Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 12, 1995)
The Battalion Opinion Thursday October 12, 1995 77 The money or the message? Gangsta rap found itself out on the street when Time Warner buckled under pressure W e have used the adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” so often it’s a cliche. It doesn’t say much: every one interprets things differently. But so what? The message the statement relays certainly doesn’t break new ground. Interpretation is what makes art so subjective. Whether we observe or hear art, few people will ever pinpoint the artist’s original intent. However, with a particular art genre — gangsta rap music — some critics believe they know exact ly what the artist’s intent is and censure it with unyielding fervor. The debate over gangsta rap’s lyrical content provokes response from artists, critics, politicians and laymen. Just as we all have the right to criticize differ ent forms of art, we all have the right to express ourselves in whatever way we feel necessary. When one feels it necessary to place a crucifix in a jar of urine, to take a few snapshots of nude men, or to use sexist, racist (or any other -ist) slurs, we must keep in mind that it is art, whether the indi vidual interpreting it deems it bad or good. In the realm of gangsta rap, however, a signifi cant number of critics regard its message as de structive and indecent. Two critics have even gone so far as to form an alliance: Dr. DeLoreS Tucker, chair of the National Political Congress of Black Women and William Bennett, former secretary of education during the Bush administration. The liberal activist and con- - servative bureaucrat — who targeted nearly every facet of gangsta rap — unleashed the bulk of their wrath on the Time Warner Corporation. Tucker, Bennett and others have ridiculed Time. Warner for endorsing gangsta rap lyrics that advocated senseless vio lence and destructive behavior. Time Warner released this music through its predominantly gangsta rap sub sidiary, Interscope Records. Last month, Time Warner sold back its part of Interscope to the label’s founders. So the concerted ef fort of Dr. Tucker and Mr. Bennett tri umphed over the money-hungry capitalists at Time Warn er, right? Proba bly not. Accord ing to the Recording Industry As sociation of America, the sale of rap music is ebbing. Sales of rap music have declined 2.1 percent from a high of 10 per cent in 1991. One of the reasons why sales are declining is be cause of the message gangsta rap — perhaps the most popular form of rap — continues to send. Tones of racism, violence and misogyny are turning its audience off. According to U. S. News & World Report, women connois seurs of rap (tired of being referred to as “bitches” and “hoes”), steadily switch to female R&B artists. Tucker believes gangsta rap lyrics “coerce, influence, encourage and mo tivate our youth to commit violent be havior, to use drugs and abuse women through de meaning sex acts.” In addition, white teenage boys aren’t using gangsta rap as much to piss off their parents. Heavy metal and rock are becoming the irritants of choice. Even though gangsta rap artists are losing seg ments of their audience, rap accounts for a sub stantial chunk of music sales: nearly $1 billion an nually. So was Time Warner’s decision to sell In terscope purely based on financial reasons? Absolutely. If Time Warner continued to cash in on gangs ta rap for the unforeseeable future, would it even think of bending to the stringent demands of Tucker and Bennett? It’s quite doubtful. A decreased market was the overwhelming fac tor in Time Warner’s decision to sell off Interscope. Given, the work of Tucker and Bennett may have had some bearing on the company’s decision, but how much clout did they really have? Bennett’s po litical and bureaucratic squabbles and Tucker’s grass-roots efforts were not enough to start an all- out boycott of Time Warner’s products. So we do not have Tucker and Bennett to thank for Interscope’s sale; we should thank Time Warner for getting squeamish when the pressure was turned on, and the sales decreased. Obviously, Time Warner thinks little of the art form that is gangsta rap. Some may say the mes sage gangsta rap relays is not a positive one, but without government intervention, the artists have the right to say whatever they please. Unless there is a resurgence in gangsta rap’s market, we can count on the eventual extinction of corporate support for this art form which could endanger the distribution that propagates rap .musk irnd^hscu 1 tur e. And then corporate America can sleep soundly. £[. L. Baxter is a junior geography and political science major Future could be taxing to consumers OOP's national sales tax proposal would force consumers to pay more Jason Brown Columnist I could take it when they tried to crack down on the flag-burning craze that swept the country. I could even handle it when they wanted to amend the Constitution to make themselves balance the bud get because they didn’t think they could do it with out a law. But now, the Republicans in Congress are wanting to pass laws that would actu ally affect people, and some of their ideas scare me. The worst idea involves changing the federal tax system. Underlying the current tax cut debate in Congress is the concept of radically altering and simplifying the tax code. Rep. Bill Archer, the powerful House Ways and Means chairman, and Republi can presidential candidates Sen. Richard Lugar and Pat Buchanan are promoting an idea which would scrap the federal income tax and replace with a national sales tax. Consumers would pay 17 percent on top of nearly everything they purchase. The goal is to eliminate the IRS, eliminate un fairness and encourage savings. It won’t work. First of all, most modest estimates say that a tax rate of 21 percent would be re quired to raise the revenue the IRS is currently collecting. Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, sug gests that the figure could even reach 32 percent because business investments, ex ports and government purchases would be difficult, if not impossible to tax. Adding a 21 percent consumption tax to the current tax of around 8 percent levied in most com munities would force con sumers to pay around 29 per cent on most goods. For most college students and other low-income indi viduals who consume most of their income, this would hurt tremendously. For example, if your textbooks cost $300, you would have to pay an extra $87 in taxes. If the new Red Hot Chili Peppers CD cost you $15, it would come to $19.35 with the sales taxes. Even the Big Meal Deal at Swensen’s, a bargain at $4.99, would inflate to $6.44 with taxes. It is no secret that consumption taxes are unfair, because upper income people consume a smaller proportion of their in come than lower income people do. Also, squeezing the poor to finance the government isn’t a very effective way to raise revenue. Just ask Marie Antoinette. If Archer, Buchanan and Lugar want to encourage the poor to save money, they should reconsider making them pay even more of their income to buy necessities. To make matters worse, administration of the sales tax would make people yearn for the good ol’ days of the IRS. The Organization for Economic Cooper ation and Development recently issued a report stating that a retail sales tax of over 10 to 12 percent encourages evasion. To put it another way, a 29 percent sales tax would create a huge black mar ket, unless the government put a lot of en ergy into making sure people paid taxes. To accomplish this, the government would have to be more intrusive than the hyper active Kramer on Seinfeld. Of course, the collecting and auditing would be a mess, because different states tax different products, and some states do not tax consumption at all. If the new Red Hot Chili Pep pers CD normally cost you $15, it would come to $19.35 with the sales taxes. Also, states would be responsible for col lecting the federal sales tax — an unap pealing prospect for any state government. Obviously, the problems with tax eva sion and collection would defeat the pur pose of simplification. If the federal government really wants to simplify the tax code and keep it fair, it should consider implementing a flat in come tax. This would tax all wage and investment income above a certain amount at one rate and eliminate all deductions. That way, the poor and low-income indi viduals would not have to pay taxes they couldn’t afford. There would be no loop holes for the wealthy and corporations, the tax would be fair and the return would be easy to file. Of course, no member of Congress, De mocrat or Republican, has proposed any thing this fair and simple, but that’s not too surprising. Leave it to Congress to make simplifica tion of the tax code complicated. Jason Brown is a senior economics major The Battalion Established in 1893 Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the editorials board. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, cartoons and letters express the opinions of the authors. Contact the opinion editor for information on submitting guest columns. Editorials Board Rob Clark Editor in Chief Sterling Hayman Managing Editor Kyle Littlefield Opinion Editor Elizabeth Preston Assistant Opinion Editor Don’t Stop The Regents should take the steps necessary to gain students' trust. Last night, the Board of Regents took steps to repair its badly damaged credibility by holding an open house for the students. This should be the first step on a long road to recovery. The alcohol scandal that rocked the Board in the sum mer of 1994 caused people to doubt the ethical standards of the regents. Furthermore, the decisions increasing the general use fee and the tabling of the student liaison proposal further con firmed suspicions that the re gents had no interest in the concerns of the students. However, the current Board seems bent on cleaning its tarnished image. By holding an open forum and allowing student to ex press their concerns, the re gents are beginning to satisfy the demands of students who have been wanting a more re sponsive Board. Now, the real challenge begins for the Board. Although the Board is to be commended for holding the forum, the regents need to prove that they are not just interested in improving their image, but are willing to incorporate students’ ideas in their actions. Also, the Board should not be content to reaching out to the students exclusively through monthly open hous es. More frequent interac tions with students would be welcome, and the regents should not discard the idea of a student regent. It is good to see the Board of Regents is extending an olive branch to the students, but many students will not be satisfied until they see more of the tree.