The vast, vast, vast majority of people who support Mumia abu Jamal do so because they think he isn’t a cop killer. I don’t, myself, agree with them, but can you understand the difference between supporting someone for killing a cop, and supporting someone who they think was wrongfully convicted of killing a cop?
Personally, I think it’s a good thing that we have a president who doesn’t insist on only associating with people who believe things he agrees with. Can you explain why you think this is a bad thing?
Why? So he can appease people who are going to criticize him regardless of what actions he takes? You, for example, have criticized Obama for being a part of Reverend Wright’s church, and now have criticized him for distancing himself from that church. Clearly, there is no correct action Obama could take in this situation - no matter what he does, you will criticize him. The people pushing this fake controversy are the same. Given that, what possible reason would he have for altering his actions based on the criticism of you or people like you?
Also, Stewart brought up a good point. Should we really be judging someone’s artistic merit based on one or two pieces of their art, particularly when their catalog is as large as Common’s?
Common has been releasing music for 20 years, it’s not like he is some young upstart. Hell his last genuinely relevant album in over six years old now (which in turn makes me feel very old).
Thank God he’s not a poet (according to you anyways). So clearly it must have been somebody else’s words at that poetry reading.
No shit the White House doesn’t agree with everything Common says. Obama probably also doesn’t agree with everything William Faulkner or Bill Shakespeare said either. I heard he thinks the Mona Lisa is kinda shitty too, what with that half-assed smile. One can respect an artist, and even invite him to a White House function focused on that art, without agreeing with the content of all of the work.
I think this reality would be self-evident if Common weren’t a “thug” “rapper”, if ya know what I mean…
OK, let me ask me Magiver something. Do you think Bono, Springsteen and Dylan should have been invited to the White House? What would be your reaction now if Obama were to invite any of those guys over?
And as for songs they’ve written about convicted murderers, Lakai gave a few cites in post # 78.
Anyone who read the trial transcripts understands that the the probability of him killing Officer Faulkner is 100%. There is zero chance he didn’t do it. Zero.
Of course it’s a good thing to associate with people with differing opinions. But you’ll have to explain why an unaccomplished poet’s voice should be heard above that of the concerns of the officers who lost a comrade. The President is the only politician that represents all of the citizens.
Really, because I’ve heard a shit ton of caterwauling from crankypants about Common going to the White House; I’ve heard much less from Common himself so from my perspective the concerns of the officers are being heard a lot more than the poet’s. Secondly calling him unaccomplished is baseless and undercuts your position as it makes you look like you are debating in bad faith, thirdly, if the president represents all citizens, then unless you have some reason why Common is not a citizen, then it seems perfectly appropriate given your metric of represents all the citizens that he be invited to the white house.
And of all the people who have an opinion about the case, how many do you think have read the transcripts? 1%? I took a quick look on one website and saw more than 2,000 pages of transcripts from several different trials and appeals. (I assume you’re talking about the transcripts of the initial trial and not all of this stuff.) Whether or not the guy is guilty, it’s possible to have an honest opinion either way.
If people associated with the victims of the murdered objected then hell yes. It’s not the job of the President to personally screen every celebrity that stumbles into the White House but he should be sensitive to the people he represents when made aware of it. Given that the FBI reports to the President I don’t know if they’re capable of making a public protest of Bono but if they did then the President should respond to it.
We had a college in my area that invited Mumia Abu-Jamal to address their graduating class (via recording). Despite public outcry explaining in detail why their decision was errant they went ahead with it anyway and they were indignant that people actually protested the event. Officers came from all over the country to protest it as well as many other people.
Ignorance is no excuse in this situation. The President is a lawyer as well as many of his staff and could absorb the key factors of the case in no time.
It’s not a function of opinion in this case. He was seen shooting the cop by multiple witnesses at the scene. He never left the scene because he himself was wounded. His own brother, who was at the scene, will not testify on his behalf. If you want to argue insanity as a legal side point that would be an area of opinion but the fact that he shot the Faulkner is not debate material.
??? That doesn’t make any sense. We’re not talking about what you’ve heard, we’re talking about what he’s done and the people he’s insulted by doing it.
Fight my ignorance and cite a book of poetry he’s written and then cite some critical review of it that would warrant a White House invitation.
Charles Manson is a citizen and has written poetry as I’m sure have some of his supporters, what’s you’re point? If someone wrote about the innocence of him or James Earl Ray do you think that person should be extended an invitation to perform at the White House?
So basically, Common is stupid. He is a stupid person who believes that Assata Shakur is not guilty of killing a police officer. Anyone who is not stupid would totally know that she is very guilty.
Still doesn’t mean that Common advocates cop killing. He is simply too stupid to realize Shakur is guilty based on evidence.
Should stupidity be a barrier to being invited to the White House?
So everybody who some group finds objectionable in any way should be uninvited from the White House? If somebody is strongly anti-abortion or strongly pro-choice, or strongly pro- or anti- death penalty (for there are people who consider abortion and or death penalty to be murder) they should be disinvited? Or somebody who is in the pro torture camp?
Or does this apply only to entertainers? Or, judging from the lack of outrage over Bono and Springsteen and Cash et al, only African-American entertainers under 40? (I don’t think anybody raised fuss any of the times Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder or others over 40 performed there, even though they’d had problems with drugs and womanizing and what not.)
If Obama had Ludacris and Pat Boone perform a duet at the White House, I’d be surprised and think it was weird perhaps but I really couldn’t care much less. This is about as non as an issue can get. Since I don’t think anybody saner than Michelle Bachman really thinks that Obama promotes cop killing this becomes simply an issue of “let’s be as bland as possible in the White House guest list lest somebody who wasn’t going to be there in the first place be offended”, and there’s no entertainer on Earth that bland:
Pat Boone? Homophobic hypocritical asswipe.
Ludacris? Unnecessarily vulgar in his lyrics.
Donny Osmond? I’m offended by his editorials against gay marriage.
Justin Bieber? He’s Canadian- why are we letting Canadian take our jobbbs when we got Amur’can teenaged singers?
Tony Bennett? Womanizing drug addict who was close pals with Vegas mobsters.
Dolly Parton? Well…she…
Okay, there you have me. Everybody loves Dolly Parton, but I think even she’d get old after a while. And to the best of my knowledge she’s never come out and explicitly said she’s against cop killing, now has she? And come to think of it, what message is she conveying with that 9-5 movie/song/musical- is she saying that that companies only let you dream just to watch them shatter so you should smoke pot and take your boss hostage… how’s that not call for a Marxist revolution? And Jolene- what defeatist anti-feminist dreck, begging a woman to please not take your man!
You probably won’t like this answer, but here is the list of some of his notable published poetic collections.
1994 - Resurrection
1997- One Day It Will All Make Sense
2000- Like Water For Chocolate
2002 - Electric Circus
2005 - Be
You want me to go dig up critical reviews also?
If you are unwilling to accept this as a legitimate answer then we might be at a roadblock as to agreement on his legitimacy as an artist. The only difference between these and most other poetry is that these are set to music. Music is the primary medium in which most poets work these days if they actually care about people finding their works, but I would put Common up with Langston Hughes in terms of the legitimacy of his work.