(Beat: I Get Money - 50 Cent)
I'm a hard ass rapper -
I kill for fun -
I drive a tank to board meetings and
I text wit' my gun -
These rhymes are real serious -
I'm so damn hard -
That if I tripped in your driveway -
I'd shatter in your backyard -
And when you cleaned up all the pieces -
I'd slice your damn hand -
Because I'm not just hard I'm sharp -
Like the edge of a can -
I'm a murderer, a pusher, pimp, a player and plus -
I drive an 18-wheel SUV; I call it "the Bus"
It's made of solid gold and platinum -
With diamonds for wheels -
And you can see the sparks a-flyin' when I drive it to Sears -
I use it like an ice cream truck except instead I sell crack -
They had me drive it through the sand to make trenches in Iraq -
And my chain is SO BIG; people think I'm a slave -
I tell 'em "slavery is over it's just how I behave."
Nevermind the fact I'm all about the whips and the chains -
I'm a rapper so it's all about the head not the brains -
I wrote it for fun. Still, that's about the gist of hip-hop's message these days. I could probably go platinum with that.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Incivility of the Many...
"Doesn't he ever get tired of writing about society and politics?" you may ask. The answer is yes. I do. But when I see so much that is wrong, I can't help but say something about it. After all, if you see something, say something, right?
I was recently reading an article on gay marriage on CNN's Website, and there was a post at the bottom from a citizen in response to the article. Among many other incorrect and incoherent things in his post (and other posts), this caught my eye:
"There was a vote, the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in America. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between and man and a woman."
What? Firstly, of the many things wrong with this statement, let's pick on the pettiest first. This is not America, this is the United States of America, meaning the United States is in America. Mexicans, Brazilians, Ecuadorians, Canadians, Jamaicans, and anyone else in the Americas can ALL, with complete accuracy, call themselves Americans. If there were a law in France barring the baking of baguettes on Tuesdays, you would say "that's how it works in France", not "that's how it works in Europe." It would be a French law, not a European law. It's a European law in that France is in Europe, in the way that a Frenchman is a European, but a European is not necessarily French.
Secondly, what the Bible says has little to do with legislature (in principle). Our system of government was specifically designed that way. It would seem (from the many embarrassing statements over several decades) that many of those who believe we should legislate religion, have not ever actually read the Constitution of the United States of America, or any part of it. Nor, it seems, have they paid any attention in any American history class that they have attended. The United States was founded specifically ON (among other things) the principle of separation of church and state. No legislator, executive, or judiciary figure should EVER make a determination on the law based on their religious beliefs, but rather, only in the best interests of the nation. Of course, in practice this is not easy and it certainly has not worked perfectly. If you believe Issue X is morally wrong based on your religion, how can you write Issue X into law? But that is why we have the checks and balances - which also are not perfect, but this was all set up with the idea of making the church and state as exclusive of each other as possible. This is for good reason. Remember when the Catholic church controlled 80% of Europe? And that's just one (widespread and historically prominent) example.
Thirdly, and for me, the worst of the wrong, the idea that "the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in [the United States]." Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And, this is where terminology gets dicey, because the United States (as many people incorrectly believe) is not a "democracy". It is a republic. A "democratic republic", yes, but nonetheless a republic. This distinction is important, because though they operate in an EXTREMELY similar manner, they have some important differences. A pure democracy is "majority rule". All of the citizens in that democracy gather someplace and a poll is taken on a particular interest. If half plus one vote one way, that is what is implemented. If the United States were that, the person who wrote that post on CNN would be correct. However, they were wrong because the United States is not a pure democracy.
Without going into encyclopedic depths, The United States of America is a democratic republic, which means a representative form of government, which already eliminates pure democracy, AND the Constitution of the United States establishes a republic, which is based on protecting the civil rights of the few from the tyranny and incivility of the many, by use of the majority. Becauise if all are protected, the majority is protected. That incivility may be racism, sexism, or any other "-ism", but our government is designed to protect the oppressed minority from the tyranny of the masses. It can be complicated, and obviously, has not worked perfectly. Slavery, of course, comes to mind most easily. This contradiction was "corrected" by slave owners with the "3/5th's of a man" rule, where a slave was not a full person, but property. This allowed for slavery to exist without legally contradicting the principle and law of the Constitution, though in spirit of course, it still did, because one doesn't take property to church and teach it Christianity, one does that to (or forces that onto) a person. Because, at the time, since one did not have robotic aides with interactive voice recognition software, one didn't ask their property to clean their house and work their fields, one asked (or forced) another person to do that.
The structure of the United States government, as set forth in the Constitution is the great genius that allows for this nation to correct its past mistakes. From slavery, to women's suffrage, to the release of Japanese-Americans from our concentration camps, etc., etc., etc., it is the structure of our government as a republic that not only requests, but requires us to protect the rights of the few over the tyranny and incivility of the many. As a "white-talkin' ", black male atheist, I know all too well what it is like to be an outsider and a minority, and I'm thankful that our forefathers forethought this point. By the way, many of the forefathers that created this genius-in-principle, imperfect-in-practice system were the antithesis of the people who invoke them when they discuss this great country. Many of them were the progressive, LIBERALS of their time. The same CNN poster said the "... fore fathers are probably turning in their graves..."
They are. Because of him.
It is true, we are one nation "under God", but that statement is meant to make the point:
"Aided by our religious beliefs, we as men will do what is best for men to get by, but we will not infringe on the rights of others to do as they will. We are all under God; Let God judge us and them accordingly",
not
"Our God is the end all for all".
Let God judge us and them accordingly.
I was recently reading an article on gay marriage on CNN's Website, and there was a post at the bottom from a citizen in response to the article. Among many other incorrect and incoherent things in his post (and other posts), this caught my eye:
"There was a vote, the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in America. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between and man and a woman."
What? Firstly, of the many things wrong with this statement, let's pick on the pettiest first. This is not America, this is the United States of America, meaning the United States is in America. Mexicans, Brazilians, Ecuadorians, Canadians, Jamaicans, and anyone else in the Americas can ALL, with complete accuracy, call themselves Americans. If there were a law in France barring the baking of baguettes on Tuesdays, you would say "that's how it works in France", not "that's how it works in Europe." It would be a French law, not a European law. It's a European law in that France is in Europe, in the way that a Frenchman is a European, but a European is not necessarily French.
Secondly, what the Bible says has little to do with legislature (in principle). Our system of government was specifically designed that way. It would seem (from the many embarrassing statements over several decades) that many of those who believe we should legislate religion, have not ever actually read the Constitution of the United States of America, or any part of it. Nor, it seems, have they paid any attention in any American history class that they have attended. The United States was founded specifically ON (among other things) the principle of separation of church and state. No legislator, executive, or judiciary figure should EVER make a determination on the law based on their religious beliefs, but rather, only in the best interests of the nation. Of course, in practice this is not easy and it certainly has not worked perfectly. If you believe Issue X is morally wrong based on your religion, how can you write Issue X into law? But that is why we have the checks and balances - which also are not perfect, but this was all set up with the idea of making the church and state as exclusive of each other as possible. This is for good reason. Remember when the Catholic church controlled 80% of Europe? And that's just one (widespread and historically prominent) example.
Thirdly, and for me, the worst of the wrong, the idea that "the majority does not want gay marriage. That's how it works in [the United States]." Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And, this is where terminology gets dicey, because the United States (as many people incorrectly believe) is not a "democracy". It is a republic. A "democratic republic", yes, but nonetheless a republic. This distinction is important, because though they operate in an EXTREMELY similar manner, they have some important differences. A pure democracy is "majority rule". All of the citizens in that democracy gather someplace and a poll is taken on a particular interest. If half plus one vote one way, that is what is implemented. If the United States were that, the person who wrote that post on CNN would be correct. However, they were wrong because the United States is not a pure democracy.
Without going into encyclopedic depths, The United States of America is a democratic republic, which means a representative form of government, which already eliminates pure democracy, AND the Constitution of the United States establishes a republic, which is based on protecting the civil rights of the few from the tyranny and incivility of the many, by use of the majority. Becauise if all are protected, the majority is protected. That incivility may be racism, sexism, or any other "-ism", but our government is designed to protect the oppressed minority from the tyranny of the masses. It can be complicated, and obviously, has not worked perfectly. Slavery, of course, comes to mind most easily. This contradiction was "corrected" by slave owners with the "3/5th's of a man" rule, where a slave was not a full person, but property. This allowed for slavery to exist without legally contradicting the principle and law of the Constitution, though in spirit of course, it still did, because one doesn't take property to church and teach it Christianity, one does that to (or forces that onto) a person. Because, at the time, since one did not have robotic aides with interactive voice recognition software, one didn't ask their property to clean their house and work their fields, one asked (or forced) another person to do that.
The structure of the United States government, as set forth in the Constitution is the great genius that allows for this nation to correct its past mistakes. From slavery, to women's suffrage, to the release of Japanese-Americans from our concentration camps, etc., etc., etc., it is the structure of our government as a republic that not only requests, but requires us to protect the rights of the few over the tyranny and incivility of the many. As a "white-talkin' ", black male atheist, I know all too well what it is like to be an outsider and a minority, and I'm thankful that our forefathers forethought this point. By the way, many of the forefathers that created this genius-in-principle, imperfect-in-practice system were the antithesis of the people who invoke them when they discuss this great country. Many of them were the progressive, LIBERALS of their time. The same CNN poster said the "... fore fathers are probably turning in their graves..."
They are. Because of him.
It is true, we are one nation "under God", but that statement is meant to make the point:
"Aided by our religious beliefs, we as men will do what is best for men to get by, but we will not infringe on the rights of others to do as they will. We are all under God; Let God judge us and them accordingly",
not
"Our God is the end all for all".
Let God judge us and them accordingly.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Rappers for Obama...
Hypocrites. Manipulators. Liars. Fools.
These are just some of the nouns that could be used to describe the majority of rappers that supported Barack Obama in his presidential campaign. Why? Well, let's examine that.
Most rappers drive large, gas-guzzling, air-polluting SUV's and often travel in motorcades of multiple large, gas-guzzling, air-polluting SUV's.
Many rappers have clothing lines. These clothes are produced overseas in China for slave wages. They often employ black designers, but if you're a black person just looking for a job sewing the clothes together to make your ends meet, hope you can afford a long-term move to the Far East.
Most rappers support the degradation of women. Period.
Most rappers vehemently denounce homosexuality.
Obama ran on:
Energy reform - new and reusable sources of energy and the decrease of our dependence on foreign oil.
Penalizing companies that ship jobs Americans need to overseas locations to save a buck.
Respecting women and personal responsibility - financial and social.
Fighting for the rights of homosexuals (save for marriage).
Hmmm.
Clearly, rappers don't subscribe to Obama's platforms.
So why did rappers support Obama? Just because he was black?
Anyone have an answer?
These are just some of the nouns that could be used to describe the majority of rappers that supported Barack Obama in his presidential campaign. Why? Well, let's examine that.
Most rappers drive large, gas-guzzling, air-polluting SUV's and often travel in motorcades of multiple large, gas-guzzling, air-polluting SUV's.
Many rappers have clothing lines. These clothes are produced overseas in China for slave wages. They often employ black designers, but if you're a black person just looking for a job sewing the clothes together to make your ends meet, hope you can afford a long-term move to the Far East.
Most rappers support the degradation of women. Period.
Most rappers vehemently denounce homosexuality.
Obama ran on:
Energy reform - new and reusable sources of energy and the decrease of our dependence on foreign oil.
Penalizing companies that ship jobs Americans need to overseas locations to save a buck.
Respecting women and personal responsibility - financial and social.
Fighting for the rights of homosexuals (save for marriage).
Hmmm.
Clearly, rappers don't subscribe to Obama's platforms.
So why did rappers support Obama? Just because he was black?
Anyone have an answer?
Martin Luther King Jr. Was an Uncle Tom...
Yes, you read the title correctly. And not only is that my opinion - it's fact.
Martin Luther King, Jr. stood up for what he believed in, despite what others said he should do and say. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for the rights of all oppressed people, but African-Americans in particular. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not personally believe in violence - even in self defense. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed for his principles.
The character of Uncle Tom did all of these things. Those who invoke the character of Uncle Tom whenever they encounter a black person who simply does not see things the same way they do, discredit themselves and do a great disservice to Dr. King, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and others like them, as well as those whom these men fought for. As well, they embarrass themselves because, clearly, they have never actually read the book, but are just spitting up what they've heard someone else say. When you hear someone use the "Uncle Tom" term, ask them if they've ever read the book, then ask them (if they say "no") how they, then, arrived at their conclusion on what the term meant.
Uncle Tom did not go out of his way to appease whites. His subservience was in an effort to embrace non-violence and to protect those BLACKS whom he loved. He harbored no love of what whites did to him, but he harbored no hate for them as people. That sounds like Gandhi and King to me.
These same people shout "By any means necessary" and have the image of Malcolm X holding an AK-47 at his window locked in their minds. Ask them about the man and his principles, and that is all they can tell you. They don't tell you that not long before he died, Malcolm had come closer to King and Gandhi's views.
To black people who speak English well, write with correct grammar, have opinions that don't always involve what "Da Man" has done to them, who dress to give the impression that they are NOT criminals, who have career interests other than rap and sports, and who don't listen to Hip-Hop religiously, take pride. The ones who do all of the above and try to pass it off with homogeneity as "black culture" when it is just "street culture", they are the Uncle Toms. They are selling out to what society wants. They are marketing themselves as minstrels and baboons to the financial pleasure of corporate executives internationally. And no matter how much money some of them make ("Diddy" comes to mind - among [several] others) doing it, you are actually the ones waking up from the matrix - not them. They may have the money to travel the world, but they have learned nothing from it.
Educated, multi-interested, worldly black people unite! You have nothing to lose but your gaudy gold chains!
Martin Luther King, Jr. stood up for what he believed in, despite what others said he should do and say. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for the rights of all oppressed people, but African-Americans in particular. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not personally believe in violence - even in self defense. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed for his principles.
The character of Uncle Tom did all of these things. Those who invoke the character of Uncle Tom whenever they encounter a black person who simply does not see things the same way they do, discredit themselves and do a great disservice to Dr. King, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and others like them, as well as those whom these men fought for. As well, they embarrass themselves because, clearly, they have never actually read the book, but are just spitting up what they've heard someone else say. When you hear someone use the "Uncle Tom" term, ask them if they've ever read the book, then ask them (if they say "no") how they, then, arrived at their conclusion on what the term meant.
Uncle Tom did not go out of his way to appease whites. His subservience was in an effort to embrace non-violence and to protect those BLACKS whom he loved. He harbored no love of what whites did to him, but he harbored no hate for them as people. That sounds like Gandhi and King to me.
These same people shout "By any means necessary" and have the image of Malcolm X holding an AK-47 at his window locked in their minds. Ask them about the man and his principles, and that is all they can tell you. They don't tell you that not long before he died, Malcolm had come closer to King and Gandhi's views.
To black people who speak English well, write with correct grammar, have opinions that don't always involve what "Da Man" has done to them, who dress to give the impression that they are NOT criminals, who have career interests other than rap and sports, and who don't listen to Hip-Hop religiously, take pride. The ones who do all of the above and try to pass it off with homogeneity as "black culture" when it is just "street culture", they are the Uncle Toms. They are selling out to what society wants. They are marketing themselves as minstrels and baboons to the financial pleasure of corporate executives internationally. And no matter how much money some of them make ("Diddy" comes to mind - among [several] others) doing it, you are actually the ones waking up from the matrix - not them. They may have the money to travel the world, but they have learned nothing from it.
Educated, multi-interested, worldly black people unite! You have nothing to lose but your gaudy gold chains!
Monday, November 10, 2008
A Travesty...
That is what the I.E.P. Diploma is.
My fiancee' and I disagree about the New York City school system, because she believes trades either shouldn't be taught in High School, or all things should be taught equally in all schools. I argue this is not financially or socially feasible in the imperfect world, and the fact that NYC allows you to choose which High School you attend, makes up for that. If your school doesn't have a program you want to pursue, you can attend (free of charge) one that does. They even pay for you to get there.
The reason I bring this up, regarding the I.E.P. diploma, is this: Choice. It is perfectly acceptable to limit something, if one has the choice to circumvent that limitation, and has access to all the pertinent information to do so. NYC does this. When in Junior High School / Primary School in NYC, one cannot NOT know of their options and make plans accordingly, unless they are determined to be mis- or uninformed. When I was attending NYC pubic school, which was not long ago, a book with the list of High Schools and their programs, complete with program details was available to every student and parent two years before High School, and was handed out by the instructor, to each student individually, to take home, one year before High School. This was a thick book, and almost any question you had about the schools in question were answered in that book. If not, there were numbers to call any of the schools you had questions for or about, as well as a central information number. Guidance counselors at your current school were also equipped with information to assist students and parents.
If you decided you didn't want to attend Yale or Harvard, and wanted to learn auto repair, that was your (and your parents') decision. If you decided you did want to get into Harvard or Yale, you had the choice of the High Schools that would prepare you for that. If you were unsure, but wanted to cover all your bases, there were many High Schools that had the financial ability to cover that as well (there are well over 300 total High Schools in NYC). I attended one of those - Thomas A. Edison in Queens. If I had done things the way I was supposed to, I likely could have left there for an Ivy League Institution, or a career in a trade field. I had a choice.
When you receive an I.E.P. diploma from any school, and it is not legitimate (meaning, you do not have a thoroughly diagnosed learning disability / incapability), you are being denied the right of choice, and that - in this country - is a travesty. I.E.P. diplomas are not accepted for admission into any college or university, which means you need at least a GED to move forward. I.E.P. diplomas are the standard for "Special Education" students, and is little more than a certificate of attendance, but not recognition that one is prepared for the next step(s) in life. In fact it is recognition that you are not prepared, and it signals this to everyone who hears those three letters.
I currently live in Cleveland, Ohio, working at a community college, and everyday that I work at this school, student upon student with an I.E.P. diploma looking to get his or her GED, darkens my office threshold. Despite whatever cultural shortcomings they may experience, many of them succeed wonderfully. So, why is this? That is, why do so many of them have I.E.P.'s? Well, I would say that fully 98% of the students I encounter are low-income blacks. They have little education, or lack the social acumen to land and keep a job, lacking things such as office etiquette, knowledge of how to dress for an interview, what a resume looks like, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...
Despite this, of those 98% of prospective GED students who are low-income blacks, 95% of them do NOT have a learning disability, and of the five percent that do, 98% of those acquired it environmentally, and not by birth. This says to me, that when a black student decides he or she wants to hang with the wrong crowd, skip class (or school altogether), not study for their tests and not turn in their homework (all the same things a white child will and does do), their teacher (oftentimes white - but not always), simply chalks it up to an inability to learn, as opposed to an unwillingness to learn - and this is a terribly lazy and wrong decision, that will change the course of these unwitting students' lives for quite a long time, if not forever. This is one of the great failures of the United States' educational system when it comes to dealing with underprivileged black children.
I know teachers get burned out. Same students, different year. Talking in class. Disruptive. Disrespectful. Angry. Truancy. I understand that dealing with these problems is not easy, and is in fact very complicated. But we can't take the easy way out for ourselves, and ruin the student's life. This is why the child is the student and the adult is the teacher. Parents are also a problem. There are students who will fight every child in class and be disruptive in every way possible, and the parent, when called in about this child's discipline, is worse than the child. In many of these situations, you have to address that as well because the parent had the child when they were too young themselves. I'm not saying this is an easy solution that will be fixed by "ten easy steps" in six months or six years. But I am saying, an effort needs to be made. I also know that the problem often doesn't start in High School. However, High School is the last step for most of these students before the real world shows up at their door, so this is where the true last ditch effort has to be made.
When a young, black man or woman comes into my office, and speaks relatively well - that is, he is coherent and cogent - despite some imperfect grammar, and tells me he has an I.E.P. diploma, I want to find out his High School, get up from my desk, and go wring the neck of every one of his teachers and guidance counselors, as well as his parent(s). An I.E.P. based on what? On whose recommendation and on what research?
Troubled or slacker white children are not being issued I.E.P. diplomas at this rate. I've dealt with several low-income white people who want to come to college as well. They have children. They are on welfare. They have records. However, most often, they do not have an I.E.P. diploma. Why us and not them? Because, if a white child is troubled, he just has issues that need to be worked out. If a black child is troubled, he must be unable to learn. He's basically just stupid, and since he's poor and disruptive anyway, he's not worth trying to save. So, is to not have a diploma at all better than an I.E.P.? Yes. Because no diploma says you didn't finish school. That's it. An I.E.P. says not only did you not really finish school, but that you were mentally incapable of going any further. The ratio of I.E.P. diplomas awarded to blacks vs. whites (just based on my daily work experience) is absolutely staggering. Absolutely staggering. I know there must be official statistics on this someplace, and believe you me, I will be researching them.
I was very lucky. I had many people to save me when I started hanging with the wrong crowd and fell into truancy, petty crime, etc. Up until High School, I was always in the tops of my classes, and these were at top schools in the city. I don't have a learning disability. Yet, if not for my parents and others looking out for me, I would likely have an I.E.P. diploma right now. Instead, I have a four-year degree from a well-regarded private institution (despite my personal experience with them), and a chance to attend an Ivy-League graduate school.
It starts at home, but it has to end with the teachers. We can't turn every bad apple, but we can certainly reduce the number of them. When toast is slightly burned, you scrape off the burned area - you don't just throw away the entire slice. Are two food metaphors enough? How about: When your car has a spot of rust on the rear bumper, you don't junk the whole thing.
Black parents: STOP LETTING THESE SCHOOLS GIVE YOUR CHILDREN I.E.P. DIPLOMAS IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MEDICALLY DIAGNOSED WITH A LEARNING DISABILITY!!!! AND WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN, GET A SECOND OPINION AND THEN GET YOUR CHILD ACADEMICALLY EVALUATED AS WELL!!!!
No, it's not easy. My mother and father did it, and it wasn't easy, but they were able to do it and find it at very low, subsidized cost, or for free. It turned out that not only did I not have a learning disability, I, in fact had an I.Q. well above the national average. I wasn't a genius, but I was near it. It turned out I needed a more challenging course of work, and they found that when I received it, my temper and disruptive tendencies declined and my productivity increased.
It is so hard to pay the bills, put food on the table and keep up with the authorities' labeling of your child. But if you value their future, you will stop buying them FUBU and Phat Farm, and 100 dollar sneakers, and instead follow up on what's going on at their school.
Don't let your local government dictate your child's future.
My fiancee' and I disagree about the New York City school system, because she believes trades either shouldn't be taught in High School, or all things should be taught equally in all schools. I argue this is not financially or socially feasible in the imperfect world, and the fact that NYC allows you to choose which High School you attend, makes up for that. If your school doesn't have a program you want to pursue, you can attend (free of charge) one that does. They even pay for you to get there.
The reason I bring this up, regarding the I.E.P. diploma, is this: Choice. It is perfectly acceptable to limit something, if one has the choice to circumvent that limitation, and has access to all the pertinent information to do so. NYC does this. When in Junior High School / Primary School in NYC, one cannot NOT know of their options and make plans accordingly, unless they are determined to be mis- or uninformed. When I was attending NYC pubic school, which was not long ago, a book with the list of High Schools and their programs, complete with program details was available to every student and parent two years before High School, and was handed out by the instructor, to each student individually, to take home, one year before High School. This was a thick book, and almost any question you had about the schools in question were answered in that book. If not, there were numbers to call any of the schools you had questions for or about, as well as a central information number. Guidance counselors at your current school were also equipped with information to assist students and parents.
If you decided you didn't want to attend Yale or Harvard, and wanted to learn auto repair, that was your (and your parents') decision. If you decided you did want to get into Harvard or Yale, you had the choice of the High Schools that would prepare you for that. If you were unsure, but wanted to cover all your bases, there were many High Schools that had the financial ability to cover that as well (there are well over 300 total High Schools in NYC). I attended one of those - Thomas A. Edison in Queens. If I had done things the way I was supposed to, I likely could have left there for an Ivy League Institution, or a career in a trade field. I had a choice.
When you receive an I.E.P. diploma from any school, and it is not legitimate (meaning, you do not have a thoroughly diagnosed learning disability / incapability), you are being denied the right of choice, and that - in this country - is a travesty. I.E.P. diplomas are not accepted for admission into any college or university, which means you need at least a GED to move forward. I.E.P. diplomas are the standard for "Special Education" students, and is little more than a certificate of attendance, but not recognition that one is prepared for the next step(s) in life. In fact it is recognition that you are not prepared, and it signals this to everyone who hears those three letters.
I currently live in Cleveland, Ohio, working at a community college, and everyday that I work at this school, student upon student with an I.E.P. diploma looking to get his or her GED, darkens my office threshold. Despite whatever cultural shortcomings they may experience, many of them succeed wonderfully. So, why is this? That is, why do so many of them have I.E.P.'s? Well, I would say that fully 98% of the students I encounter are low-income blacks. They have little education, or lack the social acumen to land and keep a job, lacking things such as office etiquette, knowledge of how to dress for an interview, what a resume looks like, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...
Despite this, of those 98% of prospective GED students who are low-income blacks, 95% of them do NOT have a learning disability, and of the five percent that do, 98% of those acquired it environmentally, and not by birth. This says to me, that when a black student decides he or she wants to hang with the wrong crowd, skip class (or school altogether), not study for their tests and not turn in their homework (all the same things a white child will and does do), their teacher (oftentimes white - but not always), simply chalks it up to an inability to learn, as opposed to an unwillingness to learn - and this is a terribly lazy and wrong decision, that will change the course of these unwitting students' lives for quite a long time, if not forever. This is one of the great failures of the United States' educational system when it comes to dealing with underprivileged black children.
I know teachers get burned out. Same students, different year. Talking in class. Disruptive. Disrespectful. Angry. Truancy. I understand that dealing with these problems is not easy, and is in fact very complicated. But we can't take the easy way out for ourselves, and ruin the student's life. This is why the child is the student and the adult is the teacher. Parents are also a problem. There are students who will fight every child in class and be disruptive in every way possible, and the parent, when called in about this child's discipline, is worse than the child. In many of these situations, you have to address that as well because the parent had the child when they were too young themselves. I'm not saying this is an easy solution that will be fixed by "ten easy steps" in six months or six years. But I am saying, an effort needs to be made. I also know that the problem often doesn't start in High School. However, High School is the last step for most of these students before the real world shows up at their door, so this is where the true last ditch effort has to be made.
When a young, black man or woman comes into my office, and speaks relatively well - that is, he is coherent and cogent - despite some imperfect grammar, and tells me he has an I.E.P. diploma, I want to find out his High School, get up from my desk, and go wring the neck of every one of his teachers and guidance counselors, as well as his parent(s). An I.E.P. based on what? On whose recommendation and on what research?
Troubled or slacker white children are not being issued I.E.P. diplomas at this rate. I've dealt with several low-income white people who want to come to college as well. They have children. They are on welfare. They have records. However, most often, they do not have an I.E.P. diploma. Why us and not them? Because, if a white child is troubled, he just has issues that need to be worked out. If a black child is troubled, he must be unable to learn. He's basically just stupid, and since he's poor and disruptive anyway, he's not worth trying to save. So, is to not have a diploma at all better than an I.E.P.? Yes. Because no diploma says you didn't finish school. That's it. An I.E.P. says not only did you not really finish school, but that you were mentally incapable of going any further. The ratio of I.E.P. diplomas awarded to blacks vs. whites (just based on my daily work experience) is absolutely staggering. Absolutely staggering. I know there must be official statistics on this someplace, and believe you me, I will be researching them.
I was very lucky. I had many people to save me when I started hanging with the wrong crowd and fell into truancy, petty crime, etc. Up until High School, I was always in the tops of my classes, and these were at top schools in the city. I don't have a learning disability. Yet, if not for my parents and others looking out for me, I would likely have an I.E.P. diploma right now. Instead, I have a four-year degree from a well-regarded private institution (despite my personal experience with them), and a chance to attend an Ivy-League graduate school.
It starts at home, but it has to end with the teachers. We can't turn every bad apple, but we can certainly reduce the number of them. When toast is slightly burned, you scrape off the burned area - you don't just throw away the entire slice. Are two food metaphors enough? How about: When your car has a spot of rust on the rear bumper, you don't junk the whole thing.
Black parents: STOP LETTING THESE SCHOOLS GIVE YOUR CHILDREN I.E.P. DIPLOMAS IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MEDICALLY DIAGNOSED WITH A LEARNING DISABILITY!!!! AND WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN, GET A SECOND OPINION AND THEN GET YOUR CHILD ACADEMICALLY EVALUATED AS WELL!!!!
No, it's not easy. My mother and father did it, and it wasn't easy, but they were able to do it and find it at very low, subsidized cost, or for free. It turned out that not only did I not have a learning disability, I, in fact had an I.Q. well above the national average. I wasn't a genius, but I was near it. It turned out I needed a more challenging course of work, and they found that when I received it, my temper and disruptive tendencies declined and my productivity increased.
It is so hard to pay the bills, put food on the table and keep up with the authorities' labeling of your child. But if you value their future, you will stop buying them FUBU and Phat Farm, and 100 dollar sneakers, and instead follow up on what's going on at their school.
Don't let your local government dictate your child's future.
Friday, November 7, 2008
My Mama on Obama...
"My thoughts are from the cotton field to the White House. Not that Obama ever was in the cotton field, but I'm sure some of his ancestors on his father's side were. Can't you just see God's Hand in all of this? Amen. I believe this is just one of the ways God is rectifying the injustice that was done to people like Emmett Teal killed at 14 yrs. old in 1955 for calling a white women honey, for those 4 little black girls that were bombed and killed in an Alabama church in 1964 (?) just to name a few. So my thoughts are:
'Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound...', whose writer was a slave ship owner, but when God opened his eyes to what he was doing, he wrote this song."
-- Mother
'Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound...', whose writer was a slave ship owner, but when God opened his eyes to what he was doing, he wrote this song."
-- Mother
Just an Idea...
(Written at 1am after waking up suddenly. Returned to sleep immediately after)
Regarding God's existence: Belief, Trust, Faith, and Hope.
All are expressions of a lack of information, but Faith and Hope are expressions of doubt, whereas Belief and Trust are expressions of confidence.
Belief and Trust are ultimately different levels of the same thing. Belief and Trust require knowledge, even if the knowledge is unproven or indirect. It is possible to have Belief or Trust in the existence of a faraway planet because, though we can't see it, we see its gravitational effect on the star it orbits. We can infer that other planets exist, since we, ourselves, live on a planet. Belief and Trust are not knowledge, but they depend on some kind of knowledge or evidence.
As different levels of the same thing, Trust seems to be the more confident expression.
Faith and hope require little to no knowledge or evidence. Instead, they require will. People have Faith and Hope in something because they want that thing to happen, not necessarily because they believe it will. I have Hope that greed and selfishness can be eradicated, but I don't truly "Believe" it can be.
Faith and Hope are two levels of the same expression of doubt, but Faith appears to be the stronger of the two, i.e.:
"I Hope that greed and selfishness can be eradicated, but I don't Believe it can be. Still, I have Faith that our new president can help reduce it somewhat, since I Trust what I have seen of him thus far."
It would seem that the levels go (Top to bottom):
1. Trust
2. Belief
3. Faith
4. Hope
Trust is the strongest confidence without actual, full-on, empirical knowledge.
Belief and Faith are very similar, and sometimes overlap. In common usage, they are often interchanged to express the same thought. Faith is the stronger of the doubt expressions, Belief is the weaker of the confidence expressions.
Hope is the weakest.
Hope is pure will. Faith is a belief in possibility. Belief and Trust express that the possibility has evidence of reality.
It should also be noted, that though Hope and Faith depend on will power and lack knowledge in their implementation(s), that doesn't automatically negate the possibility of what the Faith and Hope are being applied to.
This is not an argument either for or against God. Rather, it is a search for an objective definition of the four most common terms present within these arguments, from which more cogent arguments (for either side) may then be constructed.
Theists can argue that they have Trust and Belief in their views, and Atheists can do the same.
Thoughts?
Commentaires?
Osservazioni?
Regarding God's existence: Belief, Trust, Faith, and Hope.
All are expressions of a lack of information, but Faith and Hope are expressions of doubt, whereas Belief and Trust are expressions of confidence.
Belief and Trust are ultimately different levels of the same thing. Belief and Trust require knowledge, even if the knowledge is unproven or indirect. It is possible to have Belief or Trust in the existence of a faraway planet because, though we can't see it, we see its gravitational effect on the star it orbits. We can infer that other planets exist, since we, ourselves, live on a planet. Belief and Trust are not knowledge, but they depend on some kind of knowledge or evidence.
As different levels of the same thing, Trust seems to be the more confident expression.
Faith and hope require little to no knowledge or evidence. Instead, they require will. People have Faith and Hope in something because they want that thing to happen, not necessarily because they believe it will. I have Hope that greed and selfishness can be eradicated, but I don't truly "Believe" it can be.
Faith and Hope are two levels of the same expression of doubt, but Faith appears to be the stronger of the two, i.e.:
"I Hope that greed and selfishness can be eradicated, but I don't Believe it can be. Still, I have Faith that our new president can help reduce it somewhat, since I Trust what I have seen of him thus far."
It would seem that the levels go (Top to bottom):
1. Trust
2. Belief
3. Faith
4. Hope
Trust is the strongest confidence without actual, full-on, empirical knowledge.
Belief and Faith are very similar, and sometimes overlap. In common usage, they are often interchanged to express the same thought. Faith is the stronger of the doubt expressions, Belief is the weaker of the confidence expressions.
Hope is the weakest.
Hope is pure will. Faith is a belief in possibility. Belief and Trust express that the possibility has evidence of reality.
It should also be noted, that though Hope and Faith depend on will power and lack knowledge in their implementation(s), that doesn't automatically negate the possibility of what the Faith and Hope are being applied to.
This is not an argument either for or against God. Rather, it is a search for an objective definition of the four most common terms present within these arguments, from which more cogent arguments (for either side) may then be constructed.
Theists can argue that they have Trust and Belief in their views, and Atheists can do the same.
Thoughts?
Commentaires?
Osservazioni?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A Greater Society?
I was bothered yesterday when I found out that my co-worker didn't vote. Her reasoning was that the election was too racially charged and that she didn't feel it would have any impact on her daily life. Well, though both of those may be true, to me, they are not good reasons. You don't just vote for you, you vote for the nation. She believes that most who voted, voted only on race. She said that she talked to people who voted for Obama just because they were black.
This is true; there were many black voters who voted for him just because he was black. I've heard them in the street and on the bus. I actually overheard part of a conversation while walking, where a black woman said she voted for Obama because he was black and nothing else. However, she didn't come across as a regular voter, or the most educated voter. Rather, it seemed, she saw an opportunity and pounced on it - but without taking the time to learn about the man. But statistics say that had she been educated and voted regularly, she still would have voted for Obama - because he was a democrat.
The numbers say Barack Obama garnered over 90% of the votes of black voters. However, as my fiancee' pointed out, democrats have garnered at or near 90% of black votes since the 1970's. Obama is a democrat. Surprise, surprise. So, his being black is ultimately a bonus - not a reason.
The other reasons my co-worker gave for not voting were that she didn't feel it would have a practical effect on her life, and that politics don't interest her. In addition, she didn't live during the civil rights period, so she didn't have any connection to the history being made. Well, on the last point, I made a similar argument on this blog. However, my argument didn't cite that as a reason not to vote. Furthermore, my argument on that point was critical of young hip-hoppers who have exploited street culture, giving it synonymy with black culture, then claiming they did something great when they had nothing to do with Obama's election - in terms of their similarities of view and lifestyle.
On her first point about practicality in her life, my response to that is, what about the future of her children? It will have a practical effect in their daily lives. It will have a practical effect on whether they get to go to college affordably, buy or rent a home affordably, and on even smaller things like whether they can grocery shop affordably.
Granted, I also made the argument that I don't know that Obama's presidency will have an effect on my daily life practically - but I know it may have enough of an overall effect on the nation that I still voted. I didn't just vote for me, I voted for the nation.
I'm not trying to make the argument that I'm better than her because I voted and she didn't. In fact, I don't believe that, and couldn't care less about who's the better person, because neither of us is better than the other. I'm only expressing my annoyance that someone takes no part in the political process, then complains that things never change. My co-worker mentioned that politics do not interest her, but you don't have to have an interest in politics and follow 24 hour news coverage to cast a vote for what you feel will be a good leader. It's true; one vote doesn't make a difference - but all of those "one votes" add up - and that's where the difference is made.
I wholeheartedly believe that the same negative and divisive politics, as well as world strife and tension, war, famine, oppression, etc., will continue as long as humans are able to continue it. My fiancee' and I had an argument about this. She believes otherwise. But what we both agree on is that you can say nothing to complain about it if you do absolutely nothing as it happens. So why try to change things if you believe they won't? Because the difference ultimately lies in your character as a person, not in the change you failed to effect. And as long as you're trying, you may be surprised that you actually win sometimes.
I was at a family dinner with my fiancee' and my immediate family, when a man collapsed unconscious at a nearby table. He was at dinner with his wife and two other couples. The two other men informed all at the restaurant that they were "doctors". A couple of people jumped up to help, but they were told by the two doctors to not bother. The "doctors" also told the staff not to bother calling the paramedics. They were told that "he does this all the time". The people returned to their dinners. The staff, though attentive, returned to work. After a minute or two of the two doctors failing to wake their friend, I decided to tell the staff to call the paramedics anyway, and they did so. The "doctors", unbelievably, were not too pleased with me. Before the paramedics finally arrived, the unconscious doctor finally woke up, but was dazed and confused, and they ultimately made use of the paramedics' stretcher to wheel him out,if nothing else.
Beyond the use of the stretcher, I don't know if the paramedics were sent on their merry way when they got outside, or if they ultimately took the formerly unconscious doctor to the hospital. Clearly, if he passed out like that "all the time", he had a pre-existing condition and I'm sure his friends and wife knew of it. Still, had this been something different, or an escalation in his condition, and I somehow found out later that the man had died, I would not have been able to live with myself. It's not enough, to me, that I am "off the hook" because the "doctors" told me not to call the paramedics. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not off the hook, because if something had happened to him and I may have been able to help but did nothing, then I failed to act, regardless of what the "doctors" said.
"It happens all the time" is no excuse not to act. Women are raped all the time. Children are kidnapped all the time. Police brutality happens all the time. Should we not act when we happen upon those instances? A woman raped in Kansas, a child kidnapped in Florida and a police beating in California have no immediate impact on me. But if I had the chance to vote for a law against it, should I not? And what if the time came when it did affect me? I would like to know that I tried something to prevent it. This is what is necessary to strive toward a great (or greater) society.
What's the difference if you vote and nothing changes? What's the difference if you support a law banning or supporting stem cell research? What's the difference if you pull a violent man off of a screaming woman and he gets no jail time anyway?
The difference is you.
This is true; there were many black voters who voted for him just because he was black. I've heard them in the street and on the bus. I actually overheard part of a conversation while walking, where a black woman said she voted for Obama because he was black and nothing else. However, she didn't come across as a regular voter, or the most educated voter. Rather, it seemed, she saw an opportunity and pounced on it - but without taking the time to learn about the man. But statistics say that had she been educated and voted regularly, she still would have voted for Obama - because he was a democrat.
The numbers say Barack Obama garnered over 90% of the votes of black voters. However, as my fiancee' pointed out, democrats have garnered at or near 90% of black votes since the 1970's. Obama is a democrat. Surprise, surprise. So, his being black is ultimately a bonus - not a reason.
The other reasons my co-worker gave for not voting were that she didn't feel it would have a practical effect on her life, and that politics don't interest her. In addition, she didn't live during the civil rights period, so she didn't have any connection to the history being made. Well, on the last point, I made a similar argument on this blog. However, my argument didn't cite that as a reason not to vote. Furthermore, my argument on that point was critical of young hip-hoppers who have exploited street culture, giving it synonymy with black culture, then claiming they did something great when they had nothing to do with Obama's election - in terms of their similarities of view and lifestyle.
On her first point about practicality in her life, my response to that is, what about the future of her children? It will have a practical effect in their daily lives. It will have a practical effect on whether they get to go to college affordably, buy or rent a home affordably, and on even smaller things like whether they can grocery shop affordably.
Granted, I also made the argument that I don't know that Obama's presidency will have an effect on my daily life practically - but I know it may have enough of an overall effect on the nation that I still voted. I didn't just vote for me, I voted for the nation.
I'm not trying to make the argument that I'm better than her because I voted and she didn't. In fact, I don't believe that, and couldn't care less about who's the better person, because neither of us is better than the other. I'm only expressing my annoyance that someone takes no part in the political process, then complains that things never change. My co-worker mentioned that politics do not interest her, but you don't have to have an interest in politics and follow 24 hour news coverage to cast a vote for what you feel will be a good leader. It's true; one vote doesn't make a difference - but all of those "one votes" add up - and that's where the difference is made.
I wholeheartedly believe that the same negative and divisive politics, as well as world strife and tension, war, famine, oppression, etc., will continue as long as humans are able to continue it. My fiancee' and I had an argument about this. She believes otherwise. But what we both agree on is that you can say nothing to complain about it if you do absolutely nothing as it happens. So why try to change things if you believe they won't? Because the difference ultimately lies in your character as a person, not in the change you failed to effect. And as long as you're trying, you may be surprised that you actually win sometimes.
I was at a family dinner with my fiancee' and my immediate family, when a man collapsed unconscious at a nearby table. He was at dinner with his wife and two other couples. The two other men informed all at the restaurant that they were "doctors". A couple of people jumped up to help, but they were told by the two doctors to not bother. The "doctors" also told the staff not to bother calling the paramedics. They were told that "he does this all the time". The people returned to their dinners. The staff, though attentive, returned to work. After a minute or two of the two doctors failing to wake their friend, I decided to tell the staff to call the paramedics anyway, and they did so. The "doctors", unbelievably, were not too pleased with me. Before the paramedics finally arrived, the unconscious doctor finally woke up, but was dazed and confused, and they ultimately made use of the paramedics' stretcher to wheel him out,if nothing else.
Beyond the use of the stretcher, I don't know if the paramedics were sent on their merry way when they got outside, or if they ultimately took the formerly unconscious doctor to the hospital. Clearly, if he passed out like that "all the time", he had a pre-existing condition and I'm sure his friends and wife knew of it. Still, had this been something different, or an escalation in his condition, and I somehow found out later that the man had died, I would not have been able to live with myself. It's not enough, to me, that I am "off the hook" because the "doctors" told me not to call the paramedics. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not off the hook, because if something had happened to him and I may have been able to help but did nothing, then I failed to act, regardless of what the "doctors" said.
"It happens all the time" is no excuse not to act. Women are raped all the time. Children are kidnapped all the time. Police brutality happens all the time. Should we not act when we happen upon those instances? A woman raped in Kansas, a child kidnapped in Florida and a police beating in California have no immediate impact on me. But if I had the chance to vote for a law against it, should I not? And what if the time came when it did affect me? I would like to know that I tried something to prevent it. This is what is necessary to strive toward a great (or greater) society.
What's the difference if you vote and nothing changes? What's the difference if you support a law banning or supporting stem cell research? What's the difference if you pull a violent man off of a screaming woman and he gets no jail time anyway?
The difference is you.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
32... more musings...
32.
I can honestly say I never thought I'd see a black president in my lifetime, and projecting, based on my current health and lifestyle, I should live until at least 2060. So, it makes me happy to see it at 32. I don't know that Barack Obama's election will mean anything for me practically, but symbolically, it means a whole hell of a fucking lot.
Hooray for black elitist, terrorist sympathizing, bleeding heart Muslim socialist liberals with western leadership ambition everywhere!!!!!!!
*--------------------------------------------------------*
I stared at myself in the mirror this morning, expressionless, for about 10 minutes. I do this almost every morning, and sometimes for a lot longer. I can see the age. No real wrinkles, no bags under the eyes, but some added weight in the chin and jowl areas. Why aren't there exercises you can do for the face? Actually, I don't look too different from the photo at the top/right of this page - just slightly. But it's enough to tell me that I need to do something now to slow this gain. I already have a big head, I don't need a fat face to accentuate it.
*--------------------------------------------------------*
I've been told that photographers take photographs, but I am determined to defeat this absurd stereotype. Where is is it written that a photographer does anything relating to photography?
I haven't truly done my own photography for several years now. I only pick up my camera now if someone pays me to (Like my upcoming project with the Cleveland Public Theater). True, it's been because of the expense, not the desire. My professional jobs don't yet pay me enough to shoot when I'm not on a professional job, and those jobs are few and far in between - especially these days. My temp job doesn't leave me the time (I'm temp, but full-time). So do I continue referring to myself as a photographer? I haven't done my own personal art project in at LEAST 3 years. You wouldn't go around calling yourself a taxi driver in the present tense if you hadn't driven a taxi in three years, whether by choice or not.
I continue to call myself a photographer, but I'm just clinging to something in my past at this point - it seems. If I had the money to pick up my camera again I would, but until then...
So, now what? Go digital. It's cheaper, they say. Well, not to start. All of that upgrading to professional digital is expensive. A low-end professional quality digital camera is around $1000. That's before printers and software and lights, etc. Don't forget the scans of the majority of my film to high-res digital files. So now I need a scanner too.
Sigh...
*--------------------------------------------------------*
My death has been my primary concern since my father's funeral in 1986. Preoccupied, would you say? Obsessed, even? Many of my sketches up to about age 25 have pages and pages of tombstones in the wilderness. I hope that when I die, it's of natural causes, and I just happen to be sitting on a tree-covered hill overlooking some other tree-covered hills, bisected by a river. Bear Mountain in New York State comes to mind.
I hope no one ever finds me and I can just decay in the open wilderness, nature reclaiming me to her bosom. I don't know how long that would take, but I would hope no one would find that area until I was completely dust. I like to imagine that my spirit would wander the hills and forests of New York and New England for eternity. Even if God exists, I can't imagine he can tell or show me anything more beautiful than that. If he does exist, I hope that he consigns me to that fate which I have just described. The only other thing I would be interested in is knowing the mysteries of the universe, and being able to travel to and experience them. Black holes, wormholes, nebulae, etc., etc., etc.
Maybe we could strike a deal where I get to go anywhere in the universe I want, but when on Earth, I am restricted to New York and New England.
*--------------------------------------------------------*
I talked with my mother by phone today, and, as has become the case lately with her, I feel better about everything. In the past, she's always found someway (even if not purposefully) to make me feel like complete shit after talking to her - even when we started on a good note. I always joke that my relationship with my mother is not unlike a Jewish mother and son (or, even daughter). My fiancee' thought I was insane when she first heard me say that. After spending some time around my mother and myself, she quickly came to see the merits of my position.
My mother, who lives in New York, has (without my prompting) let me off the hook of traveling to North Carolina to see my grandmother on Thanksgiving. I don't say "let me off the hook" in the sense that I didn't want to go. In fact, I would love nothing more. I say that, to mean, I can't at all afford it, and my mother allowed me to not feel guilty for that. She has no idea how much I appreciate that. I may still go to NY now, to see her, but I won't have the added expense of driving to NC.
Little as it may be, the gesture goes a long way in helping me deal with so many of the neuroses she caused in the first place.
Thanks mom.
(I guess this last one was neither a musing nor amusing) :)
*--------------------------------------------------------*
I don't like being 32. I like it less than 31, which I liked less than 30. 29 was OK. 28 was optimal. It wasn't the best time of my life, but I had two years before 30, so it still felt kinda distant. 29 was alright, but it was just a whole year of waiting to be 30.
It's narcissism; not about looks, but about accomplishment. I want to be young forever, because as long as I'm young, it's not too late.
Feets, don't fail me now!
I can honestly say I never thought I'd see a black president in my lifetime, and projecting, based on my current health and lifestyle, I should live until at least 2060. So, it makes me happy to see it at 32. I don't know that Barack Obama's election will mean anything for me practically, but symbolically, it means a whole hell of a fucking lot.
Hooray for black elitist, terrorist sympathizing, bleeding heart Muslim socialist liberals with western leadership ambition everywhere!!!!!!!
*--------------------------------------------------------*
I stared at myself in the mirror this morning, expressionless, for about 10 minutes. I do this almost every morning, and sometimes for a lot longer. I can see the age. No real wrinkles, no bags under the eyes, but some added weight in the chin and jowl areas. Why aren't there exercises you can do for the face? Actually, I don't look too different from the photo at the top/right of this page - just slightly. But it's enough to tell me that I need to do something now to slow this gain. I already have a big head, I don't need a fat face to accentuate it.
*--------------------------------------------------------*
I've been told that photographers take photographs, but I am determined to defeat this absurd stereotype. Where is is it written that a photographer does anything relating to photography?
I haven't truly done my own photography for several years now. I only pick up my camera now if someone pays me to (Like my upcoming project with the Cleveland Public Theater). True, it's been because of the expense, not the desire. My professional jobs don't yet pay me enough to shoot when I'm not on a professional job, and those jobs are few and far in between - especially these days. My temp job doesn't leave me the time (I'm temp, but full-time). So do I continue referring to myself as a photographer? I haven't done my own personal art project in at LEAST 3 years. You wouldn't go around calling yourself a taxi driver in the present tense if you hadn't driven a taxi in three years, whether by choice or not.
I continue to call myself a photographer, but I'm just clinging to something in my past at this point - it seems. If I had the money to pick up my camera again I would, but until then...
So, now what? Go digital. It's cheaper, they say. Well, not to start. All of that upgrading to professional digital is expensive. A low-end professional quality digital camera is around $1000. That's before printers and software and lights, etc. Don't forget the scans of the majority of my film to high-res digital files. So now I need a scanner too.
Sigh...
*--------------------------------------------------------*
My death has been my primary concern since my father's funeral in 1986. Preoccupied, would you say? Obsessed, even? Many of my sketches up to about age 25 have pages and pages of tombstones in the wilderness. I hope that when I die, it's of natural causes, and I just happen to be sitting on a tree-covered hill overlooking some other tree-covered hills, bisected by a river. Bear Mountain in New York State comes to mind.
I hope no one ever finds me and I can just decay in the open wilderness, nature reclaiming me to her bosom. I don't know how long that would take, but I would hope no one would find that area until I was completely dust. I like to imagine that my spirit would wander the hills and forests of New York and New England for eternity. Even if God exists, I can't imagine he can tell or show me anything more beautiful than that. If he does exist, I hope that he consigns me to that fate which I have just described. The only other thing I would be interested in is knowing the mysteries of the universe, and being able to travel to and experience them. Black holes, wormholes, nebulae, etc., etc., etc.
Maybe we could strike a deal where I get to go anywhere in the universe I want, but when on Earth, I am restricted to New York and New England.
*--------------------------------------------------------*
I talked with my mother by phone today, and, as has become the case lately with her, I feel better about everything. In the past, she's always found someway (even if not purposefully) to make me feel like complete shit after talking to her - even when we started on a good note. I always joke that my relationship with my mother is not unlike a Jewish mother and son (or, even daughter). My fiancee' thought I was insane when she first heard me say that. After spending some time around my mother and myself, she quickly came to see the merits of my position.
My mother, who lives in New York, has (without my prompting) let me off the hook of traveling to North Carolina to see my grandmother on Thanksgiving. I don't say "let me off the hook" in the sense that I didn't want to go. In fact, I would love nothing more. I say that, to mean, I can't at all afford it, and my mother allowed me to not feel guilty for that. She has no idea how much I appreciate that. I may still go to NY now, to see her, but I won't have the added expense of driving to NC.
Little as it may be, the gesture goes a long way in helping me deal with so many of the neuroses she caused in the first place.
Thanks mom.
(I guess this last one was neither a musing nor amusing) :)
*--------------------------------------------------------*
I don't like being 32. I like it less than 31, which I liked less than 30. 29 was OK. 28 was optimal. It wasn't the best time of my life, but I had two years before 30, so it still felt kinda distant. 29 was alright, but it was just a whole year of waiting to be 30.
It's narcissism; not about looks, but about accomplishment. I want to be young forever, because as long as I'm young, it's not too late.
Feets, don't fail me now!
Hooray!!! Black President!!! Except, hold on just a sec...
With this year's election of Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency of the United States of America, blacks, everywhere in the country, celebrated. Blacks sang in choirs in church at special Tuesday night services, and gathered in bars and parks, and held parties at their homes in recognition of this truly great achievement.
The common sentiment was that "we did it!" and that we had "finally made it!" To a large degree, this is true. If not for Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Marcus Garvey, Shirley Chisholm, the thousands of black men and boys lynched, and countless, nameless others (like my deceased Harlem community activist father) who endured suffering, hardship and death, we may not have been at a point where a black man could even run for local office, let alone win the nation's presidency. Our parents and grandparents represent a second application for the term "Greatest Generation", and Obama owes much of his success in this country to them.
But for the younger generation of blacks, I would say, those of us below age 45, I don't know if that sentiment of "we have overcome!" is fully accurate: Barack Obama is extolled for his graduation of Columbia and Harvard universities, but this is in a time when increasingly less high-minded blacks, who have more public influence, have decided that education and hard work hold no merit, and that the way to be successful is to parade half and fully naked black women across national television screens and shout profanities. As well, Barack Obama's ties to the black community as a whole are, ultimately, thin. His mother was white, his stepfather was Filipino, and he was eventually raised by his white grandmother. The one tie he has to "blackness" is his father, who left him at age two, and whom he only saw once more in his life, at age 10. And though "black", his father was African, and therefore not a part of the "American black experience".
Now, I don't say this to make the argument that Barack Obama is "not black enough" to be considered black, or anything as ridiculous or as simplistic as that. Being of African descent (and having said features) is enough to make one black - no matter the particulars of how you grew up. I heard that same argument about him in the primaries and I felt (and still feel) that it was a ridiculous and superficial argument - in the way it was presented. It could have been made properly, but the mainstream media, with our own help as blacks, as usual, failed to delve deeper into the potentials of that argument. Instead it devolved and was reduced to conversations of "Does Barack Obama listen to Hip-Hop?" and "Will he support Welfare?" My point here - about Obama's lineage - is only to say that, though this is a major step forward for black Americans, and a "victory" even, that the enthusiasm should be tempered somewhat. And here's why:
The election of Barack Obama will doubtless lead all whites and many blacks to the conclusion that since we now have a black US president, any black person can do anything they want in life, and there are no more excuses and "The Man" can no longer be blamed. This is a tricky area, because though I believed that even before Barack Obama ever even ran for president, there are exceptions and loopholes, and those will now be dismissed more routinely than in the past, setting up a new way for discrimination to rear its ugly head.
When John McCain started running ads claiming that, now President-Elect, Obama was merely a celebrity without substance, many (myself included) thought it was something of a reach. Certainly, Obama has reached a celebrity status, for a politician, not seen in this country since the Kennedys. But many were convinced that Obama was substantive as well, even if he wasn't always able to fully communicate that substance. And that inability of Obama to communicate his ideas clearly to the American people, was largely our fault - for having short attention spans and disinterest in true knowledge. Indeed, Obama was lambasted for being "too professorial". It was often argued (not in so many words) that he needed to dumb-down his communications to reach people more effectively.
But McCain, with his celebrity comment, was onto something in a way that no one realized: that celebrity, that Obama had acquired, was a large part of the reason that he could win a primary, let alone be elected president. That celebrity, allowed Barack Obama to surmount hurdles that ordinary black people, in everyday life, cannot surmount.
When I worked in New York City in TV and TV commercial production, I worked hard toward being a crew member. I started out as a production assistant, but I wanted to be a Grip and / or Set Lighting Technician. In my pursuits, I ran into many very helpful white people who wanted to give me a chance - I ran into more who didn't. Of the ones who did want to help me reach my short term goal, many had their hands tied - they were union, I was non-union and hadn't worked enough to be considered for the union. They couldn't get me onto union jobs, and often times, they were helping others as well, so when they worked non-union, they couldn't always call me because they were calling others also. So, sometimes I worked, and sometimes I didn't. I could accept that. That is procedural and bureaucratic and annoying, but it is understandable, and with time and persistence, can be worked around or overcome. However, in many cases, I was refused work simply because I was black. Of course, no one will believe that. "Not in New York." "Not in the liberal film / entertainment industry." Or, worse, "It wasn't race, you just weren't good enough."
Well, that would be fine, except, I had conversations with two people in which they implicitly stated (not explicitly, because that would create proof of the illegality of their actions) that they would never hire me, simply because they didn't like blacks. I know that sounds unbelievable to any non-black person reading this post, but blacks everywhere suffer this type of treatment on a daily basis, and whites who dismiss it do so because they can't in any way imagine that world still exists. But it does, and if you are black, but not a celebrity, you may (and likely will) still get denied a loan, a home, a credit card, a job, or anything else you seek over the next eight years (that's right, I said eight years). But now, there will be even less sympathy for you than before. Because "you have a black president."
So, Barack Obama's success at reaching the US presidency is due (in part) to the fact that his acquired celebrity status transcended his race. The same was true of O.J. Simpson (before his downfall), Michael Jackson (before his insanity), Michael Jordan, Seal, and any number of other black celebrities whose race was transcended because of their talent and abilities, which brings me to my next point: Barack Obama is talented and able, has great ideas, is inspirational, and may prove to be a very effective president. Absolutely, without a doubt, this was the large-scale reason why he was elected. But the fact cannot be denied, that for the black man who pursues becoming a union carpenter, things may not get any easier.
Another thing is important to note: Though Barack Obama personally decided to not overtly play on white guilt, he had to know it was in effect. Jesse Jackson types, who openly played on white guilt in the past - to the point of being accusatory - failed in their bids for higher office, because no one wants to be constantly reminded of a past mistake. Obama's genius was in "forgiving" white people, and allowing for them to feel whatever shame or guilt they harbored privately, instead of throwing it at them in fiery speeches. Obama didn't play on white guilt, and by not doing so, ironically, that guilt helped him be elected.
Only (thus far) in America, could a black man be the "ruler" of a majority Caucasian nation. Also, only by being an American president, could a black man become the de facto leader of the world. For that, we should all be thankful; that we live in a western nation, if not THE western nation that allows for the correction of its past mistakes. But let us not lose sight of what is important in everyday life. What has happened is a milestone, but President Obama won't get anyone hired on their next job. Only their hard work and perseverance, coupled with the nation's own recognition of its past and continuing injustices, and a little luck, will do that.
Whites: Recognize that one, quite major, black success does not make all past and current injustices void. Do not dismiss your darker countryman when he beseeches your help.
Blacks: While not forgetting, do not cling to slavery and the lynchings and cross-burnings. To remember is to honor. To cling, is to enslave and lynch the mind. Remember, but press forward.
End Note: John McCain returned to the John McCain of old last night, when he delivered a heartfelt and sincere speech of concession of the election. This is the John McCain I missed during the election and earlier, in the later stages of the primaries. I hope that he will continue his distinguished service in the United States Senate in the manner of his pre-election self. That was when he was a true maverick.
The common sentiment was that "we did it!" and that we had "finally made it!" To a large degree, this is true. If not for Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Marcus Garvey, Shirley Chisholm, the thousands of black men and boys lynched, and countless, nameless others (like my deceased Harlem community activist father) who endured suffering, hardship and death, we may not have been at a point where a black man could even run for local office, let alone win the nation's presidency. Our parents and grandparents represent a second application for the term "Greatest Generation", and Obama owes much of his success in this country to them.
But for the younger generation of blacks, I would say, those of us below age 45, I don't know if that sentiment of "we have overcome!" is fully accurate: Barack Obama is extolled for his graduation of Columbia and Harvard universities, but this is in a time when increasingly less high-minded blacks, who have more public influence, have decided that education and hard work hold no merit, and that the way to be successful is to parade half and fully naked black women across national television screens and shout profanities. As well, Barack Obama's ties to the black community as a whole are, ultimately, thin. His mother was white, his stepfather was Filipino, and he was eventually raised by his white grandmother. The one tie he has to "blackness" is his father, who left him at age two, and whom he only saw once more in his life, at age 10. And though "black", his father was African, and therefore not a part of the "American black experience".
Now, I don't say this to make the argument that Barack Obama is "not black enough" to be considered black, or anything as ridiculous or as simplistic as that. Being of African descent (and having said features) is enough to make one black - no matter the particulars of how you grew up. I heard that same argument about him in the primaries and I felt (and still feel) that it was a ridiculous and superficial argument - in the way it was presented. It could have been made properly, but the mainstream media, with our own help as blacks, as usual, failed to delve deeper into the potentials of that argument. Instead it devolved and was reduced to conversations of "Does Barack Obama listen to Hip-Hop?" and "Will he support Welfare?" My point here - about Obama's lineage - is only to say that, though this is a major step forward for black Americans, and a "victory" even, that the enthusiasm should be tempered somewhat. And here's why:
The election of Barack Obama will doubtless lead all whites and many blacks to the conclusion that since we now have a black US president, any black person can do anything they want in life, and there are no more excuses and "The Man" can no longer be blamed. This is a tricky area, because though I believed that even before Barack Obama ever even ran for president, there are exceptions and loopholes, and those will now be dismissed more routinely than in the past, setting up a new way for discrimination to rear its ugly head.
When John McCain started running ads claiming that, now President-Elect, Obama was merely a celebrity without substance, many (myself included) thought it was something of a reach. Certainly, Obama has reached a celebrity status, for a politician, not seen in this country since the Kennedys. But many were convinced that Obama was substantive as well, even if he wasn't always able to fully communicate that substance. And that inability of Obama to communicate his ideas clearly to the American people, was largely our fault - for having short attention spans and disinterest in true knowledge. Indeed, Obama was lambasted for being "too professorial". It was often argued (not in so many words) that he needed to dumb-down his communications to reach people more effectively.
But McCain, with his celebrity comment, was onto something in a way that no one realized: that celebrity, that Obama had acquired, was a large part of the reason that he could win a primary, let alone be elected president. That celebrity, allowed Barack Obama to surmount hurdles that ordinary black people, in everyday life, cannot surmount.
When I worked in New York City in TV and TV commercial production, I worked hard toward being a crew member. I started out as a production assistant, but I wanted to be a Grip and / or Set Lighting Technician. In my pursuits, I ran into many very helpful white people who wanted to give me a chance - I ran into more who didn't. Of the ones who did want to help me reach my short term goal, many had their hands tied - they were union, I was non-union and hadn't worked enough to be considered for the union. They couldn't get me onto union jobs, and often times, they were helping others as well, so when they worked non-union, they couldn't always call me because they were calling others also. So, sometimes I worked, and sometimes I didn't. I could accept that. That is procedural and bureaucratic and annoying, but it is understandable, and with time and persistence, can be worked around or overcome. However, in many cases, I was refused work simply because I was black. Of course, no one will believe that. "Not in New York." "Not in the liberal film / entertainment industry." Or, worse, "It wasn't race, you just weren't good enough."
Well, that would be fine, except, I had conversations with two people in which they implicitly stated (not explicitly, because that would create proof of the illegality of their actions) that they would never hire me, simply because they didn't like blacks. I know that sounds unbelievable to any non-black person reading this post, but blacks everywhere suffer this type of treatment on a daily basis, and whites who dismiss it do so because they can't in any way imagine that world still exists. But it does, and if you are black, but not a celebrity, you may (and likely will) still get denied a loan, a home, a credit card, a job, or anything else you seek over the next eight years (that's right, I said eight years). But now, there will be even less sympathy for you than before. Because "you have a black president."
So, Barack Obama's success at reaching the US presidency is due (in part) to the fact that his acquired celebrity status transcended his race. The same was true of O.J. Simpson (before his downfall), Michael Jackson (before his insanity), Michael Jordan, Seal, and any number of other black celebrities whose race was transcended because of their talent and abilities, which brings me to my next point: Barack Obama is talented and able, has great ideas, is inspirational, and may prove to be a very effective president. Absolutely, without a doubt, this was the large-scale reason why he was elected. But the fact cannot be denied, that for the black man who pursues becoming a union carpenter, things may not get any easier.
Another thing is important to note: Though Barack Obama personally decided to not overtly play on white guilt, he had to know it was in effect. Jesse Jackson types, who openly played on white guilt in the past - to the point of being accusatory - failed in their bids for higher office, because no one wants to be constantly reminded of a past mistake. Obama's genius was in "forgiving" white people, and allowing for them to feel whatever shame or guilt they harbored privately, instead of throwing it at them in fiery speeches. Obama didn't play on white guilt, and by not doing so, ironically, that guilt helped him be elected.
Only (thus far) in America, could a black man be the "ruler" of a majority Caucasian nation. Also, only by being an American president, could a black man become the de facto leader of the world. For that, we should all be thankful; that we live in a western nation, if not THE western nation that allows for the correction of its past mistakes. But let us not lose sight of what is important in everyday life. What has happened is a milestone, but President Obama won't get anyone hired on their next job. Only their hard work and perseverance, coupled with the nation's own recognition of its past and continuing injustices, and a little luck, will do that.
Whites: Recognize that one, quite major, black success does not make all past and current injustices void. Do not dismiss your darker countryman when he beseeches your help.
Blacks: While not forgetting, do not cling to slavery and the lynchings and cross-burnings. To remember is to honor. To cling, is to enslave and lynch the mind. Remember, but press forward.
End Note: John McCain returned to the John McCain of old last night, when he delivered a heartfelt and sincere speech of concession of the election. This is the John McCain I missed during the election and earlier, in the later stages of the primaries. I hope that he will continue his distinguished service in the United States Senate in the manner of his pre-election self. That was when he was a true maverick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)