Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
2 Views
23:00:50 12/28/10
It's a sad day when journalists collaborate with the government, again!
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:50 12/28/10
I've been astounded by the treatment of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks story by the media ever since it broke. Howard Kurtz called Assange disingenuous for not outing his sources, which is insane.
Howard Kurtz allegedly understands journalism, so it's outrageous for Kurtz to take offense when Assange refuses to out his sources, as I explained in a post called: Why are the media so eager to bury WikiLeaks? > >
KURTZ: Rick Stengel, let's turn now to your interview with Julian Assange. I found some of his answers to be absolutely disingenuous. For example, you ask whether secrets are ever necessary, and he says, well, his secrets are necessary, protecting his sources, but "our responsibility is to bring matters to the public."
What's important is the information contained in the WikiLeaks cables, not Assange himself -- and when we're dealing with whistleblowers, of course their identities have to be protected.
Journalism 101 states that you never out your sources, no matter where you get your information. The Beltway Villagers even defended the odious Judith Miller when she went to prison rather than divulge that Scooter Libby was her source in the outing of a Valerie Plame, as I've mentioned before . That was information that led this country into an unjustified war based on lies told by Miller and her leakers.
After watching Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC show such disdain for Assange, I asked a question that really hasn't been asked all that much. >
Are folks in the media afraid they might be implicated in Wikileaks cables? >
I expected the State Department to speak out against WikiLeaks, but why have the media been so hostile to WikiLeaks and so passive about the people trying to silence his operation without a shred of evidence of him being guilty of a crime?
I wonder if they are afraid that either they or their friends might show up in some of these leaked cables in an unfavorable light. Yesterday on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell was discussing Assange's bail in the UK and seemed afraid that he might have access to the dreaded "Internet" and destroy the world.
I understand that access to D.C. is very precious to the Beltway Village, so outside of fear of what might be found out about their friends and that they'll earn extra credit for bashing Assange by the powers that be, I still don't get their attacks on the whole WikiLeaks story. And as we've seen, cable TV news has turned away from being a deliverer of news and instead focuses on orchestrating battles of opinions with punditshills and ex-GOP Bushies, but the networks for the most part have to turn away from their own stable of journalistic talkers to bring in a differing opinion on the WikiLeaks story, because the Villagers on TV are routinely characterizing Julian Assange as a terrorist.
Glenn Greenwald posts today about his CNN interview last night over WikiLeaks and he highlighted four points in his post, The merger of journalists and government officials : >
4) If one thinks about it, there's something quite surreal about sitting there listening to a CNN anchor and her fellow CNN employee angrily proclaim that Julian Assange is a "terrorist" and a "criminal" when the CNN employee doing that is . . . . George W. Bush's Homeland Security and Terrorism adviser. Fran Townsend was a high-level national security official for a President who destroyed another nation with an illegal, lie-fueled military attack that killed well over 100,000 innocent people, created a worldwide torture regime, illegally spied on his own citizens without warrants, disappeared people to CIA "black sites," and erected a due-process-free gulag where scores of knowingly innocent people were put in cages for years. Julian Assange never did any of those things, or anything like them. But it's Assange who is the "terrorist" and the "criminal."
Do you think Jessica Yellin would ever dare speak as scornfully and derisively about George Bush or his top officials as she does about Assange? Of course not. Instead, CNN quickly hires Bush's Homeland Security Adviser who then becomes Yellin's colleague and partner in demonizing Assange as a "terrorist." Or consider the theme that framed last night's segment: Assange is profiting off classified information by writing a book! Beyond the examples I gave, Bob Woodward has become a very rich man by writing book after book filled with classified information about America's wars which his sources were not authorized to give him. Would Yellin ever in a million years dare lash out at Bob Woodward the way she did Assange? To ask the question is to answer it ( see here as CNN's legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin is completely befuddled in the middle of his anti-WikiLeaks rant when asked by a guest, Clay Shirky, to differentiate what Woodward continuously does from what Assange is doing)... read on
Woodward has been the cleaner for the Washington Post for a long time, and he's held up to a higher level of worship than even David Border. Here's a classic video which has, of all people, Don Imus confronting Andrea and the Beltway elites over their behavior in 2005 on the Plame case: >
Imus: It seems unclear what you said and perhaps you can clear it up about what you said back in Oct. of 2003---
Mitchell: I have been trying to figure out "what-the-heck" I was talking about, frankly. There is confusion because I am confused.
Imus: So when you told Alan Murray of CNBC, that it was widely known that his wife worked for the CIA-(interruption)--what, were you drunk?
Mitchell: I don't even remember the deal.
Imus: What this suggests to me is that you knew she worked at the CIA, but you didn't know what she did there. Isn't that fair-did you know that?
Mitchell-(garbled)
Imus: Why did you say that Andrea?
Mitchell: I messed up...(later)
Imus: Russert was a little short with me---almost like he was trying to hide something....
Imus (laughing): I realized -- well this is an unfair thing to say, I was gonna say -- all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another, but that would be an awful thing to say ....
I think Imus was right on when he said 'all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another,' and Mitchell knew it. As time goes on it's pretty hard to miss.
Digby beats back one of the bigger zombie lies being told by the media about Wikileaks. >
There are many fine points in the piece, but he mentions one zombie lie I'd really love to kill --- the one that all of these so-called reporters seem to have absorbed as if it's the received word of God --- the one that says Wikileaks dumped 260,000 cables indiscriminately on the Internet.
Here's the truth, from an AP news report from December 3, 2010. There's no excuse for journalists not to know this by this point:
Respected news outlets collaborate with WikiLeaks >
By The Associated Press
12.03.10
The diplomatic records exposed on WikiLeaks this week reveal not only secret government communications, but also an extraordinary collaboration between some of the world’s most respected news-media outlets and a website that is facing increasing pressure and criticism from governments worldwide.
Unlike earlier disclosures by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of secret government military records, the group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material..
This is the saddest day for journalism since their guileless acceptance of the WMD boogeyman and giddy cheerleading for the Iraq war. It turns out that journalism is important, but most of these "professional" practitioners of the field are not only failing to practice it, they are hostile to the idea that they should practice it. It's very revealing.
It's just another sad and revealing day for all the hacks running around and impersonating real journalists. Not all journos are acting like this. Major props goes to the Ray Odroso of the Village Voice.
Read more here .
75 Views
19:11:05 12/13/10
Rapper Wiz Khalifa Sparks Controversy w/ New Song Called 'Huey Newton'
[LESS INFO] 75 VIEWS | ADDED 19:11:05 12/13/10
Pittsburgh artist Wiz Khalifa has been making a lot of noise as of late. Most recently him and rhyme partner Currensy did song called Huey Newton which has ruffled the feathers of more than a few people who feel like the Black Panther Party co-founder who fought tirelessly for the liberation of Black people is being disrespected.
The song in question has nothing to do with Huey or the Panthers. It’s about smoking weed and kicking it. Hence it left many wondering why name check Huey? Was it to bring controversy or was it a reflection of one’s ignorance where freedom fighters and civil rights icons are seen as fair game for dismissal, ridicule and attacks?
Outkast caused quite abit of controversy with their Rosa Parks song
When I heard the song, two things went through my mind. First was the controversy surrounding Outkast when they used the name of Rosa Parks , the mother of the Civil Rights Movement in the biggest hit single off the critically acclaimed Aquemini album.
Many felt it was a huge disrespect, including some of Park’s people who wound up suing Outkast for using her name without permission. According to her representatives, Ms Parks didn’t like the fact that the group used profanity in a song that in no way reflected what she had stood for.
Outkast felt they were being mis-understood. They claimed that they were paying tribute in an artistic sort of way. Parks’ name was used as a metaphor to lay claim that the group was putting others on notice that it was time to make way, ‘move to the back of the bus’ and make way for Outkast.
Many in the Civil Rights community wasn’t buying it. While many in the Hip Hop community questioned the motives behind a lawsuit. Was this really Rosa Park’s sentiments or her people trying to make a buck? The counter to that question and ultimately one of the basis for the lawsuit-was Outkast trying to make a buck off of Rosa Parks?
Eventually famed lawyer Johnnie Cochran got involved on behalf of Parks. The lawsuits were dismissed on freedom of speech grounds but Outkast wound up settling with Ms Parks. They shot her some money and agreed to do a few community benefits for her foundation.
The other thing that went through my mind were the recent name checks where iconic freedom fighters are publicly clowned.
We saw this two years ago when a young columnist from Ebony magazine named Jam Donaldson of Hot Ghetto Mess fame took shots at political prisoner and former Panther Mumia Abu Jamal . In her piece she stated;
Mumia Abu Jamal
“One day I’m like, ‘Free Mumia’ and other days I’m like, ‘That n***** probably did it.’ And I’m not afraid to admit it, and I’m not afraid to write about it.”
Donaldson’s remarks angered many of Mumia’s supporters who felt her flippant remarks in a respected publication like Ebony not only added but in some ways legitimized an already poisonous climate set by police department unions who had been on a mission to see Mumia put to death.
Donaldson noted that her remarks and take on things are a reflection of how many in her generation feel these days. They’re sarcastic and have no problem crossing what many in the past may have seen as sacred lines. In her case she saw nothing wrong with dissing a man who was fighting for his life on death row. A few years prior comedian Cedric the Entertainer saw nothing wrong with clowning Rosa Parks by calling her lazy in the movie Barbershop. Parks boycotted the NAACP image awards in which Cedric was appearing as a result .
Today an artist like Wiz Khalifa may see nothing wrong with naming a song after Huey Newton without reflecting his legacy. These are just names to people who now live in an increasingly disposable society.
Here’s a video to the song Huey Newto n
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu1kpwbx_fU%feature=related
Needless to say… the Huey Newton song got a quick rebuke from more than a few people including Minista Paul Scott of the Militant Mind Militia . Below is his video response where he goes in on Khalifa and Currensy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jo7rV5VTPA%feature=player_embedded
Lastly, weighing in on this is fellow Pittsburgh rapper Jasiri X who feels like situations like this can lead to teachable moments. He knows both Wiz and Paul Scott and feels that we should be building bridges and not causing further divisiveness.
Huey Newton
I agree with Jasiri X and I like the video he did in response to the song. At the same time one thing that all of us need to keep in mind is the importance of empathy. We need to walk in each other’s shoes. We need to keep in mind that each generation has heroes and sheroes they hold dear and sadly there are outside forces that routinely malign those leaders and important figures in our community. Hopefully all of us young and old understand this and don’t add to the attacks or in Wiz’s case neglect.
In my generation the icons were Chuck D , KRS , X-Clan, Minister Farrakhan and others who we rallied around. A generation before that, it was the Malcolms, Martins, Shirely Chisolms and Hueys.
The generations after mine came to admire Tupac , Biggie, Diddy . and later Jay-Z .
For today’s generation those figures don’t hold the same emotional cache. They have their own heroes. Is it Lil Wayne ? Souljah Boy ? Rick Ross , Beyonce ? The best way to find out is to ask the young folks around you and build. Who are the heroes and sheroes for today’s generation?
Remember we are in a date and time where ethnic studies is being cut from college campuses all around the country and history text books are being re-written as we speak. Freedom fighters like Thurgood Marshall and Cesar Chavez are being removed and replaced with Newt Gingrich and Jerry Falwell . Community leaders are less and less known while pundits seen on TV and entertainers and music moguls have become the new Civil Rights leaders Should we be surprised if a Wiz Khalifa doesn’t hold a Huey Newton close to his chest in 2010?
-Davey D-
Here’s Jasiri X’s remarks: >
I saw the controversy over the Wiz Khalifa and Currensy song called Huey Newton , including the video response by Paul Scott of the Militant Mind Militia, and being that I know both Wiz and Paul I thought I should weigh in.
I certainly understand why the conscious community would be upset with Wiz and Currensy considering the subject matter of the song, but I just wanted to offer some perspective. I grew up in a very conscious household, however in my early 20s, I dropped out of college and spent most of my days smoking weed, writing rhymes and hustling to support my habit. I figured I was gonna be an MC so I was gonna have as much fun as I could on the way to the top.
Eventually, that lifestyle got old and by the grace of God I regained my conscious mind and began trying to use my talents and gifts to uplift humanity. Wiz grew up around conscious people and he’s one of the most mature young men I’ve ever met. Where he is now…experiencing the tremendous highs of living his dream…does not mean he’s going to stop growing as a person.
I don’t know Currensy , but I did find it interesting that Huey Newton was born in his home state of Louisiana.
I don’t think Paul Scott was wrong in expressing how he felt and his frustration with the state of Hip-Hop. Knowing Paul, I know he spoke out of sincere love for his people and a desire to see us do better. But, I felt like instead of creating more division, I could use this as a teachable moment, so I grabbed the instrumental and did what I do. Paradise recorded the session at James Webb Studios, we added a interview Huey Newton did with William Buckle y plus one of his speeches and pieced together the video we called “The Real Huey Newton”.
One Hood,
Jasiri X
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHfotb2pwNI
0 Views
02:38:36 08/16/06
"There Are So Many Of Us" A Piece of Conversation God. Submitted by Dave.
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 02:38:36 08/16/06
click here to download
This video was originally posted on Dave's sight 90 Seconds of Dave . As are most of Dave's videos this one is beautifully created and received many encouraging comments and praises. The first time I watched it I noticed not just the beauty of the work but also the statements made and questions posed. Some of these questions made reference to God using the female pronoun she. The following is the comment I left Dave on his blogger regarding this video and another comment made in response to my comment left for Dave which was written by Andrew .
Dave gave permission to post this video here we both thought this might be a better forum for discussing this topic than in the comment section of his vlog.
Anthony said:
"As usual, Dave, your creativity and use of this medium is awe inspiring. And contained within this 320x240 box is message and meaning. These are more than just visual candies, it seems. Here there are also questions posed, and also statements made. Yes, we are many. Yes, we are so close. Yes, you matter. Yes we all matter. And we matter because we matter to God. I was reminded of this recently when reading this quote "Our greatness rests solely on the fact that God in His incomprehensible goodness has bestowed His love upon us. God does not love us because we are so valuable; we are valuable because God loves us." Yes God loves us and whether He laughs with or for us I believe it matters how we represent God. I must say that I am disappointed with the way God was represented in this video. I don't see it as keeping with the way He has made Himself known to us through the Bible. Using the word she to refer to God is simply not an accurate biblical representation.
Again thank you Dave for sharing with us your creativity and art, your thoughts and your questions. I think we have gotten to know each other enough for me to post this here and for you to know that I do so with love, care, and respect for you. Thank you for sharing this."
Andrew said:
"Dave, I agree with Anthony that this video is amazing. As always I love being amazed by your work. In keeping with the theme of this video in asking questions I would like to ask some as well. This post is a response to Anthony's post above.
First of all Anthony, I can see that you have posted your comment in the vein of love, sensitivity and honesty. I greatly respect that and for your relationship with Dave. I hope I can come across to you the same way. I do not want to come across as trying to call someone out, because my questions truly stems from a genuine curiosity to your question of how God was represented in this video. I am a laymen when it comes to theology and other deep things. I'm just a person trying to live my life with the examples set by Jesus the best I can----fumbling along the way.
I am interested with your uncomfortableness with God being called "she" and represented here as a woman. The question I wonder is why that is? Would the Bible be all that different if the language of the Bible was written as such to imply that God was a woman? Would the core messages of the gospel be all that different? What about Jesus? If Jesus happened to be a woman, would that change the meaning of his teachings and love? I understand that if Jesus were actually a woman rather than a man it would change some aspects of the story and how she would have been treated and related differently in line with the cultural norms and political situation of that time frame. This is not what I mean. I'm talking about the core messages (the ones that are truly important). Would that change if God was a woman? Perhaps it would. Would it make it worse? better? just different? In all sincerity, I am curious as to why it bothers some people.
Again I hope have I come across in this post with the same honesty and sensitivity as you have."
Tagged: conversationGod
