What? I'm on a government watch list?

 

A few weeks ago I checked to see how much money was left on a gift debit card given to me as a Christmas “bonus,” and it turned out to be $5.08 cents. It was enough for a cup of coffee, so the next time I stopped by a convenience store I tried to use the card to make a purchase. But the PIN number I punched-in didn’t work, and for the life of me I couldn’t remember what it was. I knew it was some numbers from an old phone number, so I decided later to check the Internet for the answer.

The readily available information for non-public figures with a small footprint is actually rather limited, and despite the fact I have written over 2,000 posts on this blog since 2010, I was reminded of the 1976 German film Alone in Berlin: Every Man Dies Alone, in which an anti-Nazi man and his wife compose notes in which they leave scattered about the city; but after they are arrested, a sympathetic police investigator tells the man that it was all pointless, because every note was immediately turned-in to police by the person who found it.

Anyways, I mostly just discovered old addresses and phone numbers, realizing the PIN was actually based on something else. The website I found this information on intimated to the outsider that there was much more information available out there, the kind of stuff you would want to know if you were considering a “relationship” with this person. Of course it was suggested that this could be "bad"; this is generally how this and other “personal” information sites advertise themselves, especially when targeting women, if they want to pay to find out. Of course this would also be helpful to men if the woman they are dating has a history of making allegations (especially the false kind) against men.  

Curious about what additional information this website would have about me that I didn't already know without having to pay for it, I let the search engine do its magic act, and then it got to the “Government Watch List Notice”:

 

Now what it actually says is “if” my name is on the government watch list, then you will have access to the information explaining this (for a price, of course). Of course if someone isn't paying attention to detail, they might assume that I am. Note that cursor is spinning; in fact it continued to spin for about 12 hours until I shut it down. It must have been going through quite a list of names before it decided I was—or wasn’t—on the list.

The actual numbers of people on various “lists” of “terrorist” concern are all over the map. There are over a million people on the Terrorist Screening Database, which consolidates various other lists such as that by the FBI's and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. There are supposedly a relatively small percentage of people on these lists who are U.S. citizens, and it is claimed that the vast majority of people on these lists are not regularly investigated or considered threats to national security, or are subject to screenings for gun purchases or on No-Fly lists because of civil rights concerns. There is only the occasional hiccup where suspicious TSA agents or during credit checks when people learn to their surprise that they are on such lists.

Today the FBI claims that there are no abuses in the system and that the vast majority of people who encounter problems while traveling are not on a terrorist watch list, but have other “issues” of “concern”—like having Spanish or Muslim names. But that wasn’t always the case, before  federal courts were finding that post 9-11 laws putting random people on watch lists was growing out of control, and were unconstitutional and made it difficult for people to have their complaints about being on the lists resolved.

But apparently problems still exist today, with people being “flagged” at airports because they have the same name as someone else who might also be improperly on the list. We are told that only people who are, or are possible associates with, “terrorists” are on the lists, and  how people get on these lists in the first place supposedly starts with a government agent “nominating” a person to be on it, and then a brief “investigation” occurs when it is determined whether there is sufficient “suspicion” to justify putting a person on the watch list. 

The fact that so many people who are put on these lists are regarded as of being of limited interest suggests the evidence against them is rather weak, but the fact that thousands of government and law enforcement agencies are given access to this information suggests that the potential for abuse against innocent people is an ongoing issue.

The government’s failure to provide a meaningful remedy for people on the lists compounds these harms, whether reputational or violating civil rights. The ACLU notes that despite court orders, there has been little done to correct abuses even now. The majority of people who use the redress application program are in fact still kept on the watch lists without explanation, which the FBI explains by claiming that these people may be on other “lists” besides terrorists lists. The ACLU notes that the

DHS’s redress system — inaptly called the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, or DHS “TRIP” — makes a mockery of due process. When people experiencing harm from placement on the list submit a petition through this system, the government refuses to confirm or deny whether the submitter is even on a watchlist. They receive zero evidence or reasons for their placement on the watchlist, nor are they afforded a hearing before a neutral decision maker. Unsurprisingly, without any notice of the basis for their placement on a watchlist, people can’t correct government mistakes or misplaced suspicion and clear their names.

Most people, it is noted, who are on these watch lists don’t even know they are on them, and it is suggested that the easiest way to find out is to book a plane ticket and see what happens. In 2012, an 18-month old girl was removed from a JetBlue flight for being on “terrorist” list. https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/travel/no-fly-toddler/ 

Maybe Kim Jong-Un isn't Greg Stillson, but is Marjorie Taylor Greene?

 

The other day the New York Times reported on the chaos that ensued in the House Republican ranks when Kevin McCarthy—in return for their votes to get him the House speakership—allowed the far-right elements to set the Party “agenda,” which can “charitably” be described as deploying the “nuclear option” on any issue they are not temperamentally or intellectually-inclined to think through. Just blow the “problem” to bits and it will just go away just like that; the far-right fanatics are like Greg Stillson in The Dead Zone:

 

It came to me in the middle of the night…I must get up now and fulfill my destiny!

Stillson subsequently “greets” those who have been waiting to tell him that a diplomatic solution has been struck with “The missiles are flying. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!”:

 

Now we see “main street” Republicans in swing districts, fearful that the "nuclear option" favored by the extremists will only lead to themselves being the victims of alienation among independent voters in 2024, who are pushing back on the draconian measures (especially on border policy) supported by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan.  

So you say that the voters are smart enough to recognize the potential for danger in electing certain extremist candidates who dump on democracy, espouse crackpot conspiracy theories and brag about how if they were in charge of the January 6 insurrection, they would have armed the rioters and "done it right." But we are being told that Greene is a “serious” candidate to be Donald Trump’s running mate in 2024; somebody must think that is a “good” idea.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people with serious issues with paranoia do have their pudgy little fingers on the nuclear buttons. Take for example North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, who unlike his father is apparently frightened to death for his personal survival. Of course the question is, is it about ideology or continuing to enjoy the high life? 

We are told that under his rule, North Korea has developed a nuclear arsenal that will render U.S. air defenses pointless if someone looks sideways at him. But we are also told that North Korea’s air defense system is also a weak spot, so “common sense” will win out? Probably, but then again if a “stray” missile comes flying toward the U.S. and blows-up, say, Seattle, I’m not sure South Koreans won’t say, well it’s just Seattle, and we don’t really want any of your missiles coming anywhere close to us.

But one must still remember that however much North Koreans themselves would (secretly) prefer regime change, the state of fear within and without the country is real enough so that the “status quo” continues, since Kim has his own "priorities" that have more to do with his appetite for high living.

Jung Pak, writing for the Brookings Institute, claims to be an expert on Kim. She notes that he was raised in the lap of luxury while the people dealt with poverty, natural disasters and famine, imagining himself to be a Hollywood playboy. Although the third son, he was chosen by his father to be his successor—his brothers being deemed “unsuitable”—but because of having such a spoiled existence where everyone was forced to go down on bended knee to him, he is incapable of seeing the world through other’s eyes. Pak asserts that "Kim Jong-un has relied on military demonstrations and provocative actions to get his way, and has no experience in the arts of negotiation, compromise, and diplomacy.”

Like Trump, Kim apparently believes his “personal charm” can sway those he cannot control, but the exchanges of “love letters” between the two were soon to be followed by accusations of “mental derangement” and threats of the “highest-level of the hardline countermeasures.” Who was the loser? Obviously Trump was—not because he tried to deal with Kim at all, but that he was dumb enough to meet with him before there was any “deal” in place, thus making Kim look “strong” to North Koreans and Trump a weak fool.

Pak certainly seems more willing than most to give Kim the “benefit of the doubt,” calling merely “aggressive” assassinations, murders, and executions of real or perceived enemies—including teenagers caught in possession of South Korean or Western entertainment media, which apparently only he has a right to enjoy. He knows how to “recalibrate,” apparently meaning that he keeps his “options” open—perhaps differently than what she means; nobody would really give a damn about North Korea’s existence anymore save that it and its sponsor China are now the biggest threats to peace and stability in that region, and China clearly is Kim’s patron in supplying the know-how to build his dangerous new toys, and I suspect that Kim won’t do anything “rash” without China’s authorization. If Kim did launch a nuclear attack on his own, it would be proof of mental instability.

The Daily Mail reported that a former in-house chef and companion of Kim as a child, Kenji Fujimoto, called Kim’s early years of excess as that of a “rock-star,” and even as a child he “downed whole bottles of vodka and smoked like a chimney.” Fujimoto even claimed that Kim learned to drive his own personal Mercedes at the age of seven, using boxes for support. This is obviously someone who has no sense of personal discipline.

The Daily Mail also observed that while “Millions of North Koreans were dying during two decades of famine…the ruling family’s private palace was like something from the movies.” Fujimoto remembered that “It had an Olympic-size pool, movie theaters and a huge gym. The kids’ playroom was big, with remote-controlled cars everywhere and a billiard table.” His father Kim Jong-Il gifted him two enormous yachts when he was still a teenager, and his preference for “soft” Western living, American movies and watching NBA games has resulted in a “swelling girth.” 

But apparently Kim has no desire that any of his own people enjoy the benefits of Western life that would necessarily mean the end of acceptance of the status quo. He wasn’t much for schooling, either: the Mail notes that he was sent to an expansive private school in Switzerland, where he “spent most of his time on the school basketball courts and the ski slopes.”

One thing Kim also has in abundance besides body fat is a lousy temper and demands of complete obedience, with the result of offending both tending to be death. Lately his daughter Kim Ju-ae has been accompanying him to various functions, including missile launches; she obviously shares his taste for soft living…

 

...and is reportedly being “groomed” as his successor. Given the previous temperaments that are considered “essential” to maintain one-person rule in North Korea, one wonders just how much she is a chip off the old block, and what that could mean. Perhaps more cunning and ruthless under the façade of “femininity,” or a “kinder, gentler” dictator—or someone who could go off their rocker at any time if they feel threatened, like, say, Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert.

In the meantime, in a world where we assume that nations possess nuclear weapons merely as a deterrent and never for actual use, we have only heard the Russians claim that their use is an “option,” but we can deduce that this is a desperate ploy in the face of conventional warfare failure in Ukraine. It could take just one nuclear bomb to “solve” the problem and reverse failure, but then what?

It is interesting to note the time it took between the belief that nuclear fission had no practical application to a weapon of mass destruction occurred in very short order. Using neutrons to split atoms to produce usable energy came as a “shock” to scientists in 1939, and the first thing people thought about as World War II was beginning was to use it for destructive purposes. Its use for “peaceful” purposes was an afterthought, and the first power plant that produce enough energy for useful electrical energy wasn’t constructed until 1951.

Today, many voices want to shut down nuclear power plants as environmental dangers, but there seems no real desire to do away with nuclear weapons. We just want to keep them out of the wrong person’s hands. So far we’ve avoided the scenario involving a mentally-unbalanced, paranoid crackpot with delusions of “history” wanting to test out the theory of limited mass destruction with no “payback”; maybe with Kim it really is just all for show, since he may be only interested in insuring his lifestyle isn't threatened. 

But then again, there is MTG, and who knows what a real nutcase with delusions of power is capable of.

 

Children at play in the U.S. House of Representatives

 

You ever wonder why so many Republicans in the House of Representatives seem so mentally, emotionally and logically impaired? Well, obviously they reflect the “will” of the people who voted for them, which of course means that more emotion and paranoia goes into their choices than actually thinking. “Liberals” always “think” about the issues, while when Republicans actually do any “thinking”—like former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan—it’s always something that even Republican voters find disturbing, like “reforming,” cutting or even “sunsetting” programs that have become an assumed “right” of people since anyone can remember, like Social Security and Medicare.

Please don’t do any “thinking” is the best instruction to Republicans these days—particularly those on the far-right—because nothing good comes out of it. The last time they did any “thinking” was for their latest tax cuts for the rich law, and of course people are supposed to believe that this was a “job creation” strategy and would actually in time increase tax revenue and lower the federal deficit? Well, if you still believe the Republican mantra of “trickle-down economics” that continues to be the hoax it was when it was first introduced during the Reagan administration, then we have another rickety bridge to sell you.

As “bad” as the liberals supposedly are, the Republicans always manage to find a way to “one-up” them. We saw this during the State of the Union address the past two years; last year it was Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert bonking around like jack-in-the-boxes, and more of the same this year, with new Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy proving once again that it is the lunatics running the asylum after claiming that there would be no "childish" antics. Joe Biden showed some of that old “spunk” by getting into a “conversation” with the nutcases over Social Security and Medicare, who all but boxed themselves into a corner into leaving the programs untouched, or being proved once again to be “liars” who always seem to be stricken with short-term memory when cornered about the stupid things they have said.

Meanwhile the clown Greene…

 

…took her clown show to Idaho, where she was apparently surprised to see that there were actually people in that blood-red state who didn’t think too much of her taking her show there...

 

 

…and she predictably responded with her usual juvenile-level observations. Back in Washington DC, House Republicans are readying themselves as the party out-of-power to be an annoying pest, although unlike Democrats they are less interested in investigating insurrection and Donald Trump's crimes, but in obvious public relations stunts. 

Of course they are not going to investigate real fraud and weaponization of government, as was the John Durham investigation, but just to create a lot “noise” to make the mouse sound like a lion. In fact none of the investigations to be set in motion have anything close to the kind of obvious criminal motivation that was demonstrated by Trump, even as some of the investigations have more to do with Trump’s incompetence—such as potential misuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and Afghanistan, where Trump literally allowed the Taliban to infiltrate the entire country in exchange for not attacking U.S. forces while not extracting a single power-sharing concession from them.

Of course the nothing-burger that is the Hunter Biden case is only to embarrass the president, and even on the border issue, which Trump made worse by allowing an army of migrants to grow camped out on the opposite side of the border with the “promise” that their asylum requests would eventually be “heard,” and now those people represent the so-called “invasion” of “crisis” proportions as they now feel they are allowed to cross over and apply for asylum. 

Of course the numbers will seem “greater” than in prior years if there was a build-up along the border instead of the “normal” flow. But whose interested in facts when it comes to the border, especially when everyone wants to blame Mexico for fentanyl when it is all originating from China? Of course China policy is also on the table, except not its manufacture and export of fentanyl.

It’s all numbskull political grandstanding from the Republicans, nothing more. They act like children playing with their new toys, while the clowns entertain the masses who voted for them. Democrats, of course, can only look on and shake their heads—not in disbelief, but like adults unable to control the playground.

Three more dead rappers found in Detroit brings up that question of "responsibility" again.

 

Last week three wannabe rappers reported missing after an aborted concert in Detroit several weeks ago turned up dead in a basement of an abandoned apartment, shot to death. The discovery of the bodies was entirely by accident, with state police roaming the building while conducting a different investigation. Three people have been arrested, one a juvenile caught driving a vehicle belonging to one of the dead men, and another “person of interest” turning up in Knoxville, Tennessee.

I’ve written before about the high “unnatural” death rate of rap/hip-hop “artists.” We’ve got to get “real” here,and what is “real” today seems to be self-fulfilling prophecies, no thanks to a media (both news and “entertainment”) that paint a picture of “normalcy,” where blacks are either a highly visible part of what white America calls “culture”—meaning not the “rap” culture that would turn-off many white viewers and hurt ratings—or “victims” of a society in which black lives  “don’t matter.”

The problem with these images, of course, is that they are completely incompatible with each other, yet have the same reality, but in varying measures. A 2020 story from People’s Policy Project noted that income inequality within the black community is worse than in other groups. It isn’t hard to see, with professional athletes making millions a year, while some rap and hip-hop artists get rich selling people misery, victimization and revenge. The Project noted that blacks in the lower 10^th percentile made less than a quarter of the black median household income, while the 90^th percentile made 11 times the median income—and that from an already lower level than whites and Asians.

The other reality is that blacks tend to be killed by other blacks, and thus one wonders why blacks are the ones who don’t seem to think other black lives “matter.” But oh gosh, let’s blame it on “society,” but I’ll get to that later. Last year the New York Times reported that 65 percent of all homicide victims in the city were black people, with a slightly larger number of perpetrators also black, who were also responsible for 74 percent of the shootings. Of course, that is not the “picture” we get from television crime shows like CSI or Law & Order, when most of the victims are white women.

Of course there can be an “explanation” for that, other than white women also have an out-of-control victim complex: homicides involving white victims—and especially white female—are much more likely to receive investigative resources, while the “anti-snitch” culture in the black community also prevents “easy” solving of black homicides.  Unless, of course, the homicides are committed by police wearing body cams, which also tend to show the victims in usually uncooperative postures to avoid detention.

An assistant district attorney, Jim Quinn, wrote an op-ed in The New York Post in 2020 that this country is a “coward” when it comes to talking about race, and of course that is from both the right and the left. Blacks killed by police is but a tiny minority of the total black homicide victims, but those cases get nearly all the coverage. Quinn spoke of the “moral catastrophe” in the black community in New York City, and that “These are real problems that require real work. But our politicians paint murals and political slogans on Fifth Avenue, thinking they have accomplished something.”

You know, I dislike contemporary music in general today, and that it is quite a surprise given that up until the mid-1990s there was always music I liked. In fact my musical tastes include classical music, and the fact I like music from the 1970s more than any other could be explained by the fact that many producers, especially black producers like Thom Bell, had “classical” pretensions. Black music during the Seventies was heavy on the orchestration; while it mostly propelled songs about love, peace and social harmony, social commentary was present, but it wasn’t the dominant ideology, nor did it advocate armed insurrection.   

But by the Eighties, artists like Lionel Ritchie who were still writing catchy tunes to melodious production were a dying breed (and not just from the black music perspective), although that wouldn’t become clear until the next century began.

We can “speculate” about the emergence of rap and hip-hop as the dominant form in black music by the 1990s and why it black music scene has a difficult time "evolving" away from it. The “rationalization” that rap “music”  was more “truthful’ is again more a self-fulfilling prophecy—and all the evidence suggests that “getting real” has not made things “better,” but worse. Singing about love and harmony tends not to have the same societal effect as "rapping" about hate, gangster culture, violence and whatnot with unhealthy doses of four-letter words does. People may not all feel "the love," and hate has always been a much easier emotion to draw back on. 

Why did this “music” became by far the dominant form in the black music culture going on 30 years with no end in sight? Most point to societal reasons, but those issues existed when soul, funk and disco were the dominate black music during the Seventies, and homicide rates were quite high in conjunction with demographic changes in the cities and de-industrialization effecting well-paying manufacturing jobs. But the music of the time didn't contribute to crime or actively embrace it like rap/hip-hop does today; if anything it tamped-down thoughts of violence; it was a way out, and nobody was killing each other over how well they sang about "love" or "peace."

It has been suggested that both established and start-up record companies saw rap and hip-hop as an easy way to make money, since it didn’t require expensive production—you know, musical instruments and orchestras. All this “genre” needed was a “beat” behind spoken-word raps that were not really “songs,” but “performance art.” 

Nobody, for example, thought that MC Hammer’s relatively harmless “U Can’t Touch This” was actually anything more than a one-off, harmless novelty number. Later, those who were more “adventurous” might “sample” a memorable line from an old song, but that just demonstrated just how far love of music has strayed from the actual creation of “music.”  I was reading a recent edition of Rolling Stone; the only items about “music” were two album “reviews” that mentioned the “philosophical direction” of the groups (I wouldn’t call them “bands,” because that requires competence in musical instruments), and nothing about the musical production.  

Of course there the culture’s defenders; Take some guy name Touré, who hosts theGrio, a black news-oriented website, who tries to “explain” why there is so much violence related to rap/hip-hop . “Hip-hop is deeply connected to the Black community,” he says, ignoring a century or two when Hip-hop didn’t exist. “It takes much of its power and its energy from our swag and our cultural innovations.” Well, “swag” maybe, but if you want to call vulgarity that often glorifies violence and criminality set to what essentially a monotonous one-note monologue whose selling points are just how “badder” someone is than someone else  a “cultural innovation,” then someone has their terms mixed-up. 

Beyonce, we are told, is now the all-time leader in Grammy awards won. Really? Yeah, sure she can do the vocal gymnastic thing pretty well to some tuneless songs, but that just tells you the level of “competition” there is for her out there. I mean, who else are people going to vote for who is as popular as she is who doesn't sing rap straight up?

“Hip-hop is the child of all of us,” Touré says. Oh, so you are going to lump us all together in that “culture”? I mean, if that is all the last two generations of people are allowed to be exposed to in the black community, then it is that by default.  Then there appears to be a brief acknowledgement of reality: “But hip-hop can’t take what’s great about the Black community without also sucking in some of our problems. That’s the real issue—some of the central challenges in the Black community bleed into hip-hop because most rappers aren’t separate from the Black neighborhoods they live and/or work in. Hip-hop is an extension of Black America for better and for worse.”

Touré then goes on to list the names of rappers who have been killed by gun violence, something that has been going on since rap/hip-hop became the dominant way of expression in the black community. Guns are too easy to get, self-esteem “too hard to hold on to,” there is high unemployment and many feel “their only choice is criminality.” Of course we could say that since desegregation, black consumers stopped spending money in black businesses and people forgot how to be entrepreneurs in the basics (meaning not fashions "ordinary" people can't afford).  “Many young Black men are left feeling like their only choice is criminality. Given all that, we have a situation ripe for gang activity and the brazenness that comes with committing vicious and easily solved murders of famous people.”

But then he goes into the usual rationalizations that require our “understanding” and “empathy”—or else:

I am not saying Black people are to blame. Trust me, I understand how white supremacy and racism have led to this situation. I’m saying that decades of oppression have led to the gunplay and criminality you see in some of our neighborhoods, which is having an impact on hip-hop.

OK, so rap/hip-hop has nothing to do with a “cultural” shift toward the acceptance of violence as a fact of life? This was not the case in other eras when music was not associated with violence. Sure, you had artists like Sam Cooke and Marvin Gaye die from gun violence, but those were domestic situations, they weren’t associated with gang culture or the targets of such. Their songs were not mired in the bad things of life, as short as it is. Their music, like that of their eras in general, was about finding some moment of happiness in a world that has precious little of it. 

That is not what rap/hip-hop brings to the table—it is about “rebellion,” revenge and “respect,” the latter term more often perceived to be taken than given. That is another hypocrisy of the Black Lives Movement—it is more likely than not to be problem within the black community where you find a lack thereof; if you don't “respect” someone else’s “life,”  your life will be taken from you.

There’s more: “The stress of racism itself causes illness. So does segregation and food deserts that make it hard to get nutrition. Also, many Black people are afraid to visit the doctor because we fear that we don’t have the money for health care or we lack trust in the medical system. Most rappers come from families that have been poor for generations, so even though they have become rich, their bodies are still wrestling with the physical issues that were passed down to them, and in many cases, their minds are still grappling with the approach to health and medicine that they learned from their families.”

How is it possible to seem “educated” and uneducated at once? Rationalizing ignorance doesn’t make it more “rational,” or less ignorant.

Then there’s the kicker: “The death rate in hip-hop doesn’t mean something is wrong with hip-hop. It’s an extension of the problems all Black people go through. It’s evidence of America’s oppression.” What is so curious to me is that in the various forms of media, the eye-test tells us that blacks are significantly more over-represented than any other group, and unlike Hispanic representation, almost always in “normal” occupations or life styles, and rarely a useful examination of the culture where violence is a way of life. Even the Oscar-winning film Moonlight (which many thought was a response to the complaints about the “no black” Oscars the previous year) eventually blamed the drug-dealing lifestyle of the main character on society’s reaction to his gay identity.

There is another viewpoint, by journalist and author Nathan McCall, who in a Washington Post op-ed “My Rap Against Rap” recalls his own youthful life of crime that was influenced by the film The Godfather, which instilled in himself and his friends the “ruthless code” that “real” gangsters lived by. Shootouts and “retaliatory murders…took the thrill of gang warfare to another level.” The message he recalled was that “if someone double-crosses you, he deserves to die.” 

After watching “the hippest flick I'd ever seen. My buddies and I stepped outdoors, inspired and hyped, so hyped that we bopped down the sidewalk talking loud and intentionally bumping into people, hoping somebody would protest and give us an excuse to do a bare-knuckled version of what we'd just seen on the movie screen.” He got a chance to do the “Godfather” thing when he was 19, when a man “disrespected” his girlfriend, and so he deserved to die, so McCall shot him (the man survived, and McCall received a 30-day jail sentence).

But sitting in a jail cell changed him. Unlike today when going to prison is a “badge of honor” for many in black community, for McCall he discovered that he was “a silly, scared teenager who was mixed-up in the head.” For him as in many people, being “bombarded with images of sex and violence often find it hard to separate fantasy from fact. And some can't resist the temptation to act out what they've seen.”

Then came the advent of rap/hip-hop as the dominate influence in many young lives. Not all of it was “bad,” but “gangsta rap” became the dominant “strain.” Back in 1993 when McCall wrote this piece, Dr. Dre was rapping

Rat-a-tat and a tat like that

Never hesitate to put a nigga on his back ...

McCall noted “Plain and simple, that is a boastful call for black men to kill each other. Lyrics like these have become so pervasive that they're the accepted norm.” Can we say that things have gotten “better” in 30 years? How about more violent? At the time of the writing of his op-ed, homicides (especially with firearms) in the black community had seen a dramatic increase from 1989 to 1993, which certainly appeared to coincide with the emergence of rap/hip-hop. There was a steady decrease in the homicide rate until 2015, when the homicide rate began its most dramatic rise since the 1960s, almost double the rate in 2021 than it was in 2014.

McCall observed that music does influence behavior in the black community, some more than others. “On its face, it may seem crazy for someone to tie music to behavior. But the history of African Americans shows that, from the days of slavery to the present, music has always played a monumental role in what we think and do. It has always been an agent of change…The key element is aggression -- in rappers' body language, tone and witty rhymes -- that often leaves listeners hyped, on edge, angry about ... something.”

At first those of a different generation “overlooked the harsh lyrics because they were viewed as gritty urban political expression -- outrage at a hostile white world. Then, over time, the language changed. Rappers who once sang about being oppressed began sounding oppressive and hateful themselves…Gangsta rappers often defend their themes by saying they reflect a reality that they're not responsible for. The rappers' justification would be more persuasive if the brutality they toast had always been part of our reality. But this is more a case of life imitating art in the worst of ways.”

Tupac Shakur, for example, before his killing at the age of just 25 in 1996 had a laundry list of shootings, assaults and sexual assault charges on his “rap” sheet. He is regarded as one of the most “influential” rappers of “all-time.” We can see why people might believe this.

Again, it is the “messages” being conveyed. It isn’t like in the “old days” when the blues were just about feeling blue, or soul music that spoke to the “soul.” Now it is all you hear in some communities, there is a failure to put “negative rap” in perspective, especially by those “vulnerable” to such influences—meaning those with “faulty parenting,” or no parenting at all. They don’t listen to preachers or teachers either for guidance. They do see the rap “lifestyle” might make them rich, or so they think.

McCall noted even back then, nationwide juvenile homicide arrests doubled or tripled—mostly black-on-black—coinciding with the rise of gangsta rap. And it wasn’t just in urban hell-holes either: “The sudden, unexplained change in the values and behavior of young blacks in rural American towns is another development that has only taken place in recent years. Earlier generations, who were cut off geographically from violent urban influences, now have ready access to hip-hop music and videos. Now we've begun hearing more about random violence in places such as Kansas and North Carolina, where a few murders a year were once big news.”

McCall also made this observation: “Nobody fantasizes more than young black men. When you live in a world that limits your hopes, reality is often too much to bear. Because they are largely invisible, black males fantasize about becoming professional athletes -- stations they think will make the world acknowledge them. Because they are powerless, they are consumed with the symbols of power -- guns and gangstas. They imagine themselves as godfathers and, sadly, some actually get up the nerve to act out such roles. So they spray gunfire into crowded swimming pools, as happened in Washington last summer; or they gun folks down on a recreation field, like the men whose stray bullets killed a 4-year-old girl.”

He remember that time when he shot a man over “disrespect,” he was “mired in the weirdest logic”—that if the man had died, he still didn’t believe he had actually committed murder. The man simply deserved to die over ill-chosen words. Since blacks are the one bearing the brunt of this behavior, “you’d think blacks would have moved decisively to stop it. In the 1960s, we mobilized when white police, dogs and hoses were our most immediate threat.” 

But now the “enemy” is really “us,” writes McCall. But the black community is still looking for scapegoats when it is not inured to the violence (if not necessarily to property crime),  and that only at such times when a cop is the "perp."

McCall noted at the time of the writing of this op-ed that there were efforts to curb what people heard on the radio, and of course we would eventually see records with “ratings” labels, but mostly for “sexual” references. It has been noted in this country that "sex" often seems a far worse "crime" than killing people, and you can’t “silence” people for having a political or social “message” even if it does inspire crime and violence.

It would seem that while for some people, life has gotten better, sometimes a lot better—we know, we see them every day on television--but for others human life is a transient thing.  But like in society in general the “gap” between who is doing well and who isn’t is increasing in the black community more so than in other communities. But in the minds of "gangstas"—and this is true of the Latino community, where to be honest, there are some people who insist on being real assholes—this “gap” can be “closed” by what gangsta rap "promises." At least we can say that there were those like Ice-T and Snoop Dog who thought it was a good idea to "branch out" into acting or business.

It is of course a false promise, but even after three decades when McCall first warned what was happening, many wish to learn nothing, because lives don't really matter to them.