connecting*the*dots

(shot by renocargo)

The Insider: Chuck D
by Andy Langer

WHO: Chuck D, 20-year leader of Public Enemy, the seminal hip-hop group whose 1990 LP, Fear of a Black Planet, was recently chosen by the Library of Congress for a list of 50 recordings worthy of inclusion in the National Recording Registry.

Austin Chronicle: Once again, it seems like best of the times and the worst of times for hip-hop.

Chuck D: It always is. That’s our history. But I think right now hip-hop’s value is too often weighed in quantity, not quality. When you just talk about business, I tell people slavery was a booming business in America, one of the strongest businesses America ever had. It was morally and ethically corrupt and bankrupt. We have to watch ourselves when we measure the success of something based wholly on numbers.

AC: Isn’t the nature of the record business to focus on dollars and cents?

CD: Sure, but I think its lack of emotional attachment to the art and music has really hurt in the digital transition. To me, a lot of the people who replaced guys like Berry Gordy, Ahmet Ertegün, and Al Bell weren’t big enough fans of the music. And you have journalists limited in the knowledge of the music they cover. So the attitude is, “Yesterday don’t count; now counts, and tomorrow we’ll wait for the next big thing, because today’s not that great either.” That’s a terrible attitude to have. The music business is healthy. The record business is in trouble.

AC: Where does that leave PE? Twenty years in? What’s your legacy?

CD: Twenty years and 57 tours. We got our passports in 1987 and have been spreading our dream around the world ever since. We tour the U.S. every four years and meet people who ask, “When are you going to come back through here?” We might not, but that doesn’t mean we’re not getting down. We come around like an eclipse. We have seven continents to deal with.

AC: Have you always gotten the credit you deserve?

CD: Hip-hop doesn’t get the credit it deserves for being diverse and thorough. When hip-hop gets respect as an art form, we get it by default. But people want to talk to us about Flavor of Love, Ali Rap, or our take on Barack Obama. That stuff has nothing to do with our consistency. Controversy has nothing to do with getting down and being good.

We’re the Rolling Stones of rap. I don’t know if Flavor is Keith or Mick, but our performance is a combination of Run-DMC, the Roots, and Rage Against the Machine. We developed the standard for live hip-hop. We’ve truly been the group that represents the meaning of hip-hop and rap music, the respect of music as the universal language, and taken that attitude all over the world.

Americans are poor on understanding time, history, and geography. We try to be strong on all those points. Around the world, PE resonates. America needs to get with it. We never fell off. America did.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has ‘em.

Ed, if you want to protect yours from the big, bad world outside of Ed, keep ‘em in the paper and off of our internet.

(originally uploaded by BURИBLUE)

In Following His Own Script, Webb May Test Senate’s Limits
By Michael D. Shear

[…]

“How’s your boy?” Bush asked, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

“I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

“That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said. “How’s your boy?”

“That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,” Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

[…]

If the exchange with Bush two weeks ago is any indication, Webb won’t be a wallflower, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. And he won’t stick to a script drafted by top Democrats.

“I’m not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall,” Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. “No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I’m certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.”

[…]

Bush is an asshole; point conveyed.

(originally uploaded by TJOY)

If so, man, does that guy have a set of balls on him; he plays God and then quotes a reference to God’s will to back his devilish actions?

Forget a comma — that’s !^&*$%.

I hearby declare you… a bunch of dead plants.

————

Ed Cone, News & Record, 10/9/05
Council members speak on Truth and Reconciliation hearings

[…]

Tom Phillips did not consider attending the hearings. “My attending would not matter,” he said. He will read the report. “If we as a council think it is worthwhile, we’ll consider it. If I disagree with the final conclusions, I’ll be called names. They say we’re racists — when are people going to ask black council members why they always vote together?” He said Nelson Johnson’s involvement compromised the project (a danger I pointed to as early as 2003); that he understood that the commission was independent of Johnson; and that he wanted to know where the money Johnson raised for the project had gone.

[…]

To be fair to Tom Phillips, these quotes were from last year, only a handful of months following the city council’s vote to not endorse the investigation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I mean, who was the idiot that placed upstanding, community politicians in a position to stand up and be counted on such an important issue to the community?

Let me step back for a moment…

Who am I to argue with another person’s sense of duty to community? I mean, the 6 of 9 members that voted against endorsing the TRC must have been serving the perspective of their immediate neighbors, right?

You know, I’m betting that Phillips has taken the time since last October to communicate to his constituency the importance of this moment in Greensboro’s continued attempts to heal open wounds and move forward as one community. If not, well, I’m positive that time has provided him with a stronger, more personal perspective on the issues that face this community-at-large.

So let’s fast-forward from 7.5 months ago to yesterday, the day following the culmination of the 2 year-long TRC investigation. Tom Phillips was once again contacted by local media, this time with an opportunity to address the culmination of the commission’s investigation and their final report.

Frank Mickens, WFMY News 2, 5/26/06
City Council Members Respond To Truth And Reconciliation Commission Report

Greensboro, NC — An independent panel says the the city of Greensboro needs to make up for mistakes it made after the Klan-Nazi shootings.

The commission’s report says city police didn’t do its job to protect the five union protesters who were shot and killed by a group of klansmen and Nazis. And it says city eroded race relations and the public trust by establishing curfews in Morningside Homes and distancing itself from what happened.

The commission wants the city to apologize. But council members don’t agree that’s a good idea. Council member Tom Phillips appeared indifferent to the report. Reached by phone he said quote, ” I could care less what they report has to say. At some point I plant to take a look at it.”

[…]

Time can erode the profiled face of a mountain, but not the position of this man.

What a rock.

UPDATE: According to Tom, the context of Tom’s quote wasn’t provided by the WFMY reporter:

Frank Mickens didn’t quite tell the whole story. I was sitting on my balcony looking at the ocean when Frank called on my cell phone (I’m changing my number). I told him I was on vacation and I couldn’t care less…….. I taken my last call from Mr. Mickens

Brush clearing, vacationing politicians everywhere feel you, Tom.

UPDATE II: Fox News reports Toms reaction when asked about a city/GPD apology for not protecting permit holders on 11/3:

Council member Tom Phillips, who said he has read most of the executive summary, said he doesn’t support an apology.

“We’ve got more important things to do,” he said.

UPDATE III: Ed Cone reports that Tom Phillips won’t come to a city council discussion in July regarding the TRC report. Tom’s words:

Ed, I recommended that council members review the recommendations in the report and if they believed that any on them should be adopted, they should bring them up at a council meeting where they can be discussed and voted up or down. I know how this group discussion will turn out and I don’t have the time or desire for another lecture from Goldie Wells. Tom

The TRC report is the culmination of a two-year process, attempting to address the ongoing issues stemming from 11/3/79 — issues that effect this community, both as a whole and especially specific communities divided along lines of class and race. Find tthe time, Tom, and be a good representative of the entire Greensboro community and join the discussion.

UPDATE IV: Tom’s foot-in-mouth syndrome continues:

“It occurs to me that we may not be going back far enough in this whole process of finding the root causes of what happened that day.�

“The reason the CWP was able to establish itself was because they were trying to improve working conditions and pay at local mills. A lot of people were getting very rich off the labor of the poor and there were those who saw that as a real injustice. If those mills had been treating their employees right, then the CWP wouldn’t have formed. Without the CWP, it is very likely that confrontation would never have happened. So if apologies are due, maybe the first ones should come from the mill owners and their descendents. If reparations are due, surely there are some trust funds around that could be tapped for that purpose.�

That last line is a killer of good faith and credibility.

Tom Phillips would never offer a serious analysis of the times — the stage of Greensboro’s labor situation and the workings of the CWP — as that would validate the CWP beyond a group of extremist rebel-rousers. Instead, he offers the analysis as a lede to dig a local, public figure (Ed Cone, related to the ownership of Cone Mills), alluding to Ed’s suggestion of an alterior route of apology to jumpstart the reconciliation process.

Congrats, Tom, you continue to do the city proud.

Hit the road, Rummy.

Jim Lobe - Inter Press Service
New Military Offensive Against Rumsfeld

WASHINGTON - Three years after the fall of Baghdad and the city’s disastrous plunge into chaos, U.S. military brass appears engaged in a new campaign: getting rid of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.

While the offensive has so far been limited to generals who have recently retired from the service, they claim strong support for their views on the part of active-duty officers.

The latest demand for Rumsfeld’s resignation came Wednesday when Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq, called for a “fresh start in the Pentagon”.

“We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation,” Batiste told a CNN interviewer.

Batiste’s remarks, which follow highly public demands from three other top generals for Rumsfeld’s resignation over the past several weeks, came as public confidence in the policies of the administration of Pres. George W. Bush both in Iraq and in the more general “war on terror” has dwindled to all-time lows.

The growing perception, fueled by recent disclosures regarding the selective leaking of intelligence authorised by both Bush and Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, that the administration consciously tried to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war and discrediting its critics has contributed to the continuing erosion in popular support, even among Republicans.

The conviction that Rumsfeld made major strategic errors by insisting on invading Iraq with a relatively light force that proved incapable of imposing order on the country, let alone suppressing the insurgency that followed, has also taken hold, particularly after last month’s publication by two New York Times reporters of an authoritative account of the war, “Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq”.

Based on extensive interviews with both retired and active-duty officers who took part in the war, the book found that Rumsfeld and his top aides believed that Washington could “oust a dictator, usher in a new era in Iraq, (and) shift the balance of power in the Middle East in the United States’s favour” on the cheap and that the war “would suddenly be brought to an end when the regime’s ministries were seized and its leader toppled”.

The brass’s unease with Rumsfeld’s plans for going to war date originally from his summary dismissal in early 2003 of then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s testimony before Congress that the occupation of Iraq would require “several hundred thousand troops”.

Shinseki’s effective early retirement, apparently in retaliation for speaking out with such candour, was taken by most of the brass as a message from Rumsfeld that public disagreement with his views could have serious career consequences.

When, by early 2004, it had become clear that Washington had indeed not deployed sufficient troops to control Iraq, a number of retired generals began speaking out forcefully against Rumsfeld and his civilian advisers.

In May 2004, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, ret. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, accused them of “dereliction of duty” in failing to prepare adequately for the war and called on Bush to fire them if they did not resign.

In recent weeks, Zinni has renewed those demands, stressing in various public appearances that Rumsfeld had deliberately ignored extensive contingency planning developed under his command in the late 1990s for an Iraq invasion and overruled officers who raised questions about his own plans.

In the past three weeks, he has been joined by three other retired generals, including Batiste.

In a remarkably frank New York Times column published Mar. 19, ret. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who had been in charge of training the Iraqi military during the first year of the occupation, argued that Rumsfeld “has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically” and “has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his cold warrior’s view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower”.

“In the five years Mr. Rumsfeld has presided over the Pentagon,” Eaton wrote, “I have seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.”

Eaton’s blast was followed this week by an anguished column in Time magazine by ret. Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, the top operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the invasion, who assailed the brass, including himself, for “act(ing) timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard.”

“The consequence of the military’s quiescence,” he wrote, “was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war…”

“My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results,” he asserted, calling for the replacement of Rumsfeld “and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach”.

With his remarks Wednesday, Batiste, who retired from the Army in November and whose forces were based in Tikrit until last May, joined the rebellion, firmly taking Zinni’s side.

“…(W)hen decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision making, sound planning, then we’re bound to make mistakes,” he said. “You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defence.”

The generals’ revolt also comes amid a tiff between Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who, during a trip to Britain last week, conceded that Washington made “tactical errors, thousands of them, I’m sure” in its invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld replied several days later, insisting that such mistakes are inevitable in warfare.

“If someone says, well, that’s a tactical mistake, then I guess it’s a lack of understanding, at least my understanding, of what warfare is about,” he said.

In remarks before a private group in Chicago Saturday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell — a four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself — appeared to side with Rice, and with the generals.

“We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad,” he said. “We didn’t have enough troops on the ground. We didn’t impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started, and …it got out of control.” He did not demand Rumsfeld’s resignation, however.

Forget the planning and tactical mistakes, if Rumsfeld gave two shits about America and our perception around the world, he would’ve resigned when the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib broke. “It happened on my watch” would’ve been the line and he could’ve at least retired with a semblance of honor and integrity.

Sorry… I just laughed up my lunch.

UPDATE: More former generals are lining up to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation.

(NO SHIT) UPDATE: Bush backs Rumsfeld:

“Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the global war on terror,” the president said. “I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation.”

Mr. Bush said the defense secretary had helped to transform the United States military into a force “fully prepared to confront the dangerous threats of the 21st century” and had, along with the leaders of the services, taken the fight to terrorists on many fronts.

They’re all going to hell in the same handbasket.

All signs point to George W. Bush being a man of God, right? I mean, apparently the man upstairs told him to go to war — and we’re now at war — so there must be some truth to the observation.

Ludwig Miles van der Rohe, the architect of architects, famously stated that “God is in the details.” Just as compelling of an absolutist argument is the entire argument for Intelligent Design, which essentially states that life is too complex for evolution to produce our existence, so a master creator must have designed every particular detail of our being to work within a grand scheme of this stage we call Earth.

Using such logic — living in the modernist world of W. — wouldn’t that hold our most innocuous squakings and flubs as being divine instances of truth? That Freud guy had some major God love running through his veins, eh?

The Huffington Post
W: “My Government”
by Marty Kaplan

Here’s how W is defending the Dubai decision: “The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they’ll be comforted…”

For a moment, set aside the “trust-me” part of this, and focus instead on the “my government” bit.

If he’d said “my administration,” I wouldn’t have blinked. “My cabinet” would also have raised no hackles. If he really wanted to use the word “government,” then how about these pronouns as antecedents for “people”: “their government” or “our government.”

But no, he said “my government.” I don’t think that’s just a garden variety Bushism, a trivial malapropism. I think it goes right to his understanding of who he is, and who we are. It’s not a Freudian slip; it’s an Orwellian siren, an anti-democratic red alert.

The founding documents of our nation talk about the government, our government, a government, any government. If my is used, it’s said on behalf of the citizens, not their rulers.

But W really believes that it’s his government. He doesn’t see himself as a steward, a trustee, a caretaker, someone who temporarily gets to steer the ship of state because of the momentary consent of the governed and an enduring set of rules. No, he believes it’s his ship, his state, his rules — his and his ideological fellow-travelers.

The heads of some countries with parliamentary systems, like India, sometimes say “my government”; when they do, it means ‘my Cabinet,” “my temporary ruling colition,” “my majority” — which could fall in an instant, if there were a no-confidence vote.

But in the US, we don’t have governments that get made and dissolved year-round; we have Administrations, that get formed every four years.

In the American context, unless it’s an ordinary citizen like you or me speaking, let’s recognize the expression “my government” as what it really is: a deeply troubling oxymoron, the inappropriate yoking together of a democratic institution and — well, a moron.

In 1998, I found myself working for my first professional web design agency. I stress professional not only for the brilliant talent within the walls of the shop and the output they generated, but for their business etiquette as well. You see, I was specifically trained that when speaking with a client, I was to refer to my design iterations as “our” ideas and “our” designs. Self-referrential language shifted the focus of the client from the team to the individual, and within such a big money, high-pressure profession, that’s the last thing an account executive wants to deal with.

How does this anecdote fit with this latest Bushism? I honestly don’t know. But if it isn’t too much too ask from his highness, how about acting professional and pretending for a minute that we’re in this together, because unfortunately, we are.

(via Matthew Gross)

Ann Coulter is one of the most disgusting human beings currently making the pundit rounds. She’s so self-serving; whenever she’s interviewed you can actually hear her mind at work, slobbering over the next opportunity to cash in on this divided state we call America.

Check out the video and story of her disparaging Pat Tillman, a fallen American hero, whose only crime was to apparently have enjoyed the work of Noam Chomsky.

Her fan base is a representative petri dish of why this country is so screwed up.

(via crooksandliars.com)