April 17, 2008
Affirmative Action Defended
I don't know the initial thoughts of Affirmative Action. I don't know if it was thought up in order to be a temporary solution
for a problem that would eventually be solved or if it was brought into our social system as a program admitting defeat that
we as a society would never have complete equality for all races. Yes, Affirmative Action does favor minorities, but that's
the point of the program. It's supposed to even the field and give a chance to people who have been disadvantaged all their
lives and were born into a racist nation.
It's amazing to me when people complain that Affirmative Action gives an unfair advantage to minorities. Unfortunately a
lot of the people who claim that usually don't realize that they themselves have been the privileged individuals who have had
the unfair advantage all their lives. I have traveled all over this nation and I can tell you the most consistent trend that I have
unfortunately witnessed is the fact that the poorer the neighborhood I found myself in, the worse the conditions of the
area I observed, the more minorities I saw as citizens carrying out their day to day lives. That is not just a coincidence.
When I was a kid growing up in the Bay Area, California I was fortunate enough to live in a neighborhood where I didn't
find liquor stores on every corner. I rarely saw the sirens of police cars driving the streets, never saw homeless people
sleeping in corners around my house (downtown, yes, but not in my neighborhood), didn't have to worry about gangs or
drug dealers conducting business on the corner, and never heard gunshots ring out unexpectedly during the night. I didn't
grow up in poverty, my parents were able to provide for me whatever a child needs to live a healthy life. I went to public
schools all my life and I can say I grew up without having to worry about problems that many of my friends and classmates did.
The most alarming fact is that after all these years Affirmative Action is still needed. To me this should have just been a
temporary solution while the social balance was improved until we reached equality for all people. Yes we have advanced as
a nation from the 50's and 60's but not nearly far enough to be able to shout out reverse racism. Affirmative Action is
definitely not a perfect program, and looks like something just thrown up to stop the leak while we think of a complete
remedy that prevents a future flood, but we definitely need something in place that addresses the inequalities that are still
prevalent in this system. Like it or not, racism is still very much alive, but it's on a covert level because it's not supposed to
be accepted. It's not the "popular" belief as it was for whites back in the days of Jim Crow and beyond, but that's what
makes it much harder to fight now because you have people truly believing that bigotry is gone despite not understanding
the seriousness in the lack of healthy conditions in which so many impoverished people are living. These sheltered
individuals most likely only see it when there is a story of an instance of police brutality on CNN or if they are a fan of the
show Cops. About a year and a half ago, people would have caught a glimpse of economic despair when Katrina displaced
so many citizens in New Orleans and saw the horrible conditions people had been living in before the hurricane hit.
However it's only reported on every so often and networks are more focused on the latest hit Reality TV series or
reports on celebrities and how terrible their dress was on the red carpet.
I blame the government who should have thought of ways in which to improve conditions in poverty stricken neighborhoods,
get their schools more funding to improve education in these areas, and not blame the victims, people still struggling to
recover economically from the slavery and Jim Crow eras. We should not see a gap in conditions between neighborhoods.
When I drive through the streets of Oakland on visits back to my native Bay Area, I shouldn't see slums, and I shouldn't be
warned to not be caught in the wrong neighborhood at night. Our prisons all over the nation shouldn't incarcerate
minorities at such a higher rate than the majority population to the point that that's the only place these ethnic groups are
the majority.
The problem needs to be handled from the ground up. Our whole social system needs some drastic changes because
there is still unequal opportunities based on what a child experiences before trying to be accepted into college or getting
hired for a job. From birth each child should be given the same opportunities, experience the same urging and
encouragement throughout their schooling, and get the same help for different areas they have trouble in. We should not
have some children who fear for their lives when going to school because of the area they are growing up in, and therefore
have undue stress that diverts their attention while still trying to focus on the test coming up they need to study for. There
shouldn't be such a huge lack of funding for schools in lower income areas. This has turned into a never ending cycle and
now people who think they are being wronged because they didn't get into a school or the job they wanted all of a sudden
are crying out "reverse discrimination." Perhaps, as mentioned above, they aren't educated as to the conditions in which
less fortunate individuals are living, or maybe they are just selfish because they have been spoiled and nudged ahead all
their lives so they still expect that into adulthood. Whatever the case, the fact still remains that society is not equal and we
need to keep pushing forward to remedy that.
Once society is finally equal, and despite my pessimism sometimes I truly do think we can get there, it's up to the child to
learn for themselves what their life dream is and make it reality with the help of educators, mentors and parents. Only then
can Affirmative Action be thrown out as something that isn't needed anymore. Every child should have the opportunity
after high school if they really want to attend college and further their education. If everything has been equal up to that
point and is equal out in the real world then they will be accepted or rejected from a college because they don't have the
test scores or the GPA to cut it for that school, and not because of the color of their skin. Individuals will be hired or not
based solely on their qualifications. Unfortunately that is not where we are as a society yet, and a program like Affirmative
Action is still a necessity in order to be fair to all people.
Feb. 23, 2008:
Proud of this Country?
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but
because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction."
- Michelle Obama
“I am proud of my country. I don’t know about you? If you heard those words earlier, I am very proud of my country,”
- Cindy McCain
In watching this little exchange and how the Conservatives are so quick to jump all over "unpatriotic" comments, I couldn't
help but say to myself, what's the big deal? I haven't been proud of this country ever since educating myself on the history
of this nation. As a kid I never thought about being proud of the country but I do remember seeing footage of racist
sheriffs, police departments, and angry mobs. I only saw that in one class and that was from a documentary called Eyes
On The Prize. The curriculum never covered in depth important subjects like the Civil Rights Movement, Black
Liberation Movement, Jim Crow laws, African Slavery, Segregation, or government corruption. The educational system
is controlled by a racist government so of course they are not going to want children to learn about the worst aspects of
this nation's history.
This nation employs a blatantly racist prison system which incarcerates minorities at an alarming rate. Blacks especially
are discriminated against making up about 13% of the nation's population, yet make up almost 50% of the prison population.
Those figures are as of 2006. Not to mention the fact that an individual can be completely innocent but if specific
evidence that proves that fact is not accepted in the judicial system that person can go to jail. Is that something to be
proud of?
This country once considered Blacks three fifths (3/5) of human beings, then later "second class citizens" who didn't
have the right to vote and were victims of unbalanced "separate but equal" laws. Is that something to be proud of? I just
don't see it.
How can you be proud of a nation that can send troops out to Afghanistan and Iraq immediately yet takes 3 days to get
any help to New Orleans after Katrina hit, costing the lives of so many poor citizens? How can you be proud of a country
that condemns other nations for the treatment of their citizens when law enforcement here continues to abuse it's power
and brutalize our citizens? How can you be proud of a nation that allows two straight elections to be stolen by the
government and it's campaign contributors to put a puppet in the white house that will do anything that these donators ask;
a government that created a voting system monitored by two big time companies that are two of the biggest contributors to
the "president's" campaign that leaves no paper trail? How can you be proud of a nation that has reacted so violently to
peaceful people who were demonstrating and marching against racist laws, policies and traditions?
Personally I can see why Michelle Obama would say that she's finally proud of the country because her husband is running
for president, and she acknowledges the fact that this nation has not given it's citizens much to be proud of in it's history.
Of course she has to say we are moving in a positive direction with her husband having a great chance at becoming
president. I don't blame her at all. I do think that it's idiotic to attack that statement and claim to be and always have been
very proud of this country. With all that this nation has done how could you be? I'm proud of myself as an individual and I
fight daily to make the country I live in a better place, but I truly don't see much to be proud of from what I've learned about
the history of this nation in my 30 plus years.
Feb. 13, 2008:
So today I was at the gym working out, and I glance up at one of the TV's to see a lady named Ann Coulter being quoted
as saying these are the worst presidential candidates she has seen in her life. Now this comment was amazing to me since
I've never heard of this woman (now I wish I still hadn't), and since I don't see how any choice can be worse than last election
with John Kerry losing to George Bush who has enough "Bushisms" to fill up 3 daily calendars. It's hard to care too much
about politics when it's so two-faced and historically has been corrupt. We have such a hypocritical government where the
"elected" officials have not listened to the feelings of the predominant American public and have made decisions that were
the most profitable for them and their biggest supporters. Now, when I actually see some candidates that seem to truly
care about the American people's opinion and want to make a positive difference, I have a bit of hope that the system can
change in subtle ways. True, the political process itself is in need of a serious overhaul but I don't see that happening
anytime soon. So when someone like Ann Coulter is being interviewed and makes this type of claim on TV, I have to
question her sanity and wonder why she's even being interviewed.
I decided to look into who she was a bit, and found that she's actually a columnist and has a best-selling book out called If
Democrats Had a Brain They'd Be Republicans. She has also made ridiculous statements such as claiming that this
whole nation would be better off if everyone was a Christian. So now I know how this woman has gotten her "popularity."
She makes shock statements, tries to capitalize on people's passions by claiming one group of people is better than
another group, and generally seems to be invited onto these news shows in order to stimulate a controversial conversation
to boost ratings. That's the nature of these news and viewpoint shows.
So why do I bring this up? Just something I thought about and was shocked by while at the gym. A lot of these news
shows report and discuss the same things over and over. It's overkill on so-called issues that really aren't as important to
me as the problems created by poverty, corrupt law enforcement and political officials, the lack of follow-up on the last two
elections which were stolen by the two companies in charge of the voting machines which produce no paper trail of
evidence (and of course supported Bush), and political prisoners who have been falsely imprisoned by a racist court
system. But those are just issues I would like discussed.
Feb. 12, 2008:
As Published on Helium.com
The Problem with Bill O'Reilly: A Hip Hop perspective
I'm not one to get caught up in pop culture. I hate reality TV shows, think MTV has become a virus to our youth with their
pointless programming that has nothing to do with music anymore, and despise the tabloid magazines that shout out to
every customer at the supermarket checkout lines since I know they are shock writings designed to prey upon people's
ignorance and curiosity as to how "celebrities" live. I never really want to pay attention to any of these "news" programs
because I know they are opinionated shows that report a specific angle they want their viewers to sympathize with and in
turn support the perspective they chose to focus the article on. But it's so hard to ignore some reporters who believe
they have to win a "debate" to prove that their opinion on life is relevant. It's hard to ignore because it affects people you
know about and it tries to cast a completely negative shadow on a culture you love, respect, and know is focused much
more on inspiring positivity than anything detrimental to the community.
It's so hard to ignore "reporters" like Bill O'Reilly.
In deciding to write this article I had to utilize one of the most popular websites in today's pop-culture that allows all voices
to be heard no matter what slant they put on each video. For research and background on this article I decided to look up
all the videos in which Bill O'Reilly appeared and spoke on Hip Hop that I could find, and even got into some videos that
show his unwillingness to listen to his "guests" (outside of Hip Hop) while trying to solidify his opinion as truth. I decided
to utilize the phenomenon that is youtube.com.
I started this unique quest by looking up O'Reilly and the artists he discussed on his show through youtube's search tool.
The result of which displayed O'Reilly's unwillingness to listen to a differing opinion, and tendency to shout over an
individual in hopes of making his views seem to be the "right" ideals towards a news story. He decides to ask questions in
order to support his point and shouts over his guests if they don't respond in the way he desires, therefore going "against"
proving his thoughts to be "truth." What then ensues is an argument, that should have been a discussion, where the guest
feels that he/she is getting attacked and has to raise his/her own voice in order to slightly be heard trying to retort with
their true opinion. However, by this time O'Reilly has already decided that he has someone who is in a differing mind state,
and therefore is wrong. This is one of the problems of his show, having a bias towards a specific point of view and
approaching the discussion as a debate rather than a way to learn from another's point of view and have an intelligent
conversation.
Another problem that has bugged me about O'Reilly's depiction of Hip Hop is the fact that he doesn't seem to do
enough research in order to get the full story. He gathers some facts that support his claims, but doesn't put in the effort
to truly understand every aspect of a subject. Sometimes I even wonder if he did the research or had some intern do it for
him just to get the "dirt." Of course, as stated earlier, I'm basing this on a study of his depiction of Hip Hop. I did not care
to examine every single debate he's gotten into as that wasn't the subject I chose to focus on for this writing.
The most blaring example of his lack of research was his bashing of one of the greatest rappers of all time, Nas. The
viewer who is familiar with Nas would be immediately taken aback by the fact that O'Reilly can't even pronounce his
subject's name correctly, instead pronouncing it as if his name were spelled Naaz.' If that doesn't tell you that in depth
research was lacking (and mispronunciation of the name could have been forgivable if all other facts were spot on), we can
examine other pieces of his presentation. The reason for this bashing was the fact that Nas had been invited to perform at
a concert for Virginia Tech students after the shooting tragedy that resulted in the death of 33 students including the
gunman. O'Reilly in his infinite wisdom felt that a so-called "gangster rapper" had no business performing at this event.
To give a little background, Nas has come out with 9 studio albums (which includes a collection of unreleased material
called "Lost Tapes"). He has been featured on countless other songs with other artists and has appeared on
soundtracks, compilations, mixtapes, and was part of the group The Firm which released an album on it's own. Out of all of
this material that Nas has recorded and come out with (for arguments sake we'll say 150 songs), a lot of which has been
critically acclaimed, O'Reilly chose to focus his attention on 2 or 3 lines from a few songs.
While the reason's he chose these few songs to focus on are obvious in order to support his opinion on the matter, only
focusing on these few lines showed his lack of responsibility to the part of the audience that doesn't know anything about
the subject. If he were writing a college essay and only used this one piece of evidence to support his thesis he would
undoubtedly get an F. When a guest refuted this point saying that Nas has come out with many uplifting and lyrically potent
songs as well, O'Reilly quickly argued over his guest saying he can come with 10 more songs saying the same things (who
knows if that's true or not since he quickly jumps to the next subject).
There have been countless other songs Nas has come out with that have been very uplifting (two of which, "If I Ruled The
World," and "I Can" he performed at the concert). Bill O'Reilly obviously didn't respect Nas' intelligence, assuming he
would be dumb enough to actually perform any of his songs that mentioned gun violence. Someone who is participating in a
free concert for a school that experienced such a tragedy would definitely be more responsible than that. Would anyone
not allow someone like Paul McCartney to perform at this event because his group The Beatles released an album called
Revolver?
O'Reilly also focuses on a gun charge that Nas has on his record, which he does not discuss with any further details,
deciding instead that mentioning this means that this is enough evidence to prove his point. He doesn't mention when it
happened, what the circumstances were, or any other facts on this charge. My response to that piece of evidence is, do
you know anything about the neighborhood in which Nas grew up or the circumstances behind the charge? Do you know
anything about him as a person? Have you ever talked to him? Have you ever talked to anyone who knows him well to find
out who he is? My assumption is no since O'Reilly can't even pronounce Nas' name correctly and therefore Bill can
provide no depth with that argument.
Now I know I have only focused on one of his articles here for this specific essay, but this was the most obvious instance
to me that he has a clear bias against Hip Hop and has chosen such artists as Cam'Ron, and Ludacris to focus his
attention on in order to support his disdain of the art form. Personally I respect those artists, however O'Reilly's focus on
them to me was again just focusing on specific songs or things said in order to support his own opinions. Previously, I
looked at his choosing to attack Ludacris for being endorsed by Pepsi as pointless, and having Cam'Ron defend lyrics in
Hip Hop as not as relevant a representative as someone like Talib Kweli, Common, Chuck D, and yes, Nas.
O'Reilly could definitely benefit from a little humility in his "reporting" as he clearly can't be wrong in his own eyes. His
opinion is fact in his mind. Obviously it works for him as he gets high ratings for his show, and is selling a bunch of books,
therefore the unfortunate fact is that he most likely won't change. I can only hope that his listeners/viewers can think for
themselves and understand that even though he presents "evidence" to support his claims, he most likely won't ever present
all the facts on a subject he is reporting on.
Affirmative Action Defended
I don't know the initial thoughts of Affirmative Action. I don't know if it was thought up in order to be a temporary solution
for a problem that would eventually be solved or if it was brought into our social system as a program admitting defeat that
we as a society would never have complete equality for all races. Yes, Affirmative Action does favor minorities, but that's
the point of the program. It's supposed to even the field and give a chance to people who have been disadvantaged all their
lives and were born into a racist nation.
It's amazing to me when people complain that Affirmative Action gives an unfair advantage to minorities. Unfortunately a
lot of the people who claim that usually don't realize that they themselves have been the privileged individuals who have had
the unfair advantage all their lives. I have traveled all over this nation and I can tell you the most consistent trend that I have
unfortunately witnessed is the fact that the poorer the neighborhood I found myself in, the worse the conditions of the
area I observed, the more minorities I saw as citizens carrying out their day to day lives. That is not just a coincidence.
When I was a kid growing up in the Bay Area, California I was fortunate enough to live in a neighborhood where I didn't
find liquor stores on every corner. I rarely saw the sirens of police cars driving the streets, never saw homeless people
sleeping in corners around my house (downtown, yes, but not in my neighborhood), didn't have to worry about gangs or
drug dealers conducting business on the corner, and never heard gunshots ring out unexpectedly during the night. I didn't
grow up in poverty, my parents were able to provide for me whatever a child needs to live a healthy life. I went to public
schools all my life and I can say I grew up without having to worry about problems that many of my friends and classmates did.
The most alarming fact is that after all these years Affirmative Action is still needed. To me this should have just been a
temporary solution while the social balance was improved until we reached equality for all people. Yes we have advanced as
a nation from the 50's and 60's but not nearly far enough to be able to shout out reverse racism. Affirmative Action is
definitely not a perfect program, and looks like something just thrown up to stop the leak while we think of a complete
remedy that prevents a future flood, but we definitely need something in place that addresses the inequalities that are still
prevalent in this system. Like it or not, racism is still very much alive, but it's on a covert level because it's not supposed to
be accepted. It's not the "popular" belief as it was for whites back in the days of Jim Crow and beyond, but that's what
makes it much harder to fight now because you have people truly believing that bigotry is gone despite not understanding
the seriousness in the lack of healthy conditions in which so many impoverished people are living. These sheltered
individuals most likely only see it when there is a story of an instance of police brutality on CNN or if they are a fan of the
show Cops. About a year and a half ago, people would have caught a glimpse of economic despair when Katrina displaced
so many citizens in New Orleans and saw the horrible conditions people had been living in before the hurricane hit.
However it's only reported on every so often and networks are more focused on the latest hit Reality TV series or
reports on celebrities and how terrible their dress was on the red carpet.
I blame the government who should have thought of ways in which to improve conditions in poverty stricken neighborhoods,
get their schools more funding to improve education in these areas, and not blame the victims, people still struggling to
recover economically from the slavery and Jim Crow eras. We should not see a gap in conditions between neighborhoods.
When I drive through the streets of Oakland on visits back to my native Bay Area, I shouldn't see slums, and I shouldn't be
warned to not be caught in the wrong neighborhood at night. Our prisons all over the nation shouldn't incarcerate
minorities at such a higher rate than the majority population to the point that that's the only place these ethnic groups are
the majority.
The problem needs to be handled from the ground up. Our whole social system needs some drastic changes because
there is still unequal opportunities based on what a child experiences before trying to be accepted into college or getting
hired for a job. From birth each child should be given the same opportunities, experience the same urging and
encouragement throughout their schooling, and get the same help for different areas they have trouble in. We should not
have some children who fear for their lives when going to school because of the area they are growing up in, and therefore
have undue stress that diverts their attention while still trying to focus on the test coming up they need to study for. There
shouldn't be such a huge lack of funding for schools in lower income areas. This has turned into a never ending cycle and
now people who think they are being wronged because they didn't get into a school or the job they wanted all of a sudden
are crying out "reverse discrimination." Perhaps, as mentioned above, they aren't educated as to the conditions in which
less fortunate individuals are living, or maybe they are just selfish because they have been spoiled and nudged ahead all
their lives so they still expect that into adulthood. Whatever the case, the fact still remains that society is not equal and we
need to keep pushing forward to remedy that.
Once society is finally equal, and despite my pessimism sometimes I truly do think we can get there, it's up to the child to
learn for themselves what their life dream is and make it reality with the help of educators, mentors and parents. Only then
can Affirmative Action be thrown out as something that isn't needed anymore. Every child should have the opportunity
after high school if they really want to attend college and further their education. If everything has been equal up to that
point and is equal out in the real world then they will be accepted or rejected from a college because they don't have the
test scores or the GPA to cut it for that school, and not because of the color of their skin. Individuals will be hired or not
based solely on their qualifications. Unfortunately that is not where we are as a society yet, and a program like Affirmative
Action is still a necessity in order to be fair to all people.
Feb. 23, 2008:
Proud of this Country?
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but
because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction."
- Michelle Obama
“I am proud of my country. I don’t know about you? If you heard those words earlier, I am very proud of my country,”
- Cindy McCain
In watching this little exchange and how the Conservatives are so quick to jump all over "unpatriotic" comments, I couldn't
help but say to myself, what's the big deal? I haven't been proud of this country ever since educating myself on the history
of this nation. As a kid I never thought about being proud of the country but I do remember seeing footage of racist
sheriffs, police departments, and angry mobs. I only saw that in one class and that was from a documentary called Eyes
On The Prize. The curriculum never covered in depth important subjects like the Civil Rights Movement, Black
Liberation Movement, Jim Crow laws, African Slavery, Segregation, or government corruption. The educational system
is controlled by a racist government so of course they are not going to want children to learn about the worst aspects of
this nation's history.
This nation employs a blatantly racist prison system which incarcerates minorities at an alarming rate. Blacks especially
are discriminated against making up about 13% of the nation's population, yet make up almost 50% of the prison population.
Those figures are as of 2006. Not to mention the fact that an individual can be completely innocent but if specific
evidence that proves that fact is not accepted in the judicial system that person can go to jail. Is that something to be
proud of?
This country once considered Blacks three fifths (3/5) of human beings, then later "second class citizens" who didn't
have the right to vote and were victims of unbalanced "separate but equal" laws. Is that something to be proud of? I just
don't see it.
How can you be proud of a nation that can send troops out to Afghanistan and Iraq immediately yet takes 3 days to get
any help to New Orleans after Katrina hit, costing the lives of so many poor citizens? How can you be proud of a country
that condemns other nations for the treatment of their citizens when law enforcement here continues to abuse it's power
and brutalize our citizens? How can you be proud of a nation that allows two straight elections to be stolen by the
government and it's campaign contributors to put a puppet in the white house that will do anything that these donators ask;
a government that created a voting system monitored by two big time companies that are two of the biggest contributors to
the "president's" campaign that leaves no paper trail? How can you be proud of a nation that has reacted so violently to
peaceful people who were demonstrating and marching against racist laws, policies and traditions?
Personally I can see why Michelle Obama would say that she's finally proud of the country because her husband is running
for president, and she acknowledges the fact that this nation has not given it's citizens much to be proud of in it's history.
Of course she has to say we are moving in a positive direction with her husband having a great chance at becoming
president. I don't blame her at all. I do think that it's idiotic to attack that statement and claim to be and always have been
very proud of this country. With all that this nation has done how could you be? I'm proud of myself as an individual and I
fight daily to make the country I live in a better place, but I truly don't see much to be proud of from what I've learned about
the history of this nation in my 30 plus years.
Feb. 13, 2008:
So today I was at the gym working out, and I glance up at one of the TV's to see a lady named Ann Coulter being quoted
as saying these are the worst presidential candidates she has seen in her life. Now this comment was amazing to me since
I've never heard of this woman (now I wish I still hadn't), and since I don't see how any choice can be worse than last election
with John Kerry losing to George Bush who has enough "Bushisms" to fill up 3 daily calendars. It's hard to care too much
about politics when it's so two-faced and historically has been corrupt. We have such a hypocritical government where the
"elected" officials have not listened to the feelings of the predominant American public and have made decisions that were
the most profitable for them and their biggest supporters. Now, when I actually see some candidates that seem to truly
care about the American people's opinion and want to make a positive difference, I have a bit of hope that the system can
change in subtle ways. True, the political process itself is in need of a serious overhaul but I don't see that happening
anytime soon. So when someone like Ann Coulter is being interviewed and makes this type of claim on TV, I have to
question her sanity and wonder why she's even being interviewed.
I decided to look into who she was a bit, and found that she's actually a columnist and has a best-selling book out called If
Democrats Had a Brain They'd Be Republicans. She has also made ridiculous statements such as claiming that this
whole nation would be better off if everyone was a Christian. So now I know how this woman has gotten her "popularity."
She makes shock statements, tries to capitalize on people's passions by claiming one group of people is better than
another group, and generally seems to be invited onto these news shows in order to stimulate a controversial conversation
to boost ratings. That's the nature of these news and viewpoint shows.
So why do I bring this up? Just something I thought about and was shocked by while at the gym. A lot of these news
shows report and discuss the same things over and over. It's overkill on so-called issues that really aren't as important to
me as the problems created by poverty, corrupt law enforcement and political officials, the lack of follow-up on the last two
elections which were stolen by the two companies in charge of the voting machines which produce no paper trail of
evidence (and of course supported Bush), and political prisoners who have been falsely imprisoned by a racist court
system. But those are just issues I would like discussed.
Feb. 12, 2008:
As Published on Helium.com
The Problem with Bill O'Reilly: A Hip Hop perspective
I'm not one to get caught up in pop culture. I hate reality TV shows, think MTV has become a virus to our youth with their
pointless programming that has nothing to do with music anymore, and despise the tabloid magazines that shout out to
every customer at the supermarket checkout lines since I know they are shock writings designed to prey upon people's
ignorance and curiosity as to how "celebrities" live. I never really want to pay attention to any of these "news" programs
because I know they are opinionated shows that report a specific angle they want their viewers to sympathize with and in
turn support the perspective they chose to focus the article on. But it's so hard to ignore some reporters who believe
they have to win a "debate" to prove that their opinion on life is relevant. It's hard to ignore because it affects people you
know about and it tries to cast a completely negative shadow on a culture you love, respect, and know is focused much
more on inspiring positivity than anything detrimental to the community.
It's so hard to ignore "reporters" like Bill O'Reilly.
In deciding to write this article I had to utilize one of the most popular websites in today's pop-culture that allows all voices
to be heard no matter what slant they put on each video. For research and background on this article I decided to look up
all the videos in which Bill O'Reilly appeared and spoke on Hip Hop that I could find, and even got into some videos that
show his unwillingness to listen to his "guests" (outside of Hip Hop) while trying to solidify his opinion as truth. I decided
to utilize the phenomenon that is youtube.com.
I started this unique quest by looking up O'Reilly and the artists he discussed on his show through youtube's search tool.
The result of which displayed O'Reilly's unwillingness to listen to a differing opinion, and tendency to shout over an
individual in hopes of making his views seem to be the "right" ideals towards a news story. He decides to ask questions in
order to support his point and shouts over his guests if they don't respond in the way he desires, therefore going "against"
proving his thoughts to be "truth." What then ensues is an argument, that should have been a discussion, where the guest
feels that he/she is getting attacked and has to raise his/her own voice in order to slightly be heard trying to retort with
their true opinion. However, by this time O'Reilly has already decided that he has someone who is in a differing mind state,
and therefore is wrong. This is one of the problems of his show, having a bias towards a specific point of view and
approaching the discussion as a debate rather than a way to learn from another's point of view and have an intelligent
conversation.
Another problem that has bugged me about O'Reilly's depiction of Hip Hop is the fact that he doesn't seem to do
enough research in order to get the full story. He gathers some facts that support his claims, but doesn't put in the effort
to truly understand every aspect of a subject. Sometimes I even wonder if he did the research or had some intern do it for
him just to get the "dirt." Of course, as stated earlier, I'm basing this on a study of his depiction of Hip Hop. I did not care
to examine every single debate he's gotten into as that wasn't the subject I chose to focus on for this writing.
The most blaring example of his lack of research was his bashing of one of the greatest rappers of all time, Nas. The
viewer who is familiar with Nas would be immediately taken aback by the fact that O'Reilly can't even pronounce his
subject's name correctly, instead pronouncing it as if his name were spelled Naaz.' If that doesn't tell you that in depth
research was lacking (and mispronunciation of the name could have been forgivable if all other facts were spot on), we can
examine other pieces of his presentation. The reason for this bashing was the fact that Nas had been invited to perform at
a concert for Virginia Tech students after the shooting tragedy that resulted in the death of 33 students including the
gunman. O'Reilly in his infinite wisdom felt that a so-called "gangster rapper" had no business performing at this event.
To give a little background, Nas has come out with 9 studio albums (which includes a collection of unreleased material
called "Lost Tapes"). He has been featured on countless other songs with other artists and has appeared on
soundtracks, compilations, mixtapes, and was part of the group The Firm which released an album on it's own. Out of all of
this material that Nas has recorded and come out with (for arguments sake we'll say 150 songs), a lot of which has been
critically acclaimed, O'Reilly chose to focus his attention on 2 or 3 lines from a few songs.
While the reason's he chose these few songs to focus on are obvious in order to support his opinion on the matter, only
focusing on these few lines showed his lack of responsibility to the part of the audience that doesn't know anything about
the subject. If he were writing a college essay and only used this one piece of evidence to support his thesis he would
undoubtedly get an F. When a guest refuted this point saying that Nas has come out with many uplifting and lyrically potent
songs as well, O'Reilly quickly argued over his guest saying he can come with 10 more songs saying the same things (who
knows if that's true or not since he quickly jumps to the next subject).
There have been countless other songs Nas has come out with that have been very uplifting (two of which, "If I Ruled The
World," and "I Can" he performed at the concert). Bill O'Reilly obviously didn't respect Nas' intelligence, assuming he
would be dumb enough to actually perform any of his songs that mentioned gun violence. Someone who is participating in a
free concert for a school that experienced such a tragedy would definitely be more responsible than that. Would anyone
not allow someone like Paul McCartney to perform at this event because his group The Beatles released an album called
Revolver?
O'Reilly also focuses on a gun charge that Nas has on his record, which he does not discuss with any further details,
deciding instead that mentioning this means that this is enough evidence to prove his point. He doesn't mention when it
happened, what the circumstances were, or any other facts on this charge. My response to that piece of evidence is, do
you know anything about the neighborhood in which Nas grew up or the circumstances behind the charge? Do you know
anything about him as a person? Have you ever talked to him? Have you ever talked to anyone who knows him well to find
out who he is? My assumption is no since O'Reilly can't even pronounce Nas' name correctly and therefore Bill can
provide no depth with that argument.
Now I know I have only focused on one of his articles here for this specific essay, but this was the most obvious instance
to me that he has a clear bias against Hip Hop and has chosen such artists as Cam'Ron, and Ludacris to focus his
attention on in order to support his disdain of the art form. Personally I respect those artists, however O'Reilly's focus on
them to me was again just focusing on specific songs or things said in order to support his own opinions. Previously, I
looked at his choosing to attack Ludacris for being endorsed by Pepsi as pointless, and having Cam'Ron defend lyrics in
Hip Hop as not as relevant a representative as someone like Talib Kweli, Common, Chuck D, and yes, Nas.
O'Reilly could definitely benefit from a little humility in his "reporting" as he clearly can't be wrong in his own eyes. His
opinion is fact in his mind. Obviously it works for him as he gets high ratings for his show, and is selling a bunch of books,
therefore the unfortunate fact is that he most likely won't change. I can only hope that his listeners/viewers can think for
themselves and understand that even though he presents "evidence" to support his claims, he most likely won't ever present
all the facts on a subject he is reporting on.
| Thought Process |