an attempt to not piss off our citizens. We should back the play of our government in armed conflict when it is necessary, and it has been. I would hate to see the reaction of the public if “Pearl Harbor” were to happen today. During WWII, America as a whole did all that was possible to hit our enemies with all we had. I believe that if more support was given in the wars listed above, we would have struck hard and “cleaned house”. That’s my 2 cents.




And I know this has nothing to do with comedy, but hey, it’s my blog.

MISSION STATEMENT!!

The purpose of this blog is to inform, and possible educate my followers as to the reasons our society today is in need of television shows such as "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show".  Comedy is MORE American than apple pie!  I know people that hate pie.  Instead of bashing these shows, and their hosts for that matter, for not "serving the citizens needs", we should applaude their brass for attempting to make all the horrible news bearable for the average Joe!