The You Tube Father's Laptop Shooting - You Go, Boy!

So by now, everyone who is interested has seen the now viral video of the North Carolina father who posted a video on You Tube of himself railing on his teenage daughter, ending with his melodramatic shooting up a laptop belonging—or rather formerly so—to her. The video, which father Tommy Jordan posted, was a response to his 15-year-old daughter’s Facebook-posted profanity-laden diatribe against her own parents for it appears, holding her to reasonable expectations as a child living under the responsibility, the authority, and the roof of her parents.



Setting aside the twin truths that: (1) I have been working with kids and teens in one form or fashion for the last decade or so, and am well aware of their narcissistic perspectives; and (2) that I am quite familiar with how often most of today’s teenagers exaggerate occurrences involving themselves, I am more than inclined to take the father at his word after watching the video—even without hearing the daughter’s side of the story. The simple fact is that today’s American youth—outside of each other’s approval—don’t respect a whole lot, especially the inherent and actual authority of adults, including their parents. To today’s teens, rules are merely suggestions and when they [routinely] break rules, they are often coddled by a justice system already overwhelmed with dealing with adult crimes.
After reading multiple online articles and posts about the shootings myself, it seems that public opinion is pretty split down the middle for support and condemnation of the father’s actions.
Regular readers to Beyond The Political Spectrum already know where I personally stand on the issue of parental disciplining of noncompliant and rebellious children; the Old School way of bringing up children is simply the best, the most result-proven way. Under the Old School regime of raising children, there was social consensus for the parent’s right to occasionally whip unruly children, including among law-enforcement and the courts…as long as parents didn’t cross the line into abuse. During those times, “abuse” was more narrowly-defined, prohibiting such blatant actions resulting in major physical trauma, such as cigarette burns, choking, broken limbs, and/or otherwise adversely affecting the child’s long-term physical health (by comparison, “abuse” today constitutes anything that may result in a broken fingernail or leaves a bad thought in a child’s head).
The direct parenting of the old ways enforced compliance with curfews, the authority of adults (especially parents and teachers), compelled school attendance and in most cases, academic performance, and cavorting with familiars (back in those days, if parents didn’t know a child’s friend or their parents, children weren’t allowed to play with them). Children didn’t expect everything to be given to them on a whim. Chores were performed based on nonnegotiable expectations. Substance abuse was the exception, not the rule, as direct parenting made parents well aware of their children’s proclivities and inclinations. Those with overly-liberal attitudes toward raising children—those who invariably condemn Jordan’s actions—can only blame themselves for how today’s children have turned out. “Sanctions” are limited to talking to children in a “therapeutic” manner (which flies in the face of logic; if such “solutions” were in fact valid, then we wouldn’t jail adults for breaking the law…we’d talk to them). We often make unjustified excuses for their actions. Half of us whine and scream, “Abuse” if parents even raise their voices at chronically unruly children, affecting the half of responsible parents who do believe in being given a free hand to raise their children in a manner they deem appropriate. It’s hard to imagine that many Americans either don’t remember, or don’t yearn for those relatively better parenting experiences.
Those who condemn the North Carolina’s father’s actions are simply not looking at the big picture; he could have just as well put the bullets in his daughter for publicly disrespecting her and his wife as responsible parents. But for showing restraint—and innovative thinking—as a parent in dealing with today's often disrespectful, ungrateful, lazy, and unmotivated youth, I say...you go, boy!

Read More

Yes Virginia, There ARE "Lazy Americans!" (Conclusion)

Continued from Part 2

Let’s see now…we’ve explored the myth that Americans are not lazy from different perspectives. Americans are lazy when it comes to our children’ education. We routinely lower the educational standards instead of public school instead of raising expectations. We lazily teach for standardized testing instead of simply teaching concepts which foster academic literacy. We allow our children to routinely disrespect or even assault, teachers and staff in our public schools under the excuse that they have some sort of emotional and or/or psychological “condition.” We lazily tolerate particularly disruptive children to sap away the opportunity for the more stable children in our classrooms, under the mistaken belief that they have some sort of “right” to be there—bringing others down to their selfish level of uncaring and. We allow schools to adopt the misguided mandate to cater to students “needs’ rather than following the mandate to teach them. As a result, many students simply do not care if they pass their classes, as their poorly done work attest to.
Much of the laziness we produce in students/children is due lack of support in the home. As a former long-term substitute teacher in public schools, I witnessed many parent-teacher conference days where only one or two parents would actually show up to express concern for their children’ academic progress. Many of us lazily raise our children to embrace things rather than ideas. And they invariably develop an entitlement mentality rather than a sense of duty, an appreciation for hard work paying off, and a lack of patience; they want everything given to them now; perish forbid they’d have to actually make an effort and work for what they want. We permit them to smoke, drink, and otherwise become addicted to both substance abuse, and half-hearted efforts for most things which do not product instantaneous (and desirable) results. We defend their poor decision-making as being the result of having “issues.” We allow their intransigence to become the norm that we as adults have to adapt to, instead of the other way around.And in our relationships, laziness within ourselves prevents us—at every conceivable point—from not only finding who is good for us, but from making relationships work and/or last. The choice to personally mismanage our feelings as well as our mental well-beings has contributed mightily to our emotional laziness, which contributes to our high divorce rates and depression resulting from chronically-failed relationships.But our laziness does not stop here.

Financial/EconomicLaziness

Given how close the country—indeed the world—came to the totalcollapse of the current economic regime, our sluggishness when it comes tomatters of finance mirrors that of other aspects of our society. For starters, Americans—despite high rates of unemployment, housing foreclosures, anddiscontent with the economy—are investing in personal savings at almost historicallylow rates; some 3.6% of disposable income (“Savings Rate Is Dropping, and Experts Are Puzzled”),which was a minor contributor to the financial crisis of recent times. A major aspect of our lazy attitudes is ourpropensity to avoid putting off gratification, preferring instead to indulgeourselves in terms of raw consumption. Granted, some of the spending is done “to cover necessities like medicalbills and gasoline,” Americans also tend to spend money on frivolity such ashigh-end designer clothing and shoes, gourmet coffees, cigarettes, lotterytickets, recreational drugs, and fancy automobile trappings—money which couldotherwise easily be saved in interest-bearing accounts. The live-for-todayspending we tend to indulge in is a modern-day variation of the Ant and the Grasshopper…with no thoughtsabout not only saving for rainy days and/or retirement, but basicinvestment. This is especially true forindividuals in the lower- and lower-middle classes.

Another consequence of our laziness and our lack ofmotivation to save is that many of those who simple were not “designed” to workfor others—that is, those who desire to work for themselves—are not willing toput forth the effort that it takes to establish our own businesses (and no, I’mnot talking about internet start-ups). While it is true that national chainstores have taken some of the sting out of purchasing high costs items such agroceries for the typical family, they have done little in the way of fosteringthe sense of economic independence for the individual who simply wants to be hisown boss and control his own time. As achild growing up in both Chicago, and later in Michigan, I can remember beingable to walk to numerous stores in my neighborhood(s) and buying whatever mylittle heart so desired—when I hadthe money. Whether it was to buy a soda,pick up a drug prescription, or a quick run to buy a can of tomato paste torush back for my anxiously waiting mother, it was a given that there was alwaysa neighborhood market, store, or small shop owned and operated by Mr. or Mr.So-and-So. In many cases, they werepeople I could identify with on many levels. In some cases, I went to school with the stores owners’ children. But now, and at the risk of soundingethnically-insensitive or intolerant, most neighborhood stores are owned byrecent immigrants to America…those who have aggressively filled the vacuum of entrepreneurialmotivation once held by those born here. Unwilling to work and maintain a semblance of economic independence, manynative-born Americans, especially in urban areas, have sold their livelihoodsfor a quick monetary offer, and in short order become employees (remember, manyof us do not invest or save…we simply buy things meant to impress) instead ofemployers . Now, instead of thousands ofproud Mom & Pop shops in every neighborhood, we have a landscape dotted withforeign-owned convenience stores operated and staffed by hard working familiescomprised of first-generation immigrants.

The same can be said of wage-labor positions, once proudlyheld by individuals such as my father and myself. Such physically-demanding and labor-intensivejobs, which were often on the lower-end of the pay scale, were once the onlymeans Americans could get by economically. I myself remember working on various farms in my youth…not to acquireextra spending money, but to contribute to the overall household income (alongwith my mother and siblings). Most of us who found ourselves doing this type ofwork were black, with a sprinkle of poor whites and Latino migrants. Today,most of those doing these types of jobs are immigrants—both documented and notso—from Latin America. Now this is notto say that I do not value these individuals as contributors to the melting potof America, or that I do not admire their economic tenacity and hard-work ethic.It’s just that their presence represents how quickly someone else will workwhen Americans become lazy.

In many ways, it was this same type of laziness which contributedto the financial crisis a couple of years ago. Buttressed by greed and our proclivity to want things now, many Americans failed to follow thetraditional route toward obtaining the part of the American dream that includeshome ownership. In droves, manyAmericans opted to bypass the more traditional and economically-sound practicesof working to strengthen their credit ratings and/or levels of savings, andrushed to purchase homes with a bare minimum of savings, and with credit scoreswhich shouldn’t have allowed in a banks front doors. Unwilling to put in the work to avoidqualifying for subprime mortgage loans, many were willing brave the risks of easy(but costly) credit, high (and in some cases, variable) interest, and long-termfinancial commitment (despite an unstable economy) to purchase homes theysimply could not afford. This phenomenonoccurred en masse, and the result wasa hair’s approach to a sequel to the Great Depression similar to that of the1930’s.

Summary

Despite the flack that President Obama caught late last yearfor his taken-out-of-context remark that “Americans are lazy,” he actually tolda bold truth that many refuse to accept or see. Yes, many Americans are lazy, whether it be personally, professionally, academically,or emotionally. In addition, I suppose itwould not be too late to add that many of us are lazy mentally and civically too;too many of us are too apathetic to being a part of the political process and torationally analyzing issues affecting their lives (most would rather leave evenhow their beliefs are shaped up to talking heads on pundit TV and radio). We simply cannot delay immediate gratificationfor long-term benefit. We are fat, fullof excuses, and in ill-health, ridden with preventable maladies such asdiabetes, certain cancers, and heart disease.

Many of us routinely show up late for work, do as little aspossible, and ask for too much (especially in the case of corporate officers, CEOs,and others whose “success” is built up the backs of those who do work hard).

A successful America requires the active participation of amotivated citizenry to ensure that socioeconomic equality is at the very least achievable. Any loss of freedoms, rights, or economic viability is due in partto the laziness on the part of American citizens.A successful America requires the active participation of a motivated citizenry to ensure that socioeconomic equality is at the very least achievable.

Read More

Yes Virginia, There ARE "Lazy Americans!" (Part 2)

(02/09/12 - Writer's Note: I want to extend my apologies to all of the regular readers of Beyond The Political Spectrum for the delay in posting my latest items. I have just completed a major move and career change over the past couple of months, and needless to say that affected regularly timely posting. Current issues in the news have provided me with much to post about over the past couple of months, so stay tuned for more exploration of these issues).

It’s funny how some things work out. Last posting (which seems like a lifetime ago, again apologies), I chronicled how in fact, Americans were indeed lazy when, in preparing for this follow up I came across a piece in a recent edition of USAToday. The report highlighted research revealing how the internet and related technology has enabled cheating in public schools to go high-tech (“eCheating: Students Find High Tech Ways To Deceive Teachers"). It also validated my previous observation about how lazy Americans (and our children) are.
But education is not the only area where our sloth reigns.


Relationships

Perhaps no segment in American society illustrates our laziness more than our approach to relationships. Some of us change partners with greater frequency than changing our underwear, with no time in-between romps for assessing ourselves (or what went wrong in the previous relationships). Leading the way among industrialized nations, America’s divorce rate is second to none. This reality is based on, in part our laziness toward the effort it takes to make relationships last beyond our selfish realization that our partners don’t measure up to our internalized expectations. Divorce has simply become too convenient, and is the only aspect of this insanity that we are (ironically) willing to put work into.

In a time of exaggerated self-importance—exemplified, if not spurred, by the proliferation of personal web pages, personality-driven “reality” television shows (making everyday people famous-for-nothing), and You Tube—the selfishness of the me mindset has infected relationships to the point where anyone who doesn’t cater to our selfish desires and/or expectations are summarily dismissed. The institution of marriage notwithstanding, the notion of “compromise” is usually not given even a brief consideration. Men have grown too selfish and uncaring in the consideration (or lack thereof) and respect for their female significant others. While women have grown too demanding in expecting men to cater to a Hollywood-ized sense of romance, as well as selfishness in making their feelings the primary issue in relationships.
Compromise has become one of those moralistically-attractive words used by individuals who soap box about how about how relationships can be made better, but are often just as guilty in being a part of the same mindset of lazy selfishness. When we’re fed-up with our partners, many of us are too lazy to inform them that they are about to be trashed (totally unaware, in many cases, that they themselves are perpetuating a cycle whereby the dumper is doing what was done to themselves sometime prior). The feelings of another have become disposable casualties of our laziness to see or empathize beyond ourselves, work through issues, consider our partners, and/or work through our own individual issues before jumping seeking out (another) romantic relationship (why put forth such effort when it’s so much easier to blame another for either not living up to our idealized expectations or catering to our impatience). And such sloth has created a cottage industry of “relationship experts” whose private offices, magazine and newspaper columns, and television segments have multitudes of people lining up to seek their advice—instead of looking inward and applying a little common sense effort to our relationships. As with many things, we look to others to do the work we ourselves should be doing.


Child-Rearing

How we raise our children is a subject I find myself writing about often…maybe because I have spent much of the last 13 years working with and observing them. Simply put, many Americans have put the onus for instilling desirable values in their children on elements of society rather than taking personal responsibility, as common sense dictates.
During times past, when most of society shared the same level of constructive and positive family values, America as a society—institutions outside of the nuclear family comprised of schools, neighbors, churches, and extended family—could be trusted to supplement in-home child-rearing. In school, we were taught about the negative effects of alcohol and drugs use, and corporal punishment was an occasionally-used option to keep unruly and disruptive children in-line with the rest of the class. Teachers were every bit as respected by children as their parents.
Truant (or assigned police) officers could be trusted to keep a vigilant eye out for children who suddenly forgot the direction to their school.
Neighbor s didn’t mind—indeed felt obligated to—“being nosey,” and informing responsible parents about the illicit shenanigans of their children.
Respect for adult authority was a foregone conclusion.
And in the home, parents lived up to their moral (and legal) obligations to directly parent their children. Education was reinforced (and cherished) more than sports or extra-curricular activities; school attendance was closely-monitored.
Teenage pregnancies were rare occurrences which brought a level of shame to a decent family.
Responsible parents not only knew their children’ whereabouts, but the names of their friends (or at least a family member) they ran around with. They were able to look their children in the eyes and tell whether or not they were lying, so activities like drugs and cigarette smoking were non-starters.
At the time, parents didn’t coddle children in an effort to protect them from themselves. Bruises, scrapes, black eyes, even more serious potential injuries were a part of growing up. The word "no" had meaning, and children were not allowed to question "why."
Children were raised to be tough, to accept hardships as a part of reality...without whining about every little hangnail or papercut.
Children had structure, chores, an understanding for the need to work around the neighborhood in an effort to earn extra money, and a sense of duty to help keep them out of trouble.
And parents actually did the caring and raising…not video games, not cable-music television, and definitely not other individuals.
But with lazy parenting now the norm, children today have a sense of entitlement rather than duty. This is partly because lazy parents often indulge their children in order to receive momentary compliance, or as a guilt-filler for perceived deficiencies. Parents are unable to discipline their children in the traditional manner of occasional whippings because people lack the will to collectively challenge the authority of (arguably) well-intentioned but ineffective elected officials and New Age clinicians who have revised this parental obligation.
The lack of real options in sanctioning unruly children has today’s children thinking they are the equal of adults. Indeed, many children take the vacuum created by making in-school and in-home corporal punishment illegal to assert blatant disrespect and disobedience toward their parents, even verbally threatening to call the authorities if a parents dares to exercise their right to punish their defiance. It’s no wonder why so many teens become parents, equating puberty with adulthood.

Low-paid convenient store employees are expected to expand their responsibilities and take on the role of parents to police young people looking to illegally buy cigarettes.
Truancy and dropout rates have exploded, almost reflecting a level of apathy or fatalism among adults today who are not up to the task of ensuring children are attending school
Teachers are disrespected scapegoats for irresponsible and uneducated parents who expect classroom instructors to their children without parental support or discipline from home.
Doing drugs is no longer an activity to be shied away from, but—in extreme cases that I’ve seen—an activity to be shared between young people and “cool” adults…including irresponsible parents, too lazy to bother fighting against their children’ need to fit-in.
In truth, our youth are the way they are not so much as a result of the choices they make, but because of the influences of irresponsible adults, lazy parenting, and a society that has forgotten that things were better when everyone worked to make sure that young people did what right, and not concerned themselves with children liked.
Again, our quality of collective laziness crosses beyond the lines of the family and relationships.

…To Be Concluded.

Read More

Yes Virginia, There ARE "Lazy Americans!" (Part 1)

Early last week, President Obama received a moderate amount of flack because of a remark he made—within the context of a speech about whether America is doing its best to compete against other economic powers globally—about how Americans have been “lazy” in regards to focusing on our economic priorities. And naturally politicians (being the creatures of opportunity they are) and other assorted talking heads wasted no time in highlighting (or rather crafting) the president’s implied lazy American “insult” in official statements and opinion pieces. Republican Party presidential nominee candidate Rick Perry has even misleadingly parlayed Obama’s “insult” into a television campaign ad.



Sadly, predictably, and ironically, taking the president’s overall message out of context to form a straw man argument is a tried and proven method for conditioning mentally lazy Americans—those who make up a great many among the potential voting electorate who don’t objectively research issues—into believing the worst of an ideological opposite. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of employing this tactic.
But despite the distortion of the president’s message, the reality is that Americans are indeed lazy! Part of this stems from our desire to squeeze as much economic profit from so little effort or investment of what resources we have to utilize, whether they be mental, monetary, material, or spiritual resources. The remainder of the reasons derives from the erosion of the values which propelled America to the zenith of global and military dominance.
To the contrary, those in denial are usually quick to reassure us that America is [still] #1 in virtually everything we do. Common sense (with a helpful dose of reality) dictates that this isn’t true…far from it in fact. The recent trouble with Detroit’s auto industry proves this in the realm of auto manufacturing. When it comes to health care spending as a portion of a country’s gross domestic spending, other countries spend far less than America…and manage to cover the majority of their citizens—without the pretense by some political quarters that (somehow) our “rights” as citizens will be in jeopardy if all Americans are somehow covered by affordable health insurance. And depending on which survey/study you read, there are at least 14 countries whose student’s standardized test scores—as a reflection of the quality of their education and student motivation—are far ahead of lagging American students. In many ways, American arrogance is sorely misplaced.
And when such shortcomings are pointed out by souls brave enough to withstand the predictable barrage of oncoming criticism for their “anti-patriotic” overtones, they are invariably glossed over (read: ignored) by those who would portray themselves as defenders of American idealism. These people do themselves and the country a disservice when they attempt to stir a sense of national pride in American ingenuity which is fit more for memories of a bygone era than as contemporary “proof” of what we can do as a country. Instead of being ashamed when comparing ourselves to the rest of the industrialized world, we gloss over failings with misplaced patriotism, which touts innovation which rarely applies in the current world.
Why this conclusion? In many areas, the reality speaks for itself.

Public Education

What can be said about the public education system in America which hasn’t already been said? Too much government mandate. Too little regulation. Too much or too little local control. Government control vs. private innovation. Bad teachers. Good teachers who aren’t compensated enough. Too much or too little parental involvement. The list goes on. But whatever side one takes or whatever reasoning one assumes, the bottom line is that Americans put far more effort into bickering, arguing, and comparing ideological schools of thought on how best to fix our schools than actually remedying even the most fixable of basic roadblocks hindering an effective (and competitive) education.
Anecdotally and realistically, the curriculums in most American public schools are not challenging enough, nor are the learning environments in many schools functional enough for the formation of a globally competitive citizenry. We’ve known this for the last generation, but we lack the collective will to make the hard decisions as public servants, parents, politicians, and concerned individuals to change this. We know that our public school students’ performance as a nation is well below that of other students from “second class” countries; the comparative standardized test scores don’t lie (but I’m sure that those who don’t agree will find some “flaw” in the methodology). Having spent a great deal of time in and around colleges, I know firsthand that many foreign students take their studies in American colleges far more seriously than their American counterparts. This is a reality is based in part on the fact that many—if not most—of these students hail from countries whose public/primary school systems prepare them to face education abroad with a love of learning, disciplined structure, and in many cases the cultural banking of respect for teachers (as well as authority figures). Even in countries ravaged by war, civil strife, and other calamities, there are instances of children compelled to make their way—some by a sense of duty or personal conviction—to schools some distance away from home in order for them to learn.
One the other hand, we Americans program in our children a sense of entitlement rather than duty. Working currently with at-risk teens at an alternative school, I can’t tell how many times I’ve silently sighed in exasperation as I experience daily how pampered and lazy American children are academically (and in most other ways which count). Many, if not most middle and high school students—especially in urban and city schools—view books and reading in general as a chore given as a form of punishment. Trying to get some students to write is comparable to trying to bathe a house cat. And the respect for teachers is anything but…. Our schools are brimming with lazy students, too uninspired and unmotivated to open their minds to anything beyond the misplaced sense of self-importance and self-absorption their parents helped to impart them with. American students are (somewhat in many cases) indulged by having economic and material resources diverted to creating and maintaining morally and philosophically questionable “investments” such as police/resource officers, accommodation for special needs, and so forth. Such resources are financial and material burdens placed public education by bad/lazy parents who feel they have “rights” enough to allow their disruptive children (discounting those with bona-fide handicaps. What I’m speaking of are the many students over-diagnosed with afflictions such as “Oppositional Defiance Disorder” and other similar “disorders”) to negatively impact the education of those striving to learn in otherwise challenging environments (See: Related Article).
And those students who do take their studies seriously, some are too lazy to actually take the time and effort to learn. Many American students have been socialized with a new but warped set or moral imperatives that compel them to seek the quickest, least labor-involved way to carry out their study requirements. Online term papers, cutting and pasting, and half-hearted efforts are only few of the usual ways that American students showcase their lack of initiative. Once the sole province of a relatively few “slackers,” in our public schools, cheating, taking shortcuts, and/or just laziness has become the new norm in most public schools throughout America. Just last month, several New York area university graduate students were arrested for their involvement in a scheme in which they were paid by high school students to take the SAT college entrance exam for them. In another example, law enforcement authorities and college officials have been made aware of the growing trend of high school and college students obtaining by illegal pretenses (or purchasing on the black market) the ADHD prescription drug Adderall.


---


Sometimes called the “smart pill,” abusers are taking the drug as a way of increasing concentration needed to complete multiple assignments so that, in many cases, they are able to engage in more extracurricular activities. Finally, the recent reporting of several standardized testing scandals—aided by public school officials—in public school throughout the country attest to the new culture of thinking that many of our American students have latched onto. It’s no wonder American students seek shortcuts and embrace laziness; they are learning their laziness from adults (See: "And Now A New Standardized Testing Scandal" and "A Scandal of Cheating And A Fall From Grace").

To Be Continued

Read More

Opinion: The Death of The American Marriage

A little more than a week ago, USA Today printed a piece from its weekly column on religion written by author Henry Brinton, who is also pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia (See: "Column: Wedding Days Are Losing Their Way"). In the opinion piece, Brinton writes about how the drift toward untraditional marriage ceremonies contributes to the shrinking significance of marriage as an institution. Conversely, the pastor argues in how traditional marriage ceremonies, those which take place in a wholly religious setting and officiated by a man/person of faith, form the basis of more enduring and durable unions, and therefore strengthens traditional family units.
But given how even individuals of considerable financial and social means (i.e., celebrities, political figures, athletes, etc.), who spend envious amounts of money on (questionably) extravagant and (also questionably) newsworthy ceremonies are afflicted by the same blistering rates of divorce, domestic abuse, and relationship stress that the average job-holding, beer-drinking, anxiety-ridden everyday Joe is, “institution” is the most apt description of the state of contemporary American marriage…because anyone left in American who takes its seriously would have to be considered crazy.
More of an exercise in devil’s advocacy than an expression of my own cynicism, the institution of marriage—with respect to Brinton’s position—has lost much of its social relevance in the last generation or so. As a child of Generation X, I can remember growing up watching television sitcoms where suspected pregnancies resulting from “flings” between main characters (usually male) inevitably brought up the subject of marriage as a way of “making things right” (these sitcoms reflected the thinking of the times with regard to marriage). This consideration, under such circumstances, was usually the way of addressing the prospect of avoiding the social stigma of bastard children. Marriage was considered an honorable symbol of commitment, even among the most philandering of cads. The ethos recognizing marriage within the context of the day was such that inveterate womanizers like Three’s Company’s Larry or Happy Days’ The Fonz cringed at the prospect of having to marry women they’d somehow managed to “sully” during their romps; it was considered a fate tantamount to death because of the implied level of commitment (combined with the relatively low occurrence of the then-seeming choice to divorce) tying the knot implied.
But now, even without the likes of Brittany Spears’ or Kim Kardashian’s latest publicity-driven stunts to see which has the shortest lifespan, a mayfly or a contemporary American marriage, the modern-day marriage ceremony has become more of an attempt to cater to a woman’s sense of fantasy, fairytale, romance, or just the culmination of bad judgment. There is some anecdotal support for my position, one being that women are far more likely to be the initiates of divorce, some 66% of the time by most studies, which would imply that they are most likely to be most dissatisfied in the resulting relationship (even if you extrapolated for incidences of domestic violence and/or infidelity on the man’s part). And on the heels of this fact is another recent survey which indicated

that up to 30% of now-divorced women actually said knew that they were not marrying the right man the moment they exchanged vows during the marriage ceremony (See: “Did You Marry The Wrong Guy?”).

This would suggest that many jump headway into doomed relationships, lured by the pageantry of the ceremony, with no forethought of pre-marriage personal introspection or consideration of the dynamics or function the relationship itself (with respect to the pre-marriage counseling which people of faith like Pastor Brinton no doubt attempt to engage in couples in).
But even more than changing attitudes is the fact that men and women are simply sociologically different when it comes to perspectives of marriage. Partially driven by our “biological clocks,” many women feel more compelled to marry. It’s made apparent anytime a woman makes the statement, I’m (fill-in-the-age) years-old and I’m still not married, or words to that effect (my personal favorite however, is It’s [fill-in-the-year] and I’m not married…as if a bad decision with regard to marriage couldn’t be made in any given year). Many women are more likely to conform to social expectations and family pressure. Most women view marriage as a form of relationship security, and rely on its legal recognitions for financial peace-of-mind—especially should the spouse dies.
Many—some would say most—men one the other hand, view the commitment of marriage as merely a suggestion, no matter how attractive, accomplished or loyal the spouse, or how privileged the life they have together. Sandra Bullock, Erin Nordegren, and Eva Longoria know this all too well. For many men, the institution of marriage has little in the way of a restraining influence on our “need” to demonstrate how quickly we are able to break the trust we are lucky enough to have earned. And demonstratively, the more privileged (or fortunate) we are, the greater the opportunities and sense of entitlement to bed swap we have (of course I’m not saying it’s right…it’s just reality).
And with the exception of the rare American male who actually marries with the intention to “make it work”—despite the disheartening odds or whatever obstacle gets in the way—many men see marriage and that implied commitment thing as more of an option rather than a publicly-declared promise between two individuals. Most of us are seemingly genetically predisposed to stepping beyond so-called “bond” of marriage and sowing our seeds elsewhere (yes, I know that there are some actual studies which point to this being a fact rather than personal choice, but the jury’s still out on this). We are seemingly designed to break our vows in a vain attempt to find that one nonexistent woman who is the “prefect” blend of femininity, but without the emphasis on “feelings;” sexual, but willing to unquestionably acquiesce to our fantasies (sick or otherwise); and loyal, but not overly submissive or needlessly attitudinal (see ladies…our fantasies are just unreal are yours). Sadly though, most of us men are only as “loyal” as our options. To us, marriage is the ultimate gamble. If we “crap out,” we stand to lose our hard-earned material possessions (or have them divvied-up by "The Man") in divorce, have a portion of our incomes (in the form of alimony, palimony, or child support) garnished, or forced to accept the sometimes inequitable terms of a child custody judgment—ultimately becoming just another loser in the game that marriage has become…with the odds seemingly stacked.
Finally, and to be clear, Pastor Brinton’s opinion asserts that the traditional marriage ceremony is a tried means of reinforcing the promise—not necessarily the notion of love—within a union. That’s a good thing, since the fragility of most modern unions would seem to answer Tina Turner’s decades-old question of What’s love got to do with it...seemingly very little! Quite simply, most of us do not even know how to love...or have no idea what the concept entails. We’re simply too self-absorbed as a culture to understand that being a part of something larger than ourselves like a relationship means that we must be willing to give up some, if not most of our much-lauded “independence” (sorry ladies and gentlemen for the bubble-burst). Too many of us are culturally-programmed to measure ourselves by what others have (and what we don’t), and too focused on the illusion of time in order to determine our individual self-worth as it relates to (potential) relationships. Most of us cannot see past the self to understand that a true union is about “us,” not “me.” Women want romance, men want respect. We as men want women to do whatever we want, while women want to do what they want. Men want women to understand, while women want to be understood. Women want security, men flexibility. Women want partners who can understand their feelings…while men want partners whose feelings won’t always be the central issue in a relationship. And neither of us are willing to compromise in what we want (See: “What Is Love?” on Beyond The Political Spectrum’s sister blog on Hubpages).
The bottom line: the institution of marriage looks to be outliving both its usefulness as a means of ensuring the survival of the traditional American family, and its meaning as way of "proving" one's loyalty and devotion to a single partner. Here's to the institution of marriage...may it rest in peace!

Read More

Americans Standing Up - Which Movement Speaks For You?

Government gridlock. A shrinking middle-class. Companies sitting on billions of dollars, and refusing to reinvest in expansion. Banks seemingly inventing fees to gouge the consumer (come on, does it take that much money to manage other people’s money?). Politicians putting party affiliations and self-interests before the greater good. CEO’s, corporate officers, high-level financial decision-makers (you know…those “best and brightest” who are partly—but not exclusively—responsible for nearly tanking America’s market economy) still earning indefensible incomes and bonuses. And as a result of all of this sociopolitical chaos, people have finally taken to the streets and started putting the pressure of the voting electorate on those responsible.
But there are two distinct groups of protestors who seem to getting on their respective soap boxes and adopting the mantle of the voice of the American people. On one hand, there is the Tea Party movement, which purports to speak for the shrinking American middle class, and is opposed to larger government, the current tax structure, and for all things conservative…including social policies. In the last year, they have organized locally and even marched on Washington D.C in an effort to promote these and other conservative forms of government.
On the other hand, there is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has targeted the banking and lending industries and local government offices by attempting to cause disruptions in day-to-day commerce and the business of government. Their primary aim is to put faces on the economic suffering of the “99%” of Americans they say they represent—those who do not command large salaries, hold public offices, and who have been “victimized” by corporate greed and government apathy toward their suffering. They are opposed to corporate greed, the Big Money influence in government, unemployment, and the current economic state of the nation.
At some points, there is a blurring of the line of policies that these two disparate groups oppose that gives the impression of a single populist uprising, such as the issue of the influence of Big Money in the political process. But with more social issues on their agenda, the Tea Party movement is distinctly different from the more ambiguous, seemingly more progressive Occupy Wall Street movement. So the question of the moment is which group and/or movement speaks you?

Read More

"Read My Lips...No New Politicians!"

For the sake of simplicity, I’d like to convey the idea that our elected officials—those who, at least in theory, work for us—can be categorized into two different and distinct archetypes.
On the one hand, there are politicians. These are the self-serving types of individuals who always seem to mudsling, fear-monger, and flip-flop their way into “public service.” They are typically influenced by Big Money and Special Interests (or, in the event that an issue of particular impact cannot be ignored, the voting electorate). Most often, they are motivated by the urge to seek out influence and power as well as the [possible] long-term security of a career in public office. And more often than not, their scruples and sense of honor tends to plummet as a result of their holding onto the power of their positions (as we’ve seen so often in the scandals that happen with shameful regularity).
One the other hand, there are the statesmen. Statesmen are the rare breed who actually assumes the responsibilities of public office with the intent to work on behalf of the greater good; they actually want to do something on behalf of the country (as opposed self-gain). They are motivated by the needs and/or wants of the American public (even if their policy beliefs skirt the boundaries of dogmatic ideology), influenced (for the most part) by conscious, and tend to continue working on behalf of people even after public office.
Insofar as local and federal elected officials, sadly there are way too many of the former and a precious few of the latter (especially in Congress). As far as presidents—past and present—go, it’s pretty much a mixture in every sense of the word. Jimmy Carter was neither a statesman nor politician, but an idealist who found himself in a world run by the principle of real politicks (he more or less assumed the role of statesman after his tenure as president). Ronald Reagan (despite the fact that I didn’t/don’t agree with a few of his domestic policies, especially those which hit the poor particularly hard) was a statesman in most senses of the word. George Bush I started as a politician who morphed into a statesman. Bill Clinton became a politician by circumstance. George Bush II was a victim of circumstances who tried to be a statesman…to less than stellar results. Barack Obama—and yes, I know how many view him—I believe to be working in the interests of the greater good, despite attacked on all fronts. He has the savvy of a politician, but desires to be a statesman.
With regard to politicians, I could easily use this forum to soapbox and give them my two cents on how best they could serve the country as statesmen rather than politicians. But in lieu of giving people the benefit of my objective opinion, I will step aside and allow the words and wisdom of Black Entertainment Television founder and self-made billionaire Robert Johnson to speak to this issue. Last month, he was interviewed by the CBS Evening News in an effort to get the input on how best to deal with the impasse in executing policy and legislation, how to fix the ailing economy, and how to work for the benefit of every American.
To sum up his take on how to best approach American's problems, the self-made businessman calls for the need for those seeking positions in public service to sacrifice.

Please watch.

Read More