Editorials & Social Commentary:

The views expressed on this page aren’t necessarily the views of RiotSound.com or its employees.

	NYC CABARET LAWS - WHAT'S THE REAL REASON?
	WHO KILLED SAMORA MACHEL?
	THE HYPOCRISY OF WAL-MART - SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP
	ARE CURSE WORDS REALLY BAD? THE POLITICS OF PROFANITY

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.

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.can magazine, No 417. For more information ple

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.

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.