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.