4A
EDITORIAL AND OPINION/tCIt C^tlotU fait
Thursday, September 29, 2005
tllje Cljarlotte
7'he Voice of the Black Community
1531 Camden Hoad Charlotte, N.C. 28203
Gerald O. Johnson CEO/PUBLISHER
Robert L Johnson capUBLiSHER/OENERAL manager
Herbert L White EOrroR in CHIEF
MATTERS OF OPINION
Clowning
dieciitnre
Snoop Dog, Combs selling
out for the almighty dollar
By Darryl James.
NKW PITTSBURGH COURIER
“MoccaCoca. Ikashizzle. I
got the hookup, Nephew.”
—Snoop Dogg
“Tm not sure what you just
said.”
—Lee lacocca
I used to love Snoop. His
feing-songy riiymes laced with
the countriness of a second
generation Arkansas trans
plant fit so well over the beats
made by Dr. Dre, that no
neck could keep fixjm making
heads bob in slow synx)pa-
tion.
And I just knew that as he
rose in his game that he
would also elevate his con
tent. Sadly, I was right, but in
a different way
Snoop has elevated his con
tent from white America’s
favorite gangsta rapper, to
corporate America’s favorite
coon. Yes, I said it—Snoop is
cooning. What else can be
said when viewing his latest
commercial venture—for
Chrysler no less—in tandem
with that corporation’s for
mer chief executive officer,
Lee lacocca?
In the commercial, Snoop is
unleashing as much coon gib
berish as he can in sixty sec
onds, while the distinguished
corporate statesman is ren
dered unable to decipher the
language of the strange dark
man. I have to be honest—
there is something that white
people love about Snoop that
is making me lose my love for
him. Imagine—squeaky
clean Corporate America and
big bad Snoop.
It’s not as though he’s some
bad boy actor who is simply
playing a role. Snoop pur
ports to have a real life claim
to gangster fame.
Think Fm tripping? Well,
Ludacris, who is also a hot
Rap star, was kicked off the
Pepsi brand ad campaign
based on explicit lyrics in his
album But with Snoop,
here’s a coon who admittedly
sold drugs and gang banged,
was charged with murder
and maybe even slapped his
wife, representing one of the
largest corporations in
America—in essence, selling
cars to 60-year-old white men
and blue-haired white
women. Explain that one,
Nephew He got the hookup
fa’ sho’.
They need us so much that
the>’ll take anything. Did I
say they “need us?”
The simple truth is that
America understands our
ability to hawk a product bet
ter than we ever did And
even if they have to go to the
most disgraceful of us to pan
der to the nation's love affair
with black culture, they will.
With Snoop, they did, gamer
ing one of the most popular,
who b also one of the most
disgraceful.
Ccaporate America under
stands how it woiks. even
though most of us never give
it a second thou^t. Popular
culture is based on black cul
ture. Whatever we do, if it
becomes popular, they will
take it mainstream. The
Inggest problem is that when
it goes mainstream and gen
erates revenue, very few of us
will partake of the rewards.
Another problem is usually
what goes mainstream is a
caricature of who we really
are.
That caricature of who we
are is a small portion of our
existence, but once it is pack
aged and sold back to us and
the rest of the world, the
impression is that the carica
ture is all we are really about.
Sadly, we often get that
impression ourselves.
For example, the world
thinks we are aU thugs based
on the images sold most pro-
lifically through rap music
and the bastardization of Hip
Hop culture. Once that image
was sold back to us, our sis
ters began looking for a mem
with a little thug in him, and
our brothers began to act like
thugs. And we began to think
that using the word “Ni^a”
was a revolution.
A handful of us will clown
our culture for a pimchline
euid/or a paycheck, but
Corporate America is using
us, not cdebrating us, and
they don’t give half a damn
how we look in the process.
Fa’ shizzle, my nizzles.
Another modem day Stepin
Fetchit, Puff Daddy, P-Diddy,
McGriddle, The Riddler, or
whatever he’s calling himself
these days (The Buffoon for
merly known as Sean), spear
headed America’s embrace of
the gas-ho^mg, ridiculously
oversized Hummer.
In the world’s richest
nation, which has some of the
poorest people, it took this
embarrassment to black
nationalists everywhere to
make it cool to be excessive,
with the poorest and the
dumbest of our people stand
ing first in line. So, why did
Nike have a problem with
Kobe? He’s an admitted adul
terer and accused rapist, but
so what? He’s black and he
was more than willing to run
and jump for the boss. Hell, if
Offs knees weren’t shot, he’d
still be willing to run throu^
the airports for Hertz. But
alas, America convicted him
for sleeping with a white
woman...I mean, you know
what I mean.
But the problem with Kobe
and OJ is that they aren’t
anyone’s bad boys. They tried
to be nice guys and while they
didn’t represent the race,
they didn’t go out of their way •
to make the race look bad,
either. And Corporate
America needs a black person
to dance, sing or teU jokes for
every white version of a com
mercial featuring white peo
ple who are dignified.
They order the pizza for
their family based on a dis
count—we rip and dip. Ihey
call for the Kool-Aid man,
while we predict personali
ties based on what fiuit each
person takes in thar drink.
They ask “Can you hear me
now?” We ask ‘'Where you
at?” They advise; ‘Tf you can
find a' better car, buy it.” We
advise: “If it’s mo’ fly then you
must buy”
The problem is that black
pe^e in America have an
image proli^em. And it won’t
get any better as lc«ig as we
willingly participate in our
own denigraticai. Fa shizzle!
DARRYL JAMES ri an author
and relationship coach. He can be
reached at djamesR thehlackgen-
der^aprom.
Roberts outmaneuvered Democrats
George E.
Curry
John G. Roberts will be
seated as chief justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court next
week after depicting himself
as an open-minded jurist, dis
missing past controversial
positions by saying that he
was merely carrying out the
orders of his superiors and
fwlitely refusing to answer
questions that would have
provided insight into his judi
cial philosophy
Roberts was so effective
shadowboxing with
Democratic members of the
Senate Judiciary Committee
that in the end, three of them
voted tor him: Patrick J.
Leahy of Vermont and both
^\^sconsin senators, Russell
D. Feingold and Herb Kohl.
Even more Democrats are
ecpected to support Roberts
when the full Senate votes on
the nomination this week.
While Roberts’ artful testi
mony before the Judiciary
C!ommittee may have left the
impression that he is not a
rigid conservative, his words
and record provide a different
portrait. For example,
Kenneth L. Manning, a polit
ical science professor at the
University of Massachusetts-
Dartmouth, presented a
paper on Roberts earlier this
month to the American
Political Science Association.
Titled, “How Right Is He; A
Quantitative Analysis of the
Ideology of Judge John G.
Roberts,” the paper examined
190 decisions made during
Roberts’ short tenure as a fed
eral appeals judge and com
pared those averages to other
federal appeals judges across
the country
In looking at Roberts’
record, it is important to
remember that Republican-
appointed ju(^s dominate
the federal judiciary at all
levels. Therefore, his record
was measured against a
group that tilts to the Right.
‘T find that Roberts is very
conservative in his decision
making in criminal justice
disputes, and the data sug
gest that he is exceptionally
conservative in dvil liberties
and ri^ts cases (though the
limited number of cases in
this area restrict the ability to
draw an firm conclusions),”
Professor Manning wrote. ‘Tn
labor and economic disputes,
however. Judge Roberts has
been more liberal than the
appellate court average.”
A closer look at the research
shows that Roberts cast a
conservative vote in 67.1 per
cent of the cases that came
before him, compared to a
58.9 percCTit group average
for court of appeals judges.
He cast liberal votes in 32.2
percent of the cases, almost 9
percent less than the 41.1
percent average for appellate
judges.
In addition to his voting
record, we also have Roberts’
writt^i words. And contrary
to his assertion that he was
merely carrying out the wish
es of his conservative supervi
sors in the Reagan Justice
Department, Roberts’ writ
ings reveal that he often
advocated positions that were
to the ri^t of the depart
ment’s most ardent ideo
logues.
On Dec. 9, 1981, Roberts
wrote a 27-page memoran
dum asserting that it was
legal to remove the Supreme
Court’s ability to consider
cases that involve school
desegregation, abortion and
school prayer under the so-
called “exception clause” to
Article m, section 2 of the
Constitution, the section gov
erning Supreme Court juris
diction. Another lawyer, Tfed
Olson, who would later
become solicitor general,
wrote that Roberts’ view
“misperceives the proper role
of constitutional interpreta
tion” and offered a “greatly
oversimplified and mislead
ing view of the Constitution.”
In a memorandum on
employment suits filed
against Clayton and
Gwiimett counties in
Creorgia, Roberts objected to a
proposed settlement agree-
m^t that offered jobs and
back pay not only to actual
victims of discrimination, but
to those that could show that
they were deterred jfrom
applying because of discrimi
nation. Robots called that
proposal “staggering.” He
took the prepc«terous posi
tion that even if an employee
had a “blanket policy of
rejecting all blacks simply
because they were black”
they would not be violating
Title Vn of the Civil Eights
Act unless it could be proven
that the rejected Blacks
“were more qualified than
white applicants who were
hired.” Of course, federal
employment laws do not
require that Afiican-
Americans be “mcae quali
fied” than Whites in order to
be hired.
Despite Supreme Cburt rul
ings to the contraiy, "Roberts
argued in a Feb. 15, 1984
memo that federal courts
could be stripped of their
power in school desegrega
tion cases to reassign stu
dents to other schools or to
orda* bussing as a remedy to
correct unconstitutional seg
regation That, too, was an
argument to tiie ri^t of 'Ibd
Olson and other department
conservatives.
Now, 23 years later, it is not
an issue of conservatives
kowtowing to liberals.
Rather, it is progressives
lacking the backbone to stand
up to conservatives.
GEORGE E. CURRY is editor-
in-chief of the NNPA News Service
and BlackPressUSA.com. He
appears on National Public Radio
as part of ‘News and Notes with
Ed Gordon.”
The political far right is closed-minded
I have to let you in on a lit
tle secret; the political right
has not appreciated what I
have had to say about the
Katrina disaster. My guess is
that they have not appreciat
ed what you have been writ
ing or saying either.
I felt, for example, that it
was essential to defend rap
per Kanye West’s comments
at the NBC fimd raiser for
Katrina where he lashed out
at the slow pace of aid to the
survivors and questioned
Bush’s concern about the
poor and the Afiican-
American As far as I was/am
concerned, West not only had
every right to speak his mind,
but his comments were com
pletely appropriate in the
middle of an unmitigated dis
aster that could have and
should have been addressed
in an urgent fashion by all
levels of government. In a
separate column I addressed
the structural issues in U.S.
capitalism that have trapped
the poor and the Afiican-
American in the Gulf (I)oast
in what is the equivalent of
the ste^^age compartments of
the sinking Titanic.
The political ri^t did not
af^sreciate this. In addition to
being called everything but a
child of (3od, they struck back
heaping most of the blame for
the Katrina disaster on the
mayor of New Orleans and
the governor of Louisiana
(the people of Mississippi
seemed to have been fcagot-
ten in all this). As far as the
political Right was con
cerned, Bush was blameless.
Now, leaving aside that
President Bush rhetorically
takes responsibility for the
foul-ups following the disas
ter, it is worth imd^'standing
what is going on in the minds
of the political ri^t and what
they see as the future for the
Gulf Coast.
First, they blame the people
themselves. The e-mails I
received often
put the blame
for the sorrow
and tragedy
on the people
of the region,
and particu
larly those
unable or
imwilling to
■ . leave New
Orleans. (Conservative colum
nist Linda Chavez
announced that the poor of
New (Orleans were so used to
waiting for people to do
things for them that they
were sitting around waiting
again. In other words, the
pcx)r of New Orleans had
some sort of death wish. The
political rig^t has decided to
ignore the fact that provi
sions were not made—thou^
they were anticipated — for
the evacuation of those who
would be unaHe to leave on
their own. There is absolute
ly blame here for the state
euid municipal authorities,
but not blame fca* the people
Bill
Fletcher
themselves.
Second, the political ri^t
says that President Bush
needed to be asked to get
involved. There are a few
problems with this, among
oth^, following the 9/11 ter
rorist attack, we were
informed that there would be
closer coordination between
federal, state and municipal
authorities in addressing a
disaster. That did not hap
pen. It was also the case that
everyone had at least two
days notice of the disaster
approaching, so what were
the fed^-al authorities doing?
The bottom line is that this
was not a priority I must also
add, and this may seem like a
silly point, that we do not live
in a confederacy, i.e., that
there is a role for the federal
government in addressing
disasters that goes beyond
addressing crises in time of
war.
Third, the political ri^t
seems to ignore what hap
pened to people immediately
after the storm. Why, I asked
my ri^t-wing critics, did the
federal govenunent not carry
out air drops or helicopter
drops of supp^^ to survivors
on bridges, ov^passes and
other areas? Why did police,
quite literally, not allow sur
vivors out of New Orleans
and into neighboring commu
nities?
The political Ri^t is intent
on keeping the heat off of
President Bush, ^\lth his
ratings at the lowest point in
his two terms; with the Iraq
war/occupation growing in
impopularity; with the com
plete lack of leadership dis
played at the time of the
Katrina disaster, the political
Right does not want to let on
that the light is on but no one
is at home.
Instead, the political right,
after attempting to shift the
blame for the disaster
response to everyone but the
federal government, is now
dreaming up the future of the
Gulf CJoast. This should get
us all to hold onto our wallets.
They are quite brazen in
their vision of a New Orleans
minus black people. They are
quite brazen in advancing the
notion that the reconstruc
tion of the Gulf C!!oast will be
done with no or certainly lim
ited input fiom the survivors
themselves. Instead, right-
wing think-tanks are work
ing ovCTtime — quite literally
— to draft plans for the recon
struction of the region such
that it fits the schemes of
Bush & cc»npany for a Gulf
Coast-as-theme park and
yacht dub ftr the rich, rather
than as a hcane for the mil
lions who have been izyurei,
suffered damage or been dis
placed.
BILL FLETCHER Jr. is presi
dent of Trans Africa Forum, a
Mtashington think-tank which rais
es awareness about issues facing
Africa, the Q^bean and Latin
America.