One Black Atheist

Two Rants...

2011-12-29T16:21:00.000-08:00

1. On Liberals as “Pussies”…

You know, I’m always hearing(from “tough” conservatives) that liberals and progressives and the like, are“entitled”, “weak”, and “pussies”. Supposedly, we’re hateful of war, afraid ofconflict or confrontation, soft on crime, enablers, pushovers, and totalitariansocialist communist militant fascists.

Now, I’ve never heard howweak pussy pushovers would form a totalitarian socialist communist militant fascistgovernment, or how totalitarianism (rule by one), socialism (large government),communism (no government – a left form of anarchy), militancy (requires nothating militancy) and fascism would all work as one government. As well, fascismis hard to define, and is really now just a buzzword for any authority onedislikes, no matter what side they’re on, and so when anyone yells it, you canbe 85% sure that they don’t know what they’re talking about. However, that isthe crux of the matter, since what isclear these days is that conservatives are no longer known for things like“thinking” or “reading” or “educating” (themselves) on matters so “complicated”.

The main people I hearcalling us liberals “pussies” though, are conservatives of certain “stations”as it were. The traditionally poor and or rural conservatives, who think theworld is literally black and white – or more accurately for them – brown andwhite – and Jewish. These are the “Bible-thumping”, “gun-lovers” who bristlemightily at the use of those terms, then do nothing to dispel them. In fact,they’ll often tell you how wrong you are by quoting the Bible and threateningto shoot you if you don’t agree, using John Wayne-approved phrases like “you’dbetter watch what you say next, mister” and “we don’t take kindly to that typeof language in these parts”, while fondling their holster lock and / orreleasing their safety.

But you know what I’ve cometo conclude about these people? They’re actually the pussies! Interesting, eh?They’re the ones afraid of conflict who are simultaneously militant.

They’re the ones stocking upon guns to defend themselves, and they’re the ones who are prepared to violentlydefend what they believe. And whom are they defending their beliefs against?Well, of course, that amorphous mix of unbelievers, criminals and thegovernment. Amorphous, because none of the three are real threats; just threatsimagined by the “victims” themselves, and paranoia’s preyed upon by those usingthem to seek office or sell more redneck treasures.

In reality, they’re the onestruly scared. That’s why they need so many guns, a big bad God to back themwhen they’re defenseless, and when all else fails, they can hide behind theirone-track, over-simplified version of the constitution – the one that says thegovernment isn’t allowed to intrude into U.S. citizens’ lives, unless it’s thelives of the brown citizens they dislike and feel unreasonably threatened by.

If these characterizationsseem overly harsh and simplistic, they’re not. True, these are hardworkingpeople who only want the best for their families. But let’s face it; they’renot too bright. I mean, who ISN'T a hardworking family person? But, the idea that a poor, rural miner would vote republican, when it’srepublicans who want to deregulate mine safety and then deny free healthcare tothe victims of said neglect, just so they (and their already rich friends) canmake even more money, says they’renot thinking. And they’re not thinkers. They’re reactors. And the damage theyare causing to this country is becoming nuclear.

Ultimately, they’re not thebackbone of this country, they’re the front-bone of this country. Becausehonestly, they’re just a bunch of dicks.

2. “Give him a break…”

When are liberals, and otherblacks, and other black liberals, and comedians, going to stop telling me toleave Obama alone? “Lay off the man”; "Give the man time"; “He just got into office”; “You expecthim to change the world”; “He’s the first black president of a western power,how much more do you want?”

I’m sorry - I missed the memothat stated, “Once Obama becomes president, his success is complete. Also, stoptelling me “he just got here”. Terms are only four years. This is year threeidiots; How long should we wait? Year five? Oh, I mean year one of the nextrepublican. Thanks a lot “wait and see liberals”.

How much more do I want? Iwant him to do his job as a president. His windfall-to-insurance-companies of ahealthcare plan is not that great. There are great things in it – like the “nodropping of people with pre-existing conditions” idea, but this is in few ways a“good” deal. Private citizens are now required to buy health insurance startingin 2014. Well, what if you’re like me and haven’t worked in ages and are notworking now? How will I afford that? And how will I afford the penalties incurred as a result of not affording it? Again, the poor get punished for being poor.

I worked and paid taxes for years! Howabout using some of that and AT LEASTgiving me a public option, if not outright universal government coverage. Oh,that’s right, you can’t, because you’re too busy caving in to republicans’demand for more of our tax dollars to fund corporate incentives for companiesthat hold the nation back, like Big Oil and Gas, and the military industrialcomplex. Well, thanks to lax gun laws, there are plenty of guns on the streetsof U.S. cities and in the hands of “rurals”. So how about we take care of ourcitizens’ healthcare and educations, and cut some of the military spending andtake chances defending ourselves in case we’re invaded by Canada or Mexico. Ifwe cut our military budget in half, we would still be spending the most in theworld AND add 400 BILLION dollars to our economy. That’s not a made up number –look it up for yourself at the Congressional Budget Office (C.B.O.).

And stop saying China’s athreat. China’s not a threat, we’re their number one customer! Drug dealersdon’t kill clients, they kill rival drug dealers. If China offs anyone, it’llbe Japan, South Korea or Thailand. And the way they make things there, maybethey’ll get reckless and inadvertently lead-poison Iran for us.

Pre-existing conditionsreform. Student loan reform. Awesome. Oh, wait, is that it? Is that going to bethe legacy? Are the days of Roosevelt reallygone, or are we just too lazy? What about taking the Wall-Street crisiscreators to task? What about Guantanamo? Those would have been huge. Instead,we get half-assed healthcare that the republicans are going to repeal anyway(and I can’t fully say I’m against that at this point – maybe the next democratcan go all in and get us Universal).

Talk about liberal pussies.

Hey, I like the guy, but Ilike my plumber too. But if he fails to do his job, should I wait and see ortake him to task and get my money’s worth? Believe it or not, we’re payingmoney to be here – a lot of it – and I want my money’s worth. I’m tired of notworking, and not getting ahead when I am working because of rich assholes anddo nothing politicians – who themselves are often rich assholes.

The conservatives, again,have successfully changed the conversation. We’re talking about the national debtinstead of Wall Street. The national debt is a major problem, but it was notthe cause of this economy, nor is it the reason it continues. The reason isWall Street and consumerism. But we’ve let them change the conversation again.

I’m 35, I want kids, but Ihave no job, no prospects, and I AM college-educated, with a load of debt toshow for it. Yet I have to watch Christmas commercials where people are givingeach other cars? What the hell is this? After 9/11 the answer was “keepshopping”. Are you kidding me?

Stop shopping.

Wake the fuck up!

And don’t tell me to leaveObama alone. I’M already being left alone – in the cold.

United States of Dumberica....

2011-07-08T09:25:00.001-07:00

Obama spoke today about the rise in unemployment and the slow in hiring for June, and I can't help but wonder about his clarity. Is he really this dense? Or, is it just the hard fight the republicans are giving him? Is it a combination?

I realize "there are no easy answers" and "those who think there are easy answers don't fully understand the situation", etc., etc., blah, blah, blah...

That said, here's the two step solution / easy answer to fixing the economy:
1. HIRE PEOPLE.
2. PAY PEOPLE.

There. Done.

Pressure companies to hire people by using penalty taxes or reduced business incentives, as well as higher tariffs on products produced by American companies that import their goods due to overseas production. That is, treat American companies that outsource our jobs overseas, like foreign importers.

When companies hire more Americans AND pay them more (reducing profits from the high billions to the low-to-mid billions - therefore STILL generating huge profits), Americans will have more disposable income to then turn around and spend on all the useless junk and bullshit you want them to buy. This, in turn, will allow companies to continue to turn profits, which will, in turn, allow companies to continue to pay people a TRUE living wage, which they, in turn, can spend on more useless junk and bullshit, etc., see how this works?

Turns out, hiring people and paying them is actually pro-business and pro-American - imagine that?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.2

Jimmy Carter: Crisis of Confidence

2011-02-10T11:15:00.000-08:00

I've often said to my love, that Carter was a great man, but a presidential failure. But he didn't fail, the people failed. Mightily.

Watch and listen.

Farewell to Welfare - As We Currently Know It...

2010-02-08T11:08:00.000-08:00

Concerning my article on socialism, I felt it was necessary to elaborate on an idea I expressed regarding welfare and reform.

Many people express the desire to reform or overhaul the welfare system in each state. Some of these suggestions are subversive, others are constructive. What I've devised is a way in which welfare can remain in existence but also succeed at its task, which is helping people get on their feet during a hard time. You'll have to keep in mind that reforming welfare in this context would also require reforming our system of economics as a whole. Under our current capitalist system, there is no reform to welfare that can possibly succeed, since our system moralizes the welfare issue, denigrates those who need and use it, and does not allow enough money OR common sense thought to flow into the system to truly assist those in need.

My plan is quite simple, though broad in scope. The necessary money for the system would be achieved by higher taxes on the wealthy and on large corporations, as well as less corporate welfare (tax cuts and incentives) for big businesses. Also, through a system of higher wages overall and reduced costs in other areas of life, fewer people would need to use welfare, thereby rendering more money and peripheral assistance available in the system, but allowing fewer people to need to make use of it.

With that preface, here is my plan:

MANDATES:
The basic mandates for individuals in the program are simple:
1. One must have a full time job while receiving welfare.
OR
2. One must have a part-time job and be attending a degree or certificate granting institution part-time.
OR
3. One must be attending a degree or certificate granting institution full time.

These are basic mandates for which there would be few exceptions. For example, if one were taking care of an elderly sick parent, as well as raising a child, one may not have time to attend school or work full time. Situations like these would have to be taken on a case by case basis, but provisions would be built into the system for these types of happenings.

There would also have to be mandates for businesses and state governments.

At the outset, the minimum wage would have to be raised in each state to the True Cost of Living (henceforth TCL) - not an abstract calculation such as is used now. This cost would be calculated on what it truly takes to live in a given environment at a given time, which means it would have to be adjusted regularly. It would also have to be routinely adjusted for inflation. To do both annually doesn't seem too out of sorts. The TCL wage would be different in every state. In a state like Ohio, this may be $10 an hour. In a state like NY or California, this may be $15 to $17 an hour. The federal minimum wage could be abolished if the federal government mandated that each state use the appropriate TCL wage, and have it audited regularly by the United States Department of Labor (USDoL).

Of course, businesses would start griping about going "belly up" with such substantial wage increases. Many would want to start layoffs or at least threaten to create them. The federal government could contain this by mandating that NO company that continues to turn a profit after the TCL wage change would be allowed to terminate an employee for any reason other than poor employee performance or insubordination. If you were making a seventeen billion dollar profit, and now you only make a ten billion dollar profit, you cannot layoff employees. That difference of X-amount of dollars (remember - per company in the US), in addition to shoring up welfare and social security, etc., would go into the social system of making college free, and providing other social services like free health care. Of course, companies can "drum up" complaints in an effort to layoff employees and maximize unnecessary profits, but if all of a sudden there were 1500 complaints against employees in a company at one time, that should raise USDoL eyebrows.

Provisions would need to be made for smaller businesses, and businesses under a certain income or payroll may be exempt from the tax increases. In other words, ExxonMobil's taxes may go up, but Mom and Pop's local cookie store, with ten employees and less than $75,000 in profits annually, would never feel a thing. I personally agree with the current administration's threshold of $250,000 in annual profit.

For companies that can plainly demonstrate that these wage increases wold indeed cause them to head into the red, they could continue to receive the existing corporate welfare (in the form of subsidies, incentives and tax breaks). Of course, all companies applying for this assistance would have to undergo an intensive "faulty accounting" audit by the IRS for good measure - just in case.

With the TCL wage raised, many working people would immediately come off of welfare and many of those who would normally have to go on it would be saved from doing so. Those who still had trouble and would find themselves needing to go onto welfare would have more money available to them in the system. As well, higher general taxes (particularly on businesses and the wealthy) and less welfare to large, profitable businesses would create a surplus of funds that could be used to pay the cost of attendance for any welfare recipient who wants to earn a degree or certificate. Money would also be used by the state to cover child and senior care expenses for those in need of it. The government would not run these businesses, just pay for the expenses incurred by welfare recipients until they completed their degree. They would also cover the same expenses if the welfare recipient worked full time. Now a welfare recipient has options - not just find a job at McDonalds, but actually attend school free of charge or find a job they like - or attend school until finding a job, etc.

Next, and quite importantly, is the time limit. One would not be allowed to collect welfare and food stamps indefinitely. For those attending school, their limit would be one year beyond graduation, or two years - during an economic crisis like the one we've just sustained. After that, they would have to reapply quarterly, documenting that they still need assistance and why. For those who drop out without work, with no explanation (serious family trouble for example) their benefits would end immediately upon discovery of that fact. For those working full time and making the minimum wage, they would have one year of uninterrupted benefits from the first time they are approved. After that, they would have to reapply quarterly, also documenting that they still need assistance and why.

It is my firm belief that under this system, deadbeats would be weeded out, and we would see many more people getting an education. Those who didn't get an education would at least be able to pay their bills and be contributing members to the workforce.

This will require quite a bit of fortitude from our politicians and a lot of focus from the people on what their elected officials are doing. With rulings like the recent one allowing corporations to contribute unlimited sums of money to political campaigns, none of this is likely to happen anytime soon. We are, in fact, heading in the opposite direction.

But with nobility of spirit and a constant struggle for social betterment, it is my firm belief that this would be a great start.

If only it were possible.

The Truth About Socialism (and by Extension, Communism)...

2010-02-08T09:01:00.001-08:00

Not terribly long ago, I read a comment posted online by a man who claimed that, as a student, his university professor, in an effort to explain why socialism was so bad and capitalism so good, offered to give everyone in his class an "A" regardless of effort or ability. This would make everyone equal and this, he said, was socialism. When he asked the students if this is what they wanted, many, of course, declined. Those who were doing well, didn't want other, less-hardworking or less intelligent students, to have the automatic privilege of what they felt they had worked so hard for. Conversely, (and predictably) the not-so-hardworking students said they didn't mind the new system if they were guaranteed an A. Finally, the students who were hardworking but who weren't doing so well said they didn't want it because they wanted to earn their grade on merit. The person who told this story on the forum, stated that from that point onward it was clear to him that capitalism was the best system and that he wanted no part of socialism.

If this story is true, then I shudder to think that there are such simple-minded professors in our academic institutions and that these men and women are molding our future minds, but I will give the professor the benefit of the doubt, and assume he or she only did it this way to stimulate discussion - to get the students to think. Unfortunately, with at least this one student, he failed.

Firstly, let us be clear about some terms. Capitalism is NOT synonymous with democracy. Socialism and communism are NOT synonymous with authoritarianism. Both are political AND economic systems (whether you want to believe that or not, we see this in practice everyday).

First, let's define socialism and communism, because there is a difference, and few people seem to really know what either one is to begin with.

Basically, and straightforwardly,
1. SOCIALISM is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their DEEDS".
2. COMMUNISM is "from each according to their ability to each according to their NEEDS".

Of course, the value of labor cannot truly be measured, however, socialism is NOT a welfare state; it is clear from human history that those who do the least will not be gleefully supported by the remainder, and that's just a fact of human nature.

1. Socialism is a redistribution of wealth to those who do little or nothing.
This is one of the most heinous statements about socialism I hear - routinely. The part of the statement concerning redistribution of wealth is true, but it is framed in a misleading way. Redistribution is not what FOX News and conservatives would have you believe. Redistribution is an equalizer, akin to affirmative action (which they also hate), where nothing is handed out to anyone. Instead, incomes are raised and costs are cut in order to allow people who have less to be able to do little things in their lives - like eat food and see a doctor. Now, yes, taxes in general, and particularly on the wealthy, are higher in a socialist economy, but by no means are these crippling or anti-business. Many of the world's billionaires were and are made in socialist economies that you may have heard of - like England and France. And, likewise, many of the businesses in those countries are small businesses. You have many wealthy or well-living people, but fewer large corporations and more individually-owned businesses. France practically invented the "boutique". Regulation obviously plays a part in that as well. The problem the wealthy have is not that they will no longer turn a profit, but they won't turn as large of a profit. Instead of corporations making forty billion in a year, they will make thirty-two billion in a year. Boo hoo. However, that eight billion would be redistributed by law in higher wages, health care for all, free college education, social security, child care, subsidies for lower food prices, etc., etc., etc., so that the people who make the least money (because socialism still creates class division) are still able to pay their bills, have a car, take a vacation every so often, and live the life that western conquest should now have provided for all of its citizens.

The second misleading and inaccurate part, is the idea that this redistribution will go to people who do "little or nothing". The only people who do little or nothing as a general rule and get rewarded financially for it in any system, are the wealthy. Many working class people see little reward day in and out for all the hours they toil away in service of another. Many of the wealthy enjoy "legacy wealth" - earning income from the work of their forebears and not their own hands and/or minds. Legacy wealth also includes getting into a university because your dad contributes money or getting a bank executive job because you know the CEO. Not because you're smart enough to get into the school or because you have earned the job on merit. The same people who decry socialism and welfare make continuous use of these methods to not only get ahead, and stay ahead, but to keep people like you (reading this) from getting where they are. I can't imagine a bigger system of welfare. These are the people who are getting privileges redistributed for doing "little or nothing".

Most people on state-provided welfare are using it to try to get on their feet - not attend a social function at a ritzy new hotel. Welfare reform in this country needs to be drastically reformed - drastically - but that includes corporate welfare. Likewise, the attitudes toward welfare recipients needs to change. The way we look at "legacy wealth" welfare should be the same way we look at state-provided welfare. The legacy wealthy have the right to receive their family's money because they are members of that family. State-provided welfare recipients have the right to their welfare as well, because they are members of society, and if a member of society needs something, it is society's job to help them obtain it.

One of the ways we can reform state-provided welfare is by making college tuition free for all (with the "redistributed wealth" from taxes, reduced profits, etc.) as well as child care, and mandate that anyone receiving state-provided welfare MUST either have a full-time job OR have a part -time job and be in school OR be in school full-time. Of course there will be individual circumstances and those will have to be considered on a case by case basis. I have written a more detailed outline of my ideas for welfare reform here.

2. Socialism is Stalinism (or "authoritarian" in a broader sense)
Socialism does not require authoritarianism. Authoritarianism has come to be synonymous with socialism and communism, but the problem in those situations was not the system - the problem was the few people in power who were greedy. Much like in Capitalism. The system is not corrupt - the people are. The difference is, those authoritarian regimes eventually fell. Capitalist regimes don't fall. However, this is not because capitalism is inherently better or noble. It is because capitalism rewards greed and corruption and dishonesty. Socialism does not. So eventually, when socialism is used to further personal gains, it fails - even if over a long period of time. However, in capitalism, those attributes are rewarded and sought after - and so it gains strength over time. In failed socialist states, the term socialism is used by the totalitarian government as a way to seize property and assets and use them for the benefit of the few. It's not true socialism - it's actually authoritarian capitalism. However, executed properly, socialism can work equally as well as capitalism (see: England, France and Canada), and I would argue it works far better, because it works to the benefit of the citizenry, not just a concentrated few, as capitalism does. Now granted, those nations - particularly England and France, are hybrid economies, but they lean much more to the left than our system, and do so enough that they can be considered socialist.

Furthermore, proof that capitalism is not based on hard work can be heard in the very language that capitalists use to talk about capitalism. "We need businesses that take risk" or "business owners make more money because they shoulder the risk of the business" and "the market crashed because of too much risk or bad risks". So there it is. Capitalism is not predicated on hard work and "pulling oneself up by their bootstraps". Socialists do those things as well, except everyone involved sees the reward of their effort. In capitalism, only the "risk-taker" sees reward. In a socialist model, everyone is invested in their company's success. In capitalism, only the risk-taker is. Therefore, capitalism is predicated not on hard work, but rather on risk. Casinos are a great place to take risks, and one of the many reasons people cite for not wanting a casino in their town is the seedy underbelly that comes with it - much more so than other industries. The market is (and has been treated as) a casino environment. Why would we expect any difference there? With greater risk comes more unsavory characters who are looking to get rich quick at the expense of others.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying all capitalists are unsavory and dishonest, but what I am saying is that there are more of those types per capita than among socialists - just by the nature of how it operates. Answer this - would you want a casino erected adjacent to your home? Now, would you want me to invest your future there? The people who take zero risk at a casino don't lose anything. The ones who do may win everything, but they may also lose what they already have. Should we operate our economy and mortgage our futures in this manner? We roll the dice with our finances in capitalism and give it a fancy name "investing", but the odds and outcomes are no different. Very few reading this would take their entire life savings to the casino and pin all of their hopes for their future on getting lucky and winning big. Yet we do it everyday as capitalists. We call it an IRA or a 401k, but you may as well call it "Blackjack" or "Roulette", as the most recent crisis has reminded us. Be aware of that - "most recent" because it has happened before, and if capitalism continues to be the dominant system, it will happen again. And again. And again.

One of the more amazing things to me is that the United States is a de facto protestant Christian nation, yet few of the protestant Christians here adhere to the supposed teachings of Christ. Yes, we know about the people who party hard on Saturday and fall out praising God on Sunday, but that's not what I'm talking about. That's just humans being human and the hypocrisy that comes with that - for all of us. No one is perfect, and so that behavior is acceptable as long as those same people don't start trying to tell me how immoral I am. What I'm talking about is American Christianity linking with capitalism as a group. Capitalism is held up by most American adherents of Christianity, yet, as evidenced by the teachings of Christ they promulgate, as supposedly related to us by the Bible, Christ was himself a socialist. In fact, he was likely a communist. One of the major requirements of following him was that one give up all of their worldly possessions. American Christians fight to get more possessions.

Christ supposedly frowned upon taking advantage of others, money (remember the temple?), not helping those in need (Good Samaritan parable, anyone?), and generally all the things we aspire to do in modern day capitalist society. Jesus supposedly stated that a camel can pass through a needle's eye more easily than a rich man can get into heaven. So, then why all of the "prosperity ministries" of Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and many, many more? Mohandas Gandhi noticed this almost a century ago. I have my own issues with Gandhi, but I agree with him here:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time." - Mohandas Gandhi^{One doesn't expect the individual to be perfect - even if Christian - but capitalism should not be treated as inherent in the teachings of Christ.

Next, and quite importantly, capitalism is not democratic. It amazes me that this one isn't clear to all who can think, but capitalism has been incorrectly and inappropriately aligned with democracy. Socialism seeks to create equal opportunity for all involved, in every aspect of their lives. Capitalism seeks to concentrate power and resources in the hands of a few. How does that match up with democracy? In a democratic system, everyone has equal input. One man, one vote. That sounds socialist to me - the idea that you put everyone on an even playing field. One of the things that we pride ourselves on in the United States (perhaps quite falsely) is that "all men are created equal". The idea is that every man woman and child has the same rights and opportunities as the next man, woman, or child. We realize this doesn't always bear out, and indeed the nation was founded (in practice) on the antithesis of that idea. Thomas Day, an abolitionist at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed pointed out the hypocrisy of the nation at that time:}
"If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." - Thomas Day

So, from the very outset, the nation was founded on the idea of saying one thing and doing another. But if we really want to live in a true democracy, then that means we have to allow everyone to have equal opportunities to liberty, health and happiness - not just in word, but in deed. Equal access to jobs, education, health care, and whatever else individuals need in order to allow themselves to contribute to society.

Any person you pull aside in the United States will likely tell you that "every man deserves a fair chance or an equal opportunity". Then if you ask if they would support socialism, they'll tell you "no". Ask them how that makes sense. Actually, first ask them to define socialism. We enact socialist principles every day of our lives with no problem. Ask salaried employees if they would give it up to work on commission. Don't be fooled - salary is socialist. The company would love to pay you on commission but we as a society have realized that employees should, at the very least, be guaranteed enough money to make ends meet - even though many of us still can't. Yes, commission jobs exist, but you don't have to take them. Imagine if only commission jobs existed.

Here's the real idea - when a loved one dies, and everyone at work takes up a collection or creates a fund that everyone contributes to, to help you through the rough time - that's socialism. Helping each other when times are hard and building together when times are easy is socialism. The very root of the word is the word "social". We live in a "society". Cooperation encouraged.

Steroids and Baseball...

2010-01-12T11:25:00.001-08:00

Mark McGwire admits he used steroids (Surprise?). Everyone beats him up over it. Haven't we seen this before?

Everyone seems to get in an uproar over steroids intruding into professional sports (namely, baseball), but is anyone really that surprised? Do we really believe that football players get that big just from working out? That basketball players jump that high for that many years because that's natural? That athletes in general can sustain the level of exertion they do for that duration with no assistance? The "people" and the sports writers all lambaste professional athletes as "cheaters" who take "the easy way out", and who lack ethics, but I think a careful evaluation of what "cheating" is, may be in order here.

First off, I don't advocate cheating, but what exactly does it mean to "cheat"? Lets ask the experts:

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
2. deprive of something by deceitful or unfair means.

CAMBRIDGE ENGLISH DICTIONARY
1. to behave in a dishonest way in order to get what you want:

MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY
1. to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud.
2. to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice.

So, basically, the consensus is that cheating is using dishonesty to gain an unfair advantage. Well, what does that mean?

Is dishonesty passive or aggressive? Direct or indirect? What constitutes an advantage that is "unfair"? This may all seem like I'm trying to defend steroid users, and to some degree I am, but that's not my true intention. What's really more important to me is getting beyond the doublespeak and codewords to what's really being said - or at least what I think is being said. After all, I don't have the patent on comprehension.

Under current public standards, steroid use would fall under passive cheating. You take a positive action, but one that does not directly affect the opponent - it only affects you. Only through affecting you, do the steroids have an effect on your opponent (by your defeat of them), so this is indirect. The opponent never saw, heard, felt, or otherwise knew what was happening. He just knows he lost.

And now for an example of aggressive cheating. If you're an ice skater, then hitting another ice skater with a pipe during competition in order to ensure they can't compete is aggressive cheating. You have directly taken an action toward your opponent. You have not done anything to enhance your ability, but you have actively hindered theirs.

Well, by my standard, aggressive cheating is the only true cheating. Otherwise, everything one does to gain an advantage is cheating.

If I use some secret method to enhance my ability (gain an advantage) at something, yet choose not to share that information (dishonest), then I've bettered myself in a way you cannot also access to better yourself (unfair). Well, doesn't this happen everyday?

When a coach comes up with a new way of structuring an offense that hasn't been discovered, or a new style of defense that is harder to penetrate, does he go across the field and tell the other coach? When a player adds an extra bit of speed, does he tell the guy guarding him how he did it? Even in drawing up plays, do teams then tell the other team what they're about to do?

When a broker / trader gets a hot tip, does he call all of the other brokers / traders with competing firms and share it? Now of course, you would argue that insider trading is illegal. And I would counter with two things:
1. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it morally wrong. (see: jaywalking, double parking, marijuana (possession, smoking, growing, transporting, whatever), driving without insurance, urban base-jumping, etc., etc., etc.) In fact, interracial marriage used to be illegal.
2. Without insider trading, there would be NO wealthy investors. It happens. It is an open secret. It is rarely prosecuted. It is not cheating. It WOULD be cheating, if to get that tip, you hired someone and paid them to break into another trader's office and steal it. But if all you did was listen to a voicemail that said "This is (name of a guy you trust) - Buy Kelloggs stock today", I defy the idea that it was cheating. If this didn't happen, no one would invest, because without these tips, the business is too speculative (despite how speculative it already is). It is necessary in order for the business to survive.

By the standards we impose on steroid users, exercising is cheating. So is studying, practicing piano or anything else. There is no unfair advantage gained by an athlete using steroids. All athletes have the access and the finances to make use of steroids. If they choose not to, that's their decision. Just like if I choose not to lift weights, then I choose to lose to the guy who does. If I choose not to study, I choose to not pass the test that the person who studied passed. Can people still become better without using steroids? Yes. But people can be strong without lifting weights and people can pass a test without studying and without stealing the answers (I've done that last one myself - often).

Cheating would be if the player modified the ball or other equipment that did not belong to him (bases, goalposts, baskets, etc.) for only his or his team's gain, and no one else's. To use steroids is to enhance yourself, not to de-enhance others.

So should steroids become an everyday part of sports and life? Should kids be using steroids? Absolutely not. But that is a different question. That is a question of drug abuse, chemical dependency, long-term health, self-esteem and a host of other issues, and it is a discussion that needs to be had, but it is not a question of cheating.

The Good and the Bad...

2010-01-06T16:19:00.000-08:00

As of today, January 6th, 2010, the National Basketball Association has indefinitely suspended swing guard Gilbert Arenas, of the Washington Wizards for not only possessing firearms in the locker room, but brandishing them as well (though they were unloaded). Recently, I was also reminded of Cleveland Cavaliers guard Delonte West being arrested for carrying concealed weapons in Maryland. With this information, I came to (something of) an epiphany: The tales we tell ourselves about sports are just that - tales. The trials and tribulations (and stupidity) of Gilbert Arenas and Delonte West, the life (before the death) of Chris Henry, the shooting of, well, himself, in the case of Plaxico Burress, and countless other examples of athlete after athlete behaving badly, have forced me to realize that sports are not what we say they are; what we mystify them to be.

It is often said that sports and athletic activity build character, and teach one how to be a successful team player. In reality, sports teach none of those things. If you're a team player, you were already one before you started playing sports. If you are a person of character, you were so before you ever stepped on a field. If you're a good guy (or gal), you were already one before you ever kicked a ball, slapped a puck, or swung a bat. Conversely, if you're an idiot or (ahem-language alert) an asshole, there's no amount of sport that will change that. Something may change that, but sports are not it.

Don't get me wrong, sports are great. I love sports. Basketball is my favorite (especially college) and Tennis is close behind. But I realize now what sports really are; they are what druggies would call intensifiers. Sports take the person you already are, and intensify that. If you're already a selfish egoist, sports turn you into an endzone dancing, ball-hogging, trash talker. If you're already a team player, sports make you the guy everyone depends on in tight moments, a confidant in the locker room, and the guy everyone lauds when his career is done.

Where is Allen Iverson's character? As great a player as he is, he can't win the big one. Why? Because he's not good enough? No, because he's not a team player. And sports didn't make him into one. Where is Charles Barkley's character? Spitting on fans, driving drunk, etc., etc. Sure that fan had it coming. But that's what security is for. DUI? No excuse. For anyone. Even Charles Barkley. Arenas and West? Is it really necessary for a multi-millionaire to carry firearms? If you're so afraid for your life because of your wealth, how about these for ideas:

1. Stop going places where you know conflict can arise.
2. Stop flashing your wealth.
And if you just can't do those two very simple things (for whatever reason), then,
3. Use your brain - use that wealth to hire personal security.

I recently heard someone say that athletes get a bum rap but rappers do this stuff too. The difference is, no one says "Rap builds character". No one expects rappers to be role models. We know they will be (unfortunately), but no one looks to them for that. Athletes are held to a higher standard, and with good reason. These men (and women) show the utmost in discipline in the conditioning of their bodies and the honing of their skills. That is something to look up to. Athletes may not want to be role models, and maybe we shouldn't make them be so, but because the mythology of what they ultimately pursue is intrinsically noble - a better self - they have to accept that role. But we have to remember that some of them, indeed many, are not pursuing a better self - just a better body and a better contract. And so, we should stop deluding our children with tales of sports making you a better person. Again, that is mythology.

Sports do not build character, they reveal it. Sports do not make you a team player. Your parents, and ultimately you, yourself, do.

Read More Here:
http://istadia.com/blog/DanPeterson/402

Why I Hate Affirmative Action - And Why It's Still Needed...

2010-01-04T06:48:00.000-08:00

I hate Affirmative Action.

I hate Affirmative Action because it reminds me that in 2010, I still live in a United States of America that still does not treat all of its citizens equally. Moreso, I hate opponents of Affirmative Action. I hate opponents of Affirmative action because they remind me that in 2010, I still live in a United States of America with many people that do not want to see its citizens treated equally.

Of course, when I say "I hate", I really mean "I'm at odds with" because hatred will never help solve an issue. In addition, I'm not referring to minority opponents of Affirmative Action. They obviously DO want to see people treated equally, as they have a vested interest in that. In their case, I just assume they've been led to believe the lies or misinformation (I'm not sure which) that non-minority opponents tell about Affirmative Action.

Lie 1. Affirmative Action is a free handout to blacks.

Affirmative Action is NOT a free handout, in any way, shape or form. However, if it were, so what? The people who cause and have caused Affirmative action to be necessary benefit from all kinds of things that could easily be considered "handouts" by the same standards they impose. The "wink & nod" culture of the wealthy elite, particularly WASP's, has long existed, and everyday, white people get the social benefit of being just that - white.

Whites get better loan rates, more loan approvals, more well-paying jobs, more leisure time, and more corporate welfare than their black counterparts with equal education and skills. Whites can travel freely anywhere in the country (nay, the world) and have the added benefit of the authorities being in their corner almost ANYwhere they go - even in majority non-white neighborhoods (in the US) and nations (world).

Affirmative Action is no more a handout than Social Security which many whites thoroughly enjoy the benefit of, with no complaint. Yes, they paid into Social Security, but minorities have paid into the success of this country with very little return on their investment. Whites have not seen such a lack of return on their end of this investment. Furthermore, Affirmative Action is for the equality of ALL minority groups, not just blacks. Many people who "look white" enjoy the benefits of Affirmative Action.

Lie 2. Affirmative Action takes a job or an education from a smarter or more skilled white person and gives it to a less smart or less skilled minority.

This is in no way the intention of Affirmative Action, and I dare say it has not been the implementation either. Affirmative Action is designed to reward equal or superior ability - not inferior. The goal of Affirmative Action is simple and basic: When a white person is up against a minority who has the same (or better) education, skills, and traits, the hiring person, or admissions officer, or loan officer, etc., is not to deny the minority the disputed item on simply race.

If the two people both graduated Ivy League, but one did graduate study and has eighteen years of experience while the other did not do graduate study but has twenty-one years of experience, and they both have matching and offsetting awards, honors, and recognitions, then Affirmative Action says the minority is not to be eliminated simply because of race.

No sane or reasonable person would ever support a less qualified person for something a more qualified person should have - ever.

Lie 3. Affirmative Action gives more credit to those with less, simply because it is harder for them.

Untrue. Affirmative Action seeks to eliminate social, economic and political reasons for life being harder for some. It is true that an A+ from a bad school should not equal an A+ from a good school. Affirmative Action doesn't inflate the bad school's worth, it seeks to turn the bad school into a good one so that all A's will be created equal.

Those who still have a naturally harder time (all other things being equal) do not get their success inflated.

Lie 4. Affirmative Action would only truly equalize things if based on income and not race. There are more poor whites than blacks. They should have an equal chance at success.

This doesn't address multiple things. Firstly, poor whites do have an equal chance of success, since the very nature of being white (even if poor) puts them at an immediate advantage. Secondly, there are more poor whites than blacks - by number - not by percentage of population. The percentage of blacks living at or below the poverty line relative to their community as a whole is significantly (yes, significantly) higher than the percentage of whites relative to their community as a whole. White poverty is between ten and twenty percent of their community, compared to forty to sixty percent for blacks. As well, even when employed in the same position, with the same skills, education and background, blacks (and other minorities) are routinely paid less than their white counterparts. Affirmative Action not only seeks to address the employment aspect, but also this pay ratio discrepancy.

Finally, addressing inequity by income leaves out middle-class and wealthy minorities who still face discrimination that Affirmative Action laws would cover. These minorities would be left out, since they reside at a higher income level. Simply, if you're an upper middle-class minority and you seek to start your own business, income-based Affirmative Action would leave it legal for banks to deny you a loan, or raise your interest rates based on your skin color or ethnic background.

All of these lies and half-truths are meant to persuade us to consider Affirmative Action as a form of discrimination, but in fact, Affirmative Action eliminates many forms of discrimination, for all minorities, including women.

Affirmative Action causes no discrimination. The goals and implementations are simple: if you have more than one position available, you must give opportunities to as many qualified minorities as qualified whites. If you have only one position, you may give it to the white person, but he'd better actually be more qualified than the minority you passed on. If you ask the average citizen of the United States whether everyone should have a fair chance at life, he'd likely say yes. All of a sudden, when you try to actually enact this idea, it becomes argued that it is "against democracy". So, our Founding Fathers were against democracy? Remember this (from the United States' Declaration of Independence)?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Unalienable rights". That means that ALL men are ENTITLED to these basic things. Will people always have a fair chance? Probably not. That's life. But as higher beings, it is our duty to use our elevated minds to equalize as much as we can. We no longer eliminate children born with disabilities because we have evolved philosophically and morally and can now help them lead normal lives and they too can have something to contribute. And just because life is naturally unfair does not mean we have to let it remain so.

Affirmative Action. Simple and fair. The American way.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That...

2009-07-09T08:28:00.000-07:00

So, I fully expect this essay or "blog posting" may offend some and confuse others, while causing still others to change their former view of me (for the worse, I'd imagine), but here goes:

I'm a Jew trapped in a black man's body.

To anyone who truly knows me, this is not startling news, but for those who only casually know me, it may sound like I prefer being Jewish to being black. That's not fully the case, though it is partially the case - but don't worry, it's not what it sounds like - of course I'll explain.

Apart from all the things one might stereotypically (or accurately) associate with Jewish people (overbearing & nagging mothers, social awkwardness, personal guilt, self-deprecating humor, over-the-top sensitivity to racism, reading billboards aloud, etc.), I actually feel a sort of kinship with the Jewish community. Despite the many setbacks and the historic oppression of the community, they have managed to create and maintain a system where the community still stands, powerful and active, with higher than average income and lower than average crime and poverty rates. As a whole, Jews are very influential in arts, culture and academics, as well as science and business. It has become almost canonical that they, as a community, are great at anything worth being great at.

I realize that their community is not perfect, as none are, but I've often said regarding perfection that, as a model, it's probably the closest thing the black community will ever have. And they've even offered it (their model) to us. Granted, one can always debate the nature of that offering, and many of those debates are valid, still, if you're a hungry man, does it really matter why bread is being offered? In the PERFECT world it should matter, but in the REAL world it doesn't matter.

The historic relationship between blacks and Jews in the United States though complicated, has generally been good. The strain of the past twenty years or so, though not at all unprecedented, has been something of an anomaly.

It's no secret that many of the people (besides other blacks) who supported an end to slavery and who looked to hire blacks after slavery, were Jews. Often, the wages were low and the hours were long, but it was something where nothing had existed before. By the turn of the 20th century, black men had coined a term for their Jewish supervisors at work - "Goldberg". It was a derogatory term that definitely heralded things to come, but there was no violent antipathy between the communities at that time (outside of the crime world).

Blacks and Jews developed jazz dance and music together, and often, the closest interracial friends in any given music grouping were the blacks and the Jews. Both suffered violent racism and antisemitism wherever they went, including the murder of one black man and two Jewish men traveling together in Mississippi in 1964, and together, blacks and Jews turned the tide of racial segregation through legislation.

By the time of the late 1970's, relations between blacks and Jews slowly began to devolve, until a full-on collapse throughout the 1980's and early 1990's. However, the Jewish community didn't simultaneously implode in the way the black community did. There were many factors involved in this. Jewish people were not still working primarily in low-wage and/or blue-collar fields at this time, so even though the black community had built and sustained a decent-sized middle-class by that time, when those jobs started disappearing, the black community was disproportionately affected. As well, the crack epidemic wasn't a major problem in the Jewish community. In addition to these, there are many institutional ways in which black people lose money that others don't. Loans to blacks have higher interest rates - both business and private, and blacks are denied more often than others - even when their credit rating is outstanding. Rents charged to black businesses are often higher, and mortgages for black home owners are often higher. This, of course, is rarely known to the black owners until they talk to someone else or do more research, and are forced to take legal action.

The Jewish community is nearly synonymous with the history of merchants; our history as merchants (in the European system of trade) is not nearly as lengthy, and that also contributes to a lack of respect from non-black merchants, clients, and associates.

All of this clearly makes it more difficult for us as a community to succeed - but difficult does not equal impossible. Blacks in the US have again reached a point (financially) where the Jewish (and Asian) models of community success in the US are models we can adopt and "put our spin on". The idea of opening our own businesses in our own communities and patronizing them is first and foremost. This has already started taking a strong foothold in communities from New York and Philadelphia to Atlanta, on the east coast, as well as many other cities throughout the country. Chicago, in the Midwest, is a wonderful example, and Cleveland is beginning a similar (albeit slow) reawakening.

Where we still have some distance to cover with Jewish people is the reverence for education and the balance between entertainment and general commerce. No one can deny that Jews are all about the entertainment industry. But for every one Jewish entertainer, you can find twenty Jewish Lawyers, Doctors, Professors, Politicians, Accountants, Physicists, Chefs, Contractors, Entrepreneurs, etc. There isn't an askance view of professions other than entertainment. The Jewish community values education and what it can provide. However, we are at a point where our youth - and many of those youths' parents - look only to sports or pop music as an outlet. We largely only look for quick money ways to success, and that is a problem. And of those that actually do achieve in those areas, only a select few actually try to help to build something from it. Most just buy expensive homes, cars, clothes and jewelry.

There are other areas too where we lag behind - political influence comes to mind. We largely support and endorse corrupt politicians, who actually hurt us. At least other corrupt politicians rarely hurt their own people - they use their corruption to steal from others. Our politicians keep us in poverty and crime. How many blacks actually supported former mayor Marion Barry for re-election after his crack scandal (one scandal among many)? Well, this much is accurate for sure:
1. He won re-election, and
2. It wasn't on the strength of non-black votes.

Another apt scandal (one of his many) was former mayor Sharpe James in Newark, New Jersey. James was convicted of abusing a program to revitalize Newark's South Ward. The project was intended to help rebuild poor inner-city neighborhoods by selling and granting property and money for redevelopment in a city that had become synonymous with poverty and joblessness. Instead, James sold city-owned property to a former girlfriend for approximately $46,000, which she then flipped for a profit of over $600,000. Few new jobs were created and minority-owned businesses did not get the support they expected and needed. Recently, another mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit was implicated in multiple scandals. This, in the midst of his city and his people falling apart around him. If you're going to do a disservice, don't. Period. But if you're going to do it anyway, don't do it to your own people.

Also, regarding political influence, we need to impress upon ourselves the importance of voting people in whom we trust, but voting people out in whom we don't. We need to stop marching and complaining, and take action. Voting is a powerful action. We need to get after our politicians the way other communities get after theirs - to keep our streets paved, our schools funded, and our hospitals operational. All this beyond fervent, rhetorical, sermon-esque speeches. And they should pay with their jobs if they don't. But if 70% (or more) of a community doesn't vote, no one listens to that community's complaints. Equally so, we need to take action when voting isn't working. When other communities want something that politics won't provide, they, as a community, pool their individual resources into it or seek wealthy members of their community to assist. Our wealthy black people just put their resources into in-ground pools - shaped like dollar signs.

So, it is in these senses that I wish to be Jewish - or at least have my community follow the Jewish model. Though the black community as a whole, over time, has misplaced a great many of its values, historically, we are very family-oriented, self-sufficient, and innovative. We need to reclaim these traits, cast aside "street-credibility" as something noble, and accede to the throne of respectability. And looking at the model of how the Jewish community has done so over the centuries could be a start. And there's nothing wrong with saying that.

Yeah? Well, I love him too, but...

2009-07-07T12:13:00.001-07:00

I suppose the death of Michael Jackson demands a big, public funeral such as the one we've witnessed, just by the nature of who he was and what he did, but I can't help but feel that this is so much a production and though necessary, it kind of takes away from the man.

I imagine that last week everybody in Hollywood was running around, A Mighty Wind-style, on their cell phones with their agents and managers trying to figure out how they could "get in on this" event, no doubt causing the delay and growth from the original service at Neverland Ranch to the current one at the Staples Center. Replace the fictional G-list celebrities with A-List real ones. Among the contrivances, Mariah Carey, at the end of her performance, whispered "we miss you" and I don't think I've ever heard emptier words exit her mouth - and I'm talking about Mariah Carey here. I understand she was ultimately just expressing everyone's feelings, but still - maybe if she hadn't whispered it. It felt so contrived.

I know it couldn't be, but in a respectful and compassionate world, it should have been a small private ceremony in Gary, Indiana, where he was born and raised. It should have been private, because Jackson never enjoyed a single, solitary moment of privacy. He was born in a room full of doctors, nurses, and his parents. He came home to a house with six siblings, which later grew to eight. With no privacy at home, he was thrust onto stage and into public life at age ten. From that moment to this one, he has never been able to have the privacy that so many of us take for granted. Yet in the midst of this lack of privacy, it was noted by a very smart person, he clearly suffered tremendous loneliness.

Undoubtedly, this, and a lack of childhood, led to the events that caused him to be accused of inappropriate contact with children along with the eccentricities we have come to witness from him. And for these reasons, and for all he did for us, we should grant him one moment of private interaction with those he loved and who loved him - I refer to his family (excluding his father) and true friends.

This, before he receives eternal privacy.

I Respect Your Right to Hold that Opinion - Now Get Out...

2009-07-06T09:59:00.000-07:00

That's basically the gist of the response (with a few exceptions) whenever I've told someone I'm atheist. It never matters that I was the same person I was when walked in the door. It never matters that I've helped the helpless cross the street safely, given money / food to the homeless, or done something as simple as listened politely while supposed theists have, without apology, spewed vitriolic rhetoric, while defending and promoting a deity that is supposedly averse to such outbursts.

It never matters that I brought the pie they're eating, talked about the game engagingly, go to work everyday and pay my bills on time, have taught kids at summer camp, etc., etc. All that matters now is that despite everything else that says I'm a regular guy, this one thing suddenly makes me evil beyond evil. One, seemingly nice old black lady, once hurried away from me when I enlightened her after she petitioned me to attend her church. I replied that I could and would not, and after she pressed me at length, I informed her of my stance on organized religion and the idea of Gods overseeing us, by use of that abhorrent and reprehensible term: atheist. The woman then made it her immediate and pressing business to vacate my presence and barely let me complete my sentence once the word had parted my lips.

And so, to paraphrase a popular movie line, what we seem to have here is a failure to understand. So often, when you utter the very word atheist, people will recoil as if Satan has just entered into the room. Sometimes, the reaction is so visceral, I half-expect people to hiss and form a makeshift cross out of some found object in the immediate area. And this is a serious problem, because not only do those who hate us, hate us (that's one problem), those who hate us do so without even actually understanding what it is they are hating. It's one thing to not care for peanut butter (as I do), but I have a full understanding of peanut butter. It is a spread made from peanuts with some other minor ingredients added (oil, salt, etc.). I simply don't care for it. But I don't hate it. Believe it or not, hate is a positive emotion. Not because it is good, but rather, it is positive in that it causes people to take action. People who don't care for something, stay away from it. People who hate something, actively seek to eliminate it.

In the case of Atheists, few care for us, and fewer care to understand us, in the United States at least. And being a black atheist, well, now I've exponentially increased the vitriol. Because, among the many things black people (and black men in particular) are not supposed to be, atheist is probably number two on the list (after homosexual). My own God-fearing mother has one of each. Confessed and confirmed black atheists probably rate at less than one percent of the total black population in the US. Those of us in the closet for fear of ostracism probably still rate at around five percent or less. And why?

1. Why are there so few of us?
2. Why do the few of us who exist, feel we have to hide?

These are separate questions, but they are rooted in similar soil.

The number of black atheists is likely so low because the black community, as a whole, is so connected with "the church". Well, that's obvious, you say. Of course a highly religious group of people is going to have fewer atheists than a less religious group of people. No matter where you end up in life, everything one does is surrounded by church and "the Lord", etc. Black homes are littered with bibles, and black mothers have coined the phrases "Oh, Lord" and "Help me Jesus". One is raised to attend church every Sunday (even if we don't continue as adults), and the biggest family gatherings often revolve around church functions and gospel music. Even Tyler Perry makes frequent use of religion and Gospel music in his films and plays. Being without religion and without a belief in God in the black community is difficult to say the least. There is rarely a time when one is not being indoctrinated, as it were.

Even if you fail to truly believe in what you are being socialized into, you go to church anyway, where the minister tells of how one must "believe" to get into "heaven", and those who don't believe will go to "hell". Those who don't believe are equated with thieves and murderers and all the ills of society are laid upon them. And who wants to be a member of that group? In many black communities (especially in Africa) the atheist (along with the homosexual) is considered less than a dog on the street. And so, one continues to feign belief, or even to attempt belief, to remain in the good graces of the society.

This brings me to my next point: There are so many of us in the Theist closet because of the representation of atheism by believers. When it is discovered that one is an atheist, he is often considered a Satan-worshipper, which by its very consideration, intimates a lack of understanding on the part of the believer - atheists don't believe Satan exists either. I told my mother a long time ago that I don't believe God exists (I didn't use the word "atheist" however - as I know the inflammatory power of the term). One of her responses was "What do you believe in then, Satan?" Another response was "So you think you have all the answers, then?" She was not only repulsed, but genuinely offended. My mother's reaction approximates others I have received.

Theists cast aside atheists either (incorrectly) as Devil-worshippers or as people who consider themselves greater than God. Neither is true. To be greater than God implies the existence of one, and atheists lack a belief in any God or Gods. Therefore, for atheists to be able to come out of the closet about their belief (or lack thereof), there needs to be an understanding generated between theists and atheists. Atheists are not any more evil, depraved, or corrupt, than the equivalent theist is. We all know stories of those who praise the Lord all Sunday after engaging in debauchery all Saturday.

As well, atheism does not require analysis. Many want to analyze the atheist, particularly the black atheist, as confused, done-wrong, or other. If a person claims to be atheist, he has likely thought about it quite thoroughly. Especially if he is black. It is not a psychological problem or disorder. Anyone who has claimed to be an atheist in the manner of "There is no God! It's all over! I can do anything to anyone!" is not truly an atheist, but rather a depraved person. No true, thinking atheist would harm another person and predicate it solely on "There is no God".

An atheist is one thing, and one thing only: one who lacks a belief in a God or Gods. Both by percentage and literal quantity, atheists make up the smallest number of "problem" people in society. Black atheists even more so.

The key to black atheists coming out of the closet and to the easing of friction between atheists and theists is also simply one thing and one thing only: understanding.

But that's just the opinion of One Black Atheist.

An Atheist's Thoughts / Ruminations...

2009-07-06T09:57:00.000-07:00

*Note: The following essay is a REPOST of an earlier essay, to kick off this new blog. The context of this discussion deals with the Atheist in relation to Christianity - but can be expanded to cover the other major western monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.

First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.

I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.

Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.

For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:

"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."

Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.

Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.

All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.

IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.

Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?

All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubtable, due to lack of evidence.

"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."

That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.

I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.

On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.

Nothing Too Important Here...

2009-04-09T11:12:00.000-07:00

-
I'm serious.

I just want to write this down so that the idea is "out there" somewhere for someone in the NBA office to stumble upon.

My girlfriend often complains about the length of the NBA season, and I remind her that baseball is FAR more boring and FAR longer in number of games. In fact, it's DOUBLE the amount of NBA games. But she is on to one thing - Shorten the Goddamn playoffs!! Jesus, just get it over with already. I want to see the action happen and end, not languish eternally.

This is not an ADHD thing. I have plenty of attention span for things worth watching, but watching two teams play a seven game series over two weeks when much of nothing exciting happens in the first three quarters of each is excruciating. I'd rather lose some games and watch some scripted programming. As it is, I don't watch the first two and a half quarters of most games anyway.

IDEA:
1. Shorten the NBA playoffs please. 10 teams in, instead of 16 (right now, 1+half of the league gets in, as long as they're in the top 16. No matter their record. Not a very exclusive club, I say).
The playoffs SHOULD be exclusive. It SHOULD be the elite teams. Instead of half, make it the top third. When the league has forty-eight teams, then go back to 16 in.
Right now, two LOSING teams are going to make it in the East, while Phoenix is a winning team in the West and can't get a spot. If they were on the East coast, they would be SOLIDLY in 5th place, AND would have a fighting chance of going deep. Cleveland, Boston and Orlando not withstanding, the East is an embarrassment, and has been for years. If you're good enough to have a winning record but you're not in the top five in your conference: sucks for you. Get even better.

2. Reset the first round to five games. In fact, make it three games.

3. Make the second round onward five games.

4. 10 minute quarters (Playoffs only). Makes the playoffs a much more intense viewing experience for the spectator. Creates more of that "sudden-death, death match" atmosphere.

Might be intense for the players, but for all the money they're making, the majority of them should work harder.

That is all.

I CAN'T Be The Only One...

2009-04-08T11:57:00.000-07:00

So, now that we have a black man as president, 'racism is over' you say?

Having nothing to do at work, I decided to drop a letter in the outgoing mail in our building's mailroom, and on the way back to my desk, I'm greeted by the security guard. This security guard is very clear about his right-wing affiliations, and likes to engage in political / social (or pseudo-political / pseudo-social) conversations, in which he predictably categorizes everyone on welfare as lazy, everyone in law enforcement as heroes, every non-white person with a gun as a gangbanger or terrorist, and every wayward child as needing a (literal) kick in the proverbial "ass". Everything is black and white and there is little or no gray area. Good is good, evil is evil, there is little or nothing in between.

He considers himself a republican, but note that I call him "right-wing", not republican or even conservative, because I've known many true conservative republicans (not RINO's) and they don't necessarily agree with this guy. I feel "right-wing" is more appropriate to the sweeping extremity of his views. So, of course, he pulls me aside (because after having talked multiple times, he knows me as not having straight-laced, conventional views on a lot of things, and also knows I don't get argumentatively defensive in controversial conversation) and opines about an at-the-moment breaking news story on television (we have a CNN feed on a flat-screen in our lobby - where he sits, presumably waiting for lazy, gun-toting, terrorist, welfare-mothers to congregate and launch their "evil" plans).

Apparently, a US ship that was hijacked off the coast of Africa was re-taken by its crew, and as we watched the reporter discuss it with a "pundit", our ever-vigilant and ever-creative security guard intimated his idea for stopping pirating once and for all. Befitting the rest of his views, he tells me: "I have a real easy way to stop pirating; find out the surrounding villages these people come from, and wipe all of those villages out." He proceeded to walk away from the screen after dropping that gem with all of the finality of Horatio Caine opening an episode of CSI:Miami.

Now, at first, of course, as you likely would also, I was pretty sure that he was kidding, so I went along with it (to a degree) and added "If only it were that easy" - with a smile - pretty much expecting it to end there. Why? I don't know. Perhaps I'm an idiot - I doubt it, but it's not an impossibility. So, past experience should have told me otherwise, but who does history think it is, that I should learn from it, right? Anyway, his reply to that was (dead seriously, stopping in his tracks and with a finger pointed at me) "No, it is that easy." Well, in addition to being thankful that he is not the Secretary of Defense (or of anything for that matter), I decided (for once) to call him on his comment, because I have to say, it struck me as one of the most racist comments I'd ever heard. Would he have said the same if this was happening off of the coast of Ireland? That's number one.

Number two, apparently he still has it in his head (thanks to good, old, non-biased "American!" education) that "these people" only live in "villages" and that they couldn't possibly be from developed cities or advanced agricultural backgrounds. They're just a bunch of mud-hutters running around in loin cloths with spears (in 2009; who somehow managed to hijack a 508-foot ship using the relative equivalent of a life boat, no less) and so, let's just wipe out the people they descend from (who have nothing to do with this) as well as their innocent women and children, for once and for all, so no more can be birthed. Because we shouldn't address the problems in Africa that cause for rampant piracy, instead, we should just kill all the Africans. That'll do it!

And of course, we should do this because they're not white, and so innocent or not, they have no intrinsic value anyway.

Number three, pirates are a diverse group of people and come from all over. They don't congregate off the coast of Africa because they're from Africa, they congregate there because those are the least protected trade routes and there is an extensive black market in the surrounding area. If the least protected routes and largest black markets were in and around Ireland, they'd be there too. And they would look the same as they do now.

Of course, this wiping-out wouldn't be genocidal or a terrorist act (in his opinion) because it's the United States doing it with a full-on state-supported military, which makes it OK. "Terrorists" are rag-tag middle-easterners. It doesn't matter that they have had their rights systematically trampled (yes, often by their own kind) over the past several centuries, and who, despite the abhorrent and disagreeable means to their end, may have a legitimate cause underlying it. Terrorism to protect commerce is OK, but not to protect (or even obtain) human rights.

Got it. Terrorism by the US; good. Terrorism by Arabs; bad. But that's a different conversation. Back to the pirates.

So, as I said, I decided to call him on it, but just as I was about to, finger raised, mouth agape and vocal cords at the ready, he was called away to make his rounds (as security guards do).

Of course.

So, left to my own devices, I began to think about other problems within the area of fighting piracy and I came to a real conclusion for the companies involved- hire those "contractors" (read: mercenaries) that everyone hates. Xe (formerly Blackwater Worldwide) comes to mind first (AirScan & Revomatica are a couple of others), but there are a number of these private "security companies" out there, that are more than happy to supply highly trained, ex-military mercenaries, er, security personnel and technology to combat this problem - to do their duty to protect the United States, her citizens, her commerce, and her interests, both at home and abroad, and further the progress of our "good, American" goals - and, ahem, for a price, of course.

But the thing is, whatever you think of these "contractors", piracy would be over. End these pointless "wars", bring our troops home or deploy them to meaningful conflicts, and use these companies to fight the lesser wars on the trade routes.

The ship that was hijacked and re-taken is owned by a company called Maersk. If the US releases these contractors from service, they'll be available for companies like Maersk to hire. If Maersk sends out its cargo ships with a small compliment of these highly trained, ex-military types on board, armed to the teeth, mind you, they'll take out these pirates on first contact. And with all of the money they'll be getting paid to do so, they will continue to develop technology and fighting techniques to outwit and outmatch the pirates. Fighting pirates is not like fighting elusive terrorists - the enemy is clear and they always go after the same targets. It's much more like a traditional military engagement, except the private mercenaries will far outpace the pirates. The pirates WILL evolve and adapt - and the companies will stay ahead of them because they'll have more money to hire more people and develop more and better technology and assets, and other companies will see how much success they're having and hire them as well.

Private military should be hired by private companies to protect their private property. The United States Navy should not be tasked with hunting pirates, and private military should not be fighting US wars. We're all mixed up. I CAN'T be the only one to see this...

Note: Didn't think I'd go the military route after the racism opening, eh? :)

Enough Already!...

2009-04-02T05:42:00.000-07:00

Would someone please come along and take away my "choices" in life so I can know definitively where I stand?

I walked into work this morning and noticed a flyer for a continental breakfast. The flyer touted a muffin, a yogurt, and a beverage, and in order to participate in said breakfast, one would have to make a "donation" of $5. The "choices" of yogurt were vanilla or strawberry, and the "choices" of beverage were juice or coffee. Of course, it's not really a choice of yogurts, it's "you're only getting one of these that has been made available - but you get to decide which one". They've made the decision to only provide you with two options, and that's not much of a choice - especially if you love peach yogurt, as I do. In addition, the definition of donation is a non-required payment, so their "donation" is not really so.

But before you decide this is trivial and petty (which it is), I want you to know that none of this really mattered to me in the context of this particular breakfast because it was for a charity - Harvest for Hunger. But it made me reflect on the larger society we live in; the society that tells us we have the freedom of choice.

We are made to feel happy as long as we have a choice between things, so the powers that be give us pointless choices, while they make the real decisions that affect our lives. Paper or plastic? Dress or skirt? Coffee or tea? These choices matter, of course, but we've been made to be content with these limited choices and made to feel they are really important, while the decisions "War or peace?", "Life or death?", Rich or poor?" are made for us, by others. We happily give up those choices to choose between brands of jeans or strength of coffee.

None of this will seem new to anyone who truly knows me, and indeed, I feel there are few, if any, who will find this new at all, but freedom of choice (within our current society) is an illusion. We happily buy into this illusion, placated by useless things and pointless freedoms and empty ideals - all of which are contradictory in nature - much like the wonderful but flawed constitution that supports them. We have the "freedom" to pursue a vague happiness, toward an empty American dream, but not the choice to smoke marijuana - which, consequntly, makes many people happy. We have freedom from illegal search and seizure, but not the choice to defend yourself from the authorities when they want to illegally search and seize you.

One may argue, "well, the smoke from marijuana causes a contact high, which infringes on others' rights not be drugged". So legalize it within homes. You can smoke all day in your house, but not outdoors. Of course, this still provides a limitation; much like the cigarette smokers who huddle in the cold and rain to enjoy their vice. How do you have a society where one's rights never infringe on anothers'? If smokers are returned their right to smoke any and everywhere, then shouldn't I have the right to knock that cigarette down their throat if they refuse to put it out in my presence? And if that punch draws blood, should they not have the right to draw blood from me? And then it continues to escalate until one of us is dead. Then we're back to Dodge City.

So, the answer is not to have everyone do whatever they want, but to get to a point where everyone can do what they want within reason and without infringement on others. Forcing smokers outside is OK, because second-hand smoke is dangerous and infringes on others' right not to contract cancer. As well, smoking indoors is a fire hazard. The proper way to resolve this has been to let smokers smoke in designated areas - usually outside - or to restrict it to the smoker's home - which I am also in favor of. One should not be barred from doing whatever they want to do on their own property, but they should be restricted on public or others' property if it infringes on others. Despite smokers' objections, I think we've reached the perfect middle ground with smoking: smoke at home or in a designated public area. Now smokers can still smoke, all they want, but I don't have to spend my day passing through rank clouds that stick to my hair and clothes, therefore leaving me other avenues of cancer contraction to explore.

Now, despite my ramblings, this is not about smoking, this is about pure liberty. According to our Constitution here in the United States, you have the freedom of "life" and "liberty", but in reality, this is only as long as you follow the rules and do what the authorities say is "right". Otherwise, you have no freedom-of or right-to anything. Instead, you have the freedom to shop for the limited "choices" you are presented. You have the freedom to work, and the government has the freedom to take 30% of your earnings (more if they're angry at you - see AIG CEO bonuses).

But truthfully, your freedoms, choices, rights, etc. are all an illusion. You only have them within a limited set of circumstances and those that you have, are largely (though not wholly) worthless. We "defeated" communism because the people supposedly didn't have rights and freedoms. What rights and freedoms have they gained? The freedom to own a Fendi purse and a Porsche? Are they worth it? I don't doubt that to many they are, but if those people don't awaken to realize that their freedoms have not truly returned, they may wind up in a middle-class Marie Antoinette position - completely unaware of what is happening around them until it is entirely too late.

In many cases and places, it is already too late. In the U.S. the government can legally tap your phone and read your emails and monitor everything you do now. I'm under no illusions. Truthfully, they've done this ever since they gained the capability, nearly 80 years ago, but they couldn't tell you about it. Now they can tell you they are going to do it, and then do it, and then tell you they are doing it while doing it, and you can do nothing about it. If they don't like that you received a four million dollar bonus, they can just raise the tax on it to 90%. If you are non-violently protesting something you disagree with, they can tear gas you. If you're standing in front of a store waiting for a friend, police can stop you and check your ID - even if you're doing nothing but standing and staring into space.

But, of course, you can always go to the mall.

Basketball, Jews, and Prejudice...

2009-04-01T06:55:00.000-07:00

So, I finally played some basketball last weekend - terribly. I played with two other people and I was outright better than both, but their youth overcame my abilities.

I was surprised though - I wasn't AS out of shape as I had feared. I wasn't out of breath during, or overly sore afterward. My injuries didn't flare up or anything, and overall, I played decently. Especially considering that I hadn't even touched a basketball in 22 months (save for a lonely shootaround about a year ago).

The other two guys were 20 and 14 years of age respectively, though the 14 year old looked a lot more like a small 17 year old (yes, they're both kids, but in basketball, those 3 years make a big difference in size). The 20 year old looked young in the face, but I'm proud to say my body still beat his out by a wide margin (there'd be a pun intended if you had seen him).

For no reason at all (or none that I could discern), my evening of basketball called back a memory to me of playing basketball with a group of Hasidic Jewish kids in Brooklyn a few years ago, around 2004/05.

I had gotten up that day looking to play basketball, but I was mainly looking to just shoot around and practice by myself. I rode around on my bicycle for awhile and passed two or three parks because there were people there, and on that particular day, I had no interest in competition - just solitary practice.

I finally found what I had been looking for when I came to a park with one basketball full court with no one on it. It was right next to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and adjacent to the court were some handball courts, fenced off to contain wayward balls from either area. There were no people on the handball courts, but I did notice a group of young Hasidic men / boys / man-boys around the ages of 12-17, smoking, cussing, and fooling around with a handball over by one of the chess tables. I didn't pay them any real attention, but I kept my eye on them - not out of distrust, but out of curiosity.

I shot my basketball, practiced my dribbling, and honed my low-post moves for a few minutes, when they finally seemed to notice me - and noticed that I was in-turn noticing them. They toned down their monkeying around (but didn't stop), and moved toward me with all the ceremony of a scene from West Side Story.

"Hey, mind if we shoot around with you?"

"Not at all." I replied - nervously; because I had never seen Hasidic Jews of any age curse or smoke or be rowdy in any way - so I didn't know what to expect, but I was curious all the same. The thickly-bearded boy who asked, appeared to be the "leader", so I tossed him the ball so he (and the others) felt comfortable joining in.

He caught the ball and without even really setting himself, threw up what had to be the worst-looking basketball shot I had ever seen - or could ever imagine. I don't remember if it went in, but I do remember the group pretty much taking over the use of my ball - and though I got a few more shots in, it became some sort of awkward, Jewish basketball spectacle, that while comical, was (to me at least) somewhat surreal. And by "somewhat" I mean very.

As I mentioned, I got a chance to shoot now and again, but I was having more fun experiencing this "new" thing. Hasidic Jews curse? Smoke? Joke around about sex? I remembered an episode of Sex and the City, henceforth referred to as SATC (no, I watched it because of my girlfriend - jerk) where one of the characters dated and slept with a smoking, Hasidic Jewish artist. I also was becoming familiar with a local artist at the time who was rising in prominence named Matisyahu. Could it be true? (yes, that's a SATC reference). Were Hasidic Jews allowed to smoke, curse, play basketball (or handball), have sex out of wedlock, be painters and reggae artists?

I'm a born and raised New Yorker, why was I unaware of this? Non-Jewish New Yorkers are the most educated population in the world regarding Jewish culture. My image of Hasidic Jews was always of a strict and rigid form of living where one abstained from the world - basically, the Jewish version of Amish. I suppose I just transferred the beards and never really paid attention to the actual people. And therein lies the problem.

Not only are there multiple sects of Judaism, there are multiple sects within sects, and the Hasidic Jews are no different. Some Hasidic Jews can do nothing. Others can do anything. Depends on the sect. I looked at the beards and hats and lumped them all together; just like everyone looks at me (before they get to know me) and they already "know" what I think, "who I am" and what I'm "about". I walk around feeling that the entire world (including my own people) just sees me as "another nigger", but I'm looking at everyone else in the same (or similar) way. All Hasidics are closed off and fundamentalist. All Irish are racists. All poor black people are closed minded. Even when I have personal evidence to the contrary. My poor black family in rural North Carolina are some of the most open-minded people I know. I routinely deal with a genial and open-hearted Irish community. And, based on that basketball experience (and SATC / Matisyahu), I now know that Hasidic Jews are neither of one mind, or one action.

It's a lesson I try to carry with me daily.

I'm going to judge a book by its cover - there's no question about that, because I'm human - and that's perfectly acceptable. But I should never let my pre-judgement prevent me from still opening the book. Afterall, reading is fundamental.

Et in Arcadia Ego...

2009-03-23T10:49:00.000-07:00

What do you do when you see a ghost? What do you do when you become one?

I saw my father this morning. The man who created me 32 years ago and left me (and everyone else) 23 years ago showed himself this morning. I see him often, actually, but normally he looks fuzzy; his features seeming to blend into those of my mother. This morning, he was crystal clear. As I pushed into my cheeks, I saw his respond under the pressure of my finger. I saw the mouth that spit on the inside of the car window when I was a child - the eyes that stared at the television as I jumped on his back - the nose that took its last breath in a hospital bed in Flushing, New York, in September 1986, alone.

He's haunted me for 23 years, and today was no less. I stared at his clear form as I washed my face. Sometimes he's not a ghost. Most times he's a shadow. A father's shadow never fades. Never lessens. It only grows. The more you do, the more you realize that you can't do enough. The more disappointment you find. The more failure becomes every option. And this morning he stared at me. He pleaded with me to live up to his dreams. I now realize, all of my dreams are his.

The plaque that bears his name where he rests, is a sign in my mind; a memento mori. It reminds me that nothing that I can do will suffice. And, no matter how successful I may become in the eyes of this world, his future and present will beckon me.

Carpe Diem!...

2009-03-16T07:16:00.000-07:00

I'm tryin'... !

Non Sequitur(s) on Death...

2009-03-12T10:51:00.000-07:00

What is it about death? Is it really that painful? Scary? It certainly is unwelcome by most of us, but can it really be that bad, if all of us have to eventually do it?

Well, what does one have to do with the other? That is, what does the fact that we all have to die, have to do with whether or not it is as bad as many of us believe it will be?

I don't know. But it seems like there is something there to be mined.

Last night, I saw a jumping spider on my stove and I debated whether or not I should kill it. I ultimately decided not to, because I don't generally like killing things just because they scare me, or gross me out, or inconvenience me in some other cosmetic way. I do make an exception to this for house centipedes though. Anyway, only if something is a real threat, will I deem it necessary to kill it - roaches (disease), mice and rats, (bites, disease), large spiders and insects (bites). Flies, small spiders, and anything else I can "catch and release", usually get just that - caught and released.

So, as I mentioned, I decided it wasn't necessary to kill the spider, and since spiders kill other insects, I may even be serving a purpose by letting it live. Besides, how would I like it if I were minding my business and a giant napkin squashed the life out of me and flushed me down the toilet or threw me in a trashcan. Any conscious part of me after that would likely think I had lived a pretty useless and meaningless existence if something else could so casually kill me without a second thought. Then my life meant nothing. So, I tapped the stove, which I knew would startle it and cause it to run off and hide. It did. I was pleased.

Not too long after, I hear my girlfriend pounding on the kitchen counter (I was in bed). "What are you doing?" I asked with all the innocence of a toddler about to enter a crime scene. "Trying to kill this jumping spider" she replied. "I got it!" she celebrated. I wasn't as celebratory, but I didn't tell her that.

For a second, I hated that spider for it's stupidity. I thought "You idiot! I spared your life, only so you could return to the scene of the crime to be killed less than an hour later!! Maybe it was your time, and maybe you deserved it." But my second thought was "What was I trying to spare this spider from?" Spiders live in a life and death struggle everyday. They know the risks of their lives better than anyone else. Everytime they face off with a mantis or have a run-in with a predatory bird, they are reminded soundly of the deadly struggles of life (if they survive these encounters).

(And here's the non sequitur part, because on the surface, what I'm about to say has nothing to do with what I just said, but somehow - for me - they're connected - I haven't found the exact connection though - but I'm looking...)

So why are we any different? Are we any different? Somehow the death of that spider has led me to the conclusion that death is probably not all that bad, or, if it is, life is meaningless anyway, so who cares?

If life is meaningless what do I care if I go to work, get paid, have a child, rob a bank, kick a cat, or whatever? Therein, lies a paradox, because I do care (to some degree) about those things. Some, more than others, but I care, nonetheless. But I care within the context of knowing (for me) that these things are all ultimately meaningless, and it is something I've struggled with since I became an atheist (or Adeist - if you've read my earlier article).

It doesn't bother me that everything is pointless. Rather, it bothers me that everything is pointless and that I'm here anyway. Because, why? Why be here at all then? I find some peace in the idea that I'm just one of the many processes in the Universe - a flail - if you will, but ultimately, pointless or not, life is damn enjoyable. Why have it to lose it? I suppose if I had a gambler's outlook on life this idea would suffice, but I don't and it doesn't.

I'm in no hurry to leave life (at least not yet), but I have to wonder what the point is.

There's really no ending to this post and there's not much within it that one could connect (without being in my head). Just some thoughts that are somehow and for some reason conflated within me and had to get them out...

And... ?

2009-03-09T11:34:00.000-07:00

So here I am, 2:34pm on Monday, March 9th, 2009, sitting in the office, stressing over a spreadsheet that will track the path of "lost" grant money allotted to us by the county. And I could not care any less than I do right now. At least I don't think so. If this money is not accounted for, the department I work in could be in dire straits and lose many jobs (mine among them), and the school on a larger scale, will likely feel the impact as well.

And so the fuck what.

My boss is a wonderful woman. I remarked to my mother that working for her is like working for family. You can't beat that. Many of my co-workers - likewise. But frankly, who cares? I mean, if the school doesn't re-obtain this funding and starts to suffer for it, it won't be the worst thing (in my view) because my only gain from it is a pittance of a weekly paycheck.

I'm over-reacting to some degree, of course. I just came off of a weekend where I completed work on photo installations for a world-premiere of a play, met two muralists, and appeared at a reading where I was a part of the creative arts world - not just a pencil-pushing, spreadsheet-generating, number-crunching, data miner. I did what I loved and people liked it and if not, they still respected me for who I was and what I do. Here, I'm just someone they can replace easily if they need to.

So of course, this falls into the category of narcissism, and just like that, I'm propelled into an understanding of celebrities and the like who go "Do you know who I am?"

"I don't care about your grant spreadsheet! I'm a photographer whose work will appear in a world-premiere play this very week. Do you know who I am?!"

No one. But still, at this stage of my life, where opportunities are appearing in front of me every single day and where people care about what I have to say and equally so, how I say it, I feel I am only a short time away from casting off the work-a-day shackles and tackling something infinitely more interesting and important in my opinion - my own life...

An Open Window...

2009-03-09T07:06:00.000-07:00

I sat down at my desk early this morning with a sense I hadn't experienced in a long time - if ever; a sense of accomplishment. Cleveland has all of a sudden turned into a place of possibility for me - this city, dubbed "foreclosureville" by the New York Times, this city, deemed on life support (if not dead) by many who live here or know of it. This city, rotting from a disease called "The Past", that has the automotive and corporate rats abandoning ship while the crew of artists and small businesspeople work tirelessly to keep it afloat over the financial deep.

I could not imagine, when leaving New York City, the Mecca of American arts & culture, the anointed and supposed land of creative opportunity, and heading for Cleveland, a city pronounced by many these days as DOA, that it would be the place where everything I could want would be. I came to the city that (at the time) was widely accepted to be the fourth poorest in the entire nation, and found a job almost immediately. I quit that job and found another almost immediately after that. They both paid substantially less than I made in NYC, but allowed me to have a standard of living here that was impossible in NYC - even while making 1/4 of my weekly NYC salary.

I've met several artists, all very serious and motivated. In NYC, I managed to meet only a few, and there was such a social ladder-climbing game, that they would only associate with you if they felt you could advance their career. I went from a plankton in an ocean to a perch in a lake. Not a big fish, mind you - but at least swimming and respected - as opposed to drifting on the current at the bottom of the food chain. We hunt together in schools and share the catch, as opposed to fighting each other for it.

In addition, despite the fact that I LOVED my NYC apartment, and we had a lot of space in it, relative to other NY'ers, considering what we paid, I now have an even better apartment (albeit, with one less bedroom and still unfurnished), in a better location (relative to NYC) and I pay just half of what I paid in NY. The equivalent apartment in NYC (in proximity to arts, culture, events and nightlife) would likely be a loft in Chelsea.

And now I reevaluate my plans to move to California. As much as I really want to go for the lifestyle and weather, it'll be the same "people-wise". Here, we have good Summer weather and the people are so much better. Overall, Clevelanders are not as liberal, however, in the particular areas that I frequent, they are.

As of Friday March 6th, I have completed my first professional / credited project with the Cleveland Public Theater, have assisted for a friend on a photo shoot of an American Idol contestant, have met filmmakers, painters and musicians (and have spent meaningful time with them - not just shaken their hands), have met a striking muralist in my lobby who I can't wait to work with, have attended several cultural events I could never afford in NYC, have become friends with the Executive Artistic Director of the Public Theater, and may have a chance to revive my (previously believed-dead) project "Whips & Chains". I did stand-up comedy multiple times at the Cleveland Improv. And all of this is in one year and seven months. I lived, worked and struggled in NYC for 30 years. I have little to show for it.

What adds to the wonder is that Cleveland is not (as many suspect) a po-dunk city (when it comes to arts and culture). The Cleveland Orchestra is one of the "Big Five" American Orchestras (New York , Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston housing the others). The Cleveland Public Theater is one of the most well-known and respected theaters in the country. Case-Western University is on par with Ivy-League Universities. The Cleveland Institutes of Music and Art and the Cleveland Museum of Art curators and staff are routinely courted by NYC, Chicago and other "Major City" museums and conservatories. In fact, the director of the Cleveland Museum of Art just left to head up the Met in NY. Being at the top of the Cleveland art world puts you a step away from the world market. Not to say that's my interest, but it is to say I was unaware. I married NY before I had sufficiently dated (which happens as a New Yorker).

And so, for possibly the first time in my life, I feel like I'm achieving. I feel happy (that is, as happy as I can be - so this says a lot). I am part of a (slowly) rising power couple in the art community here and that is seductive. Los Angeles? NY? Chicago? Cleveland?

There's a saying (that I'll paraphrase): When life closes a door, it opens a window...

With so many doors closed on me, it's good to slide the pane open, sit on the ledge for once and breathe, watching the workmen repair the broken door below.

Whose Chair is it Anyway?...

2009-03-04T08:24:00.000-08:00

The woman whose job of mine it was to sit in for while she was out recovering from a stroke, returned Monday. Her return has thrown everyone for a loop, as she has returned far sooner than expected and without much notice. I can imagine that in many circumstances this would be welcome. You can dismiss your temp (and the exorbitant temp service fees) as well as have your REAL employee back, who actually knows how to do the job correctly and has access to resources your temp didn't (databases, networks, files, etc.). Not only would everything be more or less back to normal, you might even expect to see a phantom boost in production (phantom - because it's not a REAL boost - just a return to "normal" production as opposed to what you lost with the training and learning curve of a new but temporary employee).

Well, not here.

Almost no one is pleased about the return of this woman, whom they seemingly lost so much to when she left. The few who are pleased (or at least not threatened) by her return are only notable for the lilliputian nature of their numbers.

Now, this should likely come as no true surprise to me, as I was well-informed of the "nature of the beast" when I began the replacement assignment. Not only did my co-worker and immediate superior inform me, but people would often come by to talk to one of them, or to inquire when I started this new assignment (because I previously worked in other departments in the same building, where said people frequently saw me) and would drop horrific forewarnings whenever I reached for anything or so much as squirmed in my chair, like "If Stella were here, she would have a fit", or "I know Stella can't wait to have her desk back", and my personal favorite "Don't let Stella know you did that". Oftentimes (in fact EVERY time) the most I was doing was typing or reaching for a sheet of paper, or using the stapler - things normally expected of a person working in an office - but not those sitting in for "Stella". Apparently, the very idea of even having someone sit in to complete some of the work she left behind was blasphemous.

However, it all became clear to me just how heavy-handed she was and how she was able to wield so much fear-assisted power when she actually called in (while she was supposed to be recovering). She simply called to flat-out tell me (a stranger to her) "Don't touch anything on my desk. Leave it just the way you found it." All of her important things in the office (like important files that I needed access to, in order to do some of my job) were already locked away (by her) anyway, so I told her this was fine by me, but with no actual intention of following through (with those few things that were accessible to me), as I wasn't being paid to sit still with my hands folded for eight (eventually ten) hours a day.

I should also note that I began the assignment in November and she left on sick leave in September - there were two months between her vacation of the position and the start of my assignment. (This comes to play later in this posting... )

All the while I worked in her place, I put everything back where I found it, every night, for the duration of my time at her desk. In addition, I went out of my way to not physically move anything that I could not easily put back, even if it was VERY MUCH in my way. I worked this way to the point that MY WORK on the desk was completely disorganized, because when I took her space, I tried to fit every piece of paperwork or utensil that I needed into the small amount of empty spaces that were available. When I needed a file that I had created or brought with me, or some office supplies that I ordered, etc., I had to dig through massive stacks I had built just to not touch any of her things. My co-worker and superior had gotten to the point where they were nearly ordering me to get rid of "Stella's" stuff (box it neatly and put it away) and make the desk mine so I could have more workspace and have a neater space to work in.

I informed them that I didn't want to do that, knowing the type of person she was, and that I would rather continue trying to work around her lästiggeist (to coin a term) than to create potential for future friction. As well, I told them that if I moved anything, it would be just my luck that she would return the next week and "have a fit", as it were.

Well, this went on through November and December 2008 and partially into January of 2009 (at which point she had already been gone almost five months). Finally, with a mountain of paperwork on my desk, I agreed that it was unreasonable and ridiculous to work this way, and finally decided to go ahead and (very neatly and very carefully) box her things up in an organized way and put them away. At this point, it was being made fairly clear that they didn't really didn't expect her back at all.

Finally some space to work. I decided to leave her pictures and religious implements where they were - just in case. That way, I'd only have to put files back and not pictures (and have to try to figure out how they were arranged). This was mid-January. On February 16th, "Stella" stopped in to announce that she would be returning on February 23rd.

Everyone was surprised of course - except me.

I was hurried to a new office for the "Return of Stella" and when she arrived on that Monday, she promptly began complaining about how her desk (which I had completely cleaned off and restored) was a complete mess, how I "filled up" the one drawer she had left unlocked with "shit" (I put ONE labelmaker in there - which she personally kept upon her return, by the way, though I had ordered it for the whole office) and complained that she had to reorganize everything (though it was the same as when she left it). She alos complained that one or more of her pictures were missing (which they weren't) and that "someone" (me) had stolen her chair which they (I) hadn't and replaced it with a broken one.

All of that nonsense and bullshit brings me to this: Why are our lives as people so mundane and uneventful, why are we so disillusioned and bitter, that we "fight" over chairs in an office where none of the chairs belong to us anyway? Because that is what it has come down to. Having had our youthful dreams of being singers, dancers, musicians, magicians, astronauts, presidents, firemen, millionaires dashed against the rocks of reality in this turbulent ocean of life, we've instead been reduced to pen-hogging, chair-claiming, title-mongering, adult children.

We covet the next employees' cubicle and guard our post-it notes with a ferocity normally reserved for light infantry. We hide paperclips and staples and we consider this important work while we're filling the coffers of some overpaid executive. The collapse of the American Dream is not just about greedy corporate executives, it's about the people who buy into the system that creates them. The executives get to be millionaires and musicians and presidents because they throw a roll of tape and some white-out at ten people, and while we fight over it, they get rich. And it's OUR fault as much as theirs, because we allow it - and the ones in control know it.

I feel anger toward this woman individually, but I also feel pity - for all of us. She thinks some of her family pictures are missing and that it's my fault. I never touched those pictures, but even if I had, what would I have done with the family pictures of a complete stranger? This is what she wakes up for? To come into a job she probably didn't aspire to, to complain about trivialities and fight over which chair she gets?

Her life (like all of ours) is likely already marred by disappointment after disappointment, and finally, she has to claim some minor (even trivial) victories to maintain sanity. This is what we've ALL been reduced to. And we continue to do this while asking for change at the top.

We're doing the same thing, but now we want different results.

A Short Musing on Simone...

2009-03-03T13:17:00.000-08:00

Beautiful... (but does not see it)

Brilliant... (but does not believe it)

Giving... (but rarely receiving)

Infuriating... (hey, nobody's perfect)

My life's savior, my (not always) better half, perfect, flawed, paining, pained, fun, loving wife.

I hope we have 31 more - times infinity...

Happy Birthday... :)

An Atheist's Thoughts / Ruminations...

2009-01-23T09:38:00.000-08:00

*Note: The following essay / discussion deals with the Atheist in relation to Christianity - but can be expanded to cover the other major western monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism, as well.
---
And so, we come to my first post of the new year, 2009. And, no, it is not about the history made by Barack Obama's election, nor is it about Barack Obama at all. Rather, it is an essay (for lack of a better term) on Theism vs. Atheism; Religion vs. Anti-Religion; God vs. Godlessness. I have, for some time, been pondering the nature of the discussion(s) on God, religion, theism, belief, hope, faith, etc. I have come to the conclusion, for myself, that all of these things - however interrelated, are separate questions.

First, let's define God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni-you-name-it entity, that resides in a place called Heaven, whom created everything, and can have direct and/or indirect influence over what transpires in the human world. I think that is an acceptable definition by any of the standards of the three religions in question.

I hear and have heard many discussions on why one should not believe in God, and moreso Christianity, and whenever I hear the cases made for Atheism, the Atheist party invariably refers to all the contradictions, evils, and loose morals of the Bible. In fact, not just the Bible itself, but of the God of the Bible, himself. These arguments have stricken me as having little point in these discussions, because in these discussions, God and the Bible, and Christianity are linked, but they need not be - not for the Atheist, at least.

Over time, these questions have become less and less attached to each other (for me). I no longer need to (or can) defend my Atheism by pointing to the Bible and saying how immoral God is, the evils done in the name of God, religion etc. For me, that has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and an arrogant jerk; should I reject everything else he accomplished? I could say the same for the U.S. as a whole, should I reject the entire nation because of its many (but limited) misdeeds? Was Germany a terrible nation or was Hitler a terrible person to lead it? We tried to destroy Germany as a whole because of Hitler (partly by dividing it) and we see where that led. Now a reunified Germany is stronger than ever - and Hitler is deposed and dead.

For me, my Atheism has become strictly a lack of belief in the existence of any God or Gods based on the evidence. When the question of why I am an Atheist is posed, my answer is:

"Because I do not see the evidence. God has never done anything in my life in any perceivable way: spoken to me, held my hand, joined me for dinner, personally arrived and cured a terrible illness for a loved one, brought anyone back from the dead, given me a high-five after a basket, etc., etc., etc. Many of the things ascribed to God can be explained rather simply and satisfactorily in scientific terms, without need for a God - in my view."

Of course, what springs to my mind is that God and science need not be mutually exclusive. Everything we observe scientifically could have been initialized by God. I don't believe this, and in fact, I find it absurd, however, it is a possibility. It is possible that the world was created by Santa Claus. It is not at all probable, but it may be possible - you never know. Our interpretation of "God's Word" could be (and if he is real, likely is) VERY flawed. Maybe God is benevolent and not bent on being worshipped, and never really talked about hellfire, etc. Maybe those are constructions of man in order to control and oppress people (quite likely). The Bible was written by man, and is subject to his imperfections.

Note: That God and science need not be mutually exclusive is not an endorsement for the teaching of intelligent design. That should never be included in scholarly study.

All of the things mentioned above, are arguments against RELIGION, not GOD. In this context, I am A-deist (without a deity) and Atheist (Without Theism). I am also largely (though not wholly) Anti-Theist, but not Anti-deist. Labels, labels, labels. But necessary for the sake of discussion.

IMPORTANT NOTE: When I say I am Adeist, I am referring to deism not Deism (lowercase "d" not uppercase "D"). That is, deism in its simplest meaning - that is, belief in the existence of a God or Gods. I am NOT specifically referring to the 17th century philosphy.

Why can't (or why doesn't) God eliminate evil? Why does God allow people (and other living things) to suffer? Why did he make nature so brutal? If death is a necessity, then how can God claim to be Omnipotent? This is a limitation and doesn't he make the rules? Is death a stone God can't lift (among others)? Why does God punish for eternity for just a lifetimes worth of "sin" (whatever that is)? Why must he be worshipped in order for one to receive salvation? Why does God need human money? If God created everything, then he created sin, so why am I punished for doing what he "designed" me to do? If God created Satan, and Satan turned against God, then God made a mistake and is imperfect. If God is perfect, then he purposely created "sin" and "Satan" and "evil". What type of "all-good, all-loving" God does this?

All of these questions / statements can form the basis of arguments not to worship God, but have little to do with his existence, and are therefore Anti-deistic, not A-deistic. They are arguments against the methods of God - not his existence. He could still exist, and these would all be salient reasons to not worship Him. But just because you refuse to worship this God (which in my opinion is valid and I, myself, would choose thus) doesn't mean he isn't there. The reason to doubt God's existence is not because of what man and religion do, it is because his existence is doubt-able, due to lack of evidence.

"Look at all of the terrible things done in the name of God."

That is an argument against man and religion, not God. Man can take something wonderful and corrupt it and one can't blame the wonderful thing - they have to blame the man.

I believe (what we now call) the Atheist should make these distinctions when examining the topic and his or her own beliefs on the subject. I believe, for the sake of labels, he might more accurately opt to call himself an Adeist instead. Or, most accurately (and more comically), an Agnostic Atheist Adeist (One without (absolute) knowledge, one without theism, one without (a belief in the existence of) God). And from there, he can decide if he is Anti-theist and/or Anti-deist or not.

On the serious side however, as an Adeist (nee Atheist) I believe my (already accurate, credible and true) arguments will become more accurate, credible, and true if I separate these subjects from each other, and I believe the same for other Adeists / Atheists as well.

In the Spirit of Thankfulness...

2008-12-04T07:32:00.000-08:00

Thank you.

To the unconscious force that governs everything in the Universe, from life to the movement of the stars, thank you.

I thank you that (as far as anyone can tell) you didn't allow my grandmother to suffer when she passed away on Thanksgiving morning. I am thankful that she was alert and coherent and active up to the end. I am thankful that my grandmother, who was born in 1921 and lived through the second most segregated period of United States history (after slavery), lived to see an African American man elected to the presidency of the United States of America. I am thankful that though she was alone at her final moment, she was not alone as she approached it.

I am sorry I was not able to see her on the 15th of October, her birthday, when the rest of my family came down to visit her. I could not afford to make the trip. I am ashamed and embarrassed of that. I was close with her. With the loss of her, I lost a part of myself. When I couldn't make it for her birthday, I vowed nothing would stop me from coming down on Thanksgiving. I almost didn't make it, and my mother even told me it wasn't necessary. Eventually, we decided to come no matter what, but my grandmother died while we were en route. I hadn't seen her since 2004. I didn't view her body. I would never see her again.

I am thankful for my brother, Clifton, whom, despite everything he has dealt with and continues to deal with, has become a remarkable (though somewhat angry and tense) young man. I understand his anger and tension. I love him for it, as well as for everything else that is a part of him.

I am thankful, as well, for my brother Herman. He continually (unwittingly) teaches me to be thankful for that which you have because it could always be worse. For the wrong reasons, he also reminds me to stay on my toes, and to be completely covered in love - but not blinded by it.

I am thankful for my mother, who, among other things (through her actions), has demonstrated to me that a human being can withstand absolutely anything, as long as they have a firm belief in something. Hers is God (though tainted by religion). Mine is something else. But as long as one holds a firm (though not unchanging) belief in something, they will always have a place to draw strength from.

I am thankful for and to my fiancee' Simone, for any number of things - too voluminous to articulate. Most recently, I am thankful for her ability to watch a man shed tears as he watches the early stages of his family's collapse.

I am thankful for my cat, whom is far more independent than any cat I've ever known or known of, and who brightens every evening I come home.

I am thankful that I have the opportunity to live like a near-prince in Cleveland - one of the top four poorest cities in the nation. I came from one of the wealthiest cities in the nation, where I could no longer afford to live, to one of the poorest, and found work relatively easily in a place where no one else can.

Still can't afford a car. :)

I am thankful for so much more, but no less.

I'm a Hardcore Rapper... (A Hip-Hop Parody)

2008-11-20T13:13:00.000-08:00

(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.

The Incivility of the Many...

2008-11-19T08:05:00.000-08:00

"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.

Rappers for Obama...

2008-11-12T09:25:00.000-08:00

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?

Martin Luther King Jr. Was an Uncle Tom...

2008-11-12T08:46:00.000-08:00

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!

A Travesty...

2008-11-10T07:52:00.000-08:00

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 Mama on Obama...

2008-11-07T10:19:00.000-08:00

"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

Just an Idea...

2008-11-07T05:00:00.000-08:00

(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?

A Greater Society?

2008-11-06T06:34:00.000-08:00

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.

32... more musings...

2008-11-05T09:07:00.000-08:00

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!

Hooray!!! Black President!!! Except, hold on just a sec...

2008-11-05T06:36:00.000-08:00

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.

I did it! Well, not really... But kinda!

2008-10-29T09:07:00.000-07:00

So I did stand-up for the first time Tuesday, 10/21, at an open mic at the Cleveland Improv. I sucked. But, of course. It was my first time ever, and though I put a lot of work into my first open mic preparation, and I was better than everyone else who went (at least on that particular day), I still sucked. Terribly. I did it again, to much the same result, on the 28th. I wasn't as good as I was on the first try, which means I was worse than when I sucked.

All in all, I wasn't as terrified as I thought I'd be, once I got on stage. I have near-crippling stagefright, and I was absolutely terrified up there, but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. My mouth was completely dry, my chest pounded, but I was still able to speak and I didn't chicken out and opt not to go on. So, that's what made it better than usual.

The club manager, Lee, says I have a ways to go with performing the material, but he says the material itself is very solid, and with time and effort, I can pull a lot of great jokes out of it. I get laughs now, but I stumble on words and phrases due to my nervousness and, of course, stumbling during a joke is raid to the roach. There's no easier way to bomb, other than to outright NOT be funny.

So, I did it! Except, not really. I got on stage, told jokes, and got laughs, but I didn't feel fully comfortable or natural and I'm not able to pull the jokes out of the material the way I want yet. But, of course, the 28th was only my second try in as many weeks.

The thing is, who the hell do I think I am? To tell people to gather in a room as I stand under a spotlight, and tell them what I think? What makes me so important? One of the other comics, John Wellington, asked me, "Who did you think you were funnier than?" The answer: No one. I was around a lot of comics in NYC, and one thing I never thought was "I could do that - and better." It was never as confrontational as that. It was more, "Wow, I like what these guys do and I want to do that, but it looks hard as hell. I wonder if I could do it." So who the hell do I think I am? No one too important, but someone who does have something to say that I don't think is being said; whether that be hip-hop's oxymoronic, latently flamboyant homosexuality, or the idea that women make honest men lie to them, only to accuse us of lying when we're being honest.

I've been interested in trying to do stand-up for years (I chickened out in an NYC club once) but the fact is, I made a promise to a very special person whom I will never forget, who gave her life for me, intentionally or not, that whether I succeeded or not, I would at least try, and I've kept that promise, and then some. That person has given me something that no one other than that person could have given me, and though there is not now, and there never will be, a way for me to pay them back, I have learned a lot about myself, and have done things - and will do things now - that I would not have done before that person came into my life. The circumstances of our relationship make it inappropriate and tacky for me to thank her for her sacrifice, but I want her to know that it wasn't in vain. I am wholly and truly a different person now than I was before I met her, and for the better, though I abhor the way it had to happen.

From here on out, it's all gravy...

The Noble Ambition

2008-09-29T11:36:00.000-07:00

Presidents aren't noble; they're just ambitious.

Or, so goes the conventional wisdom. Many agree that to run for the president of any nation, especially a western, world-leading, industrialized nation, and particularly the United States, takes a great amount of ambition, and says something about the ego of that person. No argument here. That's why I'm an artist. No ego required.

Or is there? Okay, so maybe you knew I was going there. Well, that still makes the question no less sensible. The question being: Are we, who pursue the arts, any more noble or any less ego-driven, than a presidential candidate?

Well, frankly, I don't know. But let's at least try to examine it.

At first glance, the answer may seem to be no. Many artists work in obscurity, and never seek the limelight. They are happy trading sketches or prints, etc., with fellow artists, or providing work for their family's enjoyment. Many simply create art for their own enjoyment. They make something, then they admire it themselves. Some try to sell their work, not because they want fame and fortune, but because they only want to do art full-time, and so would prefer to have their income derive from what they love. But they seek no more than enough profit to live without worry and to continue to afford to make their art.

Likewise (believe it or not), many politicians are very similar. Whatever their views, they believe that they have something to offer their community, and many politicians, though getting plenty done, happily work in relative obscurity. Who's the city councilperson for District 12 in New York City? Who's the mayor of Minden, Nevada? Did you know a state senator in Nebraska makes just $12, 000 a year? Chances are that you know none of the three. And there's nothing wrong with that. Nor do I (or, at least I didn't before writing this).

However, there are a substantial number of artists working toward eminence, and they are probably not greatly disproportionate to the number of politicians doing the same. I (for a time) was working toward notoriety, and I am friends with several very talented artists in many different disciplines doing the same. Obviously (or maybe not) we are not doing art just for fame. There are many other things we could do to more easily achieve that goal. We all love art, and do it because we love it. As well, we all feel that we have something important to say about (or to contribute to) the world we live in, and we all think this is information that we need to get out there, or no one may ever hear / see / feel it, etc. However, we would like some notoriety and financial stability to accompany it.

So, are our goals 100% noble? Of course not. We are human. We change our minds on issues. We learn. We grow. We're stubborn. We regress. We're cynical; all of those wonderful things that human beings are and do.

So why shouldn't a politician be expected to do the same? Granted, a politician's ambitions are probably more dangerous than an artist's. The great oppressive regimes in the world weren't created by artists. Now, before you get up in arms, I know Hitler was an artist, but people didn't follow him on those merits. However, it would be naive of me to say that art and its control didn't play a very important role in those regimes. Art absolutely swayed people. If oppressive leaders were the premise, arts were the supporting argument.

Still, politicians can't be expected to be completely noble, in fact, just as artists, they can often times be quite ignoble, and that is why the checks and balances system is so important. Artists don't need a checks and balances system (at least these days) because no one cares about us until it's too late. But politicians do, so we can avoid the "too late" scenario.

So, the looming, slightly rephrased, question remains: Are we, who pursue the arts, any more noble or any less ego-driven, than a political aspirant?

Short answer: No. But given power, we're likely less dangerous.

FYI:
Minden, NV has no mayor. It is governed by five elected advisory Town Board members.

NYC District 12 Councilman - Larry Seabrook (as of 9/29/08)

Real Life Makes for a Painful Movie

2008-09-26T07:59:00.000-07:00

I thought I was in a bad comedy this morning by the creators of Scary Movie (3 and onward), Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Superhero Movie, etc., (yes, worse than those), when, on my way to work, I was passed, in succession, by two young black women, unrelated to each other, who were both pregnant. It's not that two is a lot, it's just that they were walking not more than 15 feet apart from each other in the same direction, and came off of the same bus. I was walking in the opposite direction. It was as if someone had just made a throwaway comment in one of those movies and this was the related descriptive scene.

I work in a poor neighborhood, which in some twisted way, makes me feel good, because though the neighborhood is black, there is not a high incidence of crime. Certainly there's plenty of niggerish behavior, but fortunately, it hasn't (largely) degenerated (yet) into violence and theft. But what I hadn't thought about before, is the high incidence of teenage pregnancy. These women were no more than 18, probably right at 18, and likely 16 or 17. I call them women because once you bear a child, unfortunately you can be a child no more. But make no mistake, in terms of age and mental maturity (if not innocence), these were children; teenagers.

I realized I had no idea how high the incidence of teenage pregnacy was in the black community - my community. Sure, I've read the statistics, but numbers on a page are not the same as living something day to day, and day to day, I see many pregnant mothers, as well as mothers with born children, and in many cases, mothers with both. For some reason it never dawned on me until this morning (which I know makes me an idiot), but this is a huge problem. Let me correct myself - I knew this was a huge problem. Several years ago I even began the process of creating a photoessay that deals with this issue (among many others in the black community). However, what I mean to say is, I had never experienced the problem on a daily basis like this.

Now, frankly, it's the mothers who really experience this, and I'm not trying to make their hardships and experiences about me. But what I mean is, I've never been around it to this degree, and it is troubling.

It has me thinking, again...

Here's to Friday (or Christmas Every Weekend)

2008-09-26T05:45:00.000-07:00

Today is Friday, and I've come to feel that Friday is the best day of the week. It's the best day because if you don't completely hate your job, you get to spend time during the day working, thereby making money, and in the evening you can stay up as late as you want because you know you don't have to work the next day (for us weekday-ers). For some, that translates into going out to a dance club or a bar or a party or any number of nighttime events. For others, it translates into curling up with their lover and having a mini movie marathon. For others it translates into getting some personal work or hobbies done and sleeping in the next day. And still, for others, it translates into a night of energy-draining, mindless, mind-blowing, semi-coma the next morning, sex. For some it translates into all (or most) of the above.

For me, it means none of the above, as, due to a lack of exercise over the past year and a half, I have the energy for almost none of those things. And, because I work as a temp, I rarely have the money either. I do stay up though, because I can. It's like being a kid again in some way; a day (or evening) to regain the innocence and freedom I lost to rent payments, student loan payments, utility payments, credit card payments, tax payments, go nowhere jobs, murdered dreams and an adult body (and the hair to go with it). I can (subconsciously) be the kid who was finally allowed to stay up after a week of (in my case, not very) strong effort at school. I still enjoy Friday, because it's the anticipatory day. The day before the big day. The day before it all slowly starts to go to pieces, and subsequently, downhill. It's Christmas Eve.

Saturday is OK, but most people waste half of the day sleeping Friday off. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I personally love it. It just makes for a lot of rushing around to do things in half-a-day that could be done more leisurely with a whole day. Saturday is the equivalent of Christmas day. I try to get up early on Saturday. Sometimes it's very easy. Most times it is not. Whether I'm tired or not, sometimes I stay in bed just because I can. Now, granted, "staying in bed" for me really only extends to about 10am at the latest, and I naturally wake up around 7am on most days, period. That likely makes my Saturday a bit longer than others'. Still, despite the ability to sleep in remoreselessly (I'm positive that's not a word), Saturday kind of sucks. It's good in the morning, when you unwrap the present of "sleeping in", but for me, Christmas day always ended with a bit of a let down. Though not impoverished, my family had very little money, and after the presents, there wasn't much else. There was the cleanup of the wrapping paper, the discovery that the toy I wanted to play with the most needed batteries, and that my parents had forgotten to buy them (or in some cases, couldn't afford them until the following week). So there was all the elation of Christmas morning, followed by the gradual decline in spirit throughout the day.

My parents did all they could (and many Christmas' it was considerable), but even as the understanding child I was, it was still a bit of a letdown. And so, that is how Saturday feels. After the intital fun of sleeping in, and maybe even some morning-sex, there come the tasks of cleaning the house, doing the laundry, going to the bank, going to the post office, going to the store, etc., etc., etc. If you're lucky, maybe you get to go the park or the museum or play sports, or something, and hanging with friends and/or family may take some of the edge off. However, the chore requirements always introduce some let down, as so much of the remaining day is consumed by them.

Sunday (for me) is the day after Christmas. It's relaxing, and you may have little to do, but you know that the next day, things will largely be back to "normal" and the "holiday spirit" has already started to fade, if it hasn't completely done so already. Many are using the morning to relax after a chore and activity-filled Saturday, but they (who work) know the evening becomes the time when all the preparation for the next workday begins. The hair starts getting done, the clothes are laid out, the lunch is made, and the earlier bedtime is reintroduced.

I would wish for everyday to be Friday, but Friday can't be Friday without Saturday and Sunday, otherwise Friday becomes Monday, and that's the last day I look forward to seeing.

Come Sunday, the holidays are over.

Back to the regular, cruel world.

A little help?

2008-09-24T11:21:00.000-07:00

I currently work as a temp at a community college, where it's my job to sign people up for GED testing and classes. We have this free program (as many institutions do) to help those in the surrounding community acquire the ability to attend college. As I field several hundred calls and walk-in inquiries a day, it has become apparent to me that no one has our phone number or knows the name of our department. Students and staff alike are routinely transferred or forwarded to my phone and desk from other places that they have incorrectly called or visited. This has led me to wonder what the hell is going on? Why does no one know who we are, and why is it so difficult to contact us? At the outset, one might wonder if it is the ineptitude of those trying to reach us. On closer inspection, one discovers (for an as yet undetermined reason) that getting information on just about any place is nearly impossible. Even in the "cyberspace age", old or broken links, as well as misdirection, is pervasive. Why is this? I must re-ask the now cliche' question: What makes businesses think that less service is better business? Even for programs, services and businesses that generally want to be found.

For example: I recently needed to locate a nearby Staples store. I searched online, and after getting to the overloaded front page of their website, I finally found a tiny little link, off in a corner, that read "Store Locator". Great. I usually know where to look on a page to find such a thing, but because their home page is so busy, it took me nearly seven or eight minutes to see theirs. I clicked on it, and located the store I wanted. I got a phone number, which did not go to the actual store (though the site led me to believe it did), but instead went to a call center. The call center then transferred me to the store. Once I was transferred to the store, no one answered for an extended period, then when they did, they transferred me to the wrong department.

Now why would all of this happen? Well, corporate doesn't want you to walk into a store when you can buy online. The employees don't realize it, but they have been poorly trained in handling customers, in order to better serve corporate's goals. If everyone moves to online purchasing, corporate can then start closing stores, laying people off (those very same low-wage, poorly-trained salespeople), dramatically cutting their overhead in the process. Of course, their online prices are somewhat cheaper, but it is more than made up for (on your end) by the shipping charges. Sure, Staples doesn't get that money, it goes to FedEx or UPS or whomever, but that makes little difference to your pocket. It still stings.

Case in point, I was merely looking for a $2 sketch pad that I thought they might carry. They didn't have it in-store or online, but if they had, the shipping charges to have them send it to me were well in excess of double the cost of the pad. However, they (institutionally) did everything imaginable to keep me from 1.) talking to a human and 2.) coming into the store, effectively making it impossible (if not just very difficult) to buy it any other way (from them). All this, by the way, while doing everything imaginable to eliminate competition so that, despite the poor service, you have to spend your money with them. Guess it's the American way.

But why is this the case at a college or university, like the one at which I work? Surely, they must want students, as it means more revenue and exposure. This one is less obvious to me. Perhaps the gigantic bureaucracies which run colleges and universities are to blame. No one knows what the other is doing, every call is passed off and redirected and ultimately, students and prospective students are lost in the shuffle. Or perhaps academia is subject to the same trends as business. With more offerings online, they can cut some overhead by not having on-campus classes. Fewer buildings means lower real estate costs. As well, fewer professors can teach more classes online, allowing the schools to hire less. More students, fewer teachers and expenses, as well as the support staff that accompanies those things.

I don't know the answer, but I know it's infuriating. A little help? Anyone?

Fight Club '08

2008-09-22T07:40:00.000-07:00

Another day, another post. With the (tantamount) collapse of the investment banking industry, and the conversion of the United States into France (or some similar semi-socialist Western European republic), I think of my fiancee'. She says we should have just let the banks collapse and started over again. I wholeheartedly agree. It would have hurt many, including the international markets, but maybe then, we could have some sort of moratorium on greed and the (huge) negative side of laissez-faire capitalism. Maybe then (maybe), poor, red-state people would finally start to see the Republican party for what it currently is - the party of the rich red-state people.

So, what am I, (country accent) "Some sorta damned communist?" Well, yes, frankly, to a large degree. But that doesn't mean I'm wholly against the "on paper" Republican philosophy. By the tenets of the REAL Republican party, I could be a Republican. I believe in small government. I believe in "pull yourself up by your bootstraps...". I believe in low taxes. I believe in self-determination and I believe in free AND FAIR trade. In fact, I believe in no government, everyone pulls his weight, no taxes, completely open trade and completely individual determination. Much like life would be on a small commune. So, I guess that makes me a Republican Communist.

But ay, here's the rub. In reality, the Republicans are all about big government, higher taxes, restricted trade, and party determination of what the individual should do. And we can look at all of this. So, let's do so.

SMALL GOVERNMENT
The Republican party, as it exists currently, advocates some of the largest, and sweeping government, and the least individual determination that the nation has seen. The party wants to determine whether gays (individuals) can be married to each other by passing legislation opposed to it (government). The Republican party, as it exists currently, wants to determine a mother's (individual) right to choose to have an abortion by passing legislation banning it (government). The Republican party, as it exists currently, wants to determine whether or not a citizen without insurance (individual) receives medical treatment by passing legislation against universal health care (government). Republicans are the very ones who support the legislation that bans the individual's right to decide when he / she should die. If you are in the hospital, in unimaginable pain, with a terminal illness, the Republicans want the government to tell you (the individual) that you are not allowed to have assisted suicide. Yet, if they lose millions in the stock market and pull the trigger on themselves, that is acceptable. They can have what they want. You can't. Each of these examples is an individual, and very personal right.

The Republicans, as they now sit, want to take these from you. They want the government to legislate whether two individuals who sincerely love each other can have the benefits a marriage certificate provides. They want the government to legislate an individual mother's right to carry a child to term, when that mother is no more prepared to take care of that child than she was to make it in the first place. Further interesting, is the Republicans' nearly unwavering support of the death penalty which, it is well documented, disproportionately affects poor, underprivileged Americans, and especially blacks. The current Republicans know that the child will have little opportunity in life, but in the apt and cogent words of my fiancee', Republicans want to punish any woman who conceives a child - even in cases of rape and incest, so they'll have someone to sentence to death in 17 years - or less (in Texas, a 15 year old was once sentenced to death). This way they can guarantee the further existence of prisons and we all know prisons are big business. Apparently, dooming a child to a life of little opportunity and much distress is perfectly acceptable.

So, the republicans want the government to determine who gets married, who gets to live, who gets to die, who gets health care, and let's not forget the famous "Patriot" Act, which allows the United States government to spy on ordinary American citizens domestically, supposedly in an effort to fight foreign terrorists internationally. That makes perfect sense, right? Oh, and by the way, if, in the future this is found completely illegal and unconstitutional (you know, like it is right now, but the conservatives have loopholed their way out of prosecution for now), they want the companies who assist in it to be immune from prosecution, under the guise of "They were just doing what they were ordered to do." Nazi troops only did what they were ordered to do. The American soldiers at Abu Ghraib only did what they were ordered to do. Let me also add that this is a major point where I diverge from Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama (along with his position on the death penalty).

This all sounds like a lot more and a lot bigger government intrusion on our daily lives - at least to me.

LOW TAXES
Which party now wants to use taxpayer money to bail out the private financial companies that their buddies run? Where will all that taxpayer money come from? Well, taxpayers, of course. Let me appendix that by saying this is another point where I diverge from Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. He agrees with the bailouts (at least as of now). he only reason the republicans voted the measure down (despite it being introduced by their party) was that there were too many concessions for the average American. Go figure that one out: We're giving too much to the victims and not enough to the perpetrators.

As well, Republicans are known for (and proud of) being the party that spends the most on the military and weapons and war technology. More money for more spying on Americans and more weapons to keep them in place if they get out of line, as well as to assert our military dominance over the rest of the world. Where does that money come from? Taxpayers. So the Republicans are comfortable with corporate welfare but not individual welfare. Billion dollar corporations need the government's help, but not the impoverished individual. That sounds like the party that has lost focus on what the government's role is supposed to be. To stand up, help and defend those who can not do so for themselves. Indeed, instead of defending the weak, they build the military to suppress them.

PULL YERSELF UP BY YER BOOTSTRAPS
Well, the current Republican party has made this all but impossible. As Sen. Obama quipped, most no longer have boots to put straps onto. Additionally, many are in health states too poor to allow them to even lift their own weight, and lack adequate insurance coverage to help them get the care they need. Frankly, if the previous two sections of this essay were taken into account by the party, one could pull themselves up.

FREE TRADE
Laughable. It should actually be called: Free Trade Among Nations (including oppressive totalitarians) That Support the United States.

CONCLUSION
So why did I title this post: Fight Club '08? Well, one, it was an effort (I believe successful) to be cryptic. Two, because I envision a Marxist revolution (adapted to the time) to be the answer; the failure of the banks and credit companies, and the collapse of the investment banking industry, and a "reboot" if you will, of the United States' and world's economy. The difference is, I don't get to plant dynamite at the base of these institutions' headquarters.

Fun While Wasted or Wasted Fun?

2008-09-18T07:40:00.000-07:00

(originally written as an essay 5/3/06)
I’d like someone to explain to me the “fun” in being “wasted”. I couldn’t help but overhear a group of my contemporaries at work the other day, discussing where they were going after work to “get wasted”. As usual, this dissolved into talk about the previous week when they got “wasted”, or “smashed”, “blasted”, “blitzed”, "shit-faced" or some other slang-ed adjective, all (supposedly) in the pursuit of the ever-elusive “fun”. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I’ve always held the notion that getting so drunk that you had to be carried home in a wheelbarrow was the domain of burned out cops and disgruntled and bitter newspapermen. My belief about these cops and newspapermen, was that they had seen so much degradation of the human condition through their policing and reporting, and had grown so tired of their disagreeable marriages, that they preferred the idea of passing out on the sidewalk than continuing to think or going home to their wives. They hung out in an Irish pub at late hours and the bartender’s name was “Mack”. It doesn't sound (to me) like much "fun". Indeed, it was their (unsuccessful and destructive) way of dealing with their problems - and creating new ones to replace or compound them. Ok, maybe I’ve been watching too much of Turner Classic Movies, nevertheless, I haven’t quite come to understand why those who “just want to party”, don’t just party.

Now, I have to intimate that I’m not an idiot when it comes to the effects of alcohol. Some amount of inebriation is an enjoyable experience, and for many people, helps them “lighten up”. Alcohol is often a precursor to sex, so much so, in fact, that it sometimes seems to be mandatory for the continuation of the species. If you don’t agree, just ask Curtis and Charlene in any mobile home complex in the United States. A few beers have never hurt the chances of conception, and even seem to improve it. It calls back to the days when that bitter cop or newspaperman (or the people he wrote about) would burst through the door shouting “Doris! Come here!” Moments later, anywhere from ten to one hundred million potential micro-suitors would be heading up the birth canal, hoping to add another unwanted expense to the family, and annoyance to the world.

Personally, I’ve only been “wasted” once, and it wasn’t really by choice. My girlfriend at the time (now fianceé – go alcohol!) had convinced me, to accompany her to hang out with a friend of hers. I don’t generally like hanging out with her friends because I feel I have nothing to add when two or more women are talking. They only turn to me when they want “the man’s opinion.” It’s the same when I hang with a group of white people and they want “the black opinion.” That being the case, I decided I’d best be unable to talk if my mouth was full of alcohol. Up to that point, vodka had been my favorite of the hard liquors, but I had never had more than a couple of shot glasses in an evening, and I’m not one to hold strong alcohol well. That night I had three tall glasses (or four, or five – who can remember at this point), each one roughly equivalent to about four shot glasses. I was actually doing well until I got to the end of the third (or fourth). I remember the bar being very loud earlier that evening, but after that third (or fourth) vodka, all of my memories are intermittent. I remember the bar being the same after I got drunk, in terms of activity, but there was no sound. The waitress would come over and ask if we needed anything from time to time, but I don’t personally remember hearing her. I just remember seeing her. I figure that’s what she had to be doing because why else would she have kept coming over? I do remember just zoning out and staring at the ceiling, chiming in to my girlfriend’s conversation when something caught my ear during my intermittent hearing return. I also remember trying to give the appearance that I wasn’t drunk, though I’m not sure how well it worked, since the waitress gave me a strange smile joined with a confused look on one of her trips over to our couch. It was as if I had just told a dirty (and bad) joke about space aliens and classical music and she was trying to find the humor, but instead her search for the punch line turned into the search for her customer's sanity.

The next thing I remember was saying to my girlfriend “We've got to get a cab. I won’t make it on the subway.” Then she asked me what was wrong, which is when I informed her that I was a sniff of alcohol away from vomiting. She didn't bother to ask why I thought a NYC taxi was less vomit-inducing than a subway. She did tell me she hadn’t even noticed, which led me to question how that was possible, to which she responded that I had maintained myself remarkably well. I got home and collapsed face down onto our unmade bed, wholly sure that I would soon be inhaling the dinner I was about to regurgitate.

I managed to keep my dinner down, but for all of the following day (and much of the next two) I felt as if my head and small intestine were two politicos who had overheard each others' opposing views on the merits of the Iraq war and decided the only way to solve their differences was to wrestle each other, upward, through my esophagus. During this period, I decided definitively (though I had decided, tentatively, years earlier) that being “wasted” wasn’t the thing for me.

But apparently it is the thing for many. I often overhear people bragging about themselves being in similar physical circumstances, leading me to believe that many people enjoy this state of being. "Dude, last night was awesome! I fucking puked my brains out all over this waitress, then again on my girlfriend. Let's do it again next week!" Indeed, the conversation at my job seemed to support that.

Still, no one can tell me why? The only explanation I’ve been able to get is so uniform and repetitive (everyone gives it) and so bland, that you would think I’ve just asked Ms. Universe why people like playing with puppies, “Because, like, you want to have a good time.” Though sufficient in the case of Ms. Universe, that answer doesn’t quite provide enough information in the case of why people drink themselves to oblivion. However, if ever one needed proof that the entire world can indeed see eye to eye on something, the proof is in that response. Ask anyone, anytime, anywhere, and that will likely be the answer you get. If you get any more than that, God bless you. I sometimes felt I was in a Lord of the Rings story, “One ring to rule them all.” Substitute the word “ring” with the word “response”.

Now, again, why people drink at all, is not a mystery. It can be quite tasty; I love a well-crafted beer and I often enjoy a glass of Sherry or Port, though I stay away from hard liquors after that vodka story. Historically, alcohol was often the safest thing to drink, water and juice standards not being what they are today. Fruit-bearing plants were more susceptible to disease in the past, as there was no crop-dusting or chemical injection to increase the strength of plants to resist disease, or to increase yield. Water was worse. When you could get to water, if you weren’t living under some immense historical empire, you had to contend with other creatures that used the same water, and the ensuing dangers, as well as microorganisms that could make for a very bad (and final) day if you ingested them. Alcohol was simply the way to go in most cases. It was as common to a meal in the 12th century as a distant, abusive father and repressive mother are in the 20th century. However, in social situations, people then would often drink themselves unconscious as well, all in the pursuit of that grand social paradigm of “fun”.

The late English Viscountess, Nancy Astor, once stated: “One reason I don’t drink, is that I want to know when I am having a good time.” I am inclined to agree with her sentiment, though I do drink, just not into a stupor. Is the fun in going out and having a good time, not in the going out and socializing, dancing, etc., that one does when one goes out? Perhaps people are at the bar or club because they actually want to hear this new band in Williamsburg that incorporates a plastic violin with a steel bow. Maybe tonight’s crowd enjoys music that sounds like a cat being killed while violently having its claws dragged along a chalkboard. Then again, maybe the only reason people can put up with that sort of thing is because they’re so “wasted” they’re not really paying attention anyway. Even if they are, they are probably too “wasted” to know what they’re listening to. Perhaps, though for the life of me I can’t see it, the fun is in being drunk. The 1st century Roman writer Seneca wrote: “Drunkenness is simply voluntary insanity.” I’m not sure if he was supporting or denouncing drunkenness, but if supporting, maybe he’s right. But then, what’s with what I call “proofing”, in which people (while getting drunk) have to catalogue everything they did to get drunk last time and how drunk they got? People have to prove that they not only drink, but can out drink you. You have to “catch up”. Personally, I’m happy to be “drank under the table”. I prefer to have my wits about me – few as they are. I’d like to think it’s a machismo thing, but I see women doing it about as often as I see men doing it; often I see women doing it to men.

But perhaps Seneca was on to something. Maybe after a week full of being jostled and mauled on the train, having flights delayed, being cut-in-front-of on lines, re-doing all of the work we did at the office because of a misplaced decimal, being rudely served at lunchtime then getting sick from that same lunch, only to get back to the office to redo what we already re-did, maybe getting wasted offers a recuperative escape. That’s understandable. However, if that is the case, and I believe that it is, I can think of many other “fun” things I’d personally prefer to do to recuperate, and getting “wasted” is not one of them. For me, if the “fun” is in "getting wasted”, then to me it’s all just wasted fun.

Small Town Values: Who Cares?

2008-09-17T13:43:00.000-07:00

Can anyone really tell me what, exactly, "small town values" are, and why they are so important? Often, in an election year, or any other time the "issues" are discussed, the idea of "small town values" or "small town America" are heralded as some sort of great principle or set of principles upon which all decisions should be founded. Well, frankly, who cares what small town America thinks? Now, I'm acutely aware that no politician with any national aspiration - in the current climate - could dare utter such a sentiment and hope for anything less than a very public (and hopefully symbolic-only) evisceration, but I don't have any national political aspirations, and therefore am free to be honest about the reality as I see it. Small town America knows nothing that big city America doesn't.

Many of our presidents, and indeed, many of our greatest, have come from small towns. Small towns are some of the humblest, down-to-Earth and hospitable places in the country. Likewise, small towns can also be some of the harshest places for those who are different from the people in those small towns. Cities are often known for being some of the harshest places, but likewise, they can be very rewarding and hospitable as well. The difference is, cities often breed the more worldly, sophisticated of us who can not just tolerate, but embrace the differences in the world around us. Many who have come from small towns, have gone on to willfully live in cities because they "want to experience more". Is this not what we should want, and even expect from our representatives? I neglect to say leaders because, make no mistake, they are our representatives first. And, despite all the charms small towns have to offer, it is our big towns that make for big decision making and big ideas. Even small townspeople get to the world of big politics through big cities.

When we take small town politicians, and encourage them to retain small town ideas, then set them loose on the big world, we get George W. Bush. When you take a small town politician and encourage them to learn about the big world and place them in the public arena, you get Bill Clinton. Granted, many would dispute how great of a president he was (not me), but it's hard to debate that he is greater than George W. Bush. When you take small town politics onto the world stage, you get a nation built on the principles of individual liberty invading the sovereignty of another, for its own gain.

So shouldn't we stop marginalizing the city-dwellers? Granted, I am biased as an enthusiastic city-dweller, but I believe that enthusiasm holds merit (of course). The majority of the nation lives in cities as it is. Cities are polluted, dark, and isolationist. Cities are also cultural centers, diverse, and a melting pot for ideas. Cities act as ports for the small towns, with ships of knowledge arriving at their docks. Without cities, small towns would know nothing of the outside world. Perhaps that is what they want. But that is not what we need.

We need representatives who are used to diversity, and who not only tolerate it, but embrace it. We need people who can operate in a world and climate that is diverse and ever-changing, not holding rigidly to isolationism and the past. We need men and women who have access to ideas and varying points of view. We need representatives with vision, and vision means seeing the picture, not just my corner of it. I am sure to be lambasted for this city-centric view, but I am personally exhausted of the small town-centric view. Small town values are fine and well for Cassville, Wisconsin vs. Baraboo, Wisconsin, but when it comes to United States vs. Germany on Russia, we need a representative and leader who understands the world they are dealing with.

Small town values = small time ideas.

Musings at 32

2008-09-17T12:20:00.000-07:00

32 came.

No pomp. No circumstance. No celebration. Just how I wished it. And still, I feel empty; lost and devoid of value in a world that defines that value as social status and financial independence. Well, I have financial independence, insofar as I depend on no one else to pay my bills, but not in the sense that I have actual freedom to do as I please with my life - because I can't afford it.

* * *--------------------

September 16th started out well. I woke up, actually left the Cleveland, Ohio apartment that I share with my fiancee', and did stuff. True enough, it was only grocery shopping, but it was needed and it felt good to get out and do it. Also, I managed to treat myself to a few things that, though trivial pleasures, I had sorely missed and enjoyed thoroughly. There was the Meatball sub I had at Quizno's. Then there was the $11 half-pound of prosciutto I bought at Whole Foods, along with some ground lamb sausage that I plan to try in a scramble this weekend.

My favorite discovery was the Ciabatta bread available at the whole foods. I had been looking for it (or Focaccia) at Dave's, with no luck and had settled on a Saloio as a replacement, but it really doesn't work as well for me because though it is texturally similar, it is a bit bitterer than the Italian breads.

There were also the downs of the day. There was the older white woman seated at the lunch counter where I waited to place my order for the prosciutto, who promptly closed the large handbag in the chair beside her that she had previously paid no attention to, and moved to the other side of her. This, despite me having my own bag over my shoulder and having both hands full of other items I had picked up in the store, and being dressed much like any artsy white teen on a beach. The difference, of course, was that I am NOT a white teen on a beach, I'm a black man ANYWHERE. Then, there was the finding-out that I was in the wrong line to order the prosciutto in the first place. No pomp. No circumstance. No celebration. No respect.

There were also the other white people in the store, the young, thin, hippie liberal women perusing the aisles for skin products, and the middle-aged white women who, when not saving their worldy possessions from me, were getting snippy with the staff. A noteable lack of men in the store, except those who worked there and a pair of (by outward appearances) well-to-do, middle-aged, black men. They weren't together, if you were wondering.

Another "down" came after I left Whole Foods to get back on the bus (I don't own a car in a city that seems to require it). I purposely walked about a quarter mile to a bus stop in a place that looked semi-secluded, where I could read quietly while waiting. The bus benches are in shelters, thanks to Cleveland's notorious winters, and so I sat on the bench, but wishing the bench were out in the elements. It was sunny but cool - around 68 degrees - a perfect day in my book. Then, this cunt of a young woman comes and joins me and lights a cigarette - inside the shelter, which, by the way, is about 6x4. I got part of my wish. I was pushed back into the sunny, cool, 68 degree elements, whereupon two young men and one older gentleman soon arrived at my secluded bus stop, and all lit their own respective smoking implements. No refuge for the lung healthy. No pomp. No circumstance. No celebration. No respect. No courtesy.

* * *--------------------

Aside from those happenings, the day went largely well. I got back to the apartment (I took the day off - despite not being able to afford to do so), and my fiancee' came home and surprised me with a carrotcake cupcake (she couldn't afford a strawberry shortcake), and being poor, as we are, had no candles. In place of it was a match, lit by another, and burning fast. She urged me to blow it out as its flame rapidly descended, threatening to set my birthday pastry alight. No pomp. No circumstance. No celebration. No respect. No courtesy. No money.

That may sound pretty pathetic, but despite having no money, it's that type of birthday I enjoy; the cupcake, the match in place of the candle, the simplicity. Of course, before I could eat the cupcake (and let me preface this by saying it was my own fault for asking, but how selfish and inconsiderate would I be if I hadn't), Simone' started going into a mini-tirade about what's going on in her family. It is a bad situation, and I wholeheartedly agree with, and feel for, her. But the thing I cherish most on my birthday is isolation and tranquility. Now that I'm in a relationship with someone, isolation is all but ruled out, but tranquility seems to have abandoned me these days as well. The thing I have looked forward to however, now that I'm in a relationship, is sex on my birthday. I suppose it's that primeval man-thing, that even the most educated, erudite, and self-restrained individual man still feels enslaved by. Women can have sex whenever they want. There's always a man ready, willing, able, and available for that. For a man, it's the reverse. Sex is a rare mineral that can only be mined in the perfect confluence of events. Birthdays are supposed to be one of those. Granted, we've been having a lot of sex lately (my fiancee' and I), but still, it's my birthday. Sure, it's a bit inconsistent with my general birthday philosophy, but I'm not completely without conceit. I'm still human - wait, let me check - yep, for now.

32. No pomp. No circumstance. No celebration. No respect. No courtesy. No money. No tranquility. No sex.

* * *--------------------

Much of the reason I so virulently abhor birthday celebrations is that they are so narcissistic. So I don't invite others to "celebrate" with me, frankly, I don't "celebrate" myself. Instead, it's usually just a day out of the year, where I forgive any destructive impulses I have as well as reflect upon the nature of my birth and life. My father died and was buried but a week before my tenth birthday, and since then there has been little celebration. Indeed, as I've gotten older, I've become more and more reclusive around my birthday, not telling anyone about it who would be in a position to wish me a happy one when it arrives, etc., and not making myself available to anyone but my mother and fiancee' on that day. However, 32 was different. Though starting fine (but ending differently), I no longer see recognition of my birthday as completely pointless. Now, in addition to the usual life reflections (and chance of sex), I reflect on growing older as, though I'm still quite young, I'm not as young as I was, and I never will be again. With this, I woke up in a sour mood today, and it continues. In 32 years and one day, I can not look back to a single worthwhile accomplishment in my life. No pomp. No circumstance. No celebration. No respect. No courtesy. No money. No tranquility. No sex. No accomplishments.

* * *--------------------

I live in Cleveland, Ohio. Let's take a trip back in time to 1995 when I first arrived at Johnson C. Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina. There I am, hanging out with DJ, Keenan and James in front of my residence hall, staring at the beautiful bodied black women passing by, and talking to others. A couple of them look pretty interested in my past self, but let's see if we can pull me aside for a second. I don't look too disagreeable.

"Hi, Cory? Is it? I'm you from 13 years in the future and I go by Wesley there. Don't look so bewildered. Time travel is routine in my time. Let me just ask you a quick question, then you can get back to masquerading as an aspiring rapper or producer or whatever the hell it is you want to do. Oh, by the way, whatever it is, I can assure you that you haven't figured it out in 2008 either. If a Dr. Majer asks you about studying biology, jump on it. So anyway, the question is, where do you see yourself in 13 years, as of now?"

"I see. That's your answer? Forgive me, but I'm curious, I didn't hear the words Cleveland, or Ohio, or office temp job in there, among other things. I see. Well, of course, why would a rich rapper born and raised in NYC move to Cleveland to work as an office temp? You're right, my question does make little sense. I will take leave of you now." No pomp. No circumstance. No celebration. No respect. No courtesy. No money. No tranquility. No sex. No accomplishments. No future.

* * *--------------------

So just what DO I have? Well, to be true, I have quite a lot. I'm healthy, for one. That, in itself, is worth plenty. Next, despite her seemingly remarkably intense pursuit to drive me crazy and into an early grave, I still have my mother. And she truly cares (or seems to) about what happens to me. I have a fiancee' who is equally bent on driving me mad, and she also truly cares about me. I have two brothers who look up to me, despite the fact that they are both fully grown adults in their own right. I suppose I should be happy for that. I am, but I need more. I want more. And that is not selfishness. That is the desire of every thinking free man - to be a contributor to the world he lives in and I have not achieved that. Or anything else. In many cases I have been denied the opportunity. In others I have slacked. In others, I have been given a chance and worked hard, and failed. I don't blame the universe (wholly), but I do lament 32 years of nothing - even in (especially in) cases where I have given my all. From where I sit, I have no prospects for the next 32, making for (what will then be) 64 years of futility. My father died at 62. He thought his legacy would be me.

No pomp. No circumstance. No celebration. No respect. No courtesy. No money. No tranquility. No sex. No accomplishments. No future. No legacy.

No memory of my existence.

A social security number. Tax records. Statistical data to be collated by some computer of the future.

Letters and numbers on a headstone.

The measure of a man.