A Nation of Whiners - Part 1

Nearly two Thursdays ago—for better or worse—President Barack Obama made an appearance on NBC’s Tonight Show with host Jay Leno, the first sitting commander-in-chief to make such a late night television appearance. And as with any give-and-take involving a sustained level of tongue-in-cheek conversation, the humor tends to become subjective at times. Such was the case with Obama’s appearance on the late-night talk show.
During one exchange with the reigning king of late-night T.V., Obama joked, comparing his abysmal bowling skills to that of a Special Olympics athlete. And predictably, some complained about the “insensitive” nature of the remark, which was meant to be taken as self-depreciating humor. As a result, the president was forced by a growing chorus of political-correctness-inspired catcalls to issue a personal call to the chairman of the Special Olympics and apologize for the quip.

President Barack Obama & Jay Leno on NBC's Tonight Show (March 2009)

So, at the risk of being similarly labeled “insensitive,” I’m going to speak my mind and say that America has become a nation of whiny, limp-wristed, sissified girly-girls. There. I said it. If you’ve noticed, the sky failed to fall, the space-time continuum didn’t collapse in on itself, and (unless you’re the individual who draws the short straw of fate), the sun will tomorrow. Now check your pulse…heart still beating? No cuts, abrasions or bruises? That’s what I thought.
My point is that those of us who grew up in a certain era remember the old childhood declaration that “Sticks and stone can break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” However, we Americans seemingly take every joke, innocently-meant statement, or off-the-cuff remark as a slight against some group, oppressed minority, or individual—no matter how innocuous it was meant to be. This almost universal level of sensitivity has forced many to engage in a burdensome degree of self- or institutional censorship; many, like myself are forced to speak in measured tones for fear of offending some whiny crybaby who hasn’t gotten over the fact that he or she must now grow out of the “need” to continue suckling from their mother’s tit (yes, I said it and it felt damned good).
As you read this, you may have already have adopted one of two possible positions; you may think that this overall assertion is nothing more than subjective hyperbole on my part, or that I myself am insensitively naïve as to the power of words to hurt. Both conclusions contain a level of validity, depending on your perceptions. However, for every Don Imus-like remark about “Nappy-headed hoes,” there seem to be a dozen or so instances where the social mandate to speak in only politically correct terms reveals that people have simply become too thin-skinned. It seems that many of us have a gripe about some impending “hurtful” statement already cocked and loaded, and we’re ever-ready to pull the trigger of condemnation faster than you can say either “oppressed group” or “insensitive remark.” In short, we have become a country of PC crybabies that even French late-night comedians can now joke about as being as weak and surrender-prone.

To Be Continued...

Read More

Politics & The Art of Bullsh...

As I was watching the various Sunday morning talk shows, I was struck with an unexpected feeling for the appreciation of the humor I often find in politics. Indeed, if not for the way politics impedes the passing of practical legislation based on the needs of the people rather than ideology-peddling and power-politics one-upsmanship, I would find the “process” to be downright hysterical. Take for example the aforementioned Sunday morning talk shows.
As I was watching CBS’ Face The Nation, it was kind of difficult to keep a straight face as the White House’s National Economic Director Lawrence Summers struggled with host Bob Schieffer’s query as to how insurance giant—and the recipient of taxpayer-funded bailout money—American International Group (AIG) could justify its intent to distribute $165 million of the money in bonuses to its employees, both past and present. The individual bonus amounts varied, with payouts ranging from $1,000 to a single $6 million “bonus.” And as if that were not insulting enough to the American taxpayer, 11 of the bonuses recipients are no longer employees of the industry pariah.
The overall bailout of individual financial institutions was part of both former President Bush’s and current President Obama’s plan to deal with the meltdown in the lending and financial industries. But as this latest outrage of financial company excesses came to light, it was obvious that the Obama Administration has been forced to put a spin of justification on AIG’s actions. According to Summers,

"If we simply throw up our hands, refuse to deal with any of this, we'll have the kind of financial catastrophe that we saw after what happened at Lehman Brothers,…[Treasury] Secretary Geithner has negotiated very forcefully with AIG. He has done everything that is legally permissible for the government to do to limit the payment of bonuses. But where there are contracts, binding contracts that were entered into long before the government put any money in to AIG -- we're not a country where contracts just get abrogated willy-nilly."

http://www.joost.com/097top0/t/Face-The-Nation-3-15-09

Predictably, Summers defended the “right” of bailout fund beneficiaries to use the money pay contractual obligations by citing that such a practice was a way for American companies to retain the “best, brightest, and most talented” employees. Yeah…I too thought that was quite the humorous (if not ironic) defense of such an unethical move considering that these “best and brightest” made incompetent decisions which, in addition to driving AIG to near-liquidation, resulted in the company’s recent posting of the largest quarterly loss ever recorded by a company.
What Summers obviously didn’t want to admit is that there were two distinct possibilities underlying the decision were at work here. First, the ball was dropped when it came to crafting regulations regarding the use of the bailout money given to recipients. One has to ask where was the foresight to attach stipulations to the bailout money that would have prohibited any recipient from doing what AIG had decided to do (these bonuses were paid out this past Friday, by the way). Such requirements wouldn’t be all that unusual in the grand scheme; bankruptcy judges modify and even abrogate altogether contracts in the name of repaying creditors. And all of the major automobile makers are currently in negotiations with the United Auto Union, attempting to re-negotiate the terms of their contract in order to save both American jobs and the companies staffed by union members. But in a logical defense—and setting aside the cynical observation that in politics, nothing happens without reason or purpose—it was hard to imagine that any American company would have the brass pair to even considered doing what AIG has done. And this leads to the second possibility that given the signs that AIG and other financial institutions were in trouble due to their greed in trying to capitalize on the open-season atmosphere of the housing bubble, was the possibility that AIG would use taxpayer money to pay out undeserving bonuses known by those who made the decision to prop up the insurance giant? I didn’t envy Summers’ job of administration spin doctor for one second; how could I when I was having so much fun watching him sweat out a defense for the legality of AIG’s actions in front of millions of people?
Going from the ridiculous to the sublime, I decided to flip over to NBC’s Meet The Press, preparing myself this time for some serious political discourse. Imagine my surprise when the theme of trying to make the ridiculous sound sane continued on the network famous for its peacock. In one of those great universal ironies, CBS’ network competitor had a representative of the opposing party on the hot seat. This time, it was Minority Whip and Republican Eric Cantor (R-VA).
Cantor and many Republicans have complained about the cost and the level of spending anticipated by the recently passed and implemented financial stimulus package championed by the Obama Administration. Particularly, they’re concerned with how much such spending will add to the growing federal budget deficit. Many point out the many earmarks stuffed into the stimulus plan inserted by lawmakers from both parties in order to fund pet projects in their local districts as examples of “out of control” deficit spending. Granted that pork spending has always been a concern (and should be outlawed), what I found amusing was the timing of this sudden “concern” about fiscal conservatism.
As host David Gregory rightfully pointed out, Republicans who voted along party lines for former President Bush’s military spending during the early period of the nation’s military action in Afghanistan and later in Iraq had no such qualms about ballooning the deficit then. Consider this exchange between Gregory and Cantor:


MR. GREGORY: Where was all the concern about fiscal conservatism and reining in spending from you and your Republican colleagues during the Bush years?
REP. CANTOR: Well, well, listen, David, if you're asking could we have done better, absolutely. If you're asking us did we blow it in terms of restoring fiscal sanity into this system, absolutely. But that doesn't give now the Democrats in power in this town to go in and repeat the mistakes that perhaps we may have committed in the past. You know, you look at this budget, how can it be that they claim that they're balancing the budget when they are doubling the debt, when they are increasing the deficit to record levels of a trillion, seven hundred billion dollars this year? How is it that, that that is a fiscally sane plan? We've got to remember...
MR. GREGORY: Did you oppose President Bush's budgets that increased the deficit or the debt?
REP. CANTOR: Well, David, we were in a time where I think the priority then was to make sure that we could deliver the money for our troops. And I joined along with Democrats on, on the other side of the aisle as well as my colleagues on mine to say the most important thing we needed to do at the time was to support the efforts of our military to insure our national security.
MR. GREGORY: So it was OK to, to support deficit spending at wartime, but it's not OK now during an economic crisis, when Warren Buffett calls that the equivalent of Pearl Harbor?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Such policy flip-flopping occurs all the time in realm of politics, and such talk shows provide the forums by which astute and politically savvy individuals such as Summers and Cantor attempt to paint themselves and their political persuasion as the guys in the white coats, while maligning their ideological opposites' stances. And sadly, political independents, aligning themselves with neither ideological pole, stand idle and accept such transparent politicking as the way of things. If not for realizing the earnest consequences resulting from this verbal three-card Monte, I would have broken out in full laughter watching.
The problem I have with this weekly airing—nightly if you’re addicted to such shows on CNN or the Fox News Channel—of such ideological smoke and mirrors tends to, without fail, obscure the facts behind the issue(s) at hand. And in a nation of time constraints, where individuals are forced to rely on political bullets and soundbites for their information on important issues, that makes for a dangerous combination. Moreover, the large numbers of politically apathetic and individuals too lazy to research an issue affecting their lives from all angles is what drives these political monsters. Knowing this is how the dynamics of political disinformation works, politicians have a moral responsibility to put aside such politicking and inform the public along the lines of facts, not ideologically-driven rhetoric; if they were true statements rather than opportunistic, power-driven ideologues, they would make the effort.
Citizens too are complicit as cogs in the political bullsh** machine. People must take it upon themselves to both make themselves informed electors, and to insulate themselves from such issue-obfuscation (In fact, a strong argument can be made that part of the reason that so many printed newspapers are folding is because people don't take the time to buy a daily paper and inform themselves of issues which affect their lives).
People love to complain about their government and the officials we elect to represent us. But too often, they wilfully allow the selfish ambitions and ideological agendas of those same representatives to be the sole motivations for the legislation they impliment in our names.
Whether they succeed or not in this endeavor, we cannot continue to complain about self-serving polticians and policies until we start making better choices in who we elect, whether we choose or not to hold these individuals to a standard of accountability, and how much we choose to inform ourselves to the facts of the issues.

Read More

Will Ideology Block Possible Economic Assistance?

Well, it’s the start of a new month, and hopefully, the start of warmer weather and political tidings in Washington…the kind of potential issue that Beyond The Political Spectrum was created to explore. However, my suspicions are that last night’s piece on CBS’ 60 Minutes about Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal—a rising star of the Republican Party—will portent the usual amount of acrimony in national political discourse that we’ve seen over the years.
Why do I say this? Because Jindal, along with the governors of South Carolina, Idaho, Alaska, Mississippi, and Texas all question whether or not the nearly $800 billion earmarked for the economic stimulus plan championed and signed almost 2 weeks ago by President Obama will work to stimulate the country’s ailing economy. For this reason, most of these same governors say (ostensibly) that they will not accept [some] portions of the stimulus fund money. Although this is a valid concern, avoiding anything short of full compliance with implementing the plan smacks more of politics than statesmanship by these governors, especially given the unprecedented nature of not only the country’s current economic situation, but those of the very same states where these governors serve the interests of the people.

Rising political star among conservatives, Republican Govenor Bobby Jindal of Lousiana, along with others opposes the stimulus plan

What can it hurt to support the stimulus plan? If it fails, opponents can justify their stance without the taint of trying to sabotage it by choosing not to accept all of the financial assistance the money is intended to provide; the president and his supporters would be forced to eat crow, and Republicans could then ride another 1994-like wave back into power and show us how the economy should be dealth with. If it succeeds, then the country is better off, and the people can get on with their lives of the living-by-credit and paycheck-to-paycheck status quo that was the reality prior to the now 15-month long economic downturn.
A cynical analysis would conclude that these governors—all Republicans—are putting their political party’s ideology, along with possible political aspirations of a 2012 White House run in ahead of the immediate needs of the people of their respective states. This cynicism could be supported, in a sense by Jindal’s revelation in the 60 Minutes interview, that he considers the late former President Ronald Reagan to have written the book on creating a healthy economy, ideologically speaking. And when pressed about his future aspirations as to a potential White House run, Jindal simply answered “I have the job I want (as governor).” In political parlance, that translates to “I’m leaving my options open…but I don’t want to telegraph my intentions just yet.” Sounds somewhat justified.
And aside from their beliefs that the stimulus plan may fail are their individual arguments. For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s concern “is there’s going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long.” As my teenager nieces would say, “Well, duh…” What money from the federal government doesn’t have some strings attached? How much more different is this aspect of the stimulus package than other federal funds sent to the states? If any of these governors “sees” any difference between the attached “strings” of the economic stimulus package and other funds distributed by the feds to the states, then it is as surely as an ulterior motive in politics to be a perspective that is politically inspired. This is especially true considering that built-in provisions in the stimulus package allows for state legislatures to accept any money that their governors reject; these governors could reject the money and still look like staunch conservatives in front of their core ideological constituents.
It seems that upon simply examining possible options, any reservations that the governors of the various states in questions have do not stand up to the yardstick of impartial or justified concern. Consider Mississippi’s Haley Barbour’s contention that accepting unemployment dollars offered up by the stimulus package would “force his state to eventually raise taxes when the stimulus money runs out.” Is it too difficult for a state’s legislature to enact fiscal policies tied to spending any stimulus-related money that wouldn’t interfere with its mandated use and distribution? Come on…what happened to the thinking and problem solving acumen that conservatives were supposed to be so noted for?
So, as a public service to those of a particular ideological bent who do not want to appear to be (irresponsibly so) putting their personal aspirations or petty dogmas ahead of the needs of their constituents, I have a simple suggestion for those governors even thinking about not accepting any money from the president’s economic stimulus package…simply give your portion of it to the other states which are experiencing similar economic issues. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind taking it…just offer it up to states with economies on life support like Michigan and California. Just simply ignore the fact that your own state economies are pretty much in the same crapper as those of many other states who could benefit from your generosity and selfless philanthropy. Only then can I and others across the country accept that your reservations are devoid of selfishness.

Read More

Special Education in Public School (Or "Who's Pimping Our Kids?") Pt. 2

Continued from Part 1 (http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/search/label/Entitlements)


And make no mistake about it…money is at the root of why budget-conscious school officials and parents of many low-income special education students seem to sanction this system of handcuffing their children’s futures. However the parents of many special education students—those directly responsible for their material and psychological well-being—and indirectly responsible for the decisions of school boards—are the most responsible for prostituting children for money.
With poverty rates and limited means of income being realities in many urban and inner-city (as well as a few rural) areas, money in any form, from any quarter has a level of value that transcends its intrinsic economic worth. And with many fathers absent in these same areas, single mothers, the more responsible of among those being overwhelmed simply trying to maintain body and soul, are left to care for children. The problem arises when these and other socioeconomic factors converge to create both conditions and opportunities for exploiting these students, even among those single parents who responsible and well-intentioned.
Now while I’m no psychologist, I know that people, children especially tend to learn at different speeds along a spectrum ranging from retardation to gifted. And just as there are variations in learning concepts, there are variations in personality traits along a similar spectrum that range from rare to the all-too-common. But too many parents confuse the most uncommon of these attributes with a “learning disability.” And, for whatever reason(s), obliging medical specialists tend to too easily diagnose any number of individual behaviors as representing “mental impairment”…and by extension, “learning impaired.” In response to this growing definition of a “disability,” the Social Security Administration in the early 1990s expanded the list of qualifying mental impairments for children that merited (a corruption of the word my personal experiences with special education) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments from the Social Security Administration. For many irresponsible single parents, any deviation from “normal” (i.e., “common”) behavior was seen as a potential diagnosis of some mental and/or behavior affliction worthy of SSI payments…”free money.” In more than a few cases, a diagnosis of ADD, ADHD, or any number of behavioral “disorders” are nothing more than cases of irresponsible or lazy parenting (somewhat understandable given the high incidence of stable households, absent fathers, and actual time to parent considering the need to sometimes work multiple jobs). In many areas of the country, these monthly payments made in the name of children with true mental/learning impairments as well as those who simply needs their hides tanned are euphemistically (sometimes pejoratively) called “crazy checks.
The entire motive of money helped me to understand the counterproductive policies I saw (and continue to see) in place, and the incentive that many parents have for maintaining a defense of this status quo. It helps me understand why there is no consistent attendance policy for special education students, many of them so disruptive and unruly that the teacher’s themselves don’t so much as bat an eyelash at their noticeable classroom absences; just so long as their “attendance” continues to garner state and federal funding. And on a related note, it helped me to understand why parents of disruptive students are so eager to come to their “special” child’s defense whenever a suspension or expulsion a possibility; in order to continue to receive “crazy checks,” a requirement of school attendance is mandated in many cases for these children. I experienced teenage felons—some with serious charges that included sexual assault, home invasion, and drug charges—being forced on teachers simply because their parents raised enough hell behind a principal’s closed door. I now understand why many teachers receive such a bad rap “for not educating our youth,” when many of our youth are simply not teachable in any traditional setting given the many distractions and systemic dysfunctions of their home environments. I understood how and why many parents of special education students have once-a-month (in the form of “crazy checks”) incentives to not make serious attempts to redress their children’s “disabilities.” Around the 3rd of every month, the day when SSI payments are received, I (and I’ll wager many of the teachers) got a respite from the stress many of these students caused us due to their skipping class to go to the store with their mothers to purchase new clothes, shoes, and other un-necessities. It was and continues to be striking to me that SSI payments are rarely, if ever used to pay for additional courses which would go a long ways toward addressing “learning impairment” in these children. It seems to me that the money would be better used in the form of a voucher for private and/or supplemental tutoring for these “learning disabled” children…Heaven knows the Ritalin isn’t enough. To many parents, these “special” children are financial mother lodes. I have seen in a few cases where all the siblings in entire families (including first cousins) are diagnosed to the point where the family is granted SSI for every child. Again, while I’m no clinical psychologist, I’m sure that families where every sibling is diagnosed as having impaired behavior issues speaks more to family and social dysfunction than to an organic cause.
My personal prescriptions for addressing this issue—which I’m sure most are not going to like—of those who would pimp our kids for the money their “special” status affords them is to simply take the “pimps” out of the equations. Disciple should be meted out according to a uniform set of state-mandated guidelines (or federal if states should be found lacking). In-class/in-school offenses that warrant arrest should result in automatic expulsions...no exceptions. Teachers have a hard enough time working under normal conditions. We don’t need to burden them additionally with jungle warfare-level worries about being attacked by students who know good and well that they can’t be struck back, or who know that they will be simply slapped on the wrist and sent back to the scene of their crimes. Personally, I would go so far as to create a database for those same students, so that they will not be able to just leave one district and go cause trouble in another. Other lesser offenses would be treated the same, not on a basis of how overbearing a parent can be. The responsibility for discipline needs to be taken out of the haves of administrators who are blinded by dollar signs
On a more direct front, parents need to be held not only accountable, but legally responsible for their children’s behavior. If they are willing to accept any benefits from their children’s diagnoses, then they should be also just as willing to accept any liabilities stemming from the same. Physiological capacity and freedom should not be the sole requirements to bear children; we allow individuals to enter the military at 18, become licensed drivers, get married, and drop out of school at 16 (in most states), but allow anyone at any age to have a child. Something about that doesn’t set right. And for many of the children borne to young and/or inexperienced and dysfunctional parents, you are reading the possible end result. We require pre-marriage counseling in many states, so why not the same for potential parents? Why not mandate parenting classes for those who would bring children to the world with little worldly experience themselves? The litmus test could be a combination of income, education (at least a complete high school education), and ability to provide materially and psychological welfare. Children whose parents do not undergo the prescribed counseling and classes risk having their children become wards of the state until they complete the requirements. Although I am a firm believer in individual liberty, it cannot be total and without restraint. If nothing else, the state of special education proves this.
Finally, the government should stay out of the business of interfering with child-rearing as it relates to punishment. Despite what New Age psychologists and sociologists say about them, there is nothing wrong with spanking. Children have rights, but they also have their place, and thinking that they are the equal of adults or questioning our judgment is not among them. Parents need to be afforded the right to discipline their children as they see fit, without abusing them. And before we start asking “Who says/What constitutes abuse,” maybe we should look to those sharp and witty social critics, Mathew Parker and Trey Stone.


Further Suggested Reading Related To Special Education

"Getting the Elephant Out of the Living Room: Finding Ways to Reduce the
Disproportionate Placement of Minority Students into Special Education"
Presentation at the OSEP Project Directors’ Conference 2006
Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2006).
Pedro Noguera, New York University
http://www.osep-meeting.org/2006conf/Presentations/Monday/4_Lunch/A_Keynote_PNoguera.ppt



"Keeping Black Boys Out of Special Education"
J. Kunjufu. (2005). African Images, Chicago, Illinois.
Reviewed by the African American Literature Book Club, Harlem, New York.

“This critical analysis looks at the disproportionate number of African American males in special education. Arguing that the problem is race and gender driven, questions covered include: (a) why does Europe send more females to special education?; (b) why does America lead the world in giving children Ritalin?; (c) is there a relationship between sugar, Ritalin, and cocaine?; and (d) is there a relationship between special education and prison? More than 100 strategies to help teachers and parents keep Black boys in the regular classroom are described, such as revising teacher expectations, increasing parental involvement, changing teaching styles from a left-brain abstract approach to a right brain hands-on approach, redoing the curriculum, understanding the impact of mass media, and fostering healthy eating habits.”
For purchase – Barnes & Noble:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&isbn=0974900028

Read More

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