Currents events, news, and our own editorial opinions.
The wrote a fairly unremarkable piece on hip hop beefs in 2009. The focus of the article was on some simmering beef between Joe Budden and half the Wu-Tang nation. The story goes that Joe Budden wasn’t too happy when Method Man beat him on a poll by the defunct-and-reborn Vibe Magazine. He made a couple of brash statements, and the Wu responded.
It seems like Raekwon took it the most personally, and tensions simmered between Joe and Rae, culminating in an alleged assault on Joe Budden. Budden made the situation public by posting a little video diary online and talking about it.
The only thing I found interesting about the article was the focus on technology in modern hip hop beefs. The author had this to say about the situation:
The supposed attack took place backstage at the Los Angeles date of the Rock the Bells tour, at which both Raekwon and Slaughterhouse were performing. According to Mr. Budden and Mickey Factz, another rapper in the room at the time, the incident was being filmed by a member of Raekwon’s camp, presumably so that Mr. Budden’s primary tool, the Internet, could later be used against him.
If so, it was a mark of modern savvy on the part of Raekwon, a product of the 1990s, an era in which hip-hop beefs were just as likely to play out behind closed doors as on records.
More importantly, I think, was this simple sentence. It both castigates the Wu-Tang clan as being out of touch and seems to suggest that Joe Budden is somehow ahead of the game.
In going online with his gripes about the Vibe list, Mr. Budden was working from an updated playbook, one that most likely caught Raekwon and Method Man, used to the unchallenged public respect of their successors, off guard.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can see a video diary as being a remarkable use of technology that woudl catch anyone off guard, but I can see the author’s point. It may be something that didn’t use to happen as much, in that beefs used to be made public through the odd-interview but primarily through disses at shows and tracks packed with insults. Rappers didn’t use to jump on YouTube to complain about each other.
The article is worth a read. Jon Caramanica makes some good points regarding Budden’s use of the internet to remain relevant, and has some insight to Raekwon’s behaviour.
A couple of weeks ago we posted about Erykah Badu’s new album and linked to her newest video. The video, for a track called Window Seat was a teeny bit more controversial than I expected.
In the video, Badu walks through downtown Dallas and strips her clothes off in slow motion. Now, most people would figure that this was either a) Fake and done on a soundstage somewhere or b) Staffed with extras and cleared with the locals. It was neither.
Badu just guerilla filmed this video, strolling through Dallas while stripping in public and eventually collapsing at the scene of JFK’s assassination. A political statement, to be sure.
But let’s go through this step by step. Start with the video itself:
NPR’s writes that:
Badu, a Dallas native, that Dealey Plaza was chosen intentionally because the video — for her song Window Seat — is about “the character assassination one would go through after showing his or her self completely.”
This is entirely possible, but it’s also a bit far-fetched in my mind. Character assassination has definitely been occurring after this video, with lots of accusations and questions about why Badu would do such a thing.
This is probably the biggest thing on people’s minds. Why would she get naked? The Police apparently have after receiving complaints, and it’s possible that Badu will wind up with a fine. Considering the video clearly shows kids in the immediate area, I understand why parents were concerned. Nudity is not always a big deal, and some are making the argument that nudity has earned itself a bad rap.
NPR’s quotes TheRoot.com
And then there’s from our friends at TheRoot.com, written by Natalie Hopkinson.
And here’s a perspective from one of our own, Tell Me More producer Jasmine Garsd:
“I think the issue here is that she’s chilling naked in a non-sexual way. People are so used to seeing over-sexualized, exploited women on TV so people freak out when they see a woman just naked, relaxing, with cellulite, some tummy (she looks great though) — ESPECIALLY a woman of color. You are supposed to be writhing next to 50 Cent all oiled up. You are supposed to be oversexed, having Nelly swipe a credit card in your butt. You are not supposed to just be naked, walking. It’s too humanizing. And even if you are not a woman of color, you are supposed to be Britney writhing half naked with a snake promising you are a virgin. How is this any less sexual than Beyonce’s new video with Gaga, or any rap video? If anything, it’s less exploitative.“
This is definitely an interesting take on the issue. Part of me honestly does agree that it’s a bit less exploitative simply because it doesn’t sexualize the nudity. Badu’s always been a bit unpredictable and also a bit of an exhibitionist. At the same time, she’s not necessarily known as someone who uses her sex as a way to sell her albums in a way that many stars do today. In this video, despite her being nude, you don’t get the sense that she’s sexing things up.
Instead, you get the feeling that she’s very comfortable in her own skin. I honestly think I wouldn’t be nearly as intrigued by this video had it not been for the JFK link.
Now, Badu quickly went on the defensive after accusations that she was disrespecting JFK. On the Wanda Sykes Show, Badu made her passionate defence. :
Talking to Sykes, Badu defended the video, claiming “that’s what performance art is about… I think my point was grossly misunderstood all over the United States of America.” She also said that she wasn’t doing it to disrespect Kennedy’s memory, calling him “one of my heroes” and “a revolutionary, a rebel.” She goes on to say that Kennedy was “not afraid to butt heads with America, and I was not afraid to show America my butt naked truth.”
You can see of her interview with Sykes on a BET blog here.
Like I was saying, I don’t think the video concerns me for anything except the faux shooting. I’m not easily scandalized, and video otherwise is fine. I get why people are concerned, but Badu is no stranger to controversy so I don’t think it’s unexpected. After listening to her interview with Wanda Sykes, you can hear she genuinely does respect JFK and that she probably wasn’t trying to disrespect him. Even so, I think the video would have been a legitimate hit and a more subtle message if she had done this minus the gunshot/collapse at the end. Just my two cents.
I wonder if ?uestlove had any idea what he was getting himself into when he collaborated with her for this track.
Last week, Sarah Palin made an appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show ‘‘ as part of her promotional tour. Although I didn’t catch it live – fortunately (or maybe unfortunately) I don’t get Fox News – I did have a chance to read a of the interview.
Surprisingly, Palin wasn’t completely terrible. She demonstrated a modest grasp of a variety of topical issues, from health care reform to Russia’s involvement in suppressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I don’t necessarily agree with her views, but at least she sounded as though she holds some. Her ability to communicate them, however, was less impressive, and I’m starting to think that her limited vocabulary and inability to form coherent sentences is really what’s holding her back. Have a look at this particularly interesting response:
O’REILLY: Do you think that [Obama] wants to change the country into an entitlement society?
PALIN: We’re going to see, depending on his cap and tax bill that he will no doubt support coming out of Congress, that the health care bill, whatever that’s going to cost us and whatever the answers are there to all of our questions about the health care, we’re going to see, if he decides that he can kind of shift gears, change course, and move us back to more of a free enterprise, free market principles that built up this country, then my answer to you is going to be no, he’s not hell-bent on changing the capitalist society that we are. But if he is stubborn about this, then my answer to you is going to be well, his actions speak louder than our words, and yes, he’s going to change our capitalistic society.
You get a rough idea of what she’s trying to say, despite her stunningly poor grammar and syntax. If she learned to speak in short, declarative sentences, rather than meandering, scattered ones, Palin’s appeal would surely broaden. To be fair, though, her recent suggests that perhaps her grasp of policy is indeed as weak as her opponents suggests.
Interestingly, O’Reilly was also less generous with Palin than I would have expected. At a couple of points, he seems to question her responses, and presses her (if ever so gently) for clarification. It’s hardly hard-hitting investigative journalism, but at least it’s not the obvious fawning Fox New seems to have a reputation for. Here’s one such exchange:
O’REILLY: Honest, do you think he’s honest?
PALIN: I think that he has told us some things in the campaign. I think that he’s told us some things early on in his presidency that have not come to fruition. He was all about positive change, and I think a lot of Americans are believing that the change that he’s ushering in isn’t necessarily positive.
O’REILLY: Well, he says it is. I’m — you’re a conservative, so you don’t like it, but…
PALIN: How — positive in terms of creating debt for our children?
O’REILLY: No, but he says, you know what the arguments are. I mean, he says that, look, a lot of Americans can’t afford health insurance, the insurance companies are out of control, I’ve got to get them under control. That’s why I’m doing what I’m doing. You know, that’s his point of view.
PALIN: Let’s get the health care problems under control then. But let’s use free market, results-oriented, patient-centered solutions to do that. Tort reform, he’s not embracing any of those ideas. Getting rid of the waste and fraud that he insists today, if we would just get a handle on that, we could pay for this one point.
O’REILLY: Well, he says he’s going to get rid of the waste.
PALIN: Let’s do it right now then.
Here at 4080, we’re known for occasionally exploring the relationship between hip-hop and social change. Normally, the intersection of those things lies on the left side of the political spectrum. The list of emcees rapping about eradicating poverty, combating racism and even is long and distinguished. It’s a tradition that stems back to hip-hop’s earliest days, and is the source of some of the genre’s most (if not always best-selling) releases.
So it was interesting to read about , a rapper from New Jersey, who raps from a conservative perspective. More specifically, he identifies with the tea party movement, and his rhymes espouse its principles. As he told , “I support the tea party movement because I feel they are the only people in the America who are not following lock-step, rank-and-file one of the political parties.” Hi Cal (as I call him) is also “especially” opposed to the bank and auto industry bailouts.
His music isn’t absolutely terrible. Technically, his rhymes are no worse than a lot of other mediocre rappers’, and his lyrics will keep you interested. Check out “Patriot People:”
To be sure, I am diametrically opposed to nearly all of his political views. And I think it’s hilarious that he’s missed the obvious irony of telling a political movement to wave their hands around “like they just don’t care.” But I suppose it would also be hypocritical to deride someone for using music to express their deeply-held beliefs, since we encourage it so enthusiastically elsewhere. Ultimately, Hi Caliber is more evidence of hip-hop’s remarkable potential for affecting political change.
Yes, it is true. Lou Dobbs, CNN Anchor, hero of the birther movement and, generally speaking, an anti-immigrant toolbag, has quit CNN.
I can’t even begin to say how much of a relief it is to see him gone, and not because he’s conservative. I think a major news network on CNN deserves and requires a responsible conservative viewpoint. I think MSNBC sucks precisely because it’s so openly liberal, and Fox sucks for many other reasons.
I have my problems with CNN, sure, but many of them are being addressed precisely because of a step like this. I worry that CNN, a network that already has its own bias, was working on moving towards polemicism in an effort to combat Fox News’ growth. I worry, and I had a reason to.
Lou Dobbs, one of the original anchors from CNN, has moved steadily from being a voice of reason to one of unabashed conservative hype. He rails against illegal immigrants, hates taxpayer bailouts, but most importantly he was the godfather of the birther movement. According to the NYT:
Lately, though, he has saved most of his opinions for his afternoon radio show, which made its debut in March 2008. It is on the radio show that he about the conspiracy-theory claims that President Obama is not a United States citizen. When he mentioned the citizenship issue on CNN over the summer, to call it a “dead issue.”
Dobbs refused to let the issue die, despite how patently absurd it is. It was the most disappointing step from a once venerable newsman.
If this is a step by CNN to move towards the middle and find a proper, responsible voice, then I applaud it. If it is simply getting rid of an annoying figure, then that’s another thing.
It does make for some interesting reading. Particularly this:
Over the past six months it’s become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us, and some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day. And to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.
I assume many will be speculating that Dobbs will be moving over to a place like Fox. I would like to float the idea that Dobbs is considering a run for Senate. I think he would be well placed to win a conservative riding, and would continue a long line of blowhard hosts with political aspirations (both liberals and conservatives, of course).
If nothing else, this sort of gives the game away:
But each of those issues is, in my opinion, informed by our capacity to demonstrate strong resilience of our now weakened capitalist economy and demonstrate the political will to overcome the lack of true representation in Washington, D.C.
There are 36 or 37 Senate seats coming up for election in November 2010, depending on who you talk to. While there is an special by-election coming up in January to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat, I don’t think Dobbs stands a chance of winning in Massachusetts. Of the most likely seats, I think Dobbs will consider running in Missouri (where Kit Bond is retiring) or Kansas (where Sam Brownback is leaving). The only alternate would be to try to take the New Hampshire seat from Judd Gregg as he retires.
We shall see how it pans out, but I wouldn’t put it past old Lou to try and ride the press over his rapid CNN departure all the way to the capitol.
[Update: It appears that many are speculating that Dobbs will in 2012. I still believe my guess is the correct one, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. ]
I love it when far-right demagogue hypocrites like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are proven wrong or, even better, lose at something. It’s just awesome.
The latest victory of reason over sheer ridiculousness comes courtesy of Isaac Eiland-Hall, a gentleman from Panama City, Florida. In an obvious parody of Beck’s over-the-top, completely unfounded fear-mongering, Eiland-Hall created a website called http://www.GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com (I’d link to it, but it’s since been taken down); the point being that Beck never denied taking part in the (non-existent) attack, so it must be true! The classic Fox News fallacy turned against its best-known proponent.
Anyways, after learning of Eiland-Hall’s joke, Beck filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “that the site was registered in bad faith and violated trademark rules.” On October 29, WIPO ruled in Eiland-Hall’s favour, vindicating his satirical approach and confirming Beck’s hypocrisy.
Then, having proven his point, Eiland-Hall sent Beck a letter, relinquishing control of the site (probably why it has since been taken down). Read the letter , and bask in its well-deserved superciliousness (it’s even better if you imagine Beck’s expression while reading it). Ha!
[Update: The site lives! Head over to to see what all the hubbub was about. And many thanks to the man himself for letting us know.]
On November 8, the House of Representatives H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, by a razor-thin 220-215 margin. It sounds good, but what does it actually mean? Has free, universal health-care finally arrived in the States? Have Obama and his cabal of pulled the wool over the eyes of an unsuspecting public and converted America into a full-fledged ? Well, not really. In fact, despite what you may have heard from any number of (whose seem increasingly desperate), comprehensive health care reform is hardly guaranteed.
It’s understandable that people are . Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot of objective, non-jargony information available on the internet, especially about a topic as complex as health care reform.
Of course, here at 4080 we’re all about that sort of thing, so here’s our attempt at a quick and dirty guide to the current state of the “Obamacare” agenda:
The Affordable Health Care for America Act
The bill passed by the House on Sunday has several key components:
For more information about the specifics of the bill, check out the House Committee on Education and Labor .
You win some, you lose some
Democrats had to make some major compromises to push H.R. 3962 through the House, the most significant of which related to abortion funding. As The Globe and Mail , “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fervent defender of abortion rights, yielded to conservative Democrats and included a provision in the bill to prohibit publicly subsidized health insurance from covering abortions.”
The Democrats also worked hard to attract the support of moderate Republicans in an effort to make the bill seem like a bi-partisan initiative. One Republican, of Louisiana (Update: on an interesting but likely unrelated note, Talking Points Memo that Cao is one of the only Republicans to have actually experienced a communist regime), did end up voting for it, but calling H.R. 3962 ‘bi-partisan’ because a single Republican supported it is like calling the L.A. Lakers ‘world’ champions because they play in a league with one Canadian team.
Next up, the Senate
The U.S. Congress is a bicameral legislature, meaning that a bill must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate for it to become law. So now H.R. 3962 heads to the Senate, where hold 60 of the 100 seats. But a number of Democratic and Democratic-leaning Independent Senators have that they won’t support it. For these moderates and conservatives, H.R. 3962 and its public option are simply unacceptable. Joe Lieberman, for example, thinks that it will create a level of “debt [that will] break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today.”
The filibuster threat
If Obama and his lieutenant in the Senate, Harry Reid, can’t muster 60 votes, the bill will likely succumb to a Republican A filibuster is a technique in which one party extends debate on a bill indefinitely, preventing the Senate from voting on it. A filibuster can only be ended with the support of 60 Senators.
Reaching the magic number
In the bill’s current form, securing the support of 60 Senators will be challenging, if not impossible. It looks like progressive Democrats may have to bite the bullet and drop the public health insurance option. While this might seem like a defeat to some, the bill would still represent the most significant reform of the American health insurance industry in several decades.
Clearly, the health care reform debate is far from over. In the coming weeks, the Senate will debate the bill’s and implications, and Obama will likely continue expending valuable political capital to drum up the necessary support. Whatever its outcome, the health care debate will likely be remembered as one of the defining characteristics of Obama’s first (and perhaps only) term.
I know “” on Fox is supposed to be entertaining. It’s a talk show that covers a variety of topics. Everything from awful celebrity gossip to things that may sometimes pass as news.
But this is a disgrace. Fox, and Gutfeld in particular, cowardly mocks the planned Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011. Now, I understand he may be ‘mad’ that Canada is withdrawing, but to denigrate the sacrifice that 108 Canadians have made in that country is both obscene and offensive.
For someone who claims to support troops, I think it’s just a embarrassing moment for Gutfeld. Everything about him screams douchebag, and I frankly hope that he gets fired for this.
We’ve talked this over and over, but now it honestly seems like something good is happening in Zimbabwe. I know it’s been a minute since we did a politics post, but this needed to be said.
Zimbabwe is one of the worst economic situations in history. It’s inflation rate is so high that most retailers don’t even take the local currency anymore. In fact, Zimbabwe recently cut 12 zeros off the end of their currency just to make it reasonable.
Months ago, when it seemed clear that the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangrai had finally beaten Robert Mugabe, there was quite an uprising. Eventually, Tsvangrai pulled out of the Presidental election run-off because he felt his supporters were getting attacked by government militas and thugs.
Things seemed hopeless. Now, for quite a few months there have been talks of a power-sharing agreement between Mugabe and Tsvangrai in order to allow the country to move forward. Things kept falling apart because Mugabe didn’t want to concede control of some of the most important ministries, including the Home Ministry which controls the security services.
But finally things are better. Morgan Tsvangrai has just been sworn in as the new Prime Minister. Which means he actually does share authority with Mugabe. As well, and perhaps most importantly for Zimbabwe, MDC secretary-general Tendai Biti is now in charge of the Finance ministry. This is tremendous news because the opposition now controls the ministry that may actually effect some change.
Perhaps there is some hope for the country yet. As further emphasis, the two Deputy Prime Ministers are both MDC members, though one is from a breakaway faction. The most worrisome situation is that the Zanu-PF and MDC are sharing control of the Home ministry. There is little hope that an arrangement like this will work, but so far it’s the best deal we’ve seen.
Most papers out there seem to recognize the flaws of the arrangement. The biggest fear is that it is simply a way for Mugabe to mask his actions and to get away with his crimes. However, the takes particular umbrage with this arrangement. They seem to fear the consequences:
This is not a government of unity, but of coercion and co-option. By joining it, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which Mr Tsvangirai has led for ten years at great personal risk, is in danger of legitimising the very tyranny it sought to end. MDC officials are to be installed in 13 ministries, but none will give Mr Tsvangirai the power to enforce as well as write new laws, let alone rebuild a country brought to its knees by violence, disease and artificial famine.
There is some truth to these statements. It is true that there is a risk of legitimizing Mugabe’s government. There is, however, hope. If the MDC proves deft at political maneuvering they may persuade enough frightened voters out there to truly vote out Mugabe.
However, things are already off to a rough start. Tsvangirai, as part of the deal, demanded that hundreds of political prisoners be released before he took his oath of office. Mugabe ignored him. Let’s just hope Tsvangirai won’t let himself be ignored.
[Source: , , ]
Rod Blagojevich, formerly the Governor of Illinois, has finally been impeached and .
It may not come as much of a surprise, because the evidence was heavily against him. Blagojevich has taken the stupid move of trying to boycott the process. He basically went on a PR offensive, lining up a whole lot of nationally televised interviews in an effort to win public support.
But it was a farce. Far from making him seem more human, Blagojevich somehow managed to alienate more people. Perhaps it was by to Mandela, Gandhi and Dr. King that really tipped the balance. It sure did for me.
Now, Blagojevich has become the first Illinois governor to ever be successfully impeached, and he is barred from ever holding public office in Illinois again. All this because he got greedy and wanted to sell the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. The fascinating part of this story is how little this scandal has impacted Obama or the Democratic party in general. Most of the time, these type of incidents would be pounced on and trumpeted by the other party. In this case, Blago was truly on his own.
Silly Governor.
