Tone Deaf Cable News

Watching MSNBC this morning, I saw a segment in which the anchor described the "new fashion" in the music industry - singing or rapping about the economic recession.

The anchor then asked a music expert - not sure if you go to school for that title or if you need a PhD, but he looked serious - whether it was: a) a surprise that musicians are starting to incorporate the recession into their songs and b) whether it was working - that is, was it effective in selling songs? Poor Neil Young even had his latest youtube-style music video played during the segment.

Come on, really? Damn it, cable news, don't do that to music.

Isn't music, or great music, by default, not something that takes reality and contorts it to sell records, but in fact, a reflection of reality itself? And when we describe history and time, don't we invariably look to the art and music of the period for some part of an answer? Music defines generations as much as it's defined by them. That's what I thought. If not, what the hell was the 1960's and 70's all about? Even worse, why'd I have to suffer through art history 101?

By this definition, the anchor's question was circular at best, nonsense at worst.

Shouldn't it be more of a surprise if artist's ignored the recession rather than if they incorporated it into their work? Would they even be an artist if they were disconnected from their reality? I would tend to think not.

Who Knew? Volunteer Work is Compatible with Capitalism

Back in January, a Starbucks in Arizona offered a free cup of coffee to anyone willing to sign a pledge sheet and join then soon-to-be President Obama's volunteer corps. I still have yet to find out how many people signed up, but if the raging caffeine addicts at my local Starbucks are any clue, people will go a long way for a cup of coffee.

Heading to Obama's hometown of Chicago, the White Sox - one of the windy city's Major League Baseball teams - got in on the act too. They've pledged to organize increased community service events involving players, organizational members and willing fans and citizens.

The NBA has also gotten in on the Obama volunteer bandwagon; they highlighted their usual NBA Cares program with commentary from Obama and NBA players alike during the most recent All-Star Weekend in Phoenix.

Who knew that volunteer work could be so compatible with capitalism?

Now we've all heard the cries of political opponents and bloggers, describing Obama's volunteer program with adjectives ranging from Gestapo-like and socialistic, to rumors of children being "drafted" into a civilian national security force, aimed at being as powerful as the military.

But apparently wealthy corporations and businesses don't seem to mind. That should settle the socialistic argument. I can't imagine anyone but the extreme right-wing bloggers are really pre-occupied about the other rumors and complaints.

Yet aside from settling ridiculous rumors, the actions of Starbucks, the White Sox and the NBA represent something much more important - the perpendicular intersection of two commonly believed parallel actions. In a time period of grandiose recession and stories of businesses cheating, stealing, swindling and collapsing, it's pleasant to see three corporate entities thinking about something larger than themselves - the community which supports them.

(Ok, so maybe Starbucks was just looking to increase customers by hooking even more people on caffeine. But it's nice to believe otherwise.)

Obama Should Pick Up Where Edwards Fell Off

It sure seems like all the rave these days is to talk about class. On one hand, there's the economic coverage and the struggles of millions of middle class families to pay their bills. On the other hand, there's Obama's "socialistic" plan to increase taxes on the upper class - with "class warfare!" as the battle cry to defend against the President's actions. Each of these notions have been getting considerable air time on the major media networks.

But pay attention long enough and you'll find that the term "lower class" is rarely ever mention in isolation. You may hear the phrase, "lower and middle class," as if both classes fit snuggly together like peanut butter and jelly. But it doesn't take much common sense to figure out that this shouldn't be and isn't true - after all, why bother having two separate names?

And, if you really pay attention, you'll hear virtually no discussion about the "lowest of the lower class," namely the homeless and those in poverty. So the question remains - "Where has the lower class gone?"

The answer, of course, is no where. In fact, with this economic crisis, it's more than likely that this class will continue to grow as unemployment continues to rise and the credit markets continue to sap. The real question, therefore, should be, "Where's the discussion of the lower class gone?" And the answer to that question, is unfortunate - it's been sucked out of political discourse on the back of John Edwards failed political career.

If you can remember, a mainstay of Edwards' 2008 presidential bid focused on the need to end poverty, a topic which many of the other candidates were silent about (in fact, he proposed a plan which projected to eliminate poverty by 2036). His campaign, although unsuccessful, pushed the issue of poverty into the forefront of the political debate and forced the other candidates to offer solutions and grapple with the epidemic. And then, just like that, the topic was gone, as Edwards was caught having an extra-marital affair.

One of the greatest moral dilemmas of our time was wiped off the political spectrum, untouched for much of the remainder of the campaign trail. But Obama can change all of that - he can pick up where Edwards left off. And he's already got a head start.

In his national speech before the members of Congress, Obama called for a new GI Bill, modeled on the post-WWII bill, which provided educational and vocational opportunities to millions of veterans returning from the war. But caring for the new veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan is just a start - albeit a very good start. Obama must extend this care to all veterans, especially those forgotten in the "lower class." According to a USAToday article, approximately one-fourth of all our nation's homeless have served in the Armed Forces. That doesn't include those who have served and are living just above poverty line, or the number living "better off" in the higher strata of the lower class.

Obama is correct for calling for more support to those who serve their country. But the discussion cannot end with a new GI Bill. The opportunity is now to push the conversation one step further and bring back the "lower class" into the political discussion. Like a newer version of the GI Bill, it is long overdue.