First there was this little boy who stole his grandmothers vehicle because "it's fun to do bad things." It has been stated that charges will not be filed. Then there was Soulja Girl flipping on the train in ATL. She's bipolar and locked up on a $300 bond. Finally, there was Miss Ghetto Faboulous USA 2008; who decided that prom night was the perfect occasion to show off her new line of stripper wear. She's all over the news complaining that she was treated unfairly. All three of these are examples of why WE as African Americans need to do a better job of supporting and raising our children. They say it takes a village to raise a child, so when will we step up and step in?
We have to be proactive and give thses kids positive role models and set an example worth following. I belive that it starts with family. If you see your little nephew Cornbread is 11 and playing his playstation 24/7 but you know his grades are horrible and he can't tell you what a noun is; step in and ask him about his homework, then step up and help him with it. If you know that your cousin Lil Nay Nay at 3 can "sweep the floor with it" but cannot sing the Alphabet Song, take it upon yourself to teach it to her, and sing it with her every time you see her. Basically, if you see that a child in your family does not have the proper influence it is up to you to provide that influence, take Cornbread to the museum, the bookstore, or volunteer in his classroom, reward him for changing that C to a B. Get Nay Nay a few Dr. Seuss books, some colored blocks, or crayons and a coloring book. Stimulate their minds, show them how much fun and how rewarding learning can be. If you know that their parents are exhausted and don't have time to help them with homework, set aside some time to do so yourself.
If we don't do it who will? Is it the teacher's responsibility to see to it that our children get all of the knowledge they need? We tend to see these things but keep quiet about them, in essence sitting around watching it happen but saying nothing. I know you can't tell other people what to do with their kids but if they see that you are trying to help them, they won't object- unless of course they are determined to be ignorant, in which case, your best bet is to show up in the classroom and help the teacher. The longer we sit in silence the more situations like those mentioned above will continue to occur.
ETA this pretty much sums it up!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Define Cruel and Unusual!
ABC News has done a story on the last words of inmates as the stay on all executions by lethal injection has been lifted. So here's my question, why do we keep running hot and cold on this one? The death penalty gets so much flack every few years and I think it's somewhat silly to keep debating over an issue that is a sure fire guarantee that the perps won't re- offend. Is there a such thing as cruel and unusual punishment to a convict who rapes 20 little girls scarring them for the rest of their lives? What is too cruel for a person who erases entire families because they got dumped? How can we justify not punishing to the fullest extent of the law a man who has been creating havoc and despair for upwards of 20 years, destroying one life after another?
There are many things that make me question patriotism and the tendency of Americans to feel sympathy for monsters who deserve none is pretty high on that list. If we are to keep out society an orderly one and not have people reverting to Marshall law; taking the authority from the government and putting it into their own hands, it is required that the government find a satisfactory legal process for dealing with the worst of our element.
"Life" is not a life sentence in most states, (I would be stupid to try to ascertain what a life sentence consists of in every state)
Opponents of the death penalty claim that it is not our place to judge what the life of a human is worth, but I ask if not us then who? Further we take it upon ourselves to sit in judgement of these people in court, how is that different from sentencing them to death and carrying that sentence out? We judge each other every day based upon the simplest characteristics, how can we be afraid to protect ourselves and those around us by ridding the world of someone who refuses to live by the rules of it? The Bible says "an eye for an eye," at the time there was a literal interpretation. We are more enlightened as a people now, but are we better for it? In Middle Eastern countries the punishments for crime are so severe that people are very cautious about breaking the law. Now while there are many other issues occurring in the middle east that are less than worth of modeling, this appears to be working like gang busters.
The only other solution I could get behind would be putting all of these violent, serial criminals on an island together (Survivor-style) and letting them fight it out amongst themselves. Seriously, there are so many unincorporated little patches of sand floating on the ocean, we could buy a few, and start sending them down in parachutes, dropping off food and new inmates every couple of weeks. Eventually we'd have a society of law abiding citizens afraid to commit crimes for fear of being banished to an island with not enough food and no shelter.
It's just a thought.
There are many things that make me question patriotism and the tendency of Americans to feel sympathy for monsters who deserve none is pretty high on that list. If we are to keep out society an orderly one and not have people reverting to Marshall law; taking the authority from the government and putting it into their own hands, it is required that the government find a satisfactory legal process for dealing with the worst of our element.
"Life" is not a life sentence in most states, (I would be stupid to try to ascertain what a life sentence consists of in every state)
There are also many states where a convict can be
released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example, sentences of
"15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an
"indeterminate life sentence", while a sentence of "life without the possibility
of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence". Even when a sentence
specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the
power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served.
Taking this into consideration, even repeat offenders can have a sentence that began as life commuted into time served and be released only having served a fraction of the time they were sentenced to, only to go out and offend again that same day. Now do you want these predators walking down the street in your nice suberban neighborhood, maybe offering to mow your lawn for you?
Opponents of the death penalty claim that it is not our place to judge what the life of a human is worth, but I ask if not us then who? Further we take it upon ourselves to sit in judgement of these people in court, how is that different from sentencing them to death and carrying that sentence out? We judge each other every day based upon the simplest characteristics, how can we be afraid to protect ourselves and those around us by ridding the world of someone who refuses to live by the rules of it? The Bible says "an eye for an eye," at the time there was a literal interpretation. We are more enlightened as a people now, but are we better for it? In Middle Eastern countries the punishments for crime are so severe that people are very cautious about breaking the law. Now while there are many other issues occurring in the middle east that are less than worth of modeling, this appears to be working like gang busters.
The only other solution I could get behind would be putting all of these violent, serial criminals on an island together (Survivor-style) and letting them fight it out amongst themselves. Seriously, there are so many unincorporated little patches of sand floating on the ocean, we could buy a few, and start sending them down in parachutes, dropping off food and new inmates every couple of weeks. Eventually we'd have a society of law abiding citizens afraid to commit crimes for fear of being banished to an island with not enough food and no shelter.
It's just a thought.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Day of Silence
Today is the date of the Day of Silence this year it's being held in memory of Lawrence King. King was an 8th grade student who was murdered on February 12th by a classmate due to his sexual preference and or gender identity. It was a senseless tragedy that, sadly, could have been prevented. So many lives are affected when a thing of this nature happens, so many people have to live on knowing they did nothing to prevent this from happening to Lawrence King, I can only hope they are willing to take a stand now and try to help prevent this type of violence from taking another life too soon.
And now it's time for the rant.
My beef is simple: how can a people who have been systematically oppressed and denied basic human rights, see fit to do everything in their power to Jim Crow another oppressed people?
I love to hear our people(black people) say that you cannot compare being gay or trans gendered to being black because the former are decisions rather than conditions that we cannot control. Don't front, I know everyone has at least that one person in the family who you knew was playing for the other team since they were a small child. This begs the question is a 4 or 5 year old capable of making a "choice" that will cause them to be persecuted for the rest of their lives?
To take it further who would "choose" the type of abuse that comes with being gay or trans gendered?
Moving on, why are black folks so willing to stand for something as long as it's a cause that they look good supporting? How can we be prejudiced against gays(and the trans gendered) and behave in a way so similar to the way we were treated by southern whites? Why are we so quick to believe that God hates Gays when not too long ago we were plagued by the Good God Fearing Christians of the Ku Klux Klan? Their message was that God hates any minority group; thus making them inferior and favors the whites as a people.
And why does God hate gays anyway? Because it says so in the Bible? It also says in the Bible that women should not wear the clothes of man; and there are whole churches of people who think it's a sin for women to wear pants as a result. Now common sense tells me that men were wearing robes (basically dresses) when this text was added to the Bible, so does that mean that women should change their fashion according to what the men are wearing at that time? Pants if men are in robes, dresses if men are in pants etc. So yes, it mentions an abomination against God, BUT it can be agreed upon that the Bible is several different accounts of what God and Jesus did, said, and basically wanted us to know. The problem is that it was written by men, and people can claim forever that these are true accounts but the bottom line is that anytime there is a human involved there must be a reserve of skepticism. How do we know that the person writing the book that references the abomination didn't just break up with his boyfriend, or was abused by his uncle Leo? My point is that once man puts their hands on something it becomes more human and less God-like.
Jesus preached love and acceptance, so why are there ministers who go bananas with the fire and brimstone bit? If God hates gays why did he create them in just about every species of animal on the planet? God cannot hate gays because he is God and lacks the ability to hate based upon that alone. Jesus cannot hate gays because he preached love and acceptance and those cannot exist where there is hate. The Bible reminds us to judge not yet we be judged, so who are we to condemn a whole group of people because your(or your pastor's or even the person who wrote it's) interpretation differed from what God and Jesus taught and showed time and time again.
I'll jump down off my soapbox now, even if you don't agree with gay and trans gendered people, even if you think that God hates them, does that make it okay for Lawrence King to have been exterminated? Even if you don't protest with silence today, please take a moment and think of Lawrence King and say a 5 second prayer, he was some one's baby and some one's friend.
----------------
Now playing: Mariah Carey - We Belong Together
via FoxyTunes
FYI: this post was brought to you by Morphine and Vicodin
And now it's time for the rant.
My beef is simple: how can a people who have been systematically oppressed and denied basic human rights, see fit to do everything in their power to Jim Crow another oppressed people?
I love to hear our people(black people) say that you cannot compare being gay or trans gendered to being black because the former are decisions rather than conditions that we cannot control. Don't front, I know everyone has at least that one person in the family who you knew was playing for the other team since they were a small child. This begs the question is a 4 or 5 year old capable of making a "choice" that will cause them to be persecuted for the rest of their lives?
To take it further who would "choose" the type of abuse that comes with being gay or trans gendered?
Moving on, why are black folks so willing to stand for something as long as it's a cause that they look good supporting? How can we be prejudiced against gays(and the trans gendered) and behave in a way so similar to the way we were treated by southern whites? Why are we so quick to believe that God hates Gays when not too long ago we were plagued by the Good God Fearing Christians of the Ku Klux Klan? Their message was that God hates any minority group; thus making them inferior and favors the whites as a people.
And why does God hate gays anyway? Because it says so in the Bible? It also says in the Bible that women should not wear the clothes of man; and there are whole churches of people who think it's a sin for women to wear pants as a result. Now common sense tells me that men were wearing robes (basically dresses) when this text was added to the Bible, so does that mean that women should change their fashion according to what the men are wearing at that time? Pants if men are in robes, dresses if men are in pants etc. So yes, it mentions an abomination against God, BUT it can be agreed upon that the Bible is several different accounts of what God and Jesus did, said, and basically wanted us to know. The problem is that it was written by men, and people can claim forever that these are true accounts but the bottom line is that anytime there is a human involved there must be a reserve of skepticism. How do we know that the person writing the book that references the abomination didn't just break up with his boyfriend, or was abused by his uncle Leo? My point is that once man puts their hands on something it becomes more human and less God-like.
Jesus preached love and acceptance, so why are there ministers who go bananas with the fire and brimstone bit? If God hates gays why did he create them in just about every species of animal on the planet? God cannot hate gays because he is God and lacks the ability to hate based upon that alone. Jesus cannot hate gays because he preached love and acceptance and those cannot exist where there is hate. The Bible reminds us to judge not yet we be judged, so who are we to condemn a whole group of people because your(or your pastor's or even the person who wrote it's) interpretation differed from what God and Jesus taught and showed time and time again.
I'll jump down off my soapbox now, even if you don't agree with gay and trans gendered people, even if you think that God hates them, does that make it okay for Lawrence King to have been exterminated? Even if you don't protest with silence today, please take a moment and think of Lawrence King and say a 5 second prayer, he was some one's baby and some one's friend.
----------------
Now playing: Mariah Carey - We Belong Together
via FoxyTunes
FYI: this post was brought to you by Morphine and Vicodin
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Spanking, a solution or an addition to the problem?
AverageBro.com addressed this issue and I feel it warrants some thought.
It's easy for parents opposed to spanking to justify not using corporal punishment. The reason I hear most often is that it is illegal to strike an adult so why should it be any less so for a child- who is unable to defend themselves? On the other hand you have the people who truly think it's their right to physically beat a child unconscious. The opposition says that spanking is encouraging our children to violence. The pro spankers say the the reason these children are shooting up their classmates, teachers and even their parents is that they never got that good country ass whooping. The anti side says that children should not fear their parents. The pro side says a good amount of fear is a healthy preventative. So who is wrong?
This is a question that every parent has to answer for themselves. I can only give you my rationale, and I don't claim to be the perfect parent with the perfect child.
To my way of thinking spanking is a powerful tool when used effectively. It should be the last resort, and used sparingly. Which begs the question how soon is too soon? At what age is spanking appropriate? My theory is when a child is able to recognize what you mean when you say "no," then they are capable of comprehending the lesson you're trying to teach them. Ex: If you tell a child "no" and they have the sense to get mad and go and hit someone else- they understand the concept. If you tell a child no and they repeat what you said with the same inflection and tone, they may not have it down completely. If a child has a vocabulary of more than 10 words and uses them in the appropriate context, they know what "no" means, unless of course they are never told "no." It really comes down to knowing your child but at the same time give the kid some credit, babies aren't stupid and neither are toddlers. Children's attention spans are short, if you see them sticking a fork into an electrical outlet and you tell them "no" and they do it again, the child is requiring some drastic action to make the connection between that fork, the outlet, and the word "no." And do you really want to run the risk of the child ignoring you and waking up in the middle of the night and doing it? Because on the chance that the child does manage to electrocute his or herself, who's the dumbass? I mean it can't be the child because they never learned the lesson, it's the person who failed to teach them that lesson in an effective manner. I'm not saying that you have to beat a child to get them to behave or follow directions. I'm saying if your methods aren't working you need to try something else before you end up with a bigger problem.
Last year there was a case where a family was kicked off of an airplane because their child was throwing a tantrum and would not sit down and as a result the plane was unable to take off. The parents were very angry that the airline removed them from the flight and claimed they were treated unfairly. There were 100 some odd other passengers who's flights were delayed while the parents allowed this child to have the run of the plane, so I think they were the ones who should be upset. Who knows how many connections were missed while these fools sat and watched their little girl disrupt the scheduled flight. The airline refunded their tickets, flew them home for free, AND offered them a free trip anywhere they wanted to go and these clowns went on national television whining that they would never fly with that air line again. Are we living in a dream world people? Frankly, these parents are lucky I don't work for the airline because they would have been charged for the inconvenience of the other passengers, they would have been paying for hotel rooms for all of the people who missed their connecting flights because of this incident and finally they would be banned from flying with my airline. I probably would have also sent their pictures to other airlines with a warning(similar to that bad check list some places have.) Maybe after all of that they would have understood the gravity of the situation. They were not the victims, they obviously allow the child to behave that way at home so why would they think that on a plane she would react differently. Here's the part they didn't tell you, this was not the child's first flight, they had flown to Florida a few days before without incident.
Now when this subject was brought up after it happened in a group that I am no longer a member of parents used excuses like, "well, there's nothing you can do when a child goes into a full blown tantrum" I have to call bullshit, why would you let your child get into a full blown tantrum in the first place. My daughter tried it once at around 2 years old- she didn't like my response and never did it again- plainly put I tagged her butt the first time and we never had a repeat performance. I think it all boils down to consistency. These parents obviously allowed the behavior at home and couldn't figure out how to rein it in on the plane. And the child really wasn't in the wrong, she was behaving the same way she does at home. How can she be expected to understand that when Mommy and Daddy said "stop it and sit down, " that they actually meant it, acting out the way she did got her what she wanted at home why wouldn't it work on the plane? This isn't just about spanking, had the parents consistently given her the same punishment regardless of what it was at home when she acted out she would've known not to do it on the plane. I think this is a mistake that many parents make, "I'll just let her do it this time," the problem comes in when Mommy isn't in the mood to deal with this same behavior she let slide yesterday- then the child is confused and I think this is probably how a lot if instances of child abuse begin. We as parents have to decide what we're going to put up with and if we decide to let it slide we have to be prepared for the days when we aren't going to want to hear the constant whining or begging after having said "no" three or four times. We have to hold ourselves accountable for the situations we set up for ourselves, don't be mad at the child because yesterday you told him no and then after 15 minutes of constant whining you gave it to him anyway. You're training the child to manipulate you, why get mad when they do it?
It's easy for parents opposed to spanking to justify not using corporal punishment. The reason I hear most often is that it is illegal to strike an adult so why should it be any less so for a child- who is unable to defend themselves? On the other hand you have the people who truly think it's their right to physically beat a child unconscious. The opposition says that spanking is encouraging our children to violence. The pro spankers say the the reason these children are shooting up their classmates, teachers and even their parents is that they never got that good country ass whooping. The anti side says that children should not fear their parents. The pro side says a good amount of fear is a healthy preventative. So who is wrong?
This is a question that every parent has to answer for themselves. I can only give you my rationale, and I don't claim to be the perfect parent with the perfect child.
To my way of thinking spanking is a powerful tool when used effectively. It should be the last resort, and used sparingly. Which begs the question how soon is too soon? At what age is spanking appropriate? My theory is when a child is able to recognize what you mean when you say "no," then they are capable of comprehending the lesson you're trying to teach them. Ex: If you tell a child "no" and they have the sense to get mad and go and hit someone else- they understand the concept. If you tell a child no and they repeat what you said with the same inflection and tone, they may not have it down completely. If a child has a vocabulary of more than 10 words and uses them in the appropriate context, they know what "no" means, unless of course they are never told "no." It really comes down to knowing your child but at the same time give the kid some credit, babies aren't stupid and neither are toddlers. Children's attention spans are short, if you see them sticking a fork into an electrical outlet and you tell them "no" and they do it again, the child is requiring some drastic action to make the connection between that fork, the outlet, and the word "no." And do you really want to run the risk of the child ignoring you and waking up in the middle of the night and doing it? Because on the chance that the child does manage to electrocute his or herself, who's the dumbass? I mean it can't be the child because they never learned the lesson, it's the person who failed to teach them that lesson in an effective manner. I'm not saying that you have to beat a child to get them to behave or follow directions. I'm saying if your methods aren't working you need to try something else before you end up with a bigger problem.
Last year there was a case where a family was kicked off of an airplane because their child was throwing a tantrum and would not sit down and as a result the plane was unable to take off. The parents were very angry that the airline removed them from the flight and claimed they were treated unfairly. There were 100 some odd other passengers who's flights were delayed while the parents allowed this child to have the run of the plane, so I think they were the ones who should be upset. Who knows how many connections were missed while these fools sat and watched their little girl disrupt the scheduled flight. The airline refunded their tickets, flew them home for free, AND offered them a free trip anywhere they wanted to go and these clowns went on national television whining that they would never fly with that air line again. Are we living in a dream world people? Frankly, these parents are lucky I don't work for the airline because they would have been charged for the inconvenience of the other passengers, they would have been paying for hotel rooms for all of the people who missed their connecting flights because of this incident and finally they would be banned from flying with my airline. I probably would have also sent their pictures to other airlines with a warning(similar to that bad check list some places have.) Maybe after all of that they would have understood the gravity of the situation. They were not the victims, they obviously allow the child to behave that way at home so why would they think that on a plane she would react differently. Here's the part they didn't tell you, this was not the child's first flight, they had flown to Florida a few days before without incident.
Now when this subject was brought up after it happened in a group that I am no longer a member of parents used excuses like, "well, there's nothing you can do when a child goes into a full blown tantrum" I have to call bullshit, why would you let your child get into a full blown tantrum in the first place. My daughter tried it once at around 2 years old- she didn't like my response and never did it again- plainly put I tagged her butt the first time and we never had a repeat performance. I think it all boils down to consistency. These parents obviously allowed the behavior at home and couldn't figure out how to rein it in on the plane. And the child really wasn't in the wrong, she was behaving the same way she does at home. How can she be expected to understand that when Mommy and Daddy said "stop it and sit down, " that they actually meant it, acting out the way she did got her what she wanted at home why wouldn't it work on the plane? This isn't just about spanking, had the parents consistently given her the same punishment regardless of what it was at home when she acted out she would've known not to do it on the plane. I think this is a mistake that many parents make, "I'll just let her do it this time," the problem comes in when Mommy isn't in the mood to deal with this same behavior she let slide yesterday- then the child is confused and I think this is probably how a lot if instances of child abuse begin. We as parents have to decide what we're going to put up with and if we decide to let it slide we have to be prepared for the days when we aren't going to want to hear the constant whining or begging after having said "no" three or four times. We have to hold ourselves accountable for the situations we set up for ourselves, don't be mad at the child because yesterday you told him no and then after 15 minutes of constant whining you gave it to him anyway. You're training the child to manipulate you, why get mad when they do it?
Greetings and Salutations
If you are reading this then I guess you've found me. I'm here blogging with 2 papers due tomorrow and another due Friday- the word of the day is procrastination. I guess I should explain the title of the blog... better yet just listen to the song that is all the explanation we should need.
I'll be checking in on a regular basis to chime in on the various things that happen in this crazy world that I feel moved to speak on. I can promise that many(of the 4 people that tune in) will disagree with me but I think that's at least half the point of blogging in the first place. So get comfortable, put on some good music and strap on your seat belts this should be an interesting ride.
----------------
Now playing: Stevie Wonder - As
via FoxyTunes
I'll be checking in on a regular basis to chime in on the various things that happen in this crazy world that I feel moved to speak on. I can promise that many(of the 4 people that tune in) will disagree with me but I think that's at least half the point of blogging in the first place. So get comfortable, put on some good music and strap on your seat belts this should be an interesting ride.
----------------
Now playing: Stevie Wonder - As
via FoxyTunes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
