Far-left rock group Rage Against the Machine.

The Politics of Music.

Did anyone else see Anderson Cooper's 60 Minutes report on the "Stop Snitchin'" movement among urban youth, particularly those who listen to rap music? I was watching it with my Grandparents on Sunday, and my Grandpa's disgust was palpable as we watched the rap artist Cam'ron say that even if there was a serial killer living next door to him, he wouldn't call the police. Cam'ron never said so, but the implication was that he and his boys would handle that sort of thing on their own. While my Grandpa got angry, I basically kept my mouth shut and considered: Doesn't my side of the political aisle promote freedom of speech, even when that speech involves telling kids to distrust the police and allow drug dealers freedom to operate? Isn't the ACLU, which defends the rights of pedophiles and other dangers to society, a liberal organization? After all, the word "Liberties" is right there in the title. I enjoy the freedoms that America allows me, and I will always appreciate the sacrifices that our fighting men and women have fought to give us. There are some times, however, when I wonder if we as Americans are cynically squandering that freedom on things such as gangsta rap, a sex-crazed culture, and prodigal spending of our natural resources on things we don't really need. (400 horsepower engines? 300 satellite TV channels? Come on.) I saw something on Youtube the other day that really angered me. The rock group Rage Against the Machine and rap group Cypress Hill were performing a song together onstage called "How I Could Just Kill a Man." RATM is known for their far-left political views, and Cypress Hill is known for smoking huge amounts of pot. Both do songs about killing. None of these things really concerned me at first. Then I noticed the big upside-down American flag hanging off the drum riser. I couldn't help but think, "This country allows these far-left wackos to do songs about armed revolution, pot-smoking, and gangbanging, to support Mumia Abu-Jamal, a convicted cop-killer, and they have the absolute gall to hang an upside-down American flag on their stage?" For a few minutes, it made me ashamed to call myself a liberal. But in America, especially these days, you have to take the good with the bad. The Democrats will always have far-left hippie types who hate the military, the police, and institutions in general, but they will also protect a woman's right to choose an abortion. They will promote diversity. They will stand against bigotry and racism. They will allow Americans more freedoms than Republicans ever will, and their support of the lower income earners in America will always earn them my vote. If they are willing to cut funding for the war in Iraq and finally bring it to an end, that will only solidify my feelings. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally summoned the nerve to say out loud that the war was lost, but that's not enough. The war needs to end ASAP, and after that, the President and his people need to be held accountable. (More on that next week.) See related article.

Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech killer.

Whose side are you on?

It's not often that I begin postings of the Blue Donkey Lounge with such a confrontational question. But in the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech University, it seems not only rational and relevant but essential to ask it. I want those who read this blog, even if they are only my college professors, friends, and family members to ask themselves what and who they stand for in this dark chapter of American history. Make no mistake about it, this is a time of ugliness, fear and decline, in which the have-nots resent the haves, the rich fear the poor, and the gap between grows bigger every day. America is awash in guns and the people who should never be allowed to own them can get them as easily as ordering from McDonald's. We were lied to by our president and his cronies in the most cynical fashion in order to take us to war, and a fearful America was ready and willing to let them do it. Time is running out for us Americans to put our house in order and usher in a new era. Democratic politics alone won't do it - to rely solely on government to resolve social issues is a fool's game, and I refuse to play it. It starts with us. We must all look to ourselves and ask, "What do I believe? Is it right or is it wrong? Do I back it up through action and in the way I treat my fellow man?" There is no room for hypocrisy and cynicism in today's world. If that's what you stand for - the cynical manipulation of facts and figures in order to twist people's minds and opinions - then quit reading this blog and go watch Fox News. That network will never cease defending the President and his failed ideas. If you stand for bigotry, homophobia, racism, class warfare, or any other form of discrimination, then this is not a blog for you. If you use your religion as an excuse to justify your hate and fear of your fellow man, then go vote for the party that caters to you - the one that forces a hero like John McCain to kiss up to Jerry Falwell for primary votes. I apologize for the somewhat angry tone of this article, but massacres only happen in countries where people find it easy to lose hope, where weapons are easy to find, and where anger and fear are inflamed by the national news media. This is also a country where our justice system has failed us, and people who are dangers to themselves and others are allowed to walk the streets with impunity. This is not the America of my parents and grandparents, and it is time we started holding ourselves to the same standards that they held themselves to. Before long, it may be too late. Ask yourself, before you go to bed tonight, "Whose side am I on - wrong or right? Black or white?" Sometimes, it really is that simple.

The Trouble With the Democrats (and one endorsement)

While it's still early in the 2008 Presidential primary race, the general consensus is that the top two Democrats are Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois. Hillary is at about 36% in the polls, while Obama is holding steady at 25%. Hillary has raised about 26 million dollars up to this point, while Obama is just below her at 25 million. (John Edwards of South Carolina is a distant third in both the polls and fund-raising.) So if it is to be either Hillary or Obama, who should we pull for? (Or, if we are card-carrying members of the Democratic party, who should we vote for in the primaries?) When looking at the pros of both candidates, we see that Hillary has a major advantage in her husband. People remember the Clinton years as "the good old days," back when no one knew the name Osama Bin Laden and the biggest news on TV was the President's sexual misadventures. (Sure, that's also a disadvantage, but compared to the nightly blood-and-guts reporting from Iraq, it seems almost like a Jay Leno routine - funny, but safe enough.) Obama is a breath of fresh air, someone who is new, untainted by scandal or Iraq, and someone who has pledged to end the war. He is also a far better, more inspirational speaker than Hillary. The main disadvantage for Mrs. Clinton is that people see her as cold-blooded and ambitious, someone who stays in a loveless marraige for political reasons. They see her as lacking femininity and human kindness. Obama, on the other hand, is seen by some as genuinely compassionate and feeling, but not cutthroat enough to survive a presidential race. So who do we Democrats support? The tougher candidate that people don't like and see as a retread, or the softer-looking candidate who has yet to prove his mettle? It's official - the Blue Donkey Lounge supports the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama. What I would like to see happen is for Obama to start using his 25 milllion dollars to put TV commercials on the air questioning whether such a polarizing figure as Hillary Clinton has a real chance in a general election against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. I would also like to see him take more chances on the internet, where he is extremely popular. He should make good use of bloggers (hi Barack!) and viral video to spread the word that he is a winner. Most of all, he should engage Hillary directly and make his positions known. If necessary, he should get nasty, because both Hillary and the Republicans know how to do that and will not hesitate. The last thing we need is another Generic Democrat, because Generic Democrat always loses. (Look under Kerry, John for a definition of Generic Democrat. If Obama lets himself get Swift-boated, he deserves to lose.) If Obama can prove that he is not only eloquent and smart but also strong, he will be a formidable opponent in the primary and in a general election. Vote Obama in 2008! See related article.

President George W. Bush.

Bush in Twilight

Last year, Rolling Stone magazine published an artist's rendition of the President on its cover. This is not so unusual by itself, except for the harshness of the picture and the accompanying headline. It depicted George W. Bush sitting on a stool with a hangdog expression on his face, wearing a dunce cap on his head. The headline read, "The Worst President in History?" Even accounting for Rolling Stone's known left-wing bias, the cover and accompanying story reflects a general sense of anger and bitterness that many feel toward George W. Bush and his administration. One can argue all day about the accuracy of polls and polling techniques, but I have yet to see one that puts the President's approval numbers much above thirty percent in the past year. Even the mainstream press, which refused to argue with Bush's war policies while they were being crafted, have turned on Bush like the attack dogs they can be. MSNBC's reporting has turned sharply critical, with Fox News still in Republican propaganda mode. (Yes, this blog is Democrat-leaning, but at least I don't falsely claim to be "fair and balanced.") CNN has been skeptical of the war almost from the moment Saddam's statue fell, and for a while, their ratings suffered because of it. No longer. When I go out with friends to local taverns, and the talk turns to Bush and the war, practically no one is expressing anger at terrorists anymore, except for Bin Laden. The anger is reserved for Bush and his handling of our war strategy. People, at least in Illinois, want to know why we neck-popped the wrong guy and why we aren't winning in Iraq. So do I. The President continues to insist that victory is still attainable, that to pull out before Nouri Al-Maliki's "government" has a real chance to succeed, would have dire consequences for America and Iraq. But I just want to know what his plan is beyond holding Iraq until things magically get better. The terrorists are never, ever going to give up. The Taliban held off the Soviet Union for twenty years in Afghanistan, and Iraqi fighters have adopted their fighting styles and religious fundamentalism. Have you ever heard the expression "You know karate, but I know crazy?" The United States has excellent "karate" in that we have a strong, disciplined fighting force and high-tech weaponry and the means to deliver it. But the terrorists we fight are crazy. They are far, far more committed than we ever will or could be. When someone is determined to die and is convinced that heaven is waiting for him, how do you stop that person? You can't threaten to kill them. They want to die. When was the last time you heard of an American who was willing to strap a bomb to his chest and blow up an Iranian embassy? The answer is never, because we are not crazy and desperate the way Islamofascists are. And as far as the "winning hearts and minds" strategy is concerned, you don't win them by kicking people's doors down, pointing rifles in their faces, and demanding to know where their father/uncle/brother is. I don 't claim to have the answers, and I am not a soldier, strategist, or politician. But there has to be a better way of stopping terrorism than blowing other countries to pieces and not being able to put them back together again. See related article.