Special Education in Public School (Or "Who's Pimping Our Kids?") Pt. 1

About week ago, I found myself up late one night for no other reason than somehow my body’s timing was off (having taken an unplanned nap earlier that day, my usual sleep pattern was thrown out of kilter). Looking for something to nudge me back into my normal sleep pattern, I started flipping through the television channels only to locate a guilty pleasure of mine…South Park.
For those who know of the often controversial animated series, it uses bawdy, sometimes gutter humor to make social commentary about the often idiotic tendencies and beliefs we harbor as a society by skewering our most heartfelt beliefs via parody. On the night I was watching, Park was in rare form. Creators Matthew Parker and Trey Stone used their highly popular and successful vehicle to poke fun at an issue that is somewhat close to me…our predilection as a society to label any disruptive behavior found in our children with some alphabet-soup-laden title. In this particular episode, they focused on the absurdity of over diagnosing of children—at least in many kids—with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).



That episode of South Park sparked recollections of my personal experiences in the public education system over the years. During 2007 school year, I found myself in a long-term substitute teaching position student at an alternative public school for students who fell under the auspices of those needing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), more commonly known as “Special Education” students. Working with predominantly black and/or low-income student, to say that this particular experience was eye-opening would be something of a criminal understatement.
First, I have to say that most teachers work under conditions that would rival the military in terms of stress, the pressures to meet deadlines and create tangible results, and scrutiny from those who have no clue what such a vocation entails. And on this latter point, I would wager any amount of money that those who criticize teachers—especially those working in city/urban-type settings—would be pulling out their hairs if they were expected to work under such trying conditions. Further still, if they work with Special Education students, they should not only be knighted, but given sainthood, and have a special place in Heaven reserved for their eventual arrival; they are literally expected to turn water into wine…without the enjoyment. That having been said, and after my own experiences in the public school system, I reserve my own criticisms for others involved in the “education” of special needs students…students, their parents, and administrators/decision-makers.
Back in the day when I was an elementary school student in the public schools, those we called “Special Ed” students were those with obvious deficiencies…those who utilized special equipment to assist them in their regular day-to-day struggles such as wheelchairs, leg braces, electronic hearing aids, or in extreme cases, human assistants. In other cases, the special education students were those who had afflictions that we didn’t understand back then, but whose episodes would disrupt the learning process of the regular classrooms, such as Turret’s Syndrome or Epilepsy. They were all placed in a classroom at the far end of the school building. They rode the “special bus.” Granted, in retrospect this segregation (as it were) created a level of social stigma among the regular students, it was hard to ignore the kid who wore the football helmet all the time, even in the off season. But in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act mandated "free and appropriate public education" to all public school students with physical, mental, or behavioral disabilities. That wasn’t the problem.
The difference between then and now was the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which expanded the ‘75 act to include all children with disabilities—regardless of the type or severity of their disability—an education in the least restrictive environment. This essentially meant integrating “special needs” students with the general classroom (i.e., non-disabled students), with a minimal level of separation for special tutoring, instruction, or etc.
At issue is the expanding definition of what constitutes a “disability.” For example, there have been more than a few studies critical of the over diagnosis and the resulting over-prescribing of Ritalin for an increasing number of American children(http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9909/01/adhd.overdiagnosis/). For those significant number of cases where the diagnoses may not apply, it is suspected—and I’m very much inclined to believe—that these instances are nothing more than cases where parents don’t put their feet down insofar as punishment and direct parenting. In these cases, Ritalin should not be the first “remedy” of choice; I’ve always been partial to a more “natural” approach…a strong male father (or mother absent of the father) figure with the will and the legal sanction to use a hickory switch. While I’m far from the first person to believe that medical doctors, child psychologists, and other like professionals over diagnose and “discover” too many purported childhood behavior-related “disorders,” I am one of the few fortunate (or “unfortunate) enough to have experienced how such questionable medical practices adversely affects public education.
From my own experiences, integration creates a ready-made circus-like atmosphere in many classrooms, complete with “special” class clowns. The resulting dynamic is predictable; the focus of the teacher is shifted from instruction to maintaining classroom order and the attention of the already easily distracted class is commanded by disruptive “special education” students. And because of their special status, the disruptive students tend to be given a “pass” or light sanctions when their behavior warrants more. It doesn’t help that most parents are standing at the ready with a potential lawsuit cocked and loaded in the event that their “special” children are treated “differently than the other students.” And because of the increased levels of funding that special education students and programs which cater to them command from the states, it seems that there is a greater effort to keep them a part of the total student population, which further reinforces the kid-gloved treatment that they are given when it comes to their in-school behavior. The result is that learning suffers, grades and test scores suffer, and discipline suffers.
I can’t remember how many times I have seen the parents and guardians of disruptive students get phone calls from stressed-out and frustrated teachers about their child’s oftentimes reprehensible behavior, only to have those same parents return the teachers’ concerns with a chewing out, a justification, or an outright defense of their child’s behavior from these same parents. And of course, there is usually very little backing for the instructor’s recommendations from principalss and other administrators. The necessity of disciplining the unruly and/or instituting progressive actions meant to create a classroom atmosphere conducive to learning is irrelevant compared to the fear of giving upset parents any reason for either pulling these funding cash cows out of the school district—as if that were even likely in most low-income urban areas—or bringing legal actions against already cash-strapped school districts, no matter how frivolous, how much at fault lax parenting, or how undisciplined children contribute to this pathological dynamic of learning…such as it.

To Be Concluded...

Read More

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

With all the hubbub about potential financial meltdowns, skyrocketing unemployment numbers, and questionable wars taking up space front and center in the daily headlines, many of the news stories pushed into our peripheral vision are those which speak about who we are as a society…about where our individual and collective priorities lay. The following points represent what I call, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of our modern times.


The Good - For those of you who regularly watch any of the daily network news programs, or who pay a visit to Beyond The Spectrum’s sister page on You Tube, you have undoubtedly noticed what a black eye Wall Street and other financial institutions have given themselves of late. With hat-in-hand, many of these institutions came begging to the federal government for an infusion of taxpayer money meant to provide stabilize as a result of their bad business investments, chief among them loaning money to risky borrowers en masse. At the same time, the CEO’s and other high ranking employees of these financially teetering institutions were giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses and other perks of excess.
However, flying under the radar of cloud of bad news was the very good deed of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. A self-made millionaire, Bloomberg, according to the most recent release of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the donated some $235 million dollars of his own money to over 1,200 different charities in 2008, making him the most single charitable donor in the United States. So we tip our hats off to His Honor. It’s nice to see that there is still some humanity left among America’s financially blessed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/nyregion/27bloomberg.html?_r=1&sq=philanthropy&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print

The Bad – Actually, two stories tied notoriety for this category, both coming from Michigan. The first is the death of a 93-year-old man; not an unusual expectation given his advanced age. However, it is the manner of death that is most telling about what our priorities as a society. Mr. Marvin Schur (I prefers to use his full name and title, at least to preserve some dignity in the face of his ignominious passing), according the Oakland County Medical Examiner, froze to death in his Bay City, Michigan home a few days after having his home’s electrical consumption limited by the local power utility for $1,000 in unpaid bills, not totally unexpected (again) due to his advanced age and limited income.
According to the neighbor who found Schur’s body, “his furnace was not running, the insides of his windows ere full of ice the morning we found him.” I guess America consumes not just it’s young.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_re_us/frozen_indoors

The second piece of bad news from the state which currently has the highest unemployment rate (and as if it could tolerate more bad news) was the idiotic ruling by the state’s Court of Appeals. In a case brought by Lansing School District middle school teachers, the court ruled that disciplinary actions taken against students are [exclusively] within the school local school board. The case is based on the actions of the local board who failed to expel students for assaulting teachers by throwing chairs at them; they were simply suspended and allowed to return some time afterwards. For those who criticize the effectiveness of our public schools for preparing our children academically to compete in a globally-integrated and competitive economy, consider the conditions they are forced to work under.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990128052

The Ugly-Finally, the soap opera that has become Illinois politics is finally over. Late yesterday, the Illinois House voted to impeach now ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich. Days before yesterday’s action, the disgraced Blagojevich had gone on a Hail Mary PR blitz in an effort to save his job. Accused of attempting to sell now President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat, he had hired a Tampa-based PR firm—the same one contracted by social pariah and suspected wife murderer, former police sergeant Drew Peterson—to create a campaign designed to win over American sympathy in the face of then-mounting calls for him to step down. Perhaps what made his ill-conceived media blitz to alter his public image ugly was his protestation that his “persecution” put him in the same company as “Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Ghandi.” Furthermore, there was the “revelation” that he was going to offer the seat to talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, which even Stevie Wonder could see she was never going to accept, but opted to select another high-profile African-American, Roland Burris to replace Obama). But upon looking at the debacle objectively, unseen was the apparent pattern of invoking high profiles African-American names in his attempt to gain public favor. I submit the reason for this was due to African-Americans’ sense of undying loyalty to the Democratic Party as well as their sense of forgiving and [re-] embracing unsavory types.
After his acquittal in the mid 1990’s former football great O.J Simpson was cheered and embraced by the black community; he even traveled around the country, speaking at predominantly black churches. Michael Jackson was given the same treatment after his acquittal of molestation charges, and, in like fashion, was well-received at black churches. In a more related example, ex-Washington D.C. mayor Marion Barry was re-elected and re-embraced by the people of the overwhelmingly black and Democratic nation’s capital, despite having been convicted of federal charges related to his often-seen video tape of his smoking crack in a hotel room with an undercover informant. Clearly, Blagojevich has not only been watched over the past couple months, but he has been watching as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6723687&page=1

Read More

Black Males & the “Obama Effect”

The day after the 2008 Elections, Beyond The Spectrum briefly—albeit cynically—explored the possibility of whether the successful election of Barack Obama would have a positive impact on the self-image of African-Americans in general, and male in particular. Given Obama’s stylish panache, professionalism, ability to articulate, and his upbringing—a narrative of the trials of single parenthood applicable to many such homes within the black community—there has been a lot made of what I shall call the “Obama Effect.” I define this would-be phenomenon as the potential for Obama’s current appeal and mainstream success to translate into inspiration among black males to the point where many would want to emulate him.
On this particular day, the Martin Luther King Holiday, and the day before the country’s first African-American takes the Oath of Office, it seems the urge to explore this notion has taken root among the mainstream media. On this morning’s National Public Radio’s (NPR) Morning Edition, Comedian Bill Cosby and noted psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Poussiant are interviewed on the subject of black male role models in the form of responsible black fathers
(listen to the podcast of this interview online at: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99546330&m=99546606).
For their part, the duo has been challenging the counter-productive negative self-images and mindsets that many lower-income blacks have in their 2007 book, Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. In fact, their co-authorship of this book (and high-profile spokesmen on the subject of negative black self-image) has found them making the rounds on many news programs, particularly since Cosby raised the ire of many traditional African-American leaders with his 2004 speech at an N.A.A.C.P. gala berating many self-defeating deficiencies within the black community, such speaking in Ebonics and associating good grades with “acting white.”
On this morning’s Today Show, NBC aired a couple of pieces with a similar overall theme. In one mini segment, Obama himself suggested that young black males should “pull your pants up,” a reference to the Urban-originated fashion “trend” of “sagging.” At the risk upsetting those wearing rose-colored glasses, I have my reservations as to whether Obama’s elegance will be a source of inspiration for those unfortunate young black males without the benefit of benevolent intervention, guidence, or self-motivation . My reservations come from the constant ignoring of rational thinking I find in many black urban males; consider fashion as an example.



Even before Obama, the black community was brimming with well-dressed black males of distinction. The beliefs, mannerisms, and overall demeanor of these would-be role models represented the gamut of socio-political thought; there was a potential role model for whatever social-political persuasion one sought to affiliate themselves with. On one end of the spectrum, mainstream role models such as community activists and pastors provides not only a spiritual base within the black community, but social activists such as Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X, both articulate and elegant in their own ways, represented those the more—relatively speaking—radical end of the role model spectrum.
Even today, many Hip-Hop moguls such as Jay-Z and 50 Cent have traded their previously preferred sense of street-inspired urban “gear” and gaudy “bling” for the more conservative look of tailored suits and ties. Among this latter set, the adoption of a more conservative approach to the symbolic trappings of success as well as adopting a more reserved behavior devoid of constant high-profile run-ins with the law signifies an evolution of thinking that the majority of Hip-Hop entrepreneurs have seemingly gone out of their way to ignore. And sadly, as Hip-Hop goes, so to does the mindset of those who idolize the counter-productive thinking and negative imagery of these individuals. Keeping in mind that “clothes make the man,” and that appearance is an indicator of the desire for success, the fact that so many black men fail to adopt a manner of dress that is conducive for success in a world where everyone else is seemingly passing them by in terms socioeconomic mobility, the issue seems to reflect that any effect which Obama could have as a factor for inspiration for a great deal of African-Americans is not forthcoming.
In this pathology of thinking, the advice and inspiration of the Cosbys and the Obamas, which many black parents are obviously failing notice or even emphasize is ignored, if not altogether marginalized within many segments of the black community. And until such time as many African-Americans learn to engage in meaningful introspection and dialogue as well as question their collective thinking as it relates to roles models, values, aspirations, and personal goals, pants will continue to “sag,” along with grades, and the hopes that under- and counter-productive black males will, instead of being inspired to look up will continue with to be infatuated with all things being “down” (pants included). Until such time, we can add the “Obama Effect” to other would-be pipe-dreams such as world peace, an end to world hunger, and the Cubs in the World Series.

Read More

Here Comes The Fuzz!

As a—for the most part—law abiding citizen, I am every bit a supporter of having a competent, professional police department protecting and serving us. It’s an often difficult, often thankless as well as dangerous profession that I myself would not want to perform. However as a minority male, seemingly always the target of questionable police actions, I must confess that my feelings are somewhat conflicted. Quite often, when I hear about instances of police misconduct such as the several high-profile examples in the news in recent times, I am torn between applauding their protection, and being appalled by the prospect of needing protection from them. Sadly, given the examples of unprofessional behavior exhibited by various police departments around the country, it’s not as if anyone’s hesitation to support all law enforcement activity isn’t without reason.


- This past Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the arrest of Morgan County Alabama Sheriff Greg Bartlett after skinny and underfed inmates testified that their ill-health and emaciated appearance was due to being fed illegally small food portions, ordered by Bartlett. Still more unbelievable was the fact that the Bartlett was acting totally within the limits of Alabama law, which permits letting sheriffs pocket money left over from feeding (or in this case, underfeeding) inmates, which he did to the tune of $212,000 over 3 years (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/07/national/main4706215.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4706215)


- On New Years Day in Oakland, California, unarmed Oscar Grant III was shot and killed by one of the city’s transit officers. What makes this tragedy stand out is that at least four transit riders who were witness to the shooting caught the incident on their cell phone cameras, which showed grant lying down on the pavement, handcuffed and apparently not resisting. This shooting led to civil unrest this week in downtown Oakland.





- In recent weeks in Berrien County, Michigan, county prosecutors were forced to petition the court to dismiss some 15 drug-related cases because of federal charges pending against a former police officer for, among other allegations, embezzling money and drugs from the Benton Harbor, Michigan police department. The officer in question, Andrew Collins, is alleged to have given false information in arrest reports as well as perjured testimony, which led to the dismissals.


Admittedly I’m no police officer, and as a consequence, am in no position to second guess the professional judgment of one, especially in crisis situations. However, I am aware of ethical human behavior and know that withholding meals from individuals to the point of ill-health, shooting unarmed men in already in custody, and stealing money & drugs do not require rocket-science-level thinking. As a society, we hold police officers to such a high level of esteem that we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, in most cases, where their actions give pause for scrutiny. But one has to wonder that if tangible proof in the aforementioned (as well as other) cases were not available, would our predisposition to give these public servants the benefit of the doubt when it comes to acting within the law and the bounds of their duty blind us to official misconduct and dereliction of their duties? Even beyond wonder, a level of cynical scrutiny should be applied to this observation. Considering that police officers are fully aware that in this modern era of information and technological proliferation, dashboard-mounted video recorders, cell phone cameras, and internet-based websites that afford worldwide distribution of any newsworthy incident they are involved in, some bad apples still act with reckless and unprofessional abandon. It’s almost as if such a mindset reflects a level of arrogance that their more questionable actions will be not only understood by a public that is fear-ridden of being crime victims, but that such actions will be dismissed as being within the scope of their duty to “serve and protect.” It doesn’t help that police officers under such scrutiny will always fall back on the customary defense of, “You don’t understand what it’s like to be a police office (in a neighborhood where you’re not respected/liked).” Honestly I don’t, and I’ll wager that neither do most people who put their lives on the line on a daily basis. However, I do understand that anyone given discretion to act in defense of the law, who are armed with guns, tasers, nightsticks, body armor, backup, and other assorted implements capable of inflicting major injury or death are expected to act with a higher level of professional judgment and due care. Although no amount of training or screening can prevent every potential instance of police misconduct, such cases should signify a need to increase the standards and levels of training when it comes to recruiting police officers, especially in high crime areas. At the very least, a minimal of an Associates Degree should be required for those entrusted with protecting both their own lives as well as those of the public they serve, with perhaps an emphasis on sociology. Supplementing the education requirement should be ethics training, where failure would immediately disqualify a candidate. Probationary periods, where rookies are teamed up with veterans, should be extended. And (I know this one will elicit catcalls of disapproval) there should be a requirement that at least 50% of the street level police officers in any given area should be comprised of residents from that area. The logic of this last suggestion is that people from a particular area often have a particular view or insight of their neighborhood that outsiders would not. Finally, to prevent bad officers from hopping from one jurisdiction (where he/she is terminated for misconduct) only to find employment in another, there should be a national database listing such officers and their records, including reprimands, awards, and other performance distinctions. As a minority male, I am sad to say that I will never have the same admiration and respect for the police as I did when as a child. However, with a higher standard of qualifications for the police officers out there protecting my interests, I can at least gain a small level comfort knowing that the man or woman behind the badge won’t be as quick to mistake my reaching for my wallet as threat to his or her life…or my own.


What has your experience with the police been like? Post Comments.

Read More

Since We’re Bailing Out…

I suppose it’s somewhat symbolic that I have started writing this particular piece at 4 minutes to midnight on December 31. So as we leave what’s left of 2008, its hard not to reflect back on what has been a tumultuous year—something of a criminal understatement—in the financial world, culminating in scandals and bailouts.
In the coming year, not only can we anticipate more financial upheavals, but also attempts by state and local governments to stem this all-but-fated turmoil. But with all the talk bailouts, transfers of public funds intended to prop-up various failing institutions, and (possibly) embattled homeowners facing an avalanche of foreclosures, it seems that we are overlooking another possible candidate for a bailout: overburdened college graduates saddled with student loan debt.
Now before any of you Shelby Steele clones or Ayn Rand wannabes decide to slap me with the oh-so predictable label of “Socialist,” I am not talking about a wholesale bailout of everyone who’s ever taken out a student loan and failed to pay back this legal and moral obligation up to this point in time. What I’m suggesting is providing some relief to those who are being victimized by this current and unprecedented era of rapid changes in the marketplace that would have anyone hard-pressed to keep up as they struggle to survive.
Admittedly on the surface, this sounds like a ridiculous idea. But given the changing economic tides (and fortunes) of the nation, individuals—and families by extension—already fiscally fatigued from fighting the combined assault by the rising costs of consumer prices, loss of employment (due to off-shoring of labor/rapidly changing market trends), taxes, credit availability, and mortgage difficulties, are desperate for relief from just trying to stay in the shadow of the American Dream.
I’m not talking about helping to bail out irresponsible homeowners with risky credit ratings who shouldn't’t have been allowed anywhere near a mortgage application to begin with. What I’m suggesting is a morally sound level of financial assistance in the form of hardship-based debt forgiveness for those of us whom—it turns out—were sold a bill of goods insofar as the value of a college degree as it relates socioeconomic advancement. This is particularly true for those of us reared on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder who find ourselves waiting tables, sweeping floors, substitute teaching, or similarly and/or chronically underemployed instead of benefiting from an education meant to move us past our humble beginnings.
What I’m talking about specifically is a case-by-case analysis of each student in debt. Any debt relief should be contingent upon the total amount owed, the average annual income of the student since graduating college in relation to expected earning potential (all things being equal, only those who've actually graduated would be eligible, and even then, dependent on the aforementioned requirements), and an assessment of any and all honest attempts to make regular payments.
One form of a bailout for student loans recipients could be a graduated schedule, similar to the type used in one of the various repayment plans already in use. The level of forgiveness could be based on anticipated overall employment trends in relation to the likelihood that the debtor could conceivably find employment on a level which would enable both repayment the loans as well as afford modest level of living. In extreme cases, such as a history of chronic unemployment/underemployment, cutting the unpaid balance would go a long way toward helping those already struggling to make ends meet.
Exempt from this plan would be those individuals who have been fortunate enough to parlay their college experiences and degrees into career success. Also exempt would be those in with specific degrees that lead to immediate professional and semi-professional careers, such as teachers, social workers, nurses, and the like.
Agreed bailouts are a slippery slope. But if we're going to talk about bailing out individuals with risky credit ratings being given loans on houses they couldn't afford in the first place, and lenders, many of who employ executives with salaries which afford them over-the-top lifestyles and—unwarranted in many instances—golden parachute severance packages routinely running in the multi millions of dollars from these same bad loans, then why not help those of us who were only trying to make an honest go of things?
The mostly ideologically-based arguments against bailing out institutions such as the automobile manufacturers and lenders (with financial implications for the nation as a whole) and of individuals (such as those struggling with failed mortgage and student loan recipients) are somewhat predictable. One such argument is that students irresponsibly borrow money for college knowing that these loans are backed by government guarantees and the assumption that it (the government) will never run out of money. This unlimited availability of funds is what is believed to contribute to rising college costs, and a resulting lack of cost controls.
This argument assumes that people are predictable, which like the marketplace, they are not. Every bit player throughout every institution along the chain of economic production is hard to predict. That includes bankers who may risk making bad loans to risky debtors, company executives making bad business decisions, and the lowly worker trying to obtain a semblance of some part of the American Dream. Somewhere along this chain, people decide they want to move up both socially and economically and enroll in college with the hopes of doing so. Most sensible people, knowing full well that they must work to earn a living, know that they have to work in the repayment of student debt with their aspirations of living better. But again, people are not predictable…from the fickle job interviewer to those making the decision to move their companies offshore to lessen their labor costs.
In recent years, this unpredictability in both people and shifting economic market/employment trends has reached critical mass, culminating in what a recent piece by CNN.com revealed as a “record number of unemployed college graduates seeking work” (See “Have Degree-And Pink Slip.” http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/05/news/economy/degreed_workers/index.htm?postversion=2008120514)
Harder to understand is why such a suggestion for debt relief, considering that it would benefit the Middle Class (the group whom politicians love to pander to) the most has not even been given the benefit of a trial balloon to test its receptiveness by the American public? Probably because, like the notion of universal health care, it would receive almost overwhelming support from all but the most ideologically intransigent of die hard Free-Marketeers. Harder still is why even staunch conservatives wouldn’t be receptive to this idea, since most are always quick to articulate how fair it is to “put money back into the pockets of hard-working Americans?
If you look at it logically, student loan debt relief for those whose academic success has failed to translate into socioeconomic upward mobility would benefit the nation as a whole. We wouldn’t have to lower taxes, and have services suffer as a result. And struggling student debtors not forced to cough up anywhere up to several hundred dollars a month in a likewise struggling economy would be freed to spend scarce dollars on more items of necessity, which would halt the anticipated bloodbath of retailers expected to close in 2009 due to record-setting abysmal sales of this past holiday season. Lastly, such a gesture would go a long ways toward eliminating the cynicism that the average American harbors toward the government’s seeming favor to help out Big Business and the well-heeled at the expense of the average hard-working Little Man.
As I look up at the clock, it’s now 1:01 am…America, do you know where you priorities are? Here’s to the possibility of a progressive 2009.

Read More

Have Shoe, Will Travel!

By now, everyone and their mothers have heard about the Shoe Hurled ‘Round the World; the now infamous news footage of the Iraqi news journalist hurling his shoes at President George Bush. A search of that particular news footage on You Tube will bring up dozens of clones of the incident.
The audacity (or comedy) factor of the reporter aside, one can’t help but wonder about whether or not this act symbolizes a voice of dissatisfaction among the Iraqi people about the U.S intervention in the country. Almost hours after the incident was made known throughout the news media, large numbers of Iraqi citizens took to the streets in support of the brazen reporter’s actions. Moreover, looking through You Tube’s (and other similar site’s) postings of the incident garners an incredible number of written replies—many also supporting the reporter’s actions—both within and outside of America’s borders.
As I watched CNN break in with the initial news reports of the incident, I actually pictured Vice-President Dick Cheney in a public school somewhere, reading a story to a group of grade school kids. In my vision of events, I imagined an aide walking up to him and whispering in his ear that “the president was almost hit by a flying shoe.” In order to keep up appearance of sturdy leadership, Cheney keeps reading to the unsuspecting kids. A few seconds later, the aide returns to the VP’s side to inform him that “a second shoe has almost hit the president.”




A humorously warped perspective granted, but my vision of the incident was just as comical and unrealistic as the president’s brushing off of the incident with—while admirable—out-of-place humor. True leadership would compel one to examine the symbolic defiance of the act and consider whether or not it represented growing dissent at the U.S. military’s occupation of the country. Maybe the act, the small but growing chorus of worldwide support, the rallies, and the pro-act newspaper editorials indicate that those opposed to the continued American presence in Iraq are becoming just as dedicated to stating their discontent as those who would martyr themselves with the goal of ending the American presence.
Exporting the ideas of Democracy, although laudable, has become tainted by hints of ethnocentrism in our oft-heard response that “the Iraqis should be grateful that we got rid of Saddam for them!” It presupposes that Democracy is the best system for everyone, which is at best debatable among civilized people from various cultures with varying beliefs. Ideas should not be imposed on anyone uninvited, and least of all, not at the barrel of a gun.
Most importantly, American leadership should be more competent, and the citizenry should demand more accountability for a lack of competence. If our leaders are so blinded by, arrogance, personal idealism, and the belief that what we do is in the Greater Interest that they cannot open their minds to the possibility that support for a man throwing a couple of shoes in dissent against American policy represents discontent, then maybe we need to stop viewing that video of the incident so much, and start looking at the Big Picture.

Read More

Election 2008—The More Things Change… (And Other Rants on Black-America).

Well, it’s been almost a week since the historic and unprecedented election of the 1st African-American to the highest elected office in the nation. And despite the plethora of newspaper headlines, television reports, and radio shows reinforcing this fact, the truth for me is that the reality still hasn’t sunken to the point where I can stop pinching myself. President-elect Barack Obama…has a nice ring to it given my own African-American heritage is concerned.
However, the Elections of 2008 have enlightened me to certain levels of thinking within the African-American community, not all favorable (and I’m sure not to win any friends or influence people with this piece).

Voting:
The day after the election, I arrived at my job as an adult education instructor like always. As I entered the building, I found our most mature and studious student, “Mr. ‘H,’” a mid-50-something-year-old African-American, waiting as usual for us instructors. Walking to the classroom, we engaged in a semi-light conversation about the obvious and its historical significance. During our exchange, Mr. H revealed that the 2008 election was the first time he had voted…ever. His excuse (as opposed from a reason) was that before this past Tuesday, he always thought that no matter who he voted for, “them jokers would always do what they wanted to do.”
Later in the day, I took a minute to read my copy of the latest edition of Ebony Magazine (November 2008). As I opened it up, there was a picture of Ebony’s president and CEO, along with the magazine’s printed endorsement of Barack Obama for president, something the magazine hasn’t done in its entire near 60 year history.
What is troubling about the cumulative effect of these experiences is that they convey the idea that, before now, African-Americans never had a stake in the electoral process. Mr. H’s insistence that his vote never counted before now because of past candidates’ propensity to ignore the black vote has been no doubt shared by many in the black community. While it’s no secret that such feelings are shared in many segments within the black community (thus causing dangerous level of apathy when it comes to our voice being heard), try applying such a mindset to the elderly, who vote their interests in such dependably large numbers and with such unison, that no politician even dares to threaten to retool, revamp, or even talk about its need to do either to social security…despite the fact that all indications are that the current rate of spending will cause its demise within the next 2 decades. While black thinking doesn’t have to be monolithic, its collective voice should be, as most African-Americans’ fates—despite the success of people like BET’s founder Robert Johnson, television mogul Oprah Winfrey and others—are intertwined. But sadly, fragmented political thinking along ideological lines, represented by the likes of Ward Connerly, Michael Steele, Cynthia McKinney and others, tends to give the impression that the black community’s voice is not only not unified, but neither are its interests. Will Obama’s election change this? Probably not, as I have seen black ideologues left and right-of-center not only come out against Obama’s election during his candidacy, but have already greeted his ascendancy to office with harsh vocal skepticism and even derision. The more things change…

California’s Proposition 8:
Many gay rights and other activists were appalled at the large numbers of black and Latino support for the controversial ballot measure to amend the state’s constitution to limit the definition of marriage to the traditional union of a man and a woman.
Although I personally feel that marriage is pretty much dead as both an idea and an institution given the current divorce rate and its ever-eroding lack of sanctity in the human heart, it’s hard to imagine that the Founding Fathers could have imagined that human beings of the same sex would ever want to be recognized under the laws and ideas of traditional co-habitation. Granted the fact that blacks themselves were at one time considered “three-fifths of a human being” under the U.S. Constitution, the inherent and obvious argument used by pro-gay activists that such similar rights were eventually extended to African-Americans doesn’t hold water due to the fact that considering black less than a full human being was done only out of a compromise with Southern lawmakers, and not out of the belief that blacks were not (biologically) human beings. But the centuries-long legacy of discrimination of blacks that followed the nation’s founding further confounds these activists as to how and why the black community could come out in numbers of between 70%-80%.
However, if these activists really want to understand why blacks in particular came out in droves against the amendment proposition, all they really need to is look at the current state and history of the family in black America.
In terms of what contributes to the current instability within traditional family unit, African-Americans tend to lead the pack in most categories: teenage pregnancy, single parenting rates, divorce rates, poverty, unemployment, rates of marriage, etc. The last thing that the black community needs is for a re-defining of the traditional family unit driving them further behind the rest of the nation in terms of stability. And within the black community, such a revision of such a traditional notion is all but impossible given the strength and reverence by which the Christian Church and its doctrinal values are held. With respect to the “anyone-who-loves-another-is-a-family” mindset, these activists really need to try and understand African-Americans before they can even begin to impose such a mandate on an already devastated community. It’s not hard to figure out; the strengthening of gay families would mean the further erosion of the black family in a manner of speaking.
Will black support for Proposition change the state of the black family any time soon, probably not likely. But it’s a small measure to defend what little does remain of the traditional family therein. The more things change…

Fashion:
One would think with Obama’s meteoric rise to political superstardom and highest office that his image, including his sense of fashion would rub off on black males.
Did I miss something? When did “Ghetto Stupid” become a fashion trend? What I’m talking about is the trend of sagging pants, “saggin’” as it’s popularly known as. It’s a notion that has divided the black community…some black males choose to sag, while most older, more sensible types choose not to. The style (or lack of it) has even crossed over into segments of the white and Latino communities, no surprise considering that other formerly exclusively black cultural trends have historically crossed over such as music and dreadlocks.
At the risk of sounding like my father, can someone explain to me why it’s even done? It makes no sense beyond the psychological need to become a part of in-group thinking.
I have tried to come up with a logical way to try to create a level of consistent thinking when it comes to my personal dislike and revulsion of this particular trend. I can’t say that it simply offends my (and many others’) fashion sensibilities because the first thing someone would say in defense of the right to “sag” is “what about this group or that group?” And sadly, they would have a decent defense. I mean, doesn’t the gothic sub-culture offends older whites? What about the manner of dress associated with punk-rockers? Heavy metalers? Etc.
Lacking strength in the logic and reason approach, I’ll try the pragmatic approach. Many police officers have publicly stated that they want criminals and would-be criminals to sport the baggy look; the better for police to catch fleeing suspects who were trying to maintain their sense of style with sagging, ankle-bound trousers. In fact, the ‘net is full of stories of criminals tripped up by their sense of style. Now I’m no great fan of the criminal element, but if anyone—criminal or not—doesn’t see the practical side of not wearing your pants to the point where your attention is divided between something as simple as running/walking and holding your pants up with one hand (here’s a clue Einstein...the belt does that for you), then maybe someone should take you off the street so the rest of us do not laugh ourselves into a coronary at such a ridiculous spectacle.
Maybe someone Up There does love us and seeks to protect us from such a fate; cities such as Flint, Michigan and Atlanta, Georgia and others have made it illegal for pants to hang off the body in such a way as to display underwear publicly. Hard to believe that such an idiotic trend would spur the need for even more idiotic laws. But sadly, despite the increase in arrests, the practical side of black males keeping their pants up at the intended waist level hasn’t taken.
So, since I have no logical or practical arguments, I’ll simply become my father and say to all those who sag that you look stupid! Pull your damned pants up! You’re walking around with pants hanging off you’re a**es and you’re wearing a belt…how dumb is that?
Take a page from the Obama playbook. You want to be successful and be taken seriously? Start with a sense of style. Walking around, trying not to fit in? And you wonder why the unemployment rate is so high among black males? You look like trouble. Yeah, I know that you do it to “keep it real.” Real stupid!
Obama, here’s hoping that, in much the same way you addressed the issue of race and the need for black fathers to step up to the plate to take care of their children, that you address the need to make pulling pants up a national priority in America. In fact, I would urge you to move it ahead of the financial crisis!
Will Obama’s successful election change the image of the black male in America? Probably not any time soon. The more things change…

Read More