SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tom Clarke who wrote (13280)10/21/2003 6:24:45 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793955
 
Iowa, Go Home!
Al Sharpton on Hip-Hop
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 1:08 AM PT

ABC News' Beth Lloyd reports (in the 10/20 "Note") that Rev. Al Sharpton changed his stump speech for a large, virtually all-white college audience at the University of Virginia:

Gone were the criticism of hip-hop music and the tone of urgency to continue the civil rights struggle that Sharpton always includes when addressing students at historically black colleges. Instead, Sharpton focused on policy, Bush-bashing and getting out the vote ... [Emphasis added]

Why not criticize hip-hop before a white crowd? Is Sharpton perversely refusing to pander to whites while speaking hard truths to blacks? Or, given hip-hop's heavily white audience, is he actually pandering to a white U. Va crowd that probably could use hearing his criticism? ... P.S.: What does Sharpton say about hip-hop? Here's a sample (from FNV Newsletter):

Unfortunately, much of what they're selling is a fraud. They spew hedonism, misogyny, and self-hate. They glorify the prison culture, the pimp culture, and drug culture. They tell the young that they're not worthy unless they're "rocking" Chanel, Gucci, or wearing platinum and diamonds. Not only is this message immoral, but it is also flawed. It's a lie.

Words that should be heard by all concerned Americans. I'm serious! Most of my friend's kids listen to hip-hop. It can't be good for them. [You're turning into ... Gregg Easterbrook!-ed. And what about those rap music executives? They're ... Stop!-ed. Thank God I have an editor.] 1:49 A.M.

Iowa, Go Home: Will the decision of Sen Joe Lieberman and Gen. Wesley Clark to bypass the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses undermine that proud, venerable institution? Here's hoping! The Iowa caucuses are highly unrepresentative, media-created event. In 2000, for example, only little more than a tenth of the state's registered Democrats--forget about Independents--attended the party's meetings. All of the caucusers, as always, seemed to be members of the teachers' union, the National Education Association. Every four years this tiny minority pushes the Democratic candidates way to the left, so they can spend the rest of the year scrambling to make themselves palatable to the actual voting public. ...

When I covered the caucuses in 1988, they were treated by the press as a near-apocalyptic event. The declared Democratic winner, of course, was President Dick Gephardt (although actually nobody really knows who won, since the media amateurishly botched the count). Since then, the perspicacious caucus-going Iowans have picked President Harkin (1992) and President Gore (2000). In fact, the only non-incumbent Democrat who won Iowa and actually went on to win the White House was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Carter put the caucuses on the map. The state's unimpressive track record in the ensuing years has gradually dulled its luster, and this could be the year the hype collapses completely. ... Caveat: Iowa might still be a useful killing ground for the hopes of certain craggy, Ibogainish New England senators. (You remember President Muskie, don't you? He won the caucuses in 1972.) ... 12:25 A.M.

Article URL: slate.msn.com