DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 14, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
-
....to the 1st Lady
-----------------------------------------
Once again, we have an association controversy at the White House. This week, a rapper who calls himself "Common" was invited by Michelle Obama to read some of his "poetry" to a handpicked audience in the "People's House." The problem is that Common (real name Lonnie Rashid Lynn) has glorified convicted cop killers Joanne Chesimard and Mumia Abu-Jamal.
You may remember that Chesimard, a member of the Black Liberation Army, was found guilty of first-degree murder in 1977 for killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. After being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike, Chesimard and two accomplices opened fire on Foerster and his partner, James Harper, who was wounded.
Chesimard was sentenced to life in prison but escaped in 1979, fleeing to Cuba where she has been granted asylum.
Even though Common wasn't yet born when that murder took place, he has insisted in his raps that Chesimard is innocent. He has said the same thing about Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.
While Common is entitled to rap any way he wants, it is troubling that he would be sought out by the administration for a prestigious exposition. Is this not a tacit endorsement of the man? White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says no, explaining that sympathy for cop killers is not "the sum total of this particular artist's work."
The number of poets who would like to read their work at the White House is almost unlimited. It is a huge honor. Among those reading with Common were Steve Martin and Elizabeth Alexander. Surely the first lady could have chosen a more appropriate artist than Common.
Once again, we have a judgment issue. Many police agencies across the country are outraged by the embrace the White House has given Common, and I submit that millions of Americans are not comfortable with the selection, either.
I have been a fan of Mrs. Obama during her tenure as first lady. She has brought grace and dignity to the White House. Her campaign to fight child obesity is right on, and I have personally witnessed Mrs. Obama going out of her way to show great kindness to regular folks.
But both Barack and Michelle Obama have a blind spot when it comes to social controversy. The Rev. Wright situation was obviously disturbing. Then, on Easter Sunday, the first couple sat in a church where the cleric, a known verbal bomb-thrower, sermonized about slavery injustice. Now, the questionable Common.
The black experience in America is far different from the white experience, and honest people understand that. But the president and first lady represent all of us and should always be aware of sensitivities. Common may be the best rapper on Earth, but his words have brought pain to the families and friends of two slain police officers.
That is enough to disqualify the man from a White House honor (http://townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/2011/05/14/rapping_at_the_white_house).
-
This stuff is happening so often that nobody can possibly keep track of it. Obama and his family are a disgrace.
-
Believing someone is not guilty of a crime they have been convicted off is not all that un - "common". Even in murder cases. A lot of people, including entertainers, writers, and poets, have been taken in by murders and their cases. Norman Mailer comes infamously to mind. Mailer helped gain parole for one Jack Abbot, a convicted killer and wanabe writer. Six weeks after Abbot was paroled he killed again. Should Mailer never have been allowed to speak, or read, at the White House?
BSB
-
This is yet another piece of right wing crap that appears with clocklike regularity on Fox or some stupid talk show and then the whole swarm of reactionaries jumps on it as though it were actually important that one performer out of a dozen in the White House had a controversial opinion.
This is a particularly insignificant thing to complain about.
-
Can't say I'm surprised at those defending the piss poor judgement
-
I doubt the Obama's care anymore about what O'Reilly thinks than Bush did about what Air America thought.
The whole Common controversy is much ado about nada.
Seems to me this whole location linkage to the first amendment is getting out of hand.
-
How is this criticism of the Obama's continued piss-poor judgement demonstrations, some support in the abridgement of one's 1st amendment?? Who's claiming that Common can't spew his rap or embrace cop killers in his music??
Enquiring minds, and all
-
Common is on record as having doubts as to whether certain accused cop killers are actually guilty. And then he gets invited to the WH, and we all know location is everything.
So of course he is perfectly entitled to express his opinion. Just don't expect to be invited to the Whitehouse without rescinding them first. Because the tsk tsk'ers will be out en masse.
-
and......that answered my question, how again?? Why bring up the 1st amendment, if no one, including O'Reilly wants Common to be shut up??
Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with poor judgement, in inviting a rapper, who supports cop killers in his music, to the WH when there are so many other millions of folks who'd love such an opportunity, but don't promote such radical intolerance
-
If Common believes that the accused cop killers are innocent, then he does not necessarily approve of killing cops, does he?
\
As BT says, this is a matter of extreme insignificance, except in the Wondrous Land of sirs.
-
If Common believes that the accused cop killers are innocent, then he does not necessarily approve of killing cops, does he?
Yea, because one can also believe in the innocence of Charles Manson & Ted Bundy. Sure doesn't make them approving of mass murdering now, does it ::) So Common is........crazy perhaps?
-
and......that answered my question, how again?? Why bring up the 1st amendment, if no one, including O'Reilly wants Common to be shut up??
Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with poor judgement, in inviting a rapper, who supports cop killers in his music, to the WH when there are so many other millions of folks who'd love such an opportunity, but don't promote such radical intolerance
Because O'Reilly and you want this man to be penalized for exercising his free speech.
-
LOL...."penalized" does not equate to shutting up, but nice try. No one, myself or O'Reilly are advocating jail time, or even an arrest warrant. And a rapper embracing cop killers in his music shouldn't be rewarded with a WH visit. A person who burns U.S. flags in exercising their free speech, shouldn't be rewarded with such a visit either. Both completely within their right to to spew their radical nonsense, but neither is appropriate for a WH invitation.
Not good judgement....kinda sends the wrong message to the rest of the electorate
-
LOL...."penalized" does not equate to shutting up, but nice try. No one, myself or O'Reilly are advocating jail time, or even an arrest warrant. And a rapper embracing cop killers in his music shouldn't be rewarded with a WH visit. A person who burns U.S. flags in exercising their free speech, shouldn't be rewarded with such a visit either. Both completely within their right to to spew their radical nonsense, but neither is appropriate for a WH invitation.
Not good judgement....kinda sends the wrong message to the rest of the electorate
So where was this hue and cry when the Governor of Massachusetts was invited to the Whitehouse?
-
Context please. What cop killer were they embracing?
-
Context please. What cop killer were they embracing?
What's that? O' Reilly had no problem with Deval Patrick defending cop killers?
-
Meanwhile O'Reilly has as a guest (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2425) on his show numerous times a guy who believes Shakur and Jamal are innocent too.
Where is the outrage?
-
Lets ask this again....what cop killer was this Patrick fella embracing, since obviously you can't be referring to someone defending another in a court of law, as part of their job. And you can't be referring to his defending a board that released a cop killer, since it wasn't he who released anyone
Not sure where you're trying to go with this......unless its some deflection effort to get away from the point of this thread being about the Obama's piss poor judgement, and squat to do with free speech
-
A Song For Assata
A song for Assata (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAzTD5ASIf8#)
A (common)
In the spirit of god.
In the spirit of the ancestors.
In the spirit of the black panthers.
In the spirit of assata shakur.
We make this movement towards freedom
For all those who have been oppressed, and all those in the struggle.
Yeah. yo, check it-
There were lights and sirens, gunshots firin
Cover your eyes as I describe a scene so violent
Seemed like a bad dream, she laid in a blood puddle
Blood bubbled in her chest, cold air brushed against open flesh
No room to rest, pain consumed each breath
Shot twice wit her hands up
Police questioned but shot before she answered
One panther lost his life, the other ran for his
Scandalous the police were as they kicked and beat her
Comprehension she was beyond, tryna hold on
To life. she thought she'd live with no arm
That's what it felt like, got to the hospital, eyes held tight
They moved her room to room-she could tell by the light
Handcuffed tight to the bed, through her skin it bit
Put guns to her head, every word she got hit
'who shot the trooper? ' they asked her
Put mace in her eyes, threatened to blast her
Her mind raced till things got still
Opened her eyes, realized she's next to her best friend who got killed
She got chills, they told her: that's where she would be next
Hurt mixed wit anger-survival was a reflex
They lied and denied visits from her lawyer
But she was buildin as they tried to destroy her
If it wasn't for this german nurse they woulda served her worse
I read this sister's story, knew that it deserved a verse
I wonder what would happen if that woulda been me?
All this shit so we could be free, so dig it, y'all.
(cee-lo vocals)
I'm thinkin' of assata, yes.
Listen to my love, assata, yes.
Your power and pride is beautiful.
May God bless your soul.
(common)
It seemed like the middle of the night when the law awakened her
Walkie-talkies cracklin, I see 'em when they takin her
Though she kinda knew,
What made the ride peaceful was the trees and the sky was blue
Arrived to middlesex prison about six inna morning
Uneasy as they pushed her to the second floor in
A cell, one cot, no window, facing hell.
Put in the basement of a prison wit all males
And the smell of misery, seatless toilets and centipedes
She'd exercise, (paint? ,) and begin to read
Two years inna hole. her soul grew weak
Away from people so long she forgot how to speak
She discovered frredom is a unspoken sound
And a wall is a wall and can be broken down
Found peace in the panthers she went on trial with
One of the brothers she had a child with
The foulness they would feed her, hopin she's lose her seed
Held tight, knowing the fight would live through this seed
In need of a doctor, from her stomach she's bleed
Out of this situation a girl was conceived
Separated from her, left to mother the revolution
And lactated to attack hate
Cause federal and state was built for a black fate
Her emptiness was filled with beatings and court dates
They fabricated cases, hoping one would stick
And said she robbed places that didn't exist
In the midst of threats on her life and being caged with aryan whites
Through dark halls of hate she carried the light
I wonder what would happen if that woulda been me?
All of this shit so we could be free.
Yeah, I often wonder what would happen if that woulda been me?
All of this shit so we could be free, so dig it, people-
(cee-lo)
I'm thinkin' of assata, yeah.
Listen to my love, assata, yeah.
Your power and pride, so beautiful...
May God bless your soul.
Oooh.
(common)
Yo
From north carolina her grandmother would bring
News that she had had a dream
Her dreams always meant what they needed them to mean
What made them real was the action in between
She dreamt that assata was free in they old house in queens
The fact that they always came true was the thing
Assata had been convicted of a murder she couldna done
Medical evidence shown she couldna shot the gun
It's time for her to see the sun from the other side
Time for her daughter to be by her mother's side
Time for this beautiful woman to become soft again
Time for her to breathe, and not be told how or when
She untangled the chains and escaped the pain
How she broke out of prison I could never explain
And even to this day they try to get to her
But she's free with political asylum in cuba.
(cee-lo vocals)
I'm thinkin' of assata, yeah.
Listen to my love, assata, yeah.
We're molded from the same mud, assata.
We share the same blood, assata, yeah.
Your power and pride, so beautiful...
May God bless your soul.
Your power and pride, so beautiful...
May God bless your soul.
Oooh.
(assata)
Freedom! you askin me about freedom. askin me about freedom?
I'll be honest with you. I know a whole more about what freedom isn't
Than about what it is, cause I've never been free.
I can only share my vision with you of the future, about what freedom is.
Uhh, the way I see it, freedom is-- is the right to grow, is the right to
Blossom.
Freedom is -is the right to be yourself, to be who you are,
To be who you wanna be, to do what you wanna do. (fade out)
-
Lets ask this again....what cop killer was this Patrick fella embracing, since obviously you can't be referring to someone defending another in a court of law, as part of their job. And you can't be referring to his defending a board that released a cop killer, since it wasn't he who released anyone
Not sure where you're trying to go with this......unless its some deflection effort to get away from the point of this thread being about the Obama's piss poor judgement, and squat to do with free speech
Oh yeah Patrick was the go to guy for the NAACP defense fund. Got all kinds of cop killers off death row.
So let me get this right. Patrick gets a pass because it was his job, meanwhile Common gets slammed for practicing his art?
????
-
Actually Sirs it would appear that the one exercising poor judgement on this issue is you. No surprie there though.
As for O'Reilly, I happen to like him. But I know who and what O'Reilly is. He is a guy that will openly admit he isn't above using commentary as a means of loading up his bank account.
BSB
-
Lets ask this again....what cop killer was this Patrick fella embracing, since obviously you can't be referring to someone defending another in a court of law, as part of their job. And you can't be referring to his defending a board that released a cop killer, since it wasn't he who released anyone
Not sure where you're trying to go with this......unless its some deflection effort to get away from the point of this thread being about the Obama's piss poor judgement, and squat to do with free speech
Oh yeah Patrick was the go to guy for the NAACP defense fund. Got all kinds of cop killers off death row.
So let me get this right. Patrick gets a pass because it was his job, meanwhile Common gets slammed for practicing his art?
Pretty much. But hey, if you can show me Patrick embracing cop killers as an art & passion, vs doing their job, he's definately on my criticising hit list
Actually Sirs it would appear that the one exercising poor judgement on this issue is you. No surprie there though.
BSB
Well, You'd definately be the expert on poor judgement, with your anti-waterboarding rants. No surprise there
Sirs
-
I think the President can have sympathy wherever he likes , and he can seek sympathy wherever he likes , if this is done publicly I can use this as part of the foundation of my opinion of him.
Thank you first couple, for the insight.
Of course if reveiling his thoughts costs him votes , that might be poor judgement .
-
I think the President can have sympathy wherever he likes , and he can seek sympathy wherever he likes , if this is done publicly I can use this as part of the foundation of my opinion of him.
Thank you first couple, for the insight.
Of course if reveiling his thoughts costs him votes , that might be poor judgement .
That indeed is the bottom line, but my opinion about him and Michelle was formed well over two years ago so no matter what he does now matters not to me, whether it's good or bad. And so it goes for millions of other voters out there, their mind is made up on him. That's why he can kill terrorists all day long but in 2012 he won't get my vote. I'm just not that dumb to believe his move to the middle is who he is. This nation can't take 4 more years of him...
-
You're wrong again Sirs. Just plain out of it on every issue. And when someone shows you you're wrong, or missing the point, you just keep right on going. Amazing. I was going to say like a 5 year old but I've never seen even a 5 year old do what you do. I tell you, BT has the patience of a Buddha to put up with your bull day after day.
BSB
-
Oh, the irony 8)
-
You're wrong again Sirs. .....................................BSB
Isn't being wrong the human condition?
I respect your study of Bhuddism , what have you learned of the nature of illusion as you studyed ?
-
"During my 40 yeas of teaching I have said nothing." The Buddha
"As soon as you open your mouth, you are wrong." The Buddha
Problem is Plane, nothing will appear on the page if you don't type something. Further, Plane, many of the posters in here are way out of line making a civil conversation impossible. That's one of the reasons there are only a few of us left. Further still, I'm not going to bend over backwards to accommodate some snivelling, child like, poster. What purpose would that serve in a forum this small? If there were 20 active posters in here you could put up with a few jerks, but in here it only takes one or two bad apples.
Nothing I just said is revolutionary. Everyone who tries this place out knows it's an accurate assessment. They try for a bit, then leave. I should stop trying.
As for illusion? I'm not going to bother with that. You and I would just disagree.
BSB
-
I am not certain that we would disagree that illusions are very common occurances.
Perhaps we would disagree on the natural reciprocity of disagreement , If you think I am wrong then I must equally think you are wrong, and in that respect we could both be correct by both of us being wrong.
I realise that some people are playing "king of the m ountain" but I am not , I want to play a "win win" which is not a stalemate , but a real mutual gain.
I guess you are right about the small size of the community here , but a few of the ones we have are pretty interesting. What I miss are the guys that were willing to really give me a workout.
Sirs isn't much good for giveing me a workout because his POV is not diffrent enough from mine , "debate" which starts out with perfect agreement has no where to go, it is a stalled vehickle.
I am more often than not in sympathy with the right politicly , so what am I going to do if we suffer a dearth of Leftists ? Centrists ? Libertairians ?
This is a quandry for me , I don't know how to attract more friendly opposition, I don't really know what to do to satisfy and keep what we still have.
-
Look, Plane, I'm not very politically motivated. I was born to Republican parents so I registered as a Republican. I joined the Army, fought in a war, and returned interested in what was better not what what was right or left. I backed Republicans in the voting both because I believe in the two party system. I walked away from Bush the son not because of politics but because Iraq was bone dumb. It was purely because we were in the shit because of 9/11 and I was out to win. I knew Iraq had zero to do with 9/11 or any future 9/11s in the short run. Who knows about the long run, anything can happen, but in the short run we had Iraq locked up. Why the f___ take units like the 5th Special Forces, with its history of fighting in counter insurgencies, and put them in Iraq? Bone fucking dumb. Then of course because I thought the war was dumb and said so people who need to place others in a box put me in the left box. I thought ok, fine, you want to be that shallow I'll play along.
Anyway, you should know all this, you were in crocats group. I never argued the lefts point in there.
So, give you a work out? Not my thing concerning politics. I think something over, take a position, and if you don't agree, too bad, I haven't got the time. I might try to explain my position once or twice, but after that, see ya later.
Now, you want a work out on Buddhism vs Christianity, great. The problem there though is that your religion is your life in many ways. It runs too deep in you. It's an immovable object. How long are you going to debate me as try to explain to you my point that God is all in your head, and beyond that he doesn't exist and never did? You wouldn't consider that, in an honest way, for 2 seconds. And I wouldn't blame you.
Anyway, I do believe you like to learn. So do I. On that you and I agree without question. I do believe you are concerned about people, the poor, the downtrodden, etc., and on that we agree. Much beyond that we speak a very different langue and come at things from very different directions.
So, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Further, I almost fell asleep writing it, so I won't be writing another one.
BSB
BTW, Sirs, you're a moron.
-
Common claims that the "cop killer" is innocent of killing the cop.
So he is not supporting the killing of cops, but the false accusation that this specific individual did, actually, kill a cop.
There is no indication that he was invited to the White House to advocate killing cops, or even to discuss this issue in any way.
This is a non-issue, useful only as fodder for Fox-o-philes of the more idiotic sort.
-
Common claims that the "cop killer" is innocent of killing the cop.
The court, and a jury, with intimate access to the evidence, that Common did not have, concluded otherwise
So he is not supporting the killing of cops, but the false accusation that this specific individual did, actually, kill a cop.
Can't be false, if there was a conviction. Sure, the convicted could have been framed, or railroaded. Please, by all means, demonstrate PROOF of a wrongful conviction. Common's "say so" isn't going to cut it
There is no indication that he was invited to the White House to advocate killing cops, or even to discuss this issue in any way.
DEFLECTION ALERT.....no one claimed anything of the kind Xo, so stop pulling that crap
-
Common wrote a song. Is a song intended to be true, or is it fiction, like a novel, possibly true and possibly not, but written for the sake of art?
If no bulls were murdered indoors in Guernica, does that make Picasso a disreputable liar because he painted a bull inside what appears to be a building?
Joan Baez wrote a song in which Joe Hill speaks to her in a dream? Is this being untruthful?
If he is not going to sing this song in the White House, or even if he is, how does that make him undeserving of performing there?
-
From Wiki, enough for reasonable doubt:
Sundiata Acoli, Assata Shakur, Trooper Harper, and a New Jersey Turnpike driver who saw part of the incident were the only surviving witnesses.[134] Acoli did not testify or make any pre-trial statements, nor did he testify in his own trial or give a statement to the police.[135] The driver traveling north on the turnpike testified that he had seen a State Trooper struggling with a Black man between a white vehicle and a State Trooper car, whose revolving lights illuminated the area.[134]
Shakur testified that Trooper Harper shot her after she raised her arms to comply with his demand, the second shot hitting her in the back as she was turning to avoid it, and that she fell onto the road for the duration of the gunfight before crawling back into the backseat of the Pontiac which Acoli drove 5 miles (8 km) down the road and parked, and remained there until State Troopers dragged her onto the road.[53][134]
Trooper Harper's three official reports state that after he stopped the Pontiac, he ordered Acoli to the back of the vehicle for Trooper Foerster?who had arrived on the scene?to examine his driver's license.[134] The reports then state that after Acoli complied and as Harper was looking inside the vehicle to examine the registration, Trooper Foerster yelled and held up an ammunition clip, as Shakur simultaneously reached into her red pocketbook, pulled out a nine-millimeter weapon and fired at him.[134] Trooper Harper's reports then state that he ran to the rear of his car and shot at Shakur who had exited the vehicle and was firing from a crouched position next to the vehicle.[134] Under cross-examination at both Acoli and Shakur's trials, Trooper Harper admitted to having lied in these reports and in his Grand Jury testimony about Trooper Foerster yelling and showing him an ammunition clip, about seeing Shakur holding a pocketbook or a gun inside the vehicle, and about Shakur shooting at him from the car.[51][107] Trooper Harper retracted his previous statements and said that he had never seen Shakur with a gun, and that she did not shoot him.[136]
Medical evidence
A key element of Shakur's defense was medical testimony meant to demonstrate that she was shot with her hands up and that she would have been subsequently unable to fire a weapon. A neurologist testified that the median nerve in Shakur's right arm was severed by the second bullet, making her unable to pull a trigger.[114] Neurosurgeon Dr. Arthur Turner Davidson, Associate Professor of Surgery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, testified that the wounds in her upper arms, armpit and chest, and severed median nerve that instantly paralyzed her right arm, would only have been caused if both arms were raised, and that to sustain such injuries while crouching and firing a weapon (as described in Trooper Harper's testimony) "would be anatomically impossible".[51][148]
Davidson based his testimony on an August 4, 1976 examination of Shakur and on X-rays taken immediately after the shootout at Middlesex General Hospital.[148] Prosecutor Barone questioned whether Davidson was qualified to make such a judgment 39 months after the injury; Barone proceeded to suggest (while a female Sheriff's attendant acted out his suggestion) that Shakur was struck in the right arm and collar bone and "then spun around by the impact of the bullet so an immediate second shot entered the fleshy part of her upper left arm" to which Davidson replied "Impossible."[148]
Shakur's broken clavicle was a key element of her defense, and the implications of her injury for the differing accounts of the shootout were points of contention.
Dr. David Spain, a pathologist from Brookdale Community College, testified that her bullet scars as well as X-rays supported her claim that her arms were raised, and that there was "no conceivable way" the first bullet could have hit Shakur's clavicle if her arm was down.[149][150]
Judge Appleby eventually cut off funds for any further expert defense testimony.[51] Shakur, in her autobiography, and Williams, in Inadmissible Evidence, both claim that it was difficult to find expert witnesses for the trial, not only because of the financial expense, but also because most forensic and ballistic specialists declined on the grounds of a conflict of interest when approached because they routinely performed such work for law enforcement officials.[151]
Other evidence
Neutron activation analysis administered after the shootout showed no gun powder residue on Shakur's fingers; her fingerprints were not found on any weapon at the scene, according to forensic analysis performed at the Trenton, New Jersey crime lab and the FBI crime labs in Washington, D.C.[152] According to tape recordings and police reports made several hours after the shoot-out, when Harper returned on foot to the administration building 200 yards (183 m) away, he did not report Foerster's presence at the scene; no one at headquarters knew of Foerster's involvement in the shoot-out until his body was discovered beside his patrol car, more than an hour later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur#New_Jersey_Turnpike_shootout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur#New_Jersey_Turnpike_shootout)
-
Apparently not, for reasonable doubt
-
The physical impossibility of her being able to pull the trigger is not reasonable doubt?
The recanting of the testimony from the officer involved is not reasonable doubt?
The absence of gun shot residue is not reasonable doubt?
or are you claiming that juries are always right?
-
I was neither there nor privy to all evidence that the jury had. Neither were you. And they decided, beyond a reasonable doubt
-
Assata was not convicted of firing the shot that killed Trooper Foerster. She was convicted as an accomplice to his murder under New Jersey?s ?aiding and abetting? statute. Under New Jersey law, if a person?s presence at the scene of a crime can be construed as ?aiding and abetting? the crime, that person can be convicted of the substantive crime itself. Judge Theodore Appleby charged the jury that they were permitted to speculate that Assata?s ?mere presence? at a scene of violence, with weapons in the vehicle, was sufficient to sustain a conviction of the murder of Trooper Foerster.
Ergo she is not a cop killer.
And ergo O'Reilly got it wrong.
-
Accomplice to a cop killer is plenty good for me. A person holding down someone while another stabs them 30times, is good enough for me. A person knowingly in on the planning, killing, and haboring someone that killed someone else, is good enough for me. Definitely good enough for this Judge & Jury
Likely good enough for O'Reilly
ergo, we're both right.
-
Right.
Someone who isn't a cop killer gets to be called a cop killer because it's close enough for you and O'Reilly.
The woman was physically incapable of pulling the trigger having been shot with her hands in the air.
The woman did not have GSR nor were her fingerprints on any of the weapons involved.
The cop who survived recanted his testimony saying she was a shooter.
Yet that doesn't matter to you and O' Reilly. Close enough .
Here's a clue, justice in this country should not be a game of horseshoes. And anyone who thinks it is, is a bigger danger to society than Common reciting at the Whitehouse.
Have you no shame?
-
Look, Plane, ............very different directions.
So, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Further, I almost fell asleep writing it, so I won't be writing another one.
BSB
You write very well, this is a great post and you are often very thought provoking. I don't need to agree to benefit , sometimes a deeper understandig of my own thoughts results from trying to justiofy them or even figure out why I do think the way I do so that I can explain it.
I understand what you mean about Religion being deeply rooted and how most people have a lot of resistance to change, I don't think this is really bad but self examination requires knowing it is there whether you are trying to keep it or not. I am not worried that anything you or I might say could destroy God , people who get defensive are not defending God himself but only their idea of him which can't amount to a perfect understanding in any human being.
And .... You wrote that sleepy?
I am impressed.
-
Look, Plane, ............very different directions.
So, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Further, I almost fell asleep writing it, so I won't be writing another one.
BSB
You write very well, this is a great post and you are often very thought provoking. I don't need to agree to benefit , sometimes a deeper understandig of my own thoughts results from trying to justiofy them or even figure out why I do think the way I do so that I can explain it.
I understand what you mean about Religion being deeply rooted and how most people have a lot of resistance to change, I don't think this is really bad but self examination requires knowing it is there whether you are trying to keep it or not. I am not worried that anything you or I might say could destroy God , people who get defensive are not defending God himself but only their idea of him which can't amount to a perfect understanding in any human being.
And .... You wrote that sleepy?
I am impressed.
Yes it was good but I was a little disappointed with this part though: BTW, Sirs, you're a moron.
-
Yes it was good but I was a little disappointed with this part though: BTW, Sirs, you're a moron.
I know what you mean .
One thing at a time .
First keep BsB then improve BsB.
-
Yes it was good but I was a little disappointed with this part though: BTW, Sirs, you're a moron.
I know what you mean .
One thing at a time .
First keep BsB then improve BsB.
I learned my lesson and will be civil at all times, lest I make BT mad at me.
-
Yes it was good but I was a little disappointed with this part though: BTW, Sirs, you're a moron.
I know what you mean .
One thing at a time .
First keep BsB then improve BsB.
I learned my lesson and will be civil at all times, lest I make BT mad at me.
How will we know it is you?
-
Someone who isn't a cop killer gets to be called a cop killer because it's close enough for you and O'Reilly....Here's a clue, justice in this country should not be a game of horseshoe
Here's a more accurate clue...Not quite what I said, and not quite the facts presented to the jurors. This wasn't some innocent bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which your above sentence would reference
Nice try though
-
Look, Plane, ............very different directions.
So, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Further, I almost fell asleep writing it, so I won't be writing another one.
BSB
You write very well, this is a great post and you are often very thought provoking. I don't need to agree to benefit , sometimes a deeper understandig of my own thoughts results from trying to justiofy them or even figure out why I do think the way I do so that I can explain it.
I understand what you mean about Religion being deeply rooted and how most people have a lot of resistance to change, I don't think this is really bad but self examination requires knowing it is there whether you are trying to keep it or not. I am not worried that anything you or I might say could destroy God , people who get defensive are not defending God himself but only their idea of him which can't amount to a perfect understanding in any human being.
And .... You wrote that sleepy?
I am impressed.
Yes it was good but I was a little disappointed with this part though: BTW, Sirs, you're a moron.
Perhaps it's just his SOP. Thanks though, Kramer
-
Nice try though
Perhaps you can explain how someone shot through the arms, while surrendering can then turn around and shoot a cop when according to medical evidense that the prosecution did not refute, she would not have been able to pull the trigger.
And then perhaps you can explain how a person, medically incapable of pulling a trigger, still pull the trigger and somehow avoid gunshot residue on the hands nor leave fingerprints on the weapon.
And then perhaps you can explain how the accusing officer recanted his original testimony and state that this person did not shoot anyone.
And then tell me in what universe does a non cop killer become a cop killer.
Oh yeah, where justice is horseshoes and close enough counts.
-
Perhaps I and you already did......an accomplice to murder.....just as guilty as the person pulling the trigger. I could be inclined to sentence the person to life in prison vs the death penalty. A far cry to that of some innocent bystander you were trying to infer, however
But at least we're off the nonsense about this being a free speech issue
-
Perhaps I and you already did......an accomplice to murder.....just as guilty as the person pulling the trigger. I could be inclined to sentence the person to life in prison vs the death penalty. A far cry to that of some innocent bystander you were trying to infer, however
But at least we're off the nonsense about this being a free speech issue
Never claimed her to be an innocent bystander. But I'm sure, in order to protect your reputation for honesty, you can show where i did.
What i did say, according to the information gleaned from the wiki link, she certainly wasn't a trigger puller, and therefore not a cop killer.
And if i recall that seems to be what O' Reilly claimed she was. You concurring with O'Reilly on that.
As for Common, his song and lyrics are posted. I don't see where they glorify a cop killer, because Assata and the evidence attest that she is not. What it does do is tell her story from a particular perspective. And for that this artist should be shunned? Bob Dylan did the same thing with Billy the Kid. And I know he's been invited to the Whitehouse.
As i said at the beginning. This is much ado about nada. And the more i dig into it, the more that rings true.
-
I wonder why some people have such a knack for being on the wrong side of an issue? In the particular case on display in this thread it seems to involve rights or self-precieved moral issues more often than not. The removal of rights, that is, from one group of people or another, or this or that individual. Or wagging their moral finger at one person or another. This First Lady shouldn't invite that person to the White House. We can remove the rights of this individual, guaranteed him under the Geneva Convention, and torture him.
Guard your freedoms well because there are those who would take them away in a second. You may think, oh, this doesn't apply to me, but the removal of anyone's freedom is a removal of yours. The older I get the more I realize how true that is.
BSB
-
Yes it was good but I was a little disappointed with this part though: BTW, Sirs, you're a moron.
I know what you mean .
One thing at a time .
First keep BsB then improve BsB.
I learned my lesson and will be civil at all times, lest I make BT mad at me.
How will we know it is you?
that was mean.
-
Yes it was good but I was a little disappointed with this part though: BTW, Sirs, you're a moron.
I know what you mean .
One thing at a time .
First keep BsB then improve BsB.
I learned my lesson and will be civil at all times, lest I make BT mad at me.
How will we know it is you?
that was mean.
Ok , I admit that it was.
I shouldn't have done that.
-
Perhaps I and you already did......an accomplice to murder.....just as guilty as the person pulling the trigger. I could be inclined to sentence the person to life in prison vs the death penalty. A far cry to that of some innocent bystander you were trying to infer, however
But at least we're off the nonsense about this being a free speech issue
Never claimed her to be an innocent bystander. But I'm sure, in order to protect your reputation for honesty, you can show where i did.
The implication by way of horseshoes was pretty clear. But thanks, my reputation for honesty is just fine, thank you very much
What i did say, according to the information gleaned from the wiki link, she certainly wasn't a trigger puller, and therefore not a cop killer.
And as an accomplice, JUST AS GUILTY, as anyone who did pull the trigger, and therefor JUST as much a cop killer ::) Judge & Jury appearing to corroborate that position
(and BsB will certainly let us know what rights are supposedly being stripped)
-
It's difficult to be an American. The ideas that gave birth to this country were revolutionary. So revolutionary that even today some find them impossible to get ahold of, never mind apply. Effort, though, can take you a long way. But, you have to be willing to make the effort. For some, it's just too much. They just don't have it.
This might help though:
Radical Honesty: How To Transform Your Life By Telling The Truth
By Brad Blanton
http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Honesty-Transform-Telling-Truth/dp/0440507545 (http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Honesty-Transform-Telling-Truth/dp/0440507545)
BSB
-
What O'Reilly said.
After being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike, Chesimard and two accomplices opened fire on Foerster and his partner, James Harper, who was wounded.
Which is not what was determined to be true at the trial.
-
For BsB....thanks for the non answer, as to which rights Common was being stripped of
For Bt....Convicted by a Judge & Jury, for murder, at trial. Accomplice being JUST AS GUILTY as anyone pulling the trigger
-
For BsB....thanks for the non answer, as to which rights Common was being stripped of
For Bt....Convicted by a Judge & Jury, for murder, at trial. Accomplice being JUST AS GUILTY as anyone pulling the trigger
That isn't what O'Reilly claimed. His representation of the facts was misleading.
-
Convicted by a Judge & Jury, for murder, at trial. Accomplice being JUST AS GUILTY as anyone pulling the trigger
-
This is a legal fiction.
It might be the law, but it is a fiction.
The one who pulls the trigger is more responsible.
-
Convicted by a Judge & Jury, for murder, at trial. Accomplice being JUST AS GUILTY as anyone pulling the trigger
That is not what he said. He said she pulled the trigger.
After being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike, Chesimard and two accomplices opened fire on Foerster and his partner, James Harper, who was wounded.
If I am mistaken and he did qualify his statement in that same op-ed, perhaps you can show me where he did.
-
Sirs: "....thanks for the non answer, as to which rights Common was being stripped of.."
Funny how your brain just keeps on misfiring. I never said Common was or wasn't stripped of a, or any, rights. I listed two categories and heavily implied that Common's and the First Lady feel into the non loss of rights category.
After you're through with the >>change your life by telling the truth<< book, perhaps a reading for comprehension course would be in order. Or, come to think of it, the reading course should probably come first.
BSB
-
Sirs: "....thanks for the non answer, as to which rights Common was being stripped of.."
Funny how your brain just keeps on misfiring. I never said Common was or wasn't stripped of a, or any, rights.
Sooo....bascially your ranting for no other reason? Ooookay
Convicted by a Judge & Jury, for murder, at trial. Accomplice being JUST AS GUILTY as anyone pulling the trigger
That is not what he said. He said she pulled the trigger.
Accomplice....JUST AS BAD AS HAVING PULLED THE TRIGGER. Judge & Jury both agreeing as well
-
You are saying writing a song about the opinion that this woman was innocent disqualifies him from performing at the White House?
That is just stupid.
-
Yea, because of course writing a song in support of a convicted murderer is so "not-so-stupid" ::)
-
Accomplice....JUST AS BAD AS HAVING PULLED THE TRIGGER. Judge & Jury both agreeing as well
I didn't think you could quote O'Reilly saying anything other than she pulled the trigger.
-
Yea, because of course writing a song in support of a convicted murderer is so "not-so-stupid" ::)
Well it's not quite as stupid as convicting someone for a murder they were physically unable to commit.
And it's not quite as stupid as passing a law that makes that kind of injustice possible.
-
Accomplice....JUST AS BAD AS HAVING PULLED THE TRIGGER. Judge & Jury both agreeing as well
I didn't think you could quote O'Reilly saying anything other than she pulled the trigger.
Judge & Jury, both agreeing with me & O'Reilly, thank you very much
-
Judge & Jury, both agreeing with me & O'Reilly, thank you very much
Neither the judge nor the jury agreed with you and O'Reilly that she pulled the trigger, so why say they did.
And you are welcome.
-
BOTH Judge and Jury agreed on murder of a cop ::)
-
BOTH Judge and Jury agreed on murder of a cop ::)
O'Reilly said she shot a cop. She didn't. She couldn't have having already been shot through surrendering arms and thus physically unable to pull the trigger. He and you got it wrong.
-
1 last time, accomplice to murder, is just as guilty as pulling the trigger themself. Why you seem to be so hung up on this, is beyond me. CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF A COP.......ergo COP KILLER....ergo, WE'RE BOTH RIGHT
-
And 1 last time . if you say someone pulled the trigger
(Chesimard and two accomplices opened fire on Foerster and his partner)
they should be able to pull the trigger.
That did not happen.
-
an accomplice is as guilty AS ::)
-
Pulled the trigger, didn't pull the trigger, an active participant, not an active participant, it matters little in the final analysis.
She is from a time when African Americans were taking hold of their destiny in this country. For generations they had had every aspect of their lives controlled by others. They lived where they were told to live. They worked at what they were told to work at. They had no choice concerning the whereabouts of their immediate family. If they didn't submit to these demands they were whipped, sold, shot, hung, beaten to death, whatever their owners felt like doing to, or with, them. When the 60s arrived most of these relatives of former slaves demonstrated peacefully. Sure, there were some riots, but by and large they followed Martin Luther Kings lead.
Is it surprising though that a few would take a different path? That movements like the Black Panthers would spring up? That these movements would use the revolutionary model of insurgency, and Guerrilla warfare? After all, this was the time of Castro, Che Guevara, the Viet Cong, and so forth. But, who were they going to go to war against? Certainly not the 101st Airborne. So, they fought the police, the FBI, and State Troopers. Were they misguided? In many ways, of course. Were some of them more criminal than revolutionary? Absolutely. But was their raison d'etre purely for the purpose of executing criminal activity for profit? Definitely not.
So now, a generation later, a ballader, a story teller, sings of a perceived injustice regarding one of these "revolutionaries" who is related to him via a common ancestral experience. Why the world is full of such ballads, poems, and stories. It has been a part of human culture, art, etc., for thousands of years.
BSB
-
I suppose that any singer who ever sang anything positive about Jesse James would also be on your list of people the President should never invite to the White House. He shot at least a couple of cops and of courts, denied everything. His brother Frank James also was guilty of banditry, and got off twice anyway.
This is a totally spurious argument.
-
an accomplice is as guilty AS ::)
Perhaps in the eyes of New Jersey law. But certainly not the truth.
-
Pulled the trigger, didn't pull the trigger, an active participant, not an active participant, it matters little in the final analysis.
The final analysis is convicted for killing a cop. End of story
So now, a generation later, a ballader, a story teller, sings of a perceived injustice regarding one of these "revolutionaries" who is related to him via a common ancestral experience. Why the world is full of such ballads, poems, and stories. It has been a part of human culture, art, etc., for thousands of years.
BSB
And not so surprisingly, no one is advocating that this "balladeer" not be allowed to spew their support of this cop killer. Merely that it shows a pattern of piss poor judgement, by this WH, in rewarding this "balladeer" with an invitational WH pedestal. Long live the 1st amendment
-
an accomplice is as guilty AS ::)
Perhaps in the eyes of New Jersey law. But certainly not the truth.
So the law is a lie.........oooookaaaaaay
-
Pulled the trigger, didn't pull the trigger, an active participant, not an active participant, it matters little in the final analysis.
The final analysis is convicted for killing a cop. End of story
So now, a generation later, a ballader, a story teller, sings of a perceived injustice regarding one of these "revolutionaries" who is related to him via a common ancestral experience. Why the world is full of such ballads, poems, and stories. It has been a part of human culture, art, etc., for thousands of years.
BSB
And not so surprisingly, no one is advocating that this "balladeer" not be allowed to spew their support of this cop killer. Merely that it shows a pattern of piss poor judgement, by this WH, in rewarding this "balladeer" with an invitational WH pedestal. Long live the 1st amendment
I'm not convinced that this is a suitable example of bad judgement on the behalf of the Whitehouse.
The whole basis of the complaint, that this balladeer, who told the story of Assate Shakur, should be a personae non gratis in the Whitehouse, seems to a be knee jerk reaction at best, with little regard to the facts of the case.
-
an accomplice is as guilty AS ::)
Perhaps in the eyes of New Jersey law. But certainly not the truth.
So the law is a lie.........oooookaaaaaay
Yeah pretty much. If she didn't pull the trigger, if she couldn't have pulled the trigger, she didn't kill the cop. The fact that New Jersey law allowed her to be charged with a crime she couldn't commit, because of proximity, doesn't speak much to justice or the truth.
-
Considering the New Jersey State Police's reputation for pulling anyone and everyone over who isn't white, particularly on the New Jersey Turnpike, they're lucky a lot more of them haven't been shot than probably have.
BSB
-
an accomplice is as guilty AS ::)
Perhaps in the eyes of New Jersey law. But certainly not the truth.
So the law is a lie.........oooookaaaaaay
Yeah pretty much.
Ahh, gotcha. Perhaps she should have been cited for felonious tresspassing. I mean, being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, but on purpose ::)
-
Ahh, gotcha. Perhaps she should have been cited for felonious tresspassing. I mean, being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, but on purpose
The facts as presented at trial are as follows:
Trooper Harper pulled the car in which she was riding over for a broken taillight. (wink wink)
She was told to get out of the car which she did with her hands up.
After a scuffle with another defendant who was actually found guilty of shooting the officers, she was shot with her hands up, and wounded, climbed back into the car.
Trooper Harper testified that Assate never shot at him or Trooper Foerster.
Because she was a passenger in that car she was charged under NJ law as being an accomplice to the crime.
What is strange is that Trooper Harper did not report Trooper Foerster as having been shot for almost an hour after he walked into the Trooper station to report the incident. Trooper Foerster was discovered lying dead on the ground by a third Trooper who independently went over to examine the crime scene.
Very strange story. I think BSB may be right. I think this may very well have been a coon hunting expedition gone bad. And i wouldn't be surprised if Harper actually was the one who shot Foerster trying to cover up his own ineptitude in shooting an unarmed woman, in her process of surrendering.
-
The facts are convicted for the murder of a cop. The facts are an accomplice to murder is just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger
The rest is mere speculation. Have at it
-
The facts are convicted for the murder of a cop. The facts are an accomplice to murder is just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger
The rest is mere speculation. Have at it
Yeah that is why the justice system has appeals.
But i will give credit to you, O'Reilly and Common. Because without this attempt to shame the Obama's over some silliness, i never would have been aware of the what really went down on that dark turnpike road. I certainly wouldn't have dug as deep if i did if you and O'Reilly had stuck so stubbornly to misrepresenting the true facts of the case.
-
Looking forward to the appeals process then, aren't we. Then we'll know which of us was right. As it stands, I have the facts on my side, and you have your speculation. I'm good with that
-
It sure sounds to me that this incident has the makings for a good song.
And writing and singing such songs should in no way disqualify anyone from being invited to perform at the White House or anywhere else.
There is no "piss poor judgment" and nothing is spreading except right wing blather.
-
You don't have the facts nor the truth on your side. You barely have plausible deniability, what you have is a technical loophole for cover.
O'Reilly said Assate shot the cop. The trial proved she didn't regardless of the technical loopholes of the law that allowed her to be convicted for an action she did not do.
It seems inconsistent (or hypocritical ) for small government conservatives to applaud misapplication of the truth to gain harsher sentences during the commission of a homicide, yet fight tooth and nail against hate crime legislation. She should have been convicted as an accessory to the crime, if that.
-
Ahh, I see, so now a court case with a conviction is neither factual or truthful......wow
But as I said, when we get the result of the appeals process, we'll find out which one of us is right. And if this was a miscarriage of justice, I'll be ready to apologize
What you apparently are having a hard time with is this Rule of Law conservative supporting the Rule of Law.
-
Ahh, I see, so now a court case with a conviction is neither factual or truthful......wow
But as I said, when we get the result of the appeals process, we'll find out which one of us is right. And if this was a miscarriage of justice, I'll be ready to apologize
What you apparently are having a hard time with is this Rule of Law conservative supporting the Rule of Law.
Did she pull the trigger?
yes or no?
-
Was she convicted of murder of a cop??
YES or NO?
So, when do you figure that appeals process will be completed to validate your speculations?
-
Was she convicted of murder of a cop??
YES or NO?
So, when do you figure that appeals process will be completed to validate your speculations?
As usual you avoid the question.
O'Reilly said she pulled the trigger.
Did she? Yes or No?
Doesn't matter if she was convicted as an accessory.
-
As ususal so did you. We've already addressed the accomplice point. We've already addressed the murder of a cop. You're the one hung up on the trigger, when the accomplice is JUST AS GUILTY.
So, when's that appeals process again? Yours and BsB's speculations need some serious validation, at this point
-
Sounds to me like the affair is complicated enough to at least write an interesting song about it.
I suppose the next thing we'll hear from the reactionaries is how Billy Gashade should be excluded from the White House as well.
"This song, it was made, by Billy Gashade,
As soon as the news did arrive,
He said, there warn't a man,
With the Law in his hand,
That could take Jesse James when alive".
Except for Gashade being 134 years old as well as fictional, it could happen.
-
As ususal so did you. We've already addressed the accomplice point. We've already addressed the murder of a cop. You're the one hung up on the trigger, when the accomplice is JUST AS GUILTY.
So, when's that appeals process again? Yours and BsB's speculations need some serious validation, at this point
The appeals process already took place. Her conviction as an accomplice was upheld. It was never proven that she pulled the trigger, and the appeals process was not about that, it was whether there were errors of law made during her trial.
But it is funny you insist she was JUST AS GUILTY. Though you won't go on record as your boy O'Reilly did and say she pulled the trigger. Bad judgement on his part i guess.
Close enough for horseshoes.
-
So, I was right and you & BsB were wrong. Conviction in the murder of a cop, upheld. Thank you very much
-
So, I was right and you & BsB were wrong. Conviction in the murder of a cop, upheld. Thank you very much
No you weren't right. Both you and O'Reilly said she pulled the trigger. Huge difference.
-
I NEVER SAID "SHE PULLED THE TRIGGER" I SAID SHE WAS CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF A COP, AND IT WAS UPHELD ON APPEAL
ergo COP KILLER, ergo, RIGHT ::)
-
I really am surprised you are hiding behind legal technicalities like being at the scene of a crime makes you guilty of the crime, yet you are against hate crime legislation.
Seems inconsistent.
-
Not inconsistent in the least. I have SQUAT sympathy for an accomplice to a murder. They are JUST AS GUILTY as the person who pulls the trigger.
Strangely, the Judge, Jury, and Law all seem to agree with me
You, on the other hand, have appeal-less speculation. But keep harping on that trigger. Perhaps when you're a judge you can get the accomplice of the murder off with just a felonious loitering. Wrong place, wrong time game of horseshoes. I'm sure the victims' families will understand
-
I'm sure the victims' families will understand
The victims family received closure when the real shooter of Foerster (Acoli) was convicted.
-
Ahh, so you have record of them criticising the wrongful/hurtful prosecution of the accomplice?? Please share
-
What i have is a record of you posting an O'Reilly op-ed which falsely claims that Assate was the shooter in the troopers deaths. I have you claiming that Michelles invite of a writers whose song questioned her guilt as the epitome of bad judgment when i don't recall the same protests about Bono from U2 or Bob Dylan being examples of bad judgment for their whitehouse visits even though both wrote songs questioning the guilt of convicted killers.
So it seems like you jumped on the tsk tsk bandwagon until some pertinent facts were shown to you like it was impossible for Shakur to be a shooter and then we have you walking it back a bit by claiming she was an accomplice, whatever that means, so Commons still shouldn't be invited to the WH because you know, calling injustices when you see then is such bad judgment and is only useful when crying about the MSM or BDES.
-
So you have no idea if the prosecution of the trigger alone was "closure". Perhaps you should have thought of that before trying to post more appeal-less speculation
-
Looks like another discussion vanishing into the murky depths of sirs total lack of logic.
-
So you have no idea if the prosecution of the trigger alone was "closure". Perhaps you should have thought of that before trying to post more appeal-less speculation
Judging from the outcome of Acoli's last parole hearing i would say that Foersters relatives and his coworkers are quite happy he is behind bars.
-
I'm sure they are. Not the point now is it. And more so unfortunately, you know that
-
No the point is that O'Reilly and you got your panties in a wad about artistic freedom and whether the exercise of same should disqualify you from an invite to the Whitehouse.
-
Nope, not even close. Not even in the same ballpark.
-
Nope, not even close. Not even in the same ballpark.
Oh then why the tsk-tsk about poor judgment?
-
When sirs is clearly losing the argument, he redirects the issue.
-
ROFL.....as spoken by the Deflection master ;D
-
You are the true memsahib of deflection, sirs.
-
Because your examples would be ..... endless right? With the biggest one being <insert best ACTUAL/FACTIAL example here>
Go for it....try something besides just your insidious say so, for a change
-
Didn't think so
-
The Common Defense
Rapper "Common" recently performed for "poetry night" at the White House. "Objection!" said the out-of-touch, Golf Channel-watching, Pat Boone-loving right wingers, who called Common unworthy of an invitation to the People's House. The Comedy Channel's hip Jon Stewart ridiculed the unhip for their outrage. Who's right?
White House press secretary and apparent rap-o-phile Jay Carney, who hails from the mean streets of the Lawrenceville prep school and Yale ? where he majored in Russian and Eastern European studies ? defended Common as "socially conscious."
Common ought not, therefore, be grouped with non-socially conscious rappers ? the gold-chain-wearing, crotch-grabbing, dope-smoking, dope-selling, misogynistic kind who riff about killing cops, hating whites and fighting the ever-present and all-encompassing racism practiced by The Man. (The Man, of course, briefly left his post in November 2008 and allowed the election of a black president. Everybody has bad days.)
Think of Common as a black Ward Cleaver, up from the 'hood, who comes in from a hard day at the office, sets down his briefcase at the coat rack, hangs up his tweed jacket and shouts, "B---h, where's my dinner?!" Sure, Common, like the non-socially conscious rappers, has rapped about killing cops, beating up white people and burning President George W. Bush. But to be fair, even Common lovers admit that the first two might not be all that socially conscious. This is a poet with a soft spot ? for blacks who murder white cops.
President Barack Obama's White House celebrates open-mindedness and tolerance. For example, Obama just dined with the socially conscious Rev. Al Sharpton, the whitey-denouncing race hustler who rode to fame by falsely accusing a white former assistant district attorney of raping a black teenage girl. Sharpton's incendiary rants ? "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house" ? helped ignite a riot in Crown Heights that left a hundred wounded and a Jewish student stabbed to death.
Unlike Sharpton, Common never called then-New York Mayor David Dinkins, the city's first and only black mayor, a "nigger whore." Besides, Common and Obama go way back. They both belonged to Trinity United Church of Christ, presided over by the Rev. Jeremiah "United States of KKK" Wright.
So what's the problem with Common?
His daughter is named after Assata Shakur, a Black Panther formerly known as Joanne Chesimard. Shakur was sentenced to life for her role in the execution-style murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. Shakur broke out of prison and fled to Cuba, where she still lives under political asylum. Congress passed a resolution demanding that Fidel Castro return her to the States. The FBI calls her a "domestic terrorist" and offers $1 million for her capture.
Now it's possible that Common named his daughter after Shakur because he likes the name. On the other hand, he did write a poem in which he calls Shakur an innocent woman wrongly convicted by the racist criminal justice system.
This would be the same racist criminal justice system the socially conscious rapper insists unjustly convicted Mumia Abu-Jamal, currently serving a life sentence for the execution-style murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.
But let us not single out Common. Abu-Jamal defenders include Hollywoodies Ed Asner, the late Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon, Ossie Davis, Mike Farrell, Tim Robbins and Whoopi Goldberg, as well as the French. Not all of the French, just the ones like the then-mayor of Paris who made Abu-Jamal an honorary citizen and the Parisian suburbanites who named a street after him.
Common does not personally advocate violence. He merely adopts a character and becomes a tool through which urban angst of the streets is given voice. Does actor Anthony Hopkins actually eat people with some fava beans and a nice Chianti?
Middle-agers, who grew up on Motown, are hopelessly out-of-touch. Why, if it were today, Smokey Robinson would be doing drive-bys on Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder. Stax and Motown would trade lead over which label was "keepin' it real." Otis Redding would be sitting on the dock of the bay, recovering from gunshots fired by the Temptations ? strapped, cruising the streets in a tinted SUV, searching for respect. It's hard out there for a pimp.
When not rapping, Common stays in touch with his inner Klansman. Like the Klan, Common condemns interracial dating. Sticklers might recall the heat then-presidential candidate George W. Bush took when he agreed to speak at Bob Jones University, which, at the time, forbade interracial dating among students without parental permission.
When asked about "mixed-race relationships," Common explained: "I disagree with them. ... Sometimes to get back up to the level of respect and love, you've gotta stick with your own for a minute and build a certain amount of strength and community within yours so that other people can respect and honor your traditions." Unlike the Klan, Common approves of interracial sex, in which he admits having indulged. He opposes only interracial relationships, like the kind that produced ... President Obama.
Maybe Common will rap about that at next year's poetry night. Until then, peace out (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=300425)