COMMENTARY:

Jay-Z - A Good Hustler Indeed.
What Really Went Wrong in Iraq?
NYC Cabaret Laws - What's the Real Reason.
War Criminals in Iraq: An Objective Analysis.
Who Killed Samora Machel?
The Hypocrisy of Wal-Mart – Selective Censorship.
The Stock Market is Slumping; We Tell You Why.
Are Curse Words Really Bad? The Politics of Profanity.
One Last Time - Michael Jordan at MSG.
Saddam: Not Holding Elections Anytime Soon.

Jay-Z – A Good Hustler Indeed.

In case you didn’t know, real Hip-Hop headz cut Jay-Z off when Hard Knock Life came out. But truth be told, those same cats who hadn’t bought a Jigga album since ’98 still held out hope for The Black Album. In the back of their minds they still thought it was possible. Would Jay finally flip the script on his critics? While very few are capable of pulling something like that off, you gotta figure that if Nas had an ace in the hole then couldn’t Jay? Certainly he was a threat. Shit, you heard how he came on So Ghetto with Premier, you heard 22 Two’s, you heard him on Da Graveyard joint with Big L, you heard Friend Or Foe part 1 and part 2. A lot of headz may not want to admit it but that La La La track with the Neptunes is not just another catchy beat. 

What if Hova said fuck it, I’m really retiring this time, I made enough cash, I own Armadale Vodka, I got a successful clothing line, I got all these Roc-A-Fella artists under me that are gonna make cash for me in the years to come, this time I’m coming only for respect. For all the dudes that diss me on messageboards, for all the DJs who won’t play my cuts at free shows, for all the haters and for all the true Hip-Hop headz, I’m gonna school these suckas as to what’s up for real! Now watch this! 

He certainly scared some of us with the concept. An album coming out without any advertising! Which, of course, turned out to be an album that was marketed through a deep public relations campaign. Think about it, any rational man would understand. When you say, “I’m releasing an album without any advertising or publicity”, shouldn’t that shit just drop outta nowhere and then after a while you hear about it? But instead they had a countdown leading up to the album. Every single person in America knew when the album was coming out. What kind of album comes out without any advertising and gets that much hype? No advertising implies “we don’t tell anybody anything”. One day a dude in a black trench coat walks down an alley in the pouring rain and hands another man the first copy of the album and that’s how the legend starts. I can see MTV News reporting; “this is Kurt Loder with an MTV News brief. As a new Jay-Z album unexpectedly arrives at record stores around the country, rumors have began spreading of the album’s release. Initially store employees were baffled as the shipment came unmarked and no mention of the artist could be seen on the CD cases. So far none of the tracks have been identified by name. In these initial stages the new disc is being dubbed The Black Album! This is Kurt Loder, MTV News reporting”. I guess that’s not what Jay meant by no advertising though. 

Still, in the end, while he had many cats biting their tongue, like a skilled mercenary Jigga didn’t come for blood, he came for the dough. We always knew this man was like very few others. If you thought he was dumb enough to release an album full of nothing but street battle anthems and tales of ghetto dreams you had something else coming to you. Sure he owed something back and he would give something but he never did anything like that before so why would you even consider that he would do it now? Shit, when it comes to pure flow, Jay is unparalleled, there is no denying that; he said it himself, ”I’m a hustler, not a rapper”. And like a true hustler, with the release of The Black Album, Jay-Z continues to maintain his position and get more money. It is in the code of hustling to take more than you give back. That’s the whole point. 

You only give free samples in the beginning to build up your clientele, you work hard to build your territory and push others out by any means necessary. Once you got the whole area on lock you cut the quality of your product and use the extra cash to supply cats across the way who want to push your shit. Hmmmm… sound familiar? It’s not hard to see where the ROC’s signing of Beanie Sigel fits into this equation. Now lets think about why great hustlers may not always make perfect artists? 

First of all, all you have to do is look at 50 cent. It was Tony Yayo that said “I knew 50 was going be one of the biggest rappers because he was one of the biggest drug dealers”. Good point and Tony Yayo was right, 50 is now one of the biggest rappers, if not the biggest. But is he the savior of Hip-Hop as advertised? Is he the new Pac? Is he innovative as far as the progression of rap music and Hip-Hop culture? Are most of his songs good? 50 dissed Ja Rule for selling out by singing on his songs and then made ten songs with Sean Paul. Not exactly what you would call integrity. Hustling is about one thing, getting money. And if you’re not about big money then what’s the point? Unfortunately that’s not what being a true artist is about. Art is a method of expressing personal vision and perspective while having an impact on others. The size of your fanbase depends largely on how many people are able to hear your message and relate to what you are saying. However, if you are a sharp hustler like Jay-Z or 50 cent, you are smart enough to realize that the key is to make your album a marketing message. 

Unfortunately though, when it’s all said and done, most people can’t recall any of the commercials they watch on TV and the same will be true when the sun sets on Jay-Z and 50 cent. The Black Album finds Jay up to his usual tricks; still mulling over the tired rock and rap crossover formula pioneered over fifteen years ago by tracks such as Aerosmith and Run DMC’s Walk This Way as well as Public Enemy’s Bring Tha Noize remix with Anthrax (which came a few years later). Jay-Z has still not grown tired of trying to be all things to all people. Every time Hov says “Brooklyn stand up” you gotta wonder what he means considering how far removed his music and lyrics have come from the borough he claims to rep so thoroughly. Tricking 13 year old white girls from the suburbs into buying your album by having Pharrell do his best Price impression on the hook doesn’t hold much weight in any of the boroughs, let alone Brooklyn. But in the end, Shawn Carter will be laughing all the way to the bank, if you know what I mean.

While the hustler mentality to making rap music may bring commercial success, hustlers abide by the rules of the game they play and that is the bottom line. While good hustlers know how to exploit the system they operate in, they themselves remain slaves to the system, unable to evolve beyond the paradigm in which they find themselves. Hip-Hop is about revolution and empowerment and it’s the dudes that flipped on the system that are going to be held in highest regard in the years to come. I’m talking about KRS, Chuck D, Gangstarr, Pac, Wu-Tang and Marshall Mathers, to name a few. These are cats who were not afraid to bring the battle to whoever was writing their check. Even Nas, with all his flaws has proved that he’s not afraid of that (even though he characteristically retracted his statements later). These are individuals who shook the foundation, people who were able to say fuck the game, I don’t play the game because I’m bigger than the game so I am going to make my own rules whether you like it or not. If Jay grew up on a Mississippi plantation in 1850, he would have his master wrapped around his finger, all the other slaves would be doing all the work and bringing Jay white hos. He would be pimping it like a white man but he would never have it in his mind to escape. But then again, would he need to? 

This article was inspired in part by an audio clip I heard of a fan calling into a radio station and dissing Jay-Z on the air. We saved the clip for all who would be interested. Click here to listen. Back to top.

What Really Went Wrong in Iraq?

So what really went wrong in Iraq? Care to guess? Well, one thing seems to be clear; every day about one or two Americans are killed. Apparently on a big day for the resistance the Iraqis are liable to take out four US soldiers in a car bombing. Through browsing the headlines on Yahoo I have come to the generalization that most of these deaths come as a result of some sort of coordinated explosion, unexpected ambush or other guerilla attack. Just a short while ago a US chopper was shot down killing 16 Americans at once in the deadliest attack yet to come. Saddam has yet to release a tape praising the double-digit breakthrough but I assume that too is not far off. Somehow we believe the people behind all this are Saddam loyalists or related to Al-Qaeda. For all I know the real culprits could be the KGB; unfortunately, though, I have no choice but to listen to what Dan Rather and Peter Jennings tell me since I don’t have the resources nor the will to find out for myself.

To see what transpired in Iraq on a general philosophical level all one needs to do is thumb through the pages of history and revisit analogous narratives of years past. Seems like that would be a lot easier than trying to read between the lines with Dubya and the UN. Only tomorrow will tell how our “progress” in Iraq will be characterized next. I believe at present the White House is referring to our Iraq policy as “firmly pasteurized”.

Let’s think back to just a few short months ago, remember when they tore that big statue of Saddam down in Baghdad? Iraqis were dancing in the streets, burning posters of Saddam and happily looting government buildings to refurbish their homes. The Americans were finally here to liberate them from the evil tyrant! So what happened after that? How come the joy and glee of those initial moments did not carry more than just a couple of weeks past Saddam’s ousting?

About thirteen years ago I learned a valuable lesson from my grandfather who had moved to the United States from Russia in 1991 during the final stages of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika. While Gorbachev had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and continued to receive considerable praise in the US and abroad in light of his initiatives to rehabilitate Russia’s communist ethic, it happened to be that my grandfather had a slightly different view of him than did Peter Jennings. His view was that Gorbachev destroyed Russia’s economy, sent the country into a downward spiral and killed the spirit of the Russian people. Actually his assessment may have been even slightly harsher. “So Grandpa,” I said, “which leader do you think was good for Russia?” “That’s easy,” my grandfather replied, “Stalin”. “Stalin?! But why him?” I protested, “Wasn’t he a mass murderer?!” My grandpa didn’t even take a second to think about it. “When Stalin was in power the trains ran on time and there was food in the stores, he was the best leader Russia ever had”.

So how exactly does this relate to the present situation? Well, look at it this way; imagine you are a middle class citizen living in Baghdad. You may not have much except a roof over your head, a couple of TVs and running water but still you have a sense of security about your surroundings and your position within society. You know where you stand. Now all of a sudden, a US invasion is coming. While you are most likely very nervous and worried about your family, you are probably also somewhat optimistic as to what the future might be like if Saddam is removed from power. Perhaps you will be able to elevate your income or maybe Baghdad’s schools and universities will improve under US jurisdiction and your children will receive a better education?

On the night of the invasion you are very worried but since you live on the outskirts of the city away from most government buildings you decide that it is not necessary to flee your home. When you wake up in the morning you find out that your oldest son and his friend have just returned from a looting spree. With them they brought back a leather couch, several original oil paintings and another TV for your bedroom. Your son tells you that Saddam’s army has been defeated and US soldiers have taken over many parts of the city. After some hesitation you instruct him to bring all the stolen items inside. You reiterate several times that not another word is to be spoken about this to anybody. Things seem to be looking up. Finally, all your hard work under Saddam’s rule is yielding some tangible results!

After several weeks, however, your initial optimism has somewhat faded. While the leather couch has been a welcome edition to your family room, many events have transpired that trouble you deeply. For one, your favorite bicycle has been stolen from you at gunpoint, your children have not attended school in over a month, food has become a luxury and the water coming out of your faucet is tainted with a dark brown pigment. US soldiers appear distant and preoccupied. You are surprised that the Americans have yet to make any headway in restoring such basic services as electricity and public transportation, still you hope the situation will stabilize in the coming weeks. Perhaps more UN peacekeepers will arrive?

A few more months go by. The water in the kitchen sink is coming out more brown than ever. Your lack of optimism has turned into livid anger. US forces have failed to make any progress. If anything, things have gotten worse. Unable to keep your regular job, you have turned into a scavenger struggling to provide for your family. Saddam’s regime seems like a blessing when compared to the current state of events. Many of your neighbors have expressed support for resistance forces trying to counteract the US occupation and you wonder if you should do the same. In the back of your head you debate the likelihood of various outcomes. If resistance forces succeed it may mean that Saddam would somehow regain power or perhaps another local coalition would take control. Anything would be better than the lawlessness and anarchy of a US controlled Iraq. You stop for a second and think. You realize Saddam was the best leader Iraq ever had.

Getting back to our discussion, the question remains: what are the factors leading up to this point? Is it that Iraqis have failed to be patient? Or is the US at fault for failing to deliver on its promises to the Iraqi people? Was Saddam really a tyrant or just heavy handed? In order to answer these questions we need to further characterize the role and motives of the United States. Prior to the invasion of Iraq we heard President Bush clearly outline the case against Saddam as a ruthless tyrant who has killed tens of thousands of people in his own country employing torture tactics unheard of in the western world. In fact, his entire administration was exposed to be full of henchmen with comparable credentials, evil scientists and the like. Saddam was described as a threat to his own people, western values and the entire world.

So was Dubya lying to us? Is Mr. Hussein really just a fun loving dictator who enjoys watching shuffleboard tournaments and hunting quail? Well; yes and no. While Mr. Hussein is certainly a ruthless tyrant, that has very little to do with why the United States of America invaded Iraq and today continues to oversee a very costly occupation. Dubya didn’t lie; he didn’t need to when all he had to do was misrepresent the relevance of the truth.

Think about it, there are civil conflicts going on right now in Africa that pale in comparison to anything Saddam has ever done. In Rwanda as well as the Democratic Republic of the Congo it has been estimated that over five million people have died in the last decade alone, many as a result of ethnic cleansing. In 1994, Rwanda’s population of eight million was decimated as militant Hutus killed an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in a tragic 100 days of violence. If anything in recent memory has come close to the Holocaust of WWII, this is it! Doesn’t it seem odd that Dubya has not highlighted the situation in Rwanda? It seems like a lot more people are suffering in Rwanda at this very moment than have ever suffered under Saddam. Has he even mentioned it? Once? Twice? Ever? Is it because our president cares more about the ethnic Kurds in Iraq than he does about the Tutsis of Rwanda? Is that the real reason? Somehow I doubt it.

If the goal of the US was to liberate the Iraqi people wouldn’t we have already heard of a massive relief effort? Hospitals would be built, schools and universities repaired, food given to all the needy, shelters set up for those who have lost their homes in the conflict, basic services restored, free vaccinations, etc, etc… Instead US forces did little to stop Baghdad’s museums and libraries from being looted. In an embarrassing incident several weeks ago, soldiers shot a tiger to death at the Baghdad zoo.

If we really wanted to provide legitimate relief, would it really be so hard? Iraq is not much bigger than California. One state. Certainly we would not have to bring Iraqis up to the standard of living enjoyed by even the lowliest Compton resident. The point is that we have not done so because that was never our intention. Relief was just a hollow argument employed by the Bush administration in order to win support for military action. The motive for entering Iraq was purely strategic in nature. We did it because someone thought we had something to gain by doing so not because we wanted to help embattled Iraqis. Even the nuclear weapons argument does not seem like it holds water. Saddam insisted the whole time he didn’t have nukes and so far no evidence of a flourishing nuclear program of any sort has been found. By contrast, North Korea has openly admitted to having a nuclear program and has threatened to develop nuclear weapons in the near future. But for some reason we elected to attack Iraq and not North Korea. Why?

Before I finally attempt to answer the question, I will keep you in suspense for a few more seconds (or perhaps minutes, depending on how fast or slow you read) and allude to a funny conversation I had with my father a short while ago. The topic was the European colonization of Africa in the 1800’s. For some strange reason, perhaps he had learned so in school, my father held the view that Africa was quite fortunate to have been colonized by the French, Dutch and British as these European cultures were able to bring the advents of modern medicine, basic infrastructure as well as other marvels of civilization to people who were by all accounts unsophisticated savages. He further expressed the view that a large portion of all European colonization initiatives in Africa were explicitly aimed at helping people attain a higher standard of living.

Although it pained me to tell him that his perspective was outdated by at least 50 years I did my best to recount the events through a more reasonable logic. Basically, it’s common sense that nobody in their right mind would have traveled to Africa or any other region of the world to set up shop if there was nothing to gain, especially in the 1800’s. It’s not rocket science, just basic economics. Remember gold, diamonds and slaves? The only reason Europeans built roads in Africa was so they could bring back the spoils to Europe. Better medicine meant more healthy workers for the mines. Helping African people attain a higher standard of living was probably about the last thing on the agenda. The whole point of colonization is to set up a hub of cheap labor and resources and exploit it as much as possible. A similar logic can be applied to the situation in Iraq.

While Dubya and Tricky Dick Chaney may insist that our mission in Iraq is largely humanitarian, that assessment is laughable. All clues point to one thing. The United States invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam while adhering to a calculated resource management agenda. Just as the British went to Africa to get gold and diamonds, the US invaded Iraq with the goal of bolstering influence in the Middle East so as to better manage our consumption of that region’s resources. Yup, you got it. Among other things I do mean oil.

So what went wrong in Iraq you ask? Well, if you thought our mission was to establish a new democracy while helping Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam’s regime, this should be a much needed wakeup call. Otherwise than that, nothing. Only time will tell at this point. For the Iraqi people, however, the situation may be bleak. It will be a long time until they see a leader as capable as Saddam. Back to top.

NYC Cabaret Laws – What’s the Real Reason?

Ok, let’s start at the beginning, just about eighty years ago, if we can bear to look that far back. The year was 1926. The roaring 20’s were in full swing. If you have ever read The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, you can probably imagine what it was like, or at least how Fitzgerald saw it. Coincidently, it was the same year New York City’s Cabaret Laws were passed by a legislature seeking a tool through which to keep tabs on Harlem’s growing jazz scene. Racism in America you say? How could this be?! 

Well, let’s be honest and not make any mistake about it. Had those same jazz musicians, that history honors today, been of pale complexion, there would be no Cabaret Laws to talk about. Unfortunately though, just as the proponents of Harlem’s Renaissance were powerless to alter the color of their skin, New York City’s lawmakers of yesteryear were hard pressed to see past their deeply ingrained racist convictions. Essentially the Cabaret Laws stood on the same moral ground as the infamous Jim Crow mandates of the deep South, although they were orchestrated in a more politically correct manner consistent with the façade of social and racial equity characteristic to Northern legislatures at the turn of the century. 

The Cabaret Laws were racist tools of oppression when they were created in 1926 and today as New York City stands in all of its 2003 glory, the Cabaret Laws remain on the books, perpetrated upon us by our modern day elected representatives. It’s true; we have come a long way in understanding one another and accepting each other as human beings regardless of race, color, ethnicity, gender, religion or any other differentiating factor one might think of. In fact, enforcement of New York City’s Cabaret Laws had gone by the waste side for many years until former mayor Rudolph Giuliani zeroed in on a loophole through which he could target and disrupt the city’s flourishing arts scene. 

In recounting the events leading up to the present day enforcement of laws that seek to prohibit people from dancing, one might recall the situation faced by William Shakespeare in 16th century England. As most live entertainment was deemed inappropriate by London’s rigorous Protestant ethic, the greatest playwright of all time was relegated beyond the city limits, the only place he could legally showcase and act out his now timeless narratives. You would think that in 500 years, we would have learned something. Well maybe we did. In Shakespeare’s time they called having fun a sin, today we use a slightly different wording. You see, by dancing and having fun people potentially stand to infringe on the general public’s “quality of life”. In fact, it was Giuliani’s “Quality of Life Initiative” that called for the resumed enforcement of the city’s Cabaret Laws. 

So what is quality of life? Ever think about that? It is quite simple actually. The phrase “quality of life” essentially masks what in reality is an initiative to facilitate higher property values. From an economic standpoint there are many interests in New York City that benefit enormously from increasing property value. Think about it. Land is an immovable asset that cannot be altered through conventional means. However, if somehow you can take the land that is already there and raise its price, the landowners stand to benefit by collecting additional rents or by selling the property to one another at a hefty profit. So what does this have to do with dancing? 

Well, as far as the landlords go, people who enjoy dancing are viewed as free spirited hooligans. If someone can bring himself or herself to dance, who knows what other atrocious behavior that person could potentially engage in! As a landowner, you certainly would not want these type of people near your property. In fact, many landowners share the perception that keeping these dancing loose cannons as far away as possible actually benefits them a great deal. Many feel that if dancing were allowed in or around their property, there would be the possibility that their investment would lose some of its value. 

As is often the case, perceptions may eventually become reflected in loosely organized “facts”. If collectively landowners feel that prohibiting dancing will raise property value, then that will, in fact, be the case. All markets are largely based on the perceptions of the actors who are engaging in the transactions; the New York City real estate market is certainly not an exception to the rule.

So why do the lawmakers go along with this? Well, who do you think put them in office? Who are the people that go to those $10,000 a plate fundraising dinners? Politics is about money. Period. Bloomberg got elected because he had the biggest marketing budget in the history of all New York City political campaigns. Our president George W. Bush also had the biggest marketing budget of any presidential candidate to date. See a pattern? I may be going out on a limb here but do you think that it may have been those same landowners who funded these campaigns?

Think of what could happen if the Cabaret Laws were not enforced. Property value in New York City could potentially fall to the point where ordinary people could actually afford to buy land!!! So now instead of getting raped by excessive rents, you could actually save some of your money and invest it in property of your own. Who knows, one day you might even buy a second plot of land and a few years later two more. As reasonable as this hypothetical scenario would seem, to the wealthy New York City landowner, it is completely unacceptable! Their whole goal is to keep rents high and people poor so that they would have no choice but to sell their lives and dreams to the well-oiled business conglomerate that runs the streets of New York City. This is oppression in its finest and most subtle form. 

In 1926, the Cabaret Laws were enacted into law as a racist instrument through which the city’s legislators could readily oppress blacks and influence the development of minorities. In 2003, the Cabaret Laws persist as a tool through which the wealthy attempt to influence and oppress all people! It is no longer an issue of race but rather one of class. Certainly the Cabaret Laws are not the only thing in question here. However, what is very much clear; is that their enforcement falls into our government’s well-diversified portfolio of questionable methods. It is up to all of us to fight against oppression, especially if the same institutions that claim to represent our best interests bring it upon us. 

Do us here at RIOTSOUND a favor. If you end up going to the May 31st protest party at Manhattan’s Foley Square (organized by Culture Defense Project, check out www.Blackkat.org for complete info) bring a sign with you that reads: MR. BLOOMBERG, IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE DOES NOT MEAN RAISING PROPERTY VALUE! Hold it up high and be proud because you will be speaking the truth and the truth is everlasting. Back to top.

War Criminals in Iraq: An Objective Analysis.

War criminals; they are an elusive breed indeed. Who are the war criminals? Are they soldiers who over the course of military conflict choose to abuse, burn, rape and torture local populations? Probably. Are they the commanders who tolerate and encourage such actions by their subordinates? Sure, we’ll give you that one. Are they those who abuse prisoners of war? Well, that seems kinda iffy. The goal in war is simple. Kill the opposition. That’s why we fight with guns, knives and explosives. They are designed to kill. At what point does our intention change from kill to capture and imprison. If that was the goal wouldn’t soldiers be equipped with large nets and lassos? By shooting at the opposition, are forces, in fact, abusing potential prisoners? Regardless, we have a soft spot for POWs, so we’ll even concede that point. Now what about Iraqi soldiers who raise their hands in surrender and proceed to open fire when US troops come near? How about irregular Iraqi forces ambushing a US convoy dressed in women’s clothing? Are those war criminals? Well, if you listen to our media then certainly you would believe so. The outrage is unilateral, whether you ask retired general Big Stan on CNN or former army colonel Stalwart Bob on Fox News. They all say the same thing over and over; the Iraqis have clearly violated the rules of the Geneva Convention with their tactics. 

It all makes sense. The same people privately contest David’s victory over Goliath as David employed an unsanctioned weapon to defeat his opponent. Had the rules of the Geneva Convention applied in Biblical times, David would have technically been considered a war criminal for refusing to battle Goliath with his bare hands. Ok, so maybe you don’t buy the David and Goliath analogy. Is it too far fetched for you? How about this? What if the United States was not the world’s most powerful country? What if we were the equivalent of France in 1940 or so? What if US forces were overwhelmed by a massive army bent on destroying the Bush regime and ending America’s undying appetite for consumption and pornography? As Americans, we are a resilient bunch. We would fight until our hearts no longer beat in our chests; it would be like Chuck Norris and Delta Force, or was that Lee Marvin? Actually, no it was Chuck Norris; Lee Marvin was in The Dirty Dozen. Seriously though, imagine a bunch of our special forces dressing up like janitors at Fort Knox and when those motherfuckers came to take our gold we buck the fuckin’ daylights out of them. Not only would that make a great movie, those people would be considered heroes. Fuckin’ heroes. They knew the odds were stacked against them, yet they did the most they could to tip the scale in their favor. Sure, a laser from outer space melted Fort Knox 500 feet into the ground killing everyone within a 30 mile radius, but those men were heroes! Funny, how we don’t think of the Iraqis that way. 

While this opinion is not suggesting that Iraqis who pretend to surrender and then open fire are necessarily heroes, our rampant denouncement of them as war criminals is just another example of the ethnocentrism permeating our culture. Several days into the armed conflict with Iraq, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld remarked that the only Iraqis still fighting were war criminals. Seriously Donald, why not go the extra mile and say that anyone enlisted in the Iraqi army is a war criminal? Certainly you’ll find a way to figuratively, if not factually, connect anyone with a firearm to chemical weapons one way or another. 

Prior to the collapse of his regime, Saddam had been in power for over 20 years. A child born in Iraq in 1985 would have throughout his/her lifetime received a consistent all encompassing message clearly focused on glorifying Saddam’s regime. Dictators are the best marketers; mainly because they can sensor the competition quite effectively as well as use every conceivable media channel to get their message across. In the United States people complain about pop-ups and getting marketed to via their email accounts. Image a culture where you are marketed to in second grade by your schoolteacher! Imagine! You can’t, can you?! So how can you turn around and blame a seventeen year old kid who straps a bomb to himself and blows away a couple of Marines? Americans are stupid enough to fall for a Gatorade commercial, yet we expect Iraqis to have the resilience and resolve to resist two generations worth of propaganda? Truly amazing. 

As far as Iraq’s military methods, they are to be expected and, for the most part, are quite acceptable. It should be painfully obvious that given a drastic imbalance of conventional military strength, the disadvantaged party will resolve to unconventional tactics. The greater the imbalance, the more drastic the unconventional tactics will be. We don’t need to show Iraqi POWs on TV to motivate our troops; they already know we are the most powerful military force in the world and that we will prevail. But think of the Iraqi army. When the morale of your force is low, it takes much more drastic stimuli to motivate them; hence, the showing of American POWs on Iraqi TV. It’s common sense. How can you expect these things not to happen? Well, you can either have your head completely buried in your ass or you can be as arrogant as the United States of America can sometimes be.

The sad part is that you see people saying this nonsense on TV, you hear people repeating it at work, and slowly this disease spreads from cubicle to cubicle, from one average middle class housewife to another. Then a situation develops where 50% of the population is grossly misinformed and tainted, having no access to objective perspectives such as the one you are reading at this very moment. And then we have a presidential election. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what happens next. Back to top.

Who Killed Samora Machel?

On June 25th, 1975, power in Mozambique passed from the Portuguese into the hands of a revolutionary new government led by the Frelimo party’s Samora Machel. Following Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980, South Africa’s neighboring Apartheid regime grew increasingly fearful of an impending domino effect as well as Samora Machel’s continued support for Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC). 

Apartheid was subsequently instrumental in the assembling and funding of Ramano, a brutal militia force that set about killing peasants and destroying schools and hospitals built by Machel’s ruling party. As the inevitable drew near and Apartheid grew more desperate, Remano became more and more vicious. Even though a non-aggression pact had technically been signed between Mozambique and South Africa, relations between the two nations continued to deteriorate. 

On October 14th, 1986 Machel was leaving Mozambique’s capital Maputo to attend a conference of frontline states. On the conference agenda was a coordinated effort to end Apartheid in South Africa. Prior to his departure Machel assembled several members of his party as well the country’s senior military officials. He informed them that he was aware of a plot by the South African government calling for his assassination and instructed them as to what would be done if, in fact, an attempt on his life were to succeed. 

On October 19th, as Machel was flying back from the conference, his plane crashed into the Lobombo Mountains inside South Africa near the junction of where the borders of Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland meet. Interestingly the crash had taken place in close proximity to a South African military installation. There are several reports that place South Africa’s military at the crash site a mere half hour after it had occurred; a full day before medical help would arrive.

34 people including Machel were killed in the crash, however, 10 people survived including Vladimir Novosselov, a member of the plane’s crew. In an interview with the Russian newspaper Pravda a month later Novosselov made the following statement:

“I am convinced that this was not an accident but a case of foul play… When flying over Zambia, the altimeter showed 11,400. When we crossed the Mozambican frontier, the Tupolev descended to 10,600. Yuri Novodron (the pilot) ordered contact to be made with Maputo airport, requesting authorization to land. The airport services granted the request.

“Weather conditions were favorable for the fight. Maputo was ahead and to the left of the pilots. To the right and very close was the Mozambique-South African border. We were gradually descending. The altitude was 5,200 meters. Then we dropped to 3000 meters. We were 113 km from Maputo. Novodron switched off the auto pilot… We descended to less than 1000 meters. The last thing I remember was that the altimeter was reading 970 meters, after that nothing.”

In the international controversy and investigation that followed, the one thing that was never in dispute between the South Africans, The Mozambicans and the Russians was that the Tupolev 134 plane veered off course towards the South African border while following a directional beacon transmission coming from a high frequency radio signal (also known as a VOR) which did not come from Maputo airport. They all agree that somehow the plane was misdirected. On approaching Maputo from the left, it flew to the right, away from Maputo. 

The Tupolev plane was manufactured in 1980 and at the time only six yeas old. It carried navigational and electronic equipment of the current generation. The Russian crew had a near flawless record of proven competence. The pilot had flown for 25 years. Oddly enough, the cockpit voice recorder indicated the Captain saying: “Making some turns, shouldn’t it be straight?” To which the navigator replies “VOR indicates that way.”

The South African Margo Commission run by Apartheid blamed the crash on pilot error proclaiming that the pilots were “High on vodka.” However, the blood alcohol levels of dead crew members were found to be normal. South Africa argued that due to their apparent state of intoxication, the pilots mistakenly locked on to another VOR coming from neighboring Matsapa airport. They argued that it was the only other VOR in the area that could have conceivably been mistaken for that of Maputo. 

In reality, the two signals were on separate and distinct frequencies and could not have been confused by a crew who had flown in and out of Maputo dozens of times and made 70% of their landings at night. The VOR on the instrument board of the wrecked plane was locked to 112.7 Mhz, the correct frequency for Maputo. Tracing the plane’s decent it was also apparent that if, in fact, the plane had been following the wrong VOR from Matsapa, it would have actually taken a different route from the one projected.

The only other possible explanation is that the plane was lured off course by a more powerful VOR installed in the same region and transmitting on the same frequency as Maputo. No such VOR was present in the area unless it was transported there for that purpose. The only force with the capacity or motive to implement such an operation was the Apartheid regime. Several days prior to the crash South Africa’s defense minister had again accused Samora Machel of renewing support for the ANC rebels. It was also an odd coincidence that on the day of the crash local residents reported a state of military alert in the region.

Edwin Louw, a former member of Apartheid’s Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB), the regime’s torture and murder squad has confirmed that Machel’s death was no accident but by design. According to Louw, the South African regime transported a false beacon to the region with the purpose of luring Machel’s plane off course and murdering the Mozambican president. Louw claims to have been a part of Plan B, a standby team armed with surface to air missiles, which were to be used to down the plane in case the original plan failed. Louw has also admitted to being on a team which lured a plane off course in 1989 killing key Angolan military leaders. He is currently serving a 28 year sentence for crimes committed outside the regime’s instructions. Selous Scout, another former Apartheid operative has confirmed Louw’s story, noting that he was also part of the stand by Plan B hit squad.

Other information has emerged indicating that Machel had survived the initial crash and was subsequently put to death by lethal injection. Witnesses place key figures in South Africa’s government, including foreign minister Pik Botha, at the scene less than an hour after the crash had taken place. Botha denies these allegations insisting that he arrived the next day to witness Machel “very dead”. 

As details continue to emerge regarding Samora Machel’s death, we are again to bear witness to how even in modern times human beings continue to abuse the basic freedoms and rights that creation has granted to all of us. It seems that while the majority of the world’s population is fooled into cherishing a moral code of relative decency and honor, our leaders are the ones who continuously abuse our naïve nature and exploit our spirit and trust towards personal gain. While Apartheid has been banished to the skeleton closets of history, many of today’s governments, institutions and businesses continue to exploit the very people they claim to serve, protect and provide for. Over the last century, the world’s resource base has grown substantially, adding to the seeming diminishment in the level of atrocities committed. Today’s exploitation can be characterized as more civil or more professional. But make now mistake about it, throughout human history there have been certain elements that choose to operate around the rules, turning the tables on the passive majority in favor of fame, spoils and the like. Unfortunately it is often the case that we only realize how uncivilized we can be after the fact. Many of us think back and ask the question: why didn’t we do anything sooner?” Back to top.

In part, the story above has been trascribed from New African magazine, No 417. For more information please visit New African on the web. 

The Hypocrisy of Wal-Mart – Selective Censorship.

If you didn’t know it, Wal-Mart is the world’s biggest and most powerful retailer. Which is good news for many ordinary consumers like you and me. Since Wal-Mart is so big, the company can negotiate special rates with product manufacturers and put a lot of smaller retailers out of business by offering the same products at lower prices. But who can complain when a 25cent pack of Wrigley’s Spearmint gum is only 19 cents at Wal-Mart? This is a store where $55 DVD units and $12 personal CD players are the norm. A 12ounce bottle of Coke will cost you $1.08; compare that to the $1.69 you would be paying at any Manhattan corner store and you may realize Wal-Mart is a great place to shop. 

If you have never been, it is truly a sight to behold; from $1 long sleeve T-shirts to $7 sweatshirts and $10 winter jackets, Wal-Mart has it all. When Elvis debuted his posthumous album 30 #1 Hits, Wal-Mart secured an exclusive arrangement allowing the retailer to sell the CD for only $9.99. In fact, Wal-Mart carries a wide selection of CDs as well as hundreds upon hundreds of movies, new and old. If you are still into VHS tapes like me, you can pick up classics like Transformers The Movie for $5.99; you know I definitely bought that. Unfortunately though, Wal-Mart’s music section seems to be lacking due to a very peculiar double standard. You see; while at Wal-Mart you can purchase films featuring graphic violence, rampant profanity and nudity (such as Steven Segal’s Out For Justice, a great B+ flick if you haven’t seen it) but you cannot purchase CDs with the prenatal advisory sticker. 

Well, let's give Wal-Mart the benefit of the doubt for a second, maybe they are simply exercising good judgment; the future of our children is at stake here. However, if Wal-Mart’s goal lies in protecting our youth from explicit content wouldn’t you think they would be censoring films as well? Shit, when I first watched the original Halloween, that fucked me up more than 50cent, Eminem and Dr. Dre combined! If my name was Little Joey Impressionable wouldn’t watching someone kill, rape or murder someone on TV have a bigger impact on my mental health as well as my subsequent behavior than hearing someone talk about it in a song? Remember when you were a kid and you’d see one of those American Ninja movies; you’d wanna run to the park and try and beat up on your friends. As much as I loved listening to Public Enemy, I never once had the urge to go paint the White House black or murder the governor of Arizona. 

And don’t forget, kids can go to Wal-Mart and buy DVDs like Hannibal, a movie that they would not be allowed to see in theaters. A movie which features skilled Academy Award winning actor Anthony Hopkins portraying a serial murderer. At one point in the movie we get to see Hopkins’ character Hannibal Lechter crack open the scull of one of his victims and feed the poor sap his own brain. Forget the movies and Wal-Mart for a second, just turn on your local news. If not for the Iraq crisis, they would be broadcasting a steady diet of murder, death and misfortune. And, of course, we approve of all this but not of that hateful bigot Eminem. If the 50cent CD is not going to destroy good values in America, I don’t know what will. 

Still, we wonder and wonder why is it that Wal-Mart is so trigger happy when it comes to censoring music but so apprehensive when it comes to applying a similar standard to films. Hey, this is just a wild guess out of left field, but could it have something to do with the fact that over ninety percent of CDs bearing the parental advisory sticker are from what we would consider the Rap and Hip-Hop genres of music? You don’t say!? Really!? Before we put two and two together, let's remember that historically rap music and Hip-Hop culture has been political. The censorship of Hip-Hop has been entirely orchestrated on the basis of politics. Content has been an excuse all along. Nobody was trying to sensor the graphic and disturbing violence portrayed in Speilberg’s Shindler’s List. Speilberg’s hard to watch portrayal of the Holocaust was named best picture of the year at the Academy Awards. If our society was so concerned with content, how on earth could we have picked such an emotionally disturbing film to receive so many accolades? Clearly content is only a second consideration to the message entailed therein.

Censorship based on content is a great way to discredit the message and that has clearly been the goal in the case of rap music. Perhaps this can further explain conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly’s hatred of Eminem? Does Bill hate Em because he sees him as a white man in the ranks of the black barbarian rappers who seek to corrupt our youth and degrade our society? Personal views aside, it is time for Wal-Mart to stop playing politics. Subjectively weighing in on the state of America’s tainted “morality” just does not suit a chain of overgrown supermarkets. Low prices are good but let's not take things much past that. We all know that most corporations exist solely for the reason of inflicting misfortune and despair on their constituents, it is not surprising that any “moral” stance assumed by a corporation would be as incoherent and hypocritical as their accounting standards. 

Here’s to more corporate bankruptcies and less censorship. Back to top.

The Stock Market is Slumping; We Tell You Why.

Is it war that is going to jumpstart the stock market? Is that how it works? This is generally the argument analysts employ in the gloomiest of circumstances; and the way it's looking - they have not been shy about screaming "Attack Saddam!!!" with alarming frequency. 

"In March when we make significant advances in the arena of global terrorism and possibly topple Saddam…. yadda ….yadda ….yadda … you will see the market recovering… not all at once but certainly moving in a positive direction…" Isn't that how the argument goes?

Yup, surely the market will recover then; because business will no longer feel the pressure of Al Queda…. Right? Wait a minute… What kind of pressure does business exactly feel from an international terrorist organization threatening the US? Well… the theory lies somewhere in the domain of increased uncertainty and curtailed consumer spending but the overall connection seems pretty weak. Terrorism may have adversely effected tourism and several other industry sectors… but let's be realistic… defense subcontractors should be thriving which should somewhat offset the imbalance; also, if you think about it; terrorism has been a global phenomenon for years in many less developed countries which do not have the resources to protect their citizens as the United States does. Still, many of those nations have progressed and experienced healthy economic growth. The only reason terrorists seem like such a big deal is because they have not been prevalent on American soil in the past (that is, if you discount the KKK, Bloods, Crips and a bunch of other domestic organizations). Still, from a business standpoint, the threat of terrorism should not translate much past a bunch of alarmists lobbying for reformed mandates in the insurance industry and whatever subsequent effect they can snowball their efforts into. 

Certainly the threat of Al Queda alone is not adequate to sway the market into three consecutive losing seasons, a feat unseen for over sixty years! Besides, the Bears were out long before 9/11, so what's the real deal? Given that terrorism is not to blame for the initial decline and if we assume that relative global instability is not a pervasive driver for continued deterioration; then how can we come to the conclusion that initiatives to curtail international terrorism represent catalysts towards market recovery? 

We hate to break it to some people but a war will not do much for Wall Street. If we do have a war, its not going to be like WWII where millions of women are entering the labor force, thousands of tanks, planes and cars are built, the economy jumps into 8th gear and we all live happily ever after. Oh no, this will mostly be a war fought by a couple of computer geeks with smart bombs. Nobody uses that old school crap from Saving Private Ryan anymore! The general sits in a spaceship and watches the war on a big screen monitor, entering plays in a keypad. War just isn’t what it used to be. While taking out Saddam may have some localized economic effects, in the long term it is not the answer. Just look at what happened to Pappa Bush after Desert Storm. He lost the election on account of the economy. Also, any localized effects of a rematch with Saddam will be carefully orchestrated to coincide with Dubya's 2004 reelection bid. Certainly the Republicans are not looking for history to repeat itself. 

As far as Wall Street goes, the proof in the pudding largely lies in the fact that big business and large organizational structures are declining. Many industries are in an organizational cleansing phase right now. The structure of business is changing and this is the trend reflected by a declining market.

Lets start at the beginning. Why are organizations formed? Generally an individual (or a group of individuals) seeks to create a structure to further certain goals, which would be unattainable if they were to act on their own. For example, a person wishing to operate a car wash would need to hire personnel to dry off the vehicles, apply cleaning agents, etc. You may have all the money in the world but at some point you will need to delegate certain tasks to other people or you will simply reach an insurmountable threshold. In order to circumvent this pitfall, people form organizational structures which enable them to accomplish collective goals of enormous proportion. Prior to the closing moments of the twentieth century the most demanding of goals were often defined by physical magnitude. From a historical standpoint, the building of enormous structures has long stood to symbolize organizational achievement. However, as we continue to venture further away from the physical aspects of our existence, the nature of organizational goals in the 21st century will reflect this trend as well.

Technology is the hinging point of any organization as it either justifies or negates its existence over time. For example, prior to Henry Ford's introduction of the assembly line, each automobile produced was individually constructed from start to finish by an assembly team. The process was long, required many skilled man-hours and kept the price of cars well out of middle class reach. In comes Ford with an innovation that allows for speedier construction, greater unskilled labor utilization and a reduced cost to the consumer. So what does that have to do with what is happening today? Well, much as the assembly line defined an economically optimal format for companies wishing to engage in the mass manufacture of automobiles, digital technology today has created a redistribution of efficiencies facilitating a shift towards smaller business units and leaner organizational structures. 

The sheer power of digital technology and its recent effect on the developed world is staggering. In 2003, we have tools that can double, triple and quadruple our productivity of years past. Intuitively speaking, as our tools become exponentially more powerful, the number of people required to accomplish a given task tends to sharply decline and this has also been reflected in a reinvigorated entrepreneurial spirit. How many of us have a friend who teamed up with a couple of buddies and an IT guy to start a small consulting firm or Internet retailer? Ten, fifteen years ago, many of the small business models so common today would not have been viable simply because the resources required for such undertakings were not available outside of large organizational settings. Today, the optimal organizational efficiency frontier is shifting towards a format requiring fewer individuals and much more complex tools than we had just a few short years ago.

The early 21st century will witness the continuing rise of small organizational units as well as the reciprocal demise of unwieldy old-world companies and the values driving them. With characteristically stagnant cultures, traditional organizations often find difficulty in tailoring operational efficiencies to a rapidly changing technological landscape. This is not to imply that new technology is making all large traditional organizations inefficient; nothing could be further from the truth. However, what is clear is that in many industries, the large structures that were once synonymous with optimal organizational efficiency now represent only one of several formats available to potential industry actors. A progressive trend towards more powerful and dynamic technology tends to favor small business models which can easily adapt to and leverage change. 

Getting back to the stock market, one can see where the problem comes in. If we do, in fact, expect a large chunk of future economic growth to come from the little guys, then how on earth is that going to be reflected in the Dow or S&P 500? Maybe we can find a few firms which have wisely reorganized their operations into portfolios of small business units but that's about it. Maybe the Russel 2000 is your best bet but somehow that seems unlikely. The stock market no longer represents the investment opportunities it has in years past. The stocks haven't changed but the system itself is shifting and that's the problem.

It is fitting. In some ways the market has been an ongoing arbitrage opportunity, consistently outperforming zero risk securities over time. Now we are asking how many 401K accounts must go until it's enough! The momentum of the pendulum has finally been reversed through a redistribution of organizational efficiencies facilitated by our favorite X factor. Technology. As far as the future on Wall Street… give it a couple of years to thin out. Organizational cleansing is an ongoing process. In the meantime the only way to make a buck is to pick stocks. Investing in funds doesn't seem like it would be too much fun either. Remember…. Utilize all the resources available to you to make smart decisions! All the info is out there. Try not to pay other people to make decisions about your money. If those people were so smart they would not have lost 78% of your parents' retirement savings. Back to top.

Are Curse Words Really Bad? The Politics of Profanity.

Are curse words really bad?

Fuckin' A! How many times has your mother told you… Don't fuckin' curse! 

Shit man…. It's hard to catch a break these days. Is cursing really as bad as some people make it out to be? I don't think so… but then again, I've never gotten my mouth washed out with soap… I used to hear kids say that shit and be like "Wow! Getting your mouth washed out with soap must be some crazy shit… I'm glad my mom ain't a fuckin psycho and would never do that shit to me". When I was in second or third grade that was like an urban legend or somethin'. You always got that one hall monitor who was really old and scary looking and she would be the one threatening kids.

On a serious note though, think about the last time you used words that our society considers to be profane. It might have been with your family, or maybe it was with your crew or maybe at work… wherever it was, it was probably part of a conversation you had, whether with another person or in your head. Now think about how curse words are generally used. How do you use them?

If you really break it down. Curse words are actually very powerful tools in interpersonal communication. As people, we speak to one another to communicate thoughts and emotions. Our actual thoughts are much more complicated than spoken language and this is a barrier we all face in understanding one another. To this day, language has been the most powerful and dynamic tool for transmitting to others what is going on inside our heads. If we all had TV monitors implanted into our faces which could somehow visually communicate messages more clearly and efficiently than speech, you can bet your ass nobody would be talking much.

Given the prevalent inconsistency between thoughts and words; it quickly becomes evident that the goal of language in interpersonal communication is to characterize thoughts as completely and as clearly as possible. It is also intuitive that human beings strive for communication effectiveness as well as efficiency. Usually when you open your mouth there is a purpose to what you are trying to say. Hence your goal in speaking is to communicate that purpose as fully and concisely as you are able to with respect to your target. If we want to build on this further, one can sit here and argue that improved communication efficiency can elevate the quality of life around the globe. But fuck all that shit… lets get back to what's important here.

Curse words represent abstractions that can be incorporated into various messages while conveying meaning to the target. So? What benefit does abstraction have in clear and concise communication? Well…it all depends on the target. Obviously abstraction is not always the best method of communicating. When speaking to a total stranger who is unaware of your history, sense of humor or individual peculiarities, the best thing to do is to speak in concrete terms employing common language; we all know that. However, imagine an individual who is the exact opposite of a total stranger; a person who is keenly aware of your background and sense of humor, your pet peeves; a person who you interact with on a daily basis. 

Clearly, two people who are close acquaintances can communicate the same thought to one another much quicker than two people who do not know each other. Isn't that the reason it was always annoying to let the new kid into your click? …'cause you'd always be explaining shit twice to that motherfucker… Like..damn! Get with the fuckin' lingo already. In general, it is common for language within closely knit social circles as well as informal work groups to assume a form that would be quite incomprehensible to the casual onlooker. 

So what about curse words? We know that the words 'fuck' and 'shit' can have many different meanings depending on the context and situation within which they are used; that's why they are abstractions. Now lets employ some intuition here. Since different people have different interpretations and usage criteria for curse words, it may be hard for two individuals who don't know each other to clearly convey information while using words with no unilateral meaning. However, as communication frequency increases, people have the ability to analyze and interpret each other's usage patterns of curse words over time. When your buddy turns to you and says; "Yo man, fuck this shit", you know exactly what he or she means because you relate to past instances where a similar phrase was used by the same person and you are able to take into account the situational factors which serve as the backdrop for the statement. In a sense, this is all done on a subconscious level to create greater meaning beyond what is spoken. All of a sudden, an abstract combination of words can become very precise and specific when you are dealing with someone you know. Think about it; curse words allow you to say the same thing in different situations and mean different things. The situation rather than the words themselves is what creates meaning. What can be more clear or efficient? Of course, this only works with people who you know well or are in close contact with. 

Now, lets take a step back. If we assume that abstractions, which include curse words as well as slang words, abbreviated references and body language, work to improve the quality and efficiency of interpersonal communications when used in closely-knit environments; why is it that historically society has condemned certain words and references as undesirable while simultaneously seeking to discredit the individuals employing them in spoken language?

As always, politics is the reason for any longstanding inefficiency afflicting our society. As abstractions in interpersonal communication work in smaller groups, conversely they have little value in large groups where members tend to share fewer implicit understandings and common experiences. In fact, larger and more structured groups are at a communicative disadvantage to smaller informal groups since their internal information and meaning transfer processes are much more literal, time consuming and less fluid.

Since the beginning of time, larger entities have ruled over smaller entities. There were very few situations where five people ran an entire country or multinational corporation. Another assumption we make is that the larger groups in power are under constant threat from potential incumbents. Political parties, multinational corporations and monarchies have shared a common goal throughout history, as they all vigorously sought to maintain their respective positions. Just like everything else, every uprising starts small. It is clear that the large groups running the show and making the rules have something to fear from small groups forming, growing and building momentum. The larger entities in this world have always had everything to gain from things staying the same. When you are large and in charge, life is good! 

Getting back to cursing. The main initiative to censor words has always come from the institutional rule makers, which are the large groups we have been talking about. Censorship is not an underground trend that blew up big. I wish I could tell you that back in 1504 a monk in Spain thought of it and it spread from a little peaceful town in the countryside all around the globe. Unfortunately that is not the case. Censorship has been prevalent as an institutional concept all along. It is a strategic tool employed by majorities to discredit minorities by questioning their means of internal communication. It all comes down to this: If we make fun of the way they talk, who will really take them seriously?

Back in the 1980's Mayor Koch supported a short-lived initiative to curtail the use of slang and improper spoken English in New York City's public schools. Quite a big deal was made of the word "ain't", which we know, technically is not a "real" word. It also happened to be that much of the improper English in question was used almost exclusively within the African American community. At the time racial tension in New York City was more confrontational than where it stands today. Rather than an educational program, promoting "correct" English in schools reflected a much broader struggle for power. In effect, we had a situation where the Board Of Education was challenged to prevent the formation of a dialect in the African American community. While some sought to declare Ebonics a new language, that stance would have never been necessary had we left people alone to speak and communicate the way they wanted to. There are many thriving communities around the globe where multiple dialects of the same language are spoken. The only visible motive for actively discrediting a particular group's interpretation of spoken language seems to lie in a motive to discredit the group itself. 

While this account may be a hard fought philosophical argument, it does offer a certain degree of insight into some of the motivations behind censorship and favoritism in spoken language. Cursing and using slang can be extremely effective in getting your point across and sometimes it can appear rude. However, there is little reason institutions of any sort should preoccupy themselves with the rating of language. There is no logical reason for a particular word to be unfavorably regarded by law or framed as undesirable. Back to top.

One Last Time - Michael Jordan at MSG.

So… who's hating on Michael Jordan? C'mon fess us. He's too old, McGrady and Kobe are so much better ….right? right? When the Wizards lost to Orlando two weeks ago Jordan signed his shoes and gave them to McGrady after the game. "Thanks for the challenge. Stay healthy;" read the personalized inscription. Just think about that. Imagine I play you in a game, I get beat and then I turn around and give you my shoes! Who else can do something like that? What would happen if David Robinson tried to give Dirk Nowitzki a pair of his kicks after a Dallas blowout of San Antonio? The best part about it was how pumped McGrady was afterwards. T-Mac said he would look at the shoes every day before he left his house. The headline on ESPN.com that day read "Jordan Gives T-Mac a Pair of Autographed Jordans" with a secondary mention of Orlando's victory. What does it matter what you do on the court against a man who can at any point flip the script and give you his shoes? Even a twenty point victory seems like a consolation prize. 

The Wizards will not qualify for a top playoff spot in the East. This is true. Jordan does not have the hops of Richard Jefferson. Also true. But don't sleep on MJ, 'cause even at 39, he loves to make you eat your words. Jalen Rose learned the hard way. After questioning MJ's skills in the paper, Rose got a rude awakening a couple of days later when the Wizards came to Chicago. Hounded by Jordan on the defensive end, Rose shot 4 for 17 from the field before #23 was taken out at the end of the 3rd quarter in a blowout. The Bulls fans that stayed to witness the final period kept chanting "We Want Mike" as Jordan sat on the bench enjoying another Wizards victory. After the game MJ was very clear about what his goal was; "I was going to make sure Jalen Rose didn't score while I was out there". Apparently Mike had a chance to read the paper before the game.

Lets not forget last year. Prior to hurting his knee Jordan was averaging upwards of 25 points per game. As his lingering injury set in, we saw his minutes drop and his scoring average dip to 22.9 before he finally called it quits after 60 contests. MJ had five 40 point games including 51 and 45 back to back. Allen Iverson, the league's leading scorer, posted nine 40+ outings. Big Kobe managed only one, a 56 point trouncing of Memphis, while T-Mac and Vince had six and four respectively. Not bad for a 39 year old dude who didn't even play a full season.

Only in the case of Michael Jordan can we question a 20+ scoring average and the sharpest mind in the game. Can you imagine dismissing another player averaging 22.9 while playing for a legitimate playoff hopeful? Stevie Franchise… a has been? Never. But Jordan… oh…he's too old. 

The Wizards are going to make the playoffs this year and for anyone that has any doubts, this is how we break it down for you. First off, the Bucks have forgone the suspense of a late season collapse in favor of an early one. Atlanta sucks 'cause Big Dog doesn't play any defense. Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland and Miami are non-factors. Now, what's the mystery sub .500 team we are leaving out? That's right! The Knicks. Besides being the six year anniversary of Notorious B.I.G.'s fatal shooting in Los Angeles; March 9th, 2003 will mark Michael Jordan's final appearance at Madison Square Garden and although it might not look like it now, that game may actually mean something for both teams. 

While currently out of position for a playoff berth, what other team in the East has more incentive to edge its way ever closer to .500? The Knicks desperately need to establish themselves as the best of the worst in order to maintain a sliver of credibility heading into next season. If that means having a better record than Miami, Cleveland, Toronto, Atlanta and Chicago; so be it! Don't laugh, we are talking about the league's largest market here and until further notice LeBron James is not coming to New York just yet. Besides, The Knicks have been playing much better ball lately. They have lost some close fourth quarters, a trend obviously reflected in a rather poor 12-19 record. The bottom line is: If Houston and Spree don't come up with at least 35 wins this season, their careers from a public opinion standpoint are pretty much over. NYC is counting on the Knickerbockers to make that proverbial ninth playoff spot. This is NY! If our team doesn't get in; at least we want to be the last ones out. Even Kurt Thomas is getting into the act. Dallas coach Don Nelson recently remarked that he regretted the Mavs' decision of trading Thomas to New York. Thomas replied with a confused look on his face. 

If Spreewell, Houston and Thomas can string together a few wins by March 9th and provided the Wizards remain floating around .500, MJ's visit to MSG may mean more than just high ratings for ABC. Deep in the minds of several deranged Knick fans lies a distant hope of a New York team, playing sub .500 ball, making a late season run at the East's eighth and final playoff spot; a spot currently occupied by the 18-17 Wizards. If the Bucks don't pick themselves up off the floor and reassemble like Voltron… well let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet. 

If anything, lets just hope MJ drops the last 50 point game of his career at MSG. Back to top.

Saddam: Not Holding Elections Anytime Soon.

What's going on with the war on Iraq? Is it going down or what? It's strange how we wait months to declare war these days. If the treat was so imminent then shouldn't we have addressed it already? Dubya told us just a couple of short months ago that Saddam may be one year away from developing a nuclear weapon. Well, unless some new intelligence has shed light on the situation and I am not aware of it, apparently now its ten months. From a global standpoint, what is the real issue here? The issue is clearly trust! Why do we seek to limit the technological development of certain countries and not others? France is a nuclear power that nobody objects to. Why? Because for the most part, the citizens of the world trust France to behave in a manner that will not be threatening to them. In fact, France is the world's number one producer of nuclear energy, boasting a vast network of nuclear power plants. 

I know what you are thinking! The white people are allowed to have nuclear weapons and power while everybody else isn't. Wrong. India and Pakistan have nuclear programs that have been met with only mild resistance from the international community. So what is it about countries like Iraq and North Korea that breeds such contempt among international lawmakers? Well, apparently it is the forms of government these particular nations employ. Communism and dictatorship are not representative forms of government, which means that governmental bodies can implement and enforce legislation that would not pass a population approval poll. In the US and most other civilized nations, governments cannot generally pass laws that are not in the best interest of the country's citizens. Of course it happens anyway, there are special interests, lobbies and corruption but still it can only go so far. At the end of the day every congressman has to show up for elections and folks, the bottom line in the US is this: No matter how much corporate money is in your pocket, if you piss off enough people you will not be back. 

The beauty of this system is that while it does not necessarily facilitate great strides in cultural innovation, it prevents lawmakers from doing things that are terribly idiotic. Saddam's government does not have this luxury. There is no functional system in the government of Iraq that prevents it from acting against the best interests of its people. Conversely, Saddam boasts an impressive track record of flawlessly acting in the worst interests all Iraqis, including his own family. While he may have the best intentions in the world, Saddam is either not very intelligent, mentally ill or perhaps a potent combination of the two. We cannot count on Saddam to pursue legislation that is consistent with the fundamental needs of the people that inhabit his nation and worse; Iraq's people have absolutely no say in the matter. This is why we seek to limit Saddam and his government. To a lesser degree, the same is true in Korea. Communism has spawned such brutal dictators as Lenin and Stalin so certainly the potential is there for history to repeat itself. The issues are not about color, religion or a host of other crap today's rugged propagandures would have you believe. It is about representative forms of government. Democratic and parliamentary systems are prime examples although there are other acceptable alternatives. If you got one of these systems in place…Hey!!! Climb on board! But if you don't, what you are basically saying is that you are allowing special interests to rule the country and that presents a danger to the citizens of the world. 

Saddam is practically one psychopath and a mass murderer of his own people to boot, in control of the resources of an entire nation. So lets not make any mistake about it. We are not fighting Islam, Arabs or Oil Interests. What we are fighting are special interests who through oppression of their own people have gained disproportionate representation in their governments and have horded resources to accomplish their goals. Most people in the Middle East including all Arabs and Israelis want to build their families, raise their children and engage in businesses that will bring them prosperity. The people of the world are a lot more similar than they are different. Let's keep this in mind as we prepare for the trying times that may be just around the corner. Back to top.