Thursday, May 31, 2007

Comic Relief - America Election Workup


Haircuts and Gossip -- Pageantlike Presidential Election Coverage; Where's the Real News?
By Allan Uthman, Buffalo Beast
Posted on May 31,
There's a semantic problem with the word "politics." It has two major meanings, which are connected but distinct. Politics is the art of governing nations, but it can also mean the tactics employed to attain or retain governmental control. This creates an obstacle for the person who reads the "politics" section of his favorite newspaper or website, or who watches shows that purport to cover politics, with the intent of learning about what his government is doing. Often, there's really nothing at all about running the government; it's all about running for government. Check out the last four stories that plopped out of the Associated Press' "Politics" feed:


Sharpton denies disputing Romney's faith

Obama overstates Kansas tornado deaths

Edwards discusses time at hedge fund

Spitzer, O'Malley to endorse Clinton

There's nothing there about what's happening in the outside world, nor any coverage of actual governmental activities. It's just gossip about celebrities. The fact that those celebrities happen to be members of our government is incidental. These stories aren't about policy, or politics, really. They're about the candidates' chances to be the last one standing.

This is not a new phenomenon, of course, but it does seem to get a worse every time, and in vast increments. Election coverage is not only deplorably shallow; its nonstop, news-cycle-dominating prominence is obscuring larger reality. It's stealth entertainment news, wearing the guise of legitimate national affairs journalism. There's nothing significantly different in the tone of coverage of the Obama-Clinton rivalry from that of Paris and Nicole. Romney's Mormonism is handled no differently than Tom Cruise's Scientology.

That would be bad enough in itself, but the worse problem is, while we're torturing ourselves with a harrowing, incessant, two-year pageant of inauthenticity, real shit is still happening all over the world. And we're hearing even less than usual about it, because it's just so much easier for commentators to talk about what has essentially become the Olympics of fund-raising than to address the actual government or what it actually does. By comparing stats and rumors about presidential hopefuls, columnists and talking heads are able to give the impression of covering the government without actually doing anything of the sort. Watch Joe Scarborough segue easily from a segment about the latest presidential gaffe to a schadenfreude session over Paris Hilton's jail sentence, and you'll see. He doesn't even have to switch gears; it's the same damn thing. This type of presidential infotainment is not even taking up half of the space allotted for political coverage; it's taking up nearly all of it, the remainder of which is mainly filled by "White House says this, critics say that." And we're a year and a half from what will surely be too brief a reprieve. For all this time, the presidential one-note symphony will drown out what little serious news our already atrophic press might otherwise present.

Let's take a serious, and seriously neglected, news item for example: The Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law.

The Hydrocarbon Law is universally detested by Iraqis and hasn't passed yet, but "tremendous" pressure is being exerted on the parliament by the United States and the International Monetary Fund, the mother of all loan sharks. The IMF has a habit of lending huge amounts of money to struggling nations and making the privatization of their natural resources a condition of said loans. The same has been done doubly in Iraq. The administration and the IMF describe the law as a benevolent revenue-sharing program that gives oil money to the Iraqis, but the law makes 81 percent of Iraq's known oil deposits available to multinational firms -- Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and the like. While the proposed law has met ironically unified resistance in Iraq and may not pass even in a compromised form, its initial draft -- reviewed by nine oil companies and the U.S. and U.K. governments long before Iraqi MPs ever got a peek--should have been a major story itself, because it was the other shoe, the inevitable punch line to the WMD joke. What the Hydrocarbon Law in its pure form said was yes, after all, this thing was always about the oil.

It provides double the usual share of profits to go to private oil companies. During the first phase, in which the private firms pay for the building and repair of necessary infrastructure, two-thirds of profits go to the corporation, supposedly until it recoups its initial outlay, after which it keeps 20 percent (assuming that phase is ever officially reached). Similar agreements in other countries provide 40 percent for the recovery phase and 10 percent thereafter. But beyond the plainly unfair and exploitative terms, the truth is that such private investment is not at all necessary for Iraq to develop its resources --the oil itself is more than enough collateral for Iraq to finance its own development. I'm pretty sure, however, that is a detail you will never hear from Katie Couric.

But there's another important detail here: The law allows for 30-year contracts, another eye-popping departure from similar agreements. What that means is that, for at least 30 years, somebody's going to have to protect that infrastructure from the inevitable rebel attacks. Who do you think that's going to be? Add the three-decade contracts to the fact that the United States is building numerous large permanent bases in locations that, predictably, correspond with the richest known oil deposits throughout Eastern Iraq, not to mention a new embassy larger than Vatican City, and the scope of our occupational plans for the region comes into horrifying focus.

The implications are clear: This is an oil war, and we're not leaving. You'd think, with a Congress full of benchmark setters promising to end the war in a matter of months, and a White House still pretending to give a damn about democracy and prosperity for Iraqis, these details would not just be interesting to news agencies, but vital to any realistic assessment of the Iraqi situation. Unfortunately, they're too busy asking John Edwards how much he pays for a haircut.

If the hydrocarbon law is too international for your tastes, then consider the fact that, on Monday, May 7, the Senate yet again voted to prohibit the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Japan -- all nations with considerably more regulatory credibility than the United States. It's no secret why these seemingly idiotic votes get cast. According to the Center for Public Integrity, pharmaceutical lobbyists spent $182 million bribing Congress in a year and a half preceding the midterm elections. While shameless prostitutes like Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi invented nonexistent safety issues to justify the vote, the truth is these are the same pills made by the same firms; they only charge these other countries less because their governments aren't willing to engage in price-fixing. It would be ironic that the Republicans in Congress abandon their free-market principles only when it comes to trade protectionism for one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, except that they don't really have any principles. There is only one reason to deny cheaper pills to Americans; even the Associated Press had to acknowledge it was "a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry."

This vote was one of the clearest, most indisputable recent examples of the single biggest problem America faces today: Our government is one massive integrity auction. All 49 senators who voted against importing these cheaper drugs, a notion that, by the way, enjoys widespread public support, should be called out by name and aggressively pursued on the issue. But no. Al Sharpton says Obama's not black enough, so the big story -- a story about what government really does, when it isn't trying to sell itself to you -- just falls away. And you probably don't even notice, because you're busy watching, reading, thinking and arguing about plainly scripted trivia regarding bullshit artists of various skill who want your vote -- in a year and a goddamned half.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Michelle Remember Loose Lips Sink Ships - Be wary of too much joking around

Michelle Obama Spills Barack's Personal Secrets
By Yoji Cole



© DiversityInc 2007 ®


Michelle Obama is airing her husband's dirty laundry in public, almost literally.



During speeches where Michelle Obama introduces her husband, Barack, who is the junior senator from Illinois and one of the most popular Democratic presidential candidates, she regularly peppers her speech with zingers aimed at Barack. (See also: Who Is Michelle Obama?)



"Today, he still didn't put the butter up after he made his breakfast. I was like, 'You're just asking for it, you know I'm giving a speech. Why don't you just put the butter up?'" she told a roaring crowd at a recent Chicago fundraiser for women backing Barack's campaign.



Beyond the butter, Michelle has revealed to crowds throughout the nation that her husband doesn't put his worn socks in with the dirty clothes and that he's worse than their 5-year-old daughter at making the bed.



While much of Michelle's comedic material centers on her husband's domestic foibles, she also targets his fame. At a March fundraiser in New York where they both appeared, she told the crowd how she sometimes wished she lived with "Barack Obama the phenomenon."



Now there could be concern that Michelle's shtick turns off voters. Some people could feel Barack is irresponsible at home, not supportive enough, or that Michelle emasculates him, shooting holes into his masculine image.



But experts on marketing and politics say it's more likely that Michelle's jokes work to humanize Barack, who in a short time has become a rock-star politician.



Michelle's public teasing of Barack has worked to humanize him as his popularity skyrockets with the American public. DePaul University marketing professor Bruce Newman, who has written several books on political marketing, sees the teasing as appealing to professional women who might otherwise vote for Clinton.



By joking about his domestic faux pas, Michelle is showing her mettle as a woman who doesn't kowtow to her husband but keeps him firmly grounded, Newman told The Associated Press.



Obama's presidential camp reports that Michelle's tactics are not politically motivated at all but are examples of her wit and charm. A political campaign is a popularity contest, and convincing voters that candidates are likable is part of the program. Showing off their personal side is part of that, F. Christopher Arterton, dean of George Washington University's graduate school of political management, told The Associated Press. "Voters want to feel that they know and like a person who's a presidential candidate and that he's a kind of regular guy," Arterton said.



For his part, Barack always plays into the ribbing, which is always tempered by great praise for him.



"I hate following my wife," Barack said when he took the stage at the March event. "It is true my wife is smarter, better looking. She's a little meaner than I am."

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Michelle Obama - I'm a Wife First


Michelle Obama: I'm his wife, not adviser
Advertisement


By MIKE GLOVER
The Associated Press

May 21, 2007, 2:58 PM CDT

WAUKEE, Iowa -- Michelle Obama said Monday she's not her husband's closest adviser and that the Democratic presidential candidate makes his own decisions.

"We have very separate professional relationships, which is I think healthy," Michelle Obama said during her fourth visit to Iowa. "There is so much work we need to do as a family and as a couple. We talk about our work, we talk about what we do but he makes his decisions on his own and I try to be supportive."

On this campaign trip for her husband, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Michelle Obama talked with people at a suburban coffee shop and toured a residential program for women being treated for substance abuse.

Candidates such as Democrat John Edwards and Republican Rudy Giuliani have described their wives as close advisers. But asked if she considered herself her husband's chief adviser, Obama replied, "No, I consider myself his wife."

A Harvard-trained lawyer like her husband, Obama said her main role in the campaign would be to offer a personal view of her husband.

"I'm really trying to make sure people understand who Barack is from the person who knows him best, giving people a sense of who we are," she said.

She noted that the couple has young children, ages 8 and 5, who limit her campaign activity.

"We've got two little kids, so I'm focused on them as well," she said.

Obama said she and her husband have outgoing personalities that mesh well with campaigning in key early states, where grassroots and up-close appearances are key.

"I love coming to Iowa and New Hampshire," she said. "We have the kind of personalities where we really enjoy meeting people and connecting with people."

She acknowledged, though, that the race is in its early phase.

"It hasn't really been stressful for me yet because I really enjoy it," she said. "Who knows how, when this thing really speeds up, how I'll feel."

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

OBAMA ON EDUCATION< HEALTHCAE, UNIONs

Face to Face With Barack Obama: He Talks Education, Healthcare, Unions
By Jennifer Millman


© DiversityInc 2007 ®



America's union movement represents 10 million "working men and women of every race and ethnicity and from every walk of life." In the 2004 presidential election, union household members cast 25 percent of the votes—and first-term Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is working aggressively to secure this powerful voting bloc in 2008. Watch the video.



Want More Obama? Read these FREE DiversityInc stories

Obama Speaks Out on 'Barack the Magic Negro' Parody
What You Said About Obama & 'Barack the Magic Negro' Parody
Oprah Endorses Obama
Who Is Getting the Youth Vote?
Barack Obama Gets Secret-Service Protection, Racist Death Threats
Democrats 'Play it Cool' At S.C. Debate
Should Rush Be Accountable for 'Barack, the Magic Negro'? Here's What You Think
Is Obama 'Black Enough?
Obama the Rock Star—Can Hillary Compete?
Can Obama Get Elected? We Can't Trust the Polls—And They May Not Matter


More than 700 union members and their families crowded into the War Memorial in Trenton, N.J., Monday to listen to Obama speak on the issues most important to them and to have an opportunity to voice their concerns to the senator. The New Jersey chapter of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) hosted the town-hall meeting, which drew people from across the state and was part of the "Working Families Vote 2008" campaign.



Entering to "Ain't No Stopping Us Now," which has become a trademark song of his campaign, Obama began with a historic anecdote that no doubt resonated in some way with each individual in the hall—and with every American family, union or not.



In 1968, 1,300 primarily black sanitation workers went on strike in Memphis, Tenn., to protest low wages and abhorrent working conditions. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. traveled to Memphis to support the workers, and on April 3, he issued his famous "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech—the last civil-rights speech King gave before being assassinated on April 4 at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. Coretta Scott King returned days later to march with the workers, who won the right to unionize.



"That's the legacy that all of you here inherit today, what they made real in Memphis, you make real today," said Obama, amid deafening applause. "It's a challenging time for labor and for the country—all across America, I meet people expressing anxiety about the future," said Obama, noting that new rules exist in today's tech-driven global economy. "Who's going to stand up for them in this new world?"



Subscribe now to get DiversityInc's June issue, which will provide in-depth coverage of Sen. Obama's and other candidates' views on the issues most important to you. The June issue will tell you which of the eight major presidential candidates has the worst campaign-staff diversity.



Here are some of the key points Obama addressed in the hour-long meeting:



Education: A Newark, N.J., woman's question about whether Obama supported school vouchers landed him in hot water for a minute after he professed support for charters over vouchers. Obama quickly recovered, opting to explain his broad educational agenda. He talked about designing innovative solutions to cope with today's educational challenges, but did not mention getting rid of the SATs.



"You can't improve schools by slogans; we can't say No Child Left Behind and then leave the money behind," Obama said, noting that the legislation, which is up for re-authorization this year, won't get his vote unless certain changes are made, such as improved access, metrics, availability of high-quality teachers and spending choices.



"When I'm president, I'm going to spend some time talking to parents," he added, and was met with resounding applause. "Education is not a passive activity. Parents can't just send their kids to school and never check in with the teachers."



Universal Healthcare: After listening to the story of a single mother of four children and a member of AFSCME 1199J, who shells out 20 percent of her bimonthly paycheck for healthcare costs, Obama said he would implement a universal-healthcare system in this country by the end of his first term as president. There are 35 million people throughout the country—1 million in New Jersey alone—who work for companies that won't supply healthcare, he said, citing daunting statistics about the $2-trillion-per-year national cost of healthcare, which is 50 percent more than any other country.



"Every four years people make promises," said Obama. "The only way to make a real difference—because you've got powerful interests on the other side that want to maintain the status quo—is if we build a movement, if we have millions of voices stating at every level of government that ... we will vote on the basis of whether you're committed [to some form of universal healthcare], so by the time you're president we've got ... support and it will happen and we won't just talk about it."



Right to Organize: A casino-card dealer at Caesar's Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, who is fighting with more than 900 other employees to win their first contract after 82 percent voted to unionize, asked: "What would you do to make a worker such as myself not have to endure these feelings of intimidation and harassment when we're trying to organize and stand up for our rights?"



Obama assured attendees that signing the Employee Free Choice Act, now supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress and under veto threat by President Bush, would be one of his first priorities as president. The bill would empower union workers by heightening penalties for employers that fail to comply with labor laws, allowing employees to join unions by signing cards authorizing representation and providing arbitration in first-contract disputes. Read more about the bill.



He also wants to change the structure of the National Labor Relations Board, which weighs in on arbitration and legal compliance, to better reflect the constituent it was designed to protect.



Free Trade: A steelworker asked, "If you were president, how could you ensure fair-trade policy to protect American jobs and worker rights?"



"We can't stop companies from moving overseas, but we can stop giving them tax breaks. Good corporate citizens are the ones we should reward, and then we can compete and help ordinary workers benefit from globalization of trade," Obama said. He talked about investing in a national infrastructure to support economic development, building bridges (both literal and figurative), enhancing access to broadband, spending more on teacher's salaries and public schools and employing trade deals that honor labor and environmental standards. "We must stop providing tax breaks to workers overseas and invest right here in America," he said.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Obama's Foreigin Policy in Limbo?

My Lingering Doubts about Obama's Foreign Policy
By Bill Fletcher, Jr., The Black Commentator
Posted on May 12, 2007, Printed on May 14, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51754/
Senator Barack Obama has become a major celebrity, a truth that is now almost a cliché. His campaign has raised massive amounts of funding. He draws large and enthusiastic crowds when he appears. Often described as charismatic, he is more importantly smart and well spoken.

Yet before I jump into his campaign, I have a few questions that I first want to share with you and which I hope he will address in the not-too-distant future.

There is a way in which I cannot tell who is the real Senator Obama. For one, he has not carved out -- at least as of this writing -- any cutting edge issues where he is taking the lead and defining the terrain. Second, and to some extent more troubling, he permits people to see and assume in him what they want to see and assume. I have said to many of my friends that this situation reminds me of an episode from the original Star Trek series where there was a creature that appears to the viewer the way the viewer would like to see it.

I am, to add to this, very uneasy about some of the Senator's foreign policy pronouncements, particularly with regard to the Middle East. To his credit, he opposed the Iraq invasion and had the courage to say so. Yet over the last year, he has displayed a peculiarly uncritical stance when it comes to Israel and has all-but-ignored the plight of the Palestinians. This past summer, when Israel launched its massive and deadly assault on Lebanon, the Senator was quite vocal in his support. He seemed to miss the Israeli use of illegal cluster bombs and the lies the Israelis offered for their unapologetic destruction of entire Lebanese civilian communities.

Further, the Senator seems to ignore the atrocious conditions being faced by the Palestinians who, after all, are occupied by the Israelis in violation of United Nations' resolutions. This occupation is worsening with the creation of what some people describe as the "apartheid wall", and what I simply call the "wall of death," that the Israelis are building as they carve out the land they wish to control in perpetuity.

Compounding this odd situation, the Senator seems to want to be a "hawk" when it comes to Iran, describing that country as a threat to Israel and the USA. Here again I remain perplexed. Iran does not have the military capability to hit the USA. There is absolutely no proof of Iran advancing military nuclear ambitions. It is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Everything else is speculation. Israel, on the other hand, has not signed the treaty, possesses nuclear weapons but will not acknowledge that fact, and has assisted apartheid South Africa in developing weapons of mass destruction. India, to use another example, has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has nuclear weapons, has those weapons pointed at Pakistan (which has its own weapons pointed at India), has fought several wars with Pakistan, and yet received nuclear support from President Bush and the US Congress. I cannot find any record of Senator Obama suggesting a tough stand against either of these countries, irrespective of his particular concerns with the Indian nuclear deal. Perhaps I did not Google long enough?

So, I think we need to understand the Senator's thinking. After having what many observers described as a friendly relationship with Arab Americans over the years, the Senator appears to have yelled, "abandon ship" and jumped into an anti-Palestinian and anti-Iranian lifeboat.

The uncritical support for Israel displayed by most US administrations since, at least, the June 1967 Arab/Israeli War has not only cost the USA global credibility but undermined most prospects for peace in the Middle East. The hope for many of us has been the rise of a Presidential candidate committed to seeing the world as it is, and transforming the relationship of the USA from being a global bully into being a global partner.

I am not ready to write off the inspiring Senator from the great State of Illinois, but no matter how hard I try, I keep thinking about that creature from Star Trek.

BC Editorial Board member Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a long-time labor and international activist and writer. He is the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum. Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher

Thursday, May 10, 2007

"Barack the Magic Negro - Not Funny"

Obama Speaks Out on 'Barack, the Magic Negro' Parody
By Aysha Hussain

© DiversityInc 2007 ®
Barack Obama is finally speaking out about the video parody that painted him as "the Magic Negro," dressed in a fake Ku Klux Klan outfit, and a black man suitable to whites.

In a recent interview with Paul W. Smith, host of WJR Radio in Detroit, Obama discussed his feelings about the video parody entitled "U Da Real Negro Al, Screw Obama." In the now infamous video, Paul Shanklin, a well-known conservative political satirist famous for his voice impersonations, imitates the voice of the Rev. Al Sharpton and portrays Obama as a socially accepted black man with the song "Barack, the Magic Negro," a twist on the 1963 hit song "Puff, the Magic Dragon" performed by Peter, Paul and Mary. (See also: 'Barack, the Magic Negro': Will Rush Limbaugh Get the Ax?) Obama appeared unconcerned about the video and its images, according to Political Punch, an ABC News blog site.

"You know, I have not heard it but I've heard of it," said Obama. "I confess that I don't listen to Rush on a daily basis. On the other hand, I'm not one of these people who takes myself so seriously that I get offended by every comment made about me ... what Rush does is entertainment, and although it's probably not something that I listen to much, I don't mind. I don't mind folks poking fun at me. That's part of the job." Listen to audio of the interview on WJR.com.

The video had been shown on Rush Limbaugh's web site (and then made its way to YouTube). Limbaugh also aired the audio portion on his radio show.



The radio station interviewed Rush Limbaugh the next day. He responded to Obama's reaction, expressing his satisfaction with the way Obama handled the questioning of the video. "This is a classy way to deal with it," said Limbaugh. "This is the way he should have dealt with it if anyone asked. It's the first time he's probably been asked about it, but this is the way for these guys to deal with it. Blow it off. Laugh it off. No big deal."



If Obama is seemingly unaffected by Limbaugh and others who continue to criticize him for not being "black" enough or having a so-called controversial last name, why then did Obama recently request a protection order through Secret Service because of potential racist threats? As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the protection came at his own request because of a rise in racist threats combined with increased crowd sizes. No specific threat has been reported yet. Obama's request is the earliest request for protection ever made by a presidential candidate.

Monday, May 7, 2007

We are all to blame for profanity, mysogyny and violence in music - we listen and we buy

Hip Hop Profanity, Misogyny and Violence: Blame the Manufacturer
By Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report
Posted on May 7, 2007,
On a Spring day at McDonald's fast food restaurants all across Black America, counter clerks welcome female customers with the greeting, "What you want, bitch?" Female employees flip burgers in see-through outfits and make lewd sexual remarks to pre-teen boys while bussing tables. McDonald's managers position themselves near the exits, arms folded, Glocks protruding from their waistbands, nodding to departing customers, "Have a good day, motherf**kers. Y'all my niggas."

Naturally, the surrounding communities would be upset. A portion of their anger would be directed at the young men and women whose conduct was so destructive of the morals and image of African Americans. Preachers would rail against the willingness of Black youth to debase themselves in such a manner, and politicians would rush to introduce laws making it a crime for public accommodations employees to use profanity or engage in lewd or threatening behavior. However, there can be no doubt that the full wrath of the community and the state would descend like an angry god's vengeance on the real villain: the McDonald's Corporation, the purveyor of the fast food experience product.

Hip Hop music is also a product, produced by giant corporations for mass distribution to a carefully targeted and cultivated demographic market. Corporate executives map out multi-year campaigns to increase their share of the targeted market, hiring and firing subordinates -- the men and women of Artists and Recordings (A&R) departments -- whose job is to find the raw material for the product (artists), and shape it into the package upper management has decreed is most marketable (the artist's public persona, image, style and behavior). It is a corporate process at every stage of artist "development," one that was in place long before the artist was "discovered" or signed to the corporate label. What the public sees, hears and consumes is the end result of a process that is integral to the business model crafted by top corporate executives. The artist, the song, the presentation -- all of it is a corporate product.

Yet, unlike the swift and certain public condemnation that would crash down upon our hypothetical McDonald's-from-Da Hood, the bulk of Black community anger at hip hop products is directed at foul-behaving artists, rather than the corporate Dr. Frankensteins that created and profit from them. As the great French author and revolutionary Franz Fanon would have understood perfectly, colonized and racially oppressed peoples internalize -- take ownership -- of the social pathologies fostered by the oppressor. Thus, the anti-social aspects of commercial hip hop are perceived as a "Black" problem, to be overcome through internal devices (preaching and other forms of collective self-flagellation), rather than viewed as an assault by hostile, outside forces secondarily abetted by opportunists within the group.

In order for our nightmare McDonald's analogy to more closely fit the music industry reality, all the fast food chains would have to provide the same type of profane, low-life, hyper-sexualized, life-devaluing service/product: "Bitch-Burgers" from Burger King, served with "Chronic-Flavored Fries," "Ho Wings" from KFC, dipped in too-hot "187 Murder Sauce." If you wanted fast food, you'd have to patronize one or the other of these thug-themed chains. So, too, with hip hop music.

A handful of entertainment corporations exercise total control of the market, in incestuous (and illegal) conspiratorial concert with corporate-dominated radio. Successful so-called "independent" labels are most often mere subcontractors to the majors, dependent on them for record distribution and business survival. They are no more independent than the owner of a McDonald's franchise, whose product must conform to the standards set by global headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois.

As "conscious" rapper Paris wrote, there is no viable alternative to the corporate nexus for hip hop artists seeking to reach a mass audience. "WHAT underground?" said Paris. "Do you know how much good material is marginalized because it doesn't fit white cooperate America's ideals of acceptability? Independents can't get radio or video play anymore, at least not through commercial outlets, and most listeners don't acknowledge material that they don't see or hear regularly on the radio or on T.V."

The major record labels actively suppress positive hip hop by withholding promotional support of both the above- and below-the-table variety. Hip hop journalist and activist Davey D reported that Erykah Badu and The Roots' Grammy-winning hit "You Got Me" was initially rejected by the corporate nexus due to its "overtly positive" message..."so palms were greased with the promise that key stations countrywide would get hot ‘summer jam' concert acts in exchange for airplay. According to Questlove [of The Roots], more than $1 million in cash and resources were eventually laid out for the success of that single song."

Black America's hip hop problem cannot be laid at the feet of a few hundredHHthugTupac wayward performers -- and should certainly not be assigned to some inherent pathology in Black culture. African Americans do not control the packaging and dissemination of their culture: corporations and their Black comprador allies and annexes do. The mass Gangsta Rap phenomenon is a boardroom invention. I know.

From 1987 to early 1994, I co-owned and hosted "Rap It Up," the first nationally syndicated radio hip hop music program. During the first half of this period, the Rap genre accomplished its national "breakout" from New York and LA, spreading to all points in between. By 1990, the major labels were preparing to swallow the independent labels that had birthed commercial hip hop, which had evolved into a wondrous mix of party, political and "street"-aggressive subsets. One of the corporate labels (I can't remember which) conducted a study that shocked the industry: The most "active" consumers of Hip Hop, they discovered, were "tweens," the demographic slice between the ages of 11 and 13.

The numbers were unprecedented. Even in the early years of Black radio, R&B music's most "active" consumers were at least two or three years older than "tweens." It didn't take a roomful of PhDs in human development science to grasp the ramifications of the data. Early and pre-adolescents of both genders are sexual-socially undeveloped -- uncertain and afraid of the other gender. Tweens revel in honing their newfound skills in profanity; they love to curse. Males, especially, act out their anxieties about females through aggression and derision. This is the cohort for which the major labels would package their hip hop products. Commercial Gangsta Rap was born -- a sub-genre that would lock a whole generation in perpetual arrested social development.

First, the artists would have to be brought into the corporate program. The term "street" became a euphemism for a monsoon of profanity, gratuitous violence, female and male hyper-promiscuity, the most vulgar materialism, and the total suppression of social consciousness. A slew of child acts was recruited to appeal more directly to the core demographic.

Women rappers were coerced to conform to the new order. A young female artist broke down at my kitchen table one afternoon, after we had finished a promotional interview. "They're trying to make me into a whore," she said, sobbing. "They say I'm not ‘street' enough." Her skills on the mic were fine. "They" were the A&R people from her corporate label.

Stories like this abounded during the transition from independent to major label control of hip hop. The thug- and -"ho"ification of the genre is now all but complete.

Blame the manufacturer.

Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be reached at Glen.Ford (at) BlackAgendaReport.com.