Lupe Fiasco Interview Highlights Only a Few Words He Said. [UPDATED]

He may not vote, but he affects how many others may vote, and that is worth a whole lot more. Bigup, Lupe!

LOWKEY - TERRORIST? (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO)
carrots . sticks . coercive diplomacy
Lupe Fiasco - Words I Never Said ft. Skylar Grey [Music Video]

"As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a
tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of
supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of
today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look
hypocritical to the rest of the world." - Retired Major General William Odom, former NSA Director under Reagan. 

Not a fan of how he ripped off that Modest Mouse to make a pop-rap song.

While I'll agree "The Show Goes On" is the weakest song on Lasers, he didn't rip 'em off; it's called sampling and Modest Mouse does get paid royalties and a songwriting credit for it.

He actually makes a very decent point.  The CIA has a term called blowback which is used to describe negative actions that the US encounters as a result of its interventionist foreign policy.  Obama may not be the biggest terrorist; but he certainly is no different that past ones.  Perpetuating one war (Afganistan) and starting a new illegal one (Lybia).

The rapper's comments -- which he is free to make -- are nonsense.  Obama is no more a terrorist than Bush or Cheney was.  

That said, I actually am very curious why more lefties aren't calling for Obama to be tried for "war crimes."  as noted, Obama has continued much of the foreign policy established by President Bush, and got us involved in another conflict in Libya without even consulting Congress.  Aside from an occasional nutty (like Lupe's) comment here and there, I hear nothing but the crickets chirping.  This suggests to me that either most of the prior criticism of Bush's foreign policy was overblown and disingenuous, or there are a lot of liberal apologists that will simply support Obama no matter what he does. 

Glenn Greenwald is one person you would definitely consider a "liberal" who lambasts Obama repeatedly and publicly for his foreign policy actions, among other things.

He's kind of a 'libertarian' actually.

Not me.  Obama's foreign policy is as bad as Bush's and in some cases escalated and worse.  If there are cases where Obama has lied, and if you dig around policies it's certainly possible, then he should be held to account.  You are being deliberately disingenuous though, as you know:

A) Bush lied to Congress and to the UN to justify the pretense for war.
B) Obama is just carrying on those existing wars that Bush started.

It's also disgusting that people like you pretend to be against military action, when Obama's engaging in it, but were just fine with it under Bush.  We know that under Bush the right wing echo chamber would have said it was our patriotic duty to bomb Libya.

well Obama can't necesarily drop them.
Lupe is well educated and just because all of you dont believe in what hes saying doesnt mean you can bash him for saying it. Its not like he didn't know that people would freak out about what he said, but he said it anyway because thats what he believes in. Obama does the same thing, like when he bowed to that foreign president, people thought it was a sign that we(america) were lower than them. If lupe has the balls to speak out on how he feels when so many other people wont... thats not something to criticize him for, but something to admire him for.

I'm not sure what/who you're arguing with, I generally agree with his sentiment, apart from the 'not voting' bit. 

The most important point is that he doesn't vote. In a republic that means his political opinions are irrelevant. Nothing to see here.

What if you view the entire U.S. political environment as not a legitimate democracy? Why would you participate in something you think is flawed? It makes more sense to think that you can fix the system by choosing to reside outside of it.

If he doesn't want to vote than he should start rappin' about revolution then.

The "entire U.S. political environment as not a legitimate democracy" is a very large claim. Ironically, this illegitimate system protects your right to make that claim, but "entire" means "all." If I really believed that I would probably emigrate. It would mean that short of overthrow of the Constitution etc. there could never be any sort of democracy here.

If what you really mean is that the two party system doesn't work . . . then not participating and not voting is silly. There are people who believe that the system needs new blood, new parties, and a new ethos, but that the structure of democracy here is sound. Navin could tell you more about them than I can, but the fact that they exist means that not voting is nonsense.

Oh, and in life we regularly "participate in something you think is flawed." From family gatherings to community meetings most of us could probably identify flaws. It doesn't mean we stop participating.

I didn't mean to imply that the entire U.S. political environment is not a legitimate a democracy. My point was just that, if you held that view, I think not voting is completely reasonable.

And I didn't just mean the two party system. For example, if you think there are flaws in the legislative process, regardless of party, most legislators you vote for are not doing anything to radically alter the way they do their job.

As far as your last examples, I agree. But the reason you go to a family gathering is absolutely not the same reason you vote. And while I admit that I didn't make that distinction in asking the question "Why would you participate in something you think is flawed?", I do think that it takes on a very different meaning when the something is the political process as opposed to a family reunion.

I guess going off your response, what I'm getting as it, what if you _don't_ think that the structure of democracy here is sound? And I guess your answer is that you would emigrate. But that's not necessarily a viable solution for everyone. All I mean is that, if you have the opinion that new parties and a new ethos is not enough, that we need to radically change the way democracy works in this country, I don't think not voting is not silly.

Hmmm. Since the legislative process is mostly a product of the legislative rules, which are generally created by the parties . . . yeah, I'm not buying it. I think the structures for democracy here are as sound as they can be in a country of 300 million that spans a continent. How those structures are used is an issue of elective politics.

You should spend some time reading about Theodore Roosevelt. Not so much for his specific ideology (which kind of doesn't always translate very well) but for the change he and other spearheaded in an environment completely dominated by racist/bossist Democrats, and plutocrat Republicans. I know that Navin will say nothing has changed, but Roosevelt and his ilk soundly won the wars they were fighting.

No I wouldn't say that.  The progressive era changed a lot of things, but certainly there's been a well funded movement to turn the clock back on all those advances, and we have been for decades now.

So emigration is not a viable solution for many who feel this way. What is a viable solution? Do what you can, which is vote. Part of the reason the structure of American democracy is unsound is that such a small percentage of the people participate. I strongly suspect that if everybody who felt this way actually tried participating, real change would be possible. But these people prefer to stand on the sidelines and make money singing bad rap songs.

I noticed that too. Kinda burns me up, to take yourself up as a political activist yet choose not to vote.

I actually like his music, and it's perfectly legitimate to call Obama out on what he's done. But if you don't vote . . . you're just talking.

Again, it's not "just talking." You don't have to vote to try to start a conversation about why there's no serious presidential candidates that won't take a different stance on Israel, or with any issues. If there's no candidate out there that you feel really represents your view, why would you vote? It's absolutely valid to try to engage in dialog about these issues.

Not surprisingly, I don't have any sympathy with that position. I *might* have it for John Q. Public (but I don't). I absolutely do not have it for Lupe Fiasco. He has a bully pulpit. I don't pretend he can change national politics, but he can certainly lend his support to local candidates etc. etc.

So, he's just talking. Which is fine, I just don't care what he has to say unless he rhymes with a good beat.

Lupe kinda sucks anyway.