In American Politics, Who Represents The Interests Of The Poor?

As President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech, he made a rather obvious omission: confronting the issue of poverty in America. This is, in fact, one of the great tragedies of the day. As Democrats and Republicans vie for control of Washington, their failure to address the plight of the poor has created a deafening silence.

More than 49 million Americans, 16 percent of the population, lived in poverty last year. Nearly the same number of Americans received SNAP benefits (food stamps). One in four mortgages are expected to be foreclosed by the end of the housing crisis. These numbers illustrate the obvious: poverty should be a top priority for our elected officials, and a defining issue for the coming election. So why won't either party use the p-word?

Given the sad state of our country's affairs, politicians are focused more on deflecting responsibility for the mess than providing solutions that reflect the reality of the situation. They've chosen to devote their energy to maintaining power, rather than assisting the most vulnerable members of our communities. This is an unforgivable dereliction, given that, at this exact moment, fighting poverty is one of the only acts that is truly in the public interest. 

The poor are pushed to the peripheries of society where they are left to be forgotten. They live in violent urban areas or neglected rural slums. Children attend schools segregated usually by race, but always by class. With their stories untold, the plight of the poor remains an abstraction to the vast majority of Americans. We take solace in our superficial participation in food and clothing drives, so long as we avoid actual contact with the recipients of our donations. Politicians offer the poverty class scraps. They virtually ensure the poor will remain dependent upon anemic social programs and socially immobile, while the underlying policies (or lack thereof) that created such extreme inequalities are left intact.

The presidential candidates from both major political parties, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, certainly hope to see benefits from their policies trickle down to the poor. Their platforms are, however, tailored for distinct classes, and essentially ignore the destitution that one in six Americans face. While President Obama alludes to the issue of poverty, he and his fellow Democrats devote their attention to the middle class. Both Obama and the Democratic Party's websites continually refer to "strengthening the middle class," and "middle-class security." The final paragraph on the Democrats' "Economy and Job Creation" page is especially telling: 

Democrats stand for the values of hard work and responsibility, and we know that as a country we are most successful when we invest in our people—middle-class families and small business owners—who can grow our economy from the bottom up (emphasis added).

Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, on the other hand. advocate on behalf of the wealthiest Americans. They are utterly indifferent to the poor, much less the middle class. Case in point: on his official website, Romney refers to workers as "human capital." 

Thus, we are left with a party that advocates for the rich and a party that advocates for the middle class, yet no party that represents the interests of the poor. Instead of acting on the moral imperative to eliminate poverty, our elected officials have turned a blind eye. After all, in a political system where donations determine representation, what do the poor have to offer?

A Song for the Evening ...

'MmmHmm,' by Flying Lotus.

Is The PIPA Battle Really A Lesson In Activism?

Amid public backlash, the Senate and House have postponed votes on controversial anti-piracy legislation. The Senate was expected to hold a procedural vote on the Protect IP Act (PIPA), while the House was supposed to do the same with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). As opposition mounted, congressional members began to withdraw their support of the bills, and ultimately delayed any action on the legislation for the time being. Elected officials were inundated with calls and petitions in opposition to the acts, while dozens of prominent websites participated in an internet blackout to protest the bills.

Many credit Americans' activism with the shelving of the bills. The narrative has it that the little guys beat back media conglomerates and prevented the passage of legislation that would stifle free speech and expression, and alter the core functions of the web (which the acts would in fact do). Indeed, SOPA and PIPA are the products of massive lobbying efforts by the Motion Pictures Association of America and other traditional media outlets to protect their business interests. And the millions who voiced their opposition to the acts have likely influenced the debate to a certain degree. Let's not, however, forget the influence that major players from “new media” have had.

Google, Facebook, Amazon, Yahoo, Twitter, AOL, Wikipedia, YouTube, and eBay were some of the most prominent organizations to voice their opposition to SOPA and PIPA. They collected petition signatures, disseminated information on the bills, persuaded Americans to call their elected officials, and generally helped bring the debate about the anti-piracy bills to the forefront. And they have every interest to do so. Their profits are in many ways dependent upon the defeat of these acts. They had to take action for the survival of their companies, much less the championing of free speech. This was a fight not only between traditional and new media, but for the survival of many tech giants. 

The fact that numerous members of Congress withdrew their support for SOPA and PIPA may, in fact, not be due to the outcry of the American people, but the media conglomerates, juridical "people," who have money to contribute and influence to wield. Deep-pocketed companies like Google and Facebook, and politicians gearing up for re-election, may have found a shared purpose in defeating these bills: self-preservation. 

In our post-Citizens United world, the individual takes a backseat to the corporation, especially when it comes to the functioning of our political system. While the outpouring of millions of Americans in the PIPA fight was certainly heartening, it may not be the testament to civic engagement that so many hoped it would be. Politics operates within a closed system. Influence is dictated by money. Legislation is written by industries. Agencies are controlled by the entities they are supposed to regulate. In modern American politics, the average citizen is becoming increasingly irrelevant. 

The fight over SOPA and PIPA is far from over. As the drama unfolds, the best way to get to the truth is simple: follow the money. The outcome will likely not be dictated by the body politic, but the industry that proves it is more important to the re-election bids of our politicians.

To Elaborate ...

You can get with this...

Or you can get with that...

Technological Advancements Pose New Challenges For DJs

DJing isn't what it used to be. Vinyl and CDs are nearly dead. They've been replaced by DJ controllers, DVS systems, and digital interfaces. These devices have improved significantly since their introduction, and made converts out of even the most stubborn of DJs. Such technological advancements, however, create serious questions about the future of DJing. From the death of tried and true mediums, de-skilling of the craft, changes in performance expectations, to rampant planned obsolescence of equipment, the DJ space is in flux. And that has left many DJs, including myself, pretty nervous.

I began DJing in 2001. I maxed out my credit card to buy my first equipment: a Stanton STR8-80, a Stanton SK-6 mixer, and a Boss drum machine. I stayed in my bedroom practicing for hours. I dug in the crates of local record shops, practiced routines from how-to vhs tapes (and eventually DVDs), tried to mimic scratches routines from my favorite songs, and scoured internet chat boards for tips. I upgraded my rig when Numark released the TTXs, and began beat juggling, mixing, and developing DJ sets. 

I was heavily invested as a scratch DJ. I was on my decks for at least 40 hours a week for six straight years. I began DJing in a band, at weddings, and performing solo gigs as well. In the spring of 2007, I sprang for one the most amazing products: Rane Serato Scratch Live. I was making pretty good money and wanted to be able to access my digital music collection. It was a perfect fit. With the digital vinyl system (DVS), I could embrace technology while staying true to my roots.

Then came reality. I was able to continue DJing through my undergrad years without much interference. But I made the decision to go to grad school. I scaled back my setup and sold my DVS. I temporarily retired from DJing, save for the sporadic sessions that helped immensely with stress release during exam periods. 

After graduating, I decided to get back in the game. I began surveying the DJ landscape, and found that Traktor Scratch Pro had become a formidable opponent to Serato. When I first observed Traktor, I felt completely lost. I didn't understand, nor particularly enjoy, the methods, sounds, and equipment that the DJs who were demoing the products were using. I was used to the old way of mixing, in which you had two physical decks, transitioned between songs by mixing them together, and added a few scratches and beat juggles throughout the set. That was essentially it. The DJs in the videos (extremely talented, to be sure) had external controllers, drum machines, instant cue points, effects, loops, and samples, all running through a single interface. They hardly needed their decks. I was very confused. 

But I kept reading. Eventually, after about a month, I got it. In fact, I loved it. I figured that I would just use the software in concert with my traditional techniques, and all would be fine.

My plan failed. For the record, I bought Traktor Scratch Pro 2. One "optional" feature of Traktor, and a controversial one at that, is the sync button. This button has caused much debate among the DJ community. Some say it allows DJs to push boundaries now that they don't have to beat match by ear. Others say it allows anyone to become a DJ with the press of a button. And still others say that it is merely a feature that DJs don't have to use if they don't want to. The problem with that last argument is that the sync button is located next to the software's primary visual cue: the sound wave. It is nearly impossible to ignore. And I've begun to use it. In fact, I've hardly beat matched by ear since I bought Traktor. And, frankly, I'm ashamed of that. Yes, I use cue points, loops, effects, and push the boundaries of my song selections. But the sync button serves as a safety net that allows me to do so. I'm definitely not doing the old A to B routine. But I'm still torn over my use of sync. 

With my Numarks getting a little long in the tooth, I decided to look into replacing my turntables. I was shocked to find out that Technics had stopped making its infamous 1200's. And now I've been pondering whether turntables, and scratching, are going the way of the dinosaurs. I've also found virtually no blogs or dedicated sites for turntablism. Could the art that I've invested countless hours into eventually be replaced by (gasp!) dinky controllers with jog wheels and buttons? 

Perhaps the transformation of DJing is just a sign of the times. The world moves at a faster pace than it did when I began, and people are under constant sensory overload by media, television, and the like. Thus, they naturally demand more from a DJ than simple mixes. We also live in a culture of instant gratification. People want everything to be accessible, and to become proficient at tasks without much effort. The sync button, then, seems an inevitable development. Moreover, in an era where corporate power is at its peak, and the drive to push down prices is of utmost importance, is it any wonder that the unbreakable 1200's are being replaced by flimsy plastic controllers and software that requires continuous (and expensive) upgrades? 

None of this is, of course, news to DJs who have been around for the last decade. Yes, we can "vote" with our purchases and provide feedback to the hardware and software producers. We can also continue to support the old mediums of vinyl and even CDs. Yet odds are, whether we like it or not, we'll be beholden to the new technology, or left behind.

Interesting Statistics From The Iowa Caucuses

 

Here are some numbers that should help to put last night's caucuses into perspective. Three quick observations: First, not many people participated. Second, Mitt Romney made virtually no progress with voters in four years. Finally, the only people who truly scored victories were Ron Paul, who more than doubled his votes from 2008, and Rick Santorum, who nearly won despite being a deplorable human being. Even then, they had strong showings in a fairly unrepresentative event. See for yourself:

• Population of Iowa: 3,046,355
• Number of eligible voters in Iowa: 2,250,423
• Number of 2008 Republican caucus voters: 118,696
• Number of 2008 Democratic caucus voters: 236,000
• Number of 2012 Republican caucus voters: 122,255
• Number of 2012 Democratic caucus voters: 25,000
• Number and percentage of votes received by Mitt Romney in 2008: 30,021; 25%
• Number and percentage of votes received by Mitt Romney in 2012: 30,015; 25%
• Number and percentage of votes received by Ron Paul in 2008: 11,481; 10%
• Number and percentage of votes received by Ron Paul in 2012: 26,219; 21%
• Number and percentage of eligible voters who voted in caucuses in 2008: 354,355; 16.1%
• Number and percentage of eligible voters who voted in caucuses in 2012: 147,255; 6.5%

 

A Song for the Evening ...

Darondo's 'Didn't I.'

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself ...

Via the Star Tribune, San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich on T-Wolves' Ricky Rubio and other international players adjusting to life in America: 

"These guys, they travel around the world. They're more cultured than we are. Everyone acts like Americans are the ones. We have sort of an arrogance about us. Like we're the cultured ones? Are you serious? Have you watched TV lately? Have you seen what Americans do? How many languages do you speak? And you wonder how they're going to adjust to our culture? I hope they avoid it and keep their own!"

Sign The Petition In Support Of Sen. Sanders' Efforts To Overturn Citizens United

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a constitutional amendment that will overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and prevent corporate money from flowing freely and anonymously into our elections. Below is the link to the petition, a link to the PDF version of the amendment, and video of a speech by Senator Sanders explaining the amendment. 

Link to the Petition

PDF of the Resolution

Republican Nomination Process A Triumph Of Collective Amnesia

Today Iowa Republicans will choose the winner of the state's presidential caucuses. They, as well as voters in the upcoming Republican primaries, will cast their votes in support of not only their preferred candidate, but a counter-narrative of recent American history that seeks to conceal the injustices that have been carried out against millions of Americans. The nomination process is a triumph of collective amnesia, whereby voters ignore self-evident truths in an attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility that they have for the country's downward spiral.

Republican voters will go to the polls and disregard their complicity in the American-led wars that have raged over the last decade. They will, in fact, likely vote for a candidate who advocates a new war with Iran. They will ignore their support for the Bush Administration, and the "war on terror" that projected unbridled state power inward and against American citizens. They will disregard the causes of the financial crisis, and beg for more of the same. Most importantly, they will ignore the plight of millions of Americans who fell victim to these policies.

Republican voters have adopted a collective identity of disremembrance. They will cast their ballots steadfastly, yet irrespective of history, and vote to solidify the denial of justice that has come to symbolize America. They will choose the candidate best-suited to promote their counter-narrative, enable them to dispose of all guilt and, above all else, forget.

Great Conversation With Chris Hedges

C-SPAN goes in depth with Chris Hedges, covering his body of work, the failure of American liberalism, and the decline of the U.S. empire. Click on the link below to watch the full interview.

C-SPAN In Depth with Author and Journalist Chris Hedges