Maybe They Really Just Don't Care About You

Sorry for the break in action everybody, but I was on vacation, and it was glorious. I went to Maui for two weeks, and I just have to say that you all need to set aside time to travel. I guess it's a lot easier for me since my job dictates that I have two weeks off at Christmas and two months of during the summer. But anyways, back to the topic. I'm sure you have all been inundated with video clips and audio clips about this Dr. Laura Schlessinger lady. Maybe many of you guys listen to her on a regular basis. And perhaps even more of you, for some reason, agree with what she says. But regardless of how you feel, is it really a surprise that this has happened?

For those of you guys who haven't heard, this Dr. Laura Schlessinger lady used the "n" word 11 times in a tirade, which I assume stemmed from her not being able to say it. However, she said it 11 times, which begs the question can white people really not say that word. I would argue that you can do anything you want, but you need to understand that everything has a consequence. I could go into a crowded movie theater and yell fire, but I'd have to accept being thrown in jail for public safety violations. I could go into a meeting consisting of all confederacy supporters and talk negatively about Jefferson Davis, but again I would have to face the consequences of my actions. The same goes with unassisted human flight and unaided breathing underwater. During her rant, she argued with several Black and African-American listeners of her show about their double standards in the use of that word. She then apologized and said that she was trying "bring awareness" to a situation that was divisive to American society.

With the increasing amount of people who I have heard state that racism is not a factor anymore, it's not really that surprising to me that these types of events have continued to happen. In these times, it seems that the only way you can get your message out is by making outrageous statements and then leave it up to the public to sort out the details. It's not really important to a lot of talk show hosts to be accurate in their statements. What's important is getting people to tune in so that they can make money on advertising. They don't really care about telling you the absolute truth because they assume that you will do your due diligence and research the information to see if it is accurate. I mean, that's what any rational, clear thinking American would do right. For example, when the birthers said that Obama was not born in America and then the Governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, verifies Obama's birth certificate as being valid and people still question his citizenship. Yet, people are still refusing to serve in the military and, to this day, continue to protest his presidency. This displays how clear thinking and rational our populace is...doesn't it? The problem is that too many people do not realize the fact that talk show hosts are merely doing their jobs. Their job is to get you to listen to them for three to four hours a day. They are not obligated to say anything truthful at all, and yet many people take the talk show host's word as gospel, because they are the professionals; and professionals would never mislead people intentionally...right?

So I guess my question again is, why is this surprising? Are we really surprised when Don Imus made his "Nappy Headed Hos" comment? Are we really surprised that he was back on the air 7 months after that comment was made and he was fired? Are we really surprised when Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity make their comments about people of color, people who are low socio-economic, and people who are homosexual? Are we really surprised when Fox News fabricates a story about an African-American woman who has dedicated her life to helping farmers of all races, making her seem like a racist to put pressure on the NAACP so that the NAACP will back off of it's demand that the Tea Party monitor and sanction some of it's racially motivated rhetoric? I don't find it surprising one bit. And I ask why is it that most of America is surprised when another story like this appears in the headlines. To be fair, I have to mention liberal talk show hosts who portray all conservatives as being only concerned with money and the fact that they don't want to spend a lot of their tax money on welfare issues as being evidence that they hate poor people.

I find two things offensive about this. First of all, I find it offensive that people like this continue to have jobs and make millions of dollars a year for perpetuating hateful messages that divide Americans. Second, I find it offensive that all of this hateful speech is excused when the person in question flippantly apologizes. It's like this is all you need to do, along side with saying that everything was just to bring awareness to an issue, after saying something completely insensitive and everything else is just people overreacting. I wonder why this still goes on and the only thing I can come up with is that maybe these people really don't care about you, or America for that matter. We, as a country, are wasting a lot of time focussing on the extremes of conservativism and liberalism. We all have things in the middle that a strong majority of us agree on. We all don't want to live with a trillion dollar deficit, but we also don't want to pay more in taxes. We want government to help us with jobs, but we all agree that government control over a lot of things is not desirable. We want the best schools in the world, but don't agree that that can be fixed without funding the total development of a student. Nor do we believe that government solutions (i.e. No Child Left Behind, Benchmark Testing, CST's, Charter Schools, Vouchers) will work for everyone in every community across our country. I challenge us all, as Americans, to focus on getting the things that we all agree on put into motion and make our country the unified, so that we can return to our stature in the world.

So here's what I think we should do. We need to monitor what we listen to. One cannot get offended if one does not listen to what they are saying. And one can't listen if one isn't tuned in. We need to stop giving all of these people who pass on racism and a divisive spirit a voice in our society. Stop listening to them. It really doesn't matter why you listen to someone, if they are spreading lies and hate, then stop listening to them. I have a friend that says they listen to some of these people for entertainment. How is it entertaining listening to hateful speech? How is it entertaining listening to lies and be deceived? If you don't listen, they don't get sponsors, and they cannot continue to do their show. Lastly, get informed. They can't trick you if you do your own research. Get both sides of the story, and stop being lemmings. Sorry if the truth of these talk show hosts not really caring about you or America offends you, but I'm just thinking out loud.

FML...WTF?

I was chatting with my cousin on facebook yesterday instead of doing any simbolence of work in my classroom. Now, let me start this off as saying that I consider myself to be a reasonably smart guy. Not the smartest by any means, but above average none the less. I think that I can figure out the majority of acronyms that have taken over text and chat conversations. She mentioned SMH, which I had never heard of before. This apparently stands for “Shaking My Head”…whatever. So I started thinking about all the other ones that are out there and the one that I really hate so see used, even more than the ever popular ROTFLMAO (because I’m pretty sure you’re not rolling on the floor because you’re still typing and it wasn’t that effing funny to begin with), is the FML acronym. I get that sometimes bad things happen, but I think that this younger generation doesn’t really understand what it means for their L to be F-ed. So I’m going to write a list of things that warrant the FML tag. Feel free to use these at anytime.

I just found out I got Herpes: FML. (Feel free to use any other incurable STD in place of Herpes)

Oh no, the condom broke: FML.

My best friend just died and he owed me $2000: FML

My car just got totaled and I just made the last payment yesterday: FML

I just got arrested for [insert felony here]: FML

Now, those are things that warrant the FML designation. Things that do not warrant the FML tag are things like this.

Oh, I forgot to pick up a loaf of bread while I was at the store: FML

I have a quiz in Biology and I didn’t study: FML

Oh no, Tracy told Barbara, who told Jesse, who told Tony, who told Jessica, that she doesn’t like my shirt: FML.

Now I’m not going to be one of those people that talk about, “Well, you haven’t lived long enough to know what a F-ed up life is.” That’s ridiculous, but I will say that you need to use a little more discernment (discernment-the ability to judge well) when using words. It’s kinda like that Alanis Morissette song Ironic. Now if you listen to the words you’d see that nothing in the song is actually ironic. I heard this comedian say that it is unfortunate, but nothing in the song is ironic at all. Just like when you use the term FML, I’m sure it’s unfortunate that all this stuff is happening at one time, but your life isn’t really FML status. So please, please, please find another acronym that better describes your life, or I will punch you in the face…in my mind. Sorry for the mellow blog today, but I’m just think out loud.

Why Do Women Do This?

So I have a friend that I’ve known for a while. She recently asked me what my perfect woman was. I responded that I don’t believe that there are any perfect women out there. So then she asked me what were the characteristics in a woman that I would tolerate. I responded that I never tolerate things for long. She then got frustrated and I had my good laugh for the day. It’s really fun to know what people want to know and then not give them the answer by giving them the answer they didn’t want to hear and can’t argue with. But I knew what she was doing. It’s that same trick that all women play on unsuspecting men. First thing they do is ask for you to describe something that you know doesn’t exist, like your perfect woman. Then they gripe at you. Telling you that the thing you described as being perfect, doesn’t exist and that you shouldn’t hold out for that. Telling you how unrealistic it is to have dreams of perfection and that you should lower your target…a lot. So I decided to play along. So I honestly described my perfect woman and then the second part happened.

So my question is, why do women do this? Is it a tactic to throw us guys off balance in an effort to keep control? Or is it absolutely involuntary and you women really don’t realize what you are doing? I find it frustrating having someone ask me about a situation that will never happen and then tell me that my goals are too high. If those were my goals, I definitely would move somewhere else where those situations were the majority, and then play to the fact that many women have lowered self-esteem. It’s the same exact reason why below average looking guys in L.A. have amazing looking girlfriends. Take into account that the hottest women from every area flock to L.A. to be a model or actress. So now you have a super-saturation of hotness in one area…self esteem is bound to be crushed. It’s like the perfect storm for self-esteem crushing. And all these little weasels are quick to scoop up the jaded youth or the broken down twenty-something.

So I’m not sure what the reasoning is, but I’m out here to let all the guys know what the deal is. I’ve seen too many of my friends fall for this one, and if you answer honestly without perceiving what is happening, then guys you will always lose this argument. Granted we “lose” every argument, but it’s a bait and switch. If this were business, ladies you’d all be thrown in jail. Sorry if I blew your cover ladies, but I’m just thinking out loud.

P.S. Ladies you don’t actually have to worry, because no guys read my blogs, so your secret is safe. At least until I write my book that no one will buy.

There's A Stalker At Starbuck's

Have you guys ever driven past a Starbuck’s and really looked at the people that work there. I mean, I get it that you can’t really get a good look by driving by, but since I don’t drink coffee, that’s the only way that I will see an employee of Starbuck’s. At first, I could have sworn that this one dude was following me around town. Every time I stopped in front of a Starbuck’s, he was there. I mean it was uncanny. I would have told my brother about this, but seeing how he uses everything I say against me as if it were a court of law, I decide to evoke my fif amendment privilege and not say anything until I had empirical evidence. So I had the good fortune of driving by two Starbuck’s today. I stopped in front of the first one and took a picture using my soon to be outdated iPhone 3GS that I purchased in January, only to find out in March that Apple had made 4G phone. On a side note, those a$$h0l3$ at the AT&T store on Hillsdale next to the Target and the 24 Hour Fitness have something coming to them because I specifically asked them when that f#(k!ng phone was coming out, and they said not for another year or so. Anyways, I took a picture of the dude that I feel has been working for the government to spy on me. It turns out that every Starbuck’s has this one grimey looking dude working there.

So I’m going to describe this guy, and you tell me if you’ve seen him. He’s about 5’8 and heavy set. He’s got a beard and a ponytail, or barely enough hair to be required to be pulled back. He usually wears a plaid shirt or a vintage (meaning faded and dirty looking) T and looks like he fulfills the minimum requirement in regards to hygiene in order to be in compliance with his job duties. Does this guy exist at your Starbuck’s, or is it only every single one in San Jose? It just seems like the one place where this guy can be accepted is at a Starbuck’s. I’m sure he has a nice personality and has really great customer service. He makes the experience of getting something with enough caffeine and sugar to give an elephant heart palpitations an experience to remember. Maybe I am just not familiar with the culture and am making an observation out of ignorance, which is definitely possible. But I ask myself, “Would I want this guy bringing me my enchiladas at Chevy’s or my rib eye at Tomato Thyme?” The answer is no.

So what am I getting at? I guess it’s that there are just some things that being kind and courteous don’t excuse. Bad hygiene being one. Ignorance being another. If you are going to work in a customer service industry, at least look like you’ve showered once this week. Regardless of how hot you think AC/DC, or lumber jacks, are; please make sure you look acceptable for you job. And lastly, Tomato Thyme is a restaurant in San Jose that has the best rib eye steak I’ve ever tasted. You all should check it out. Don’t believe me, try it…or don’t. If you are the guy that I’m talking about, or are dating him, and people start looking at you differently; don’t blame me, I’m just thinking out loud.

And I Was Told That Racism Was Dead...

What's up people? I know it's been a long time, I shouldn't have left you...but enough of the Timbaland/Aaliyah reference and back to the topic. And today's topic deals with racism. If the events that has transpired recently doesn't cause you to think, 'you know, maybe American Society really hasn't progressed as far as we think it has now that we have an African American President,' then I would like you guys to come help me pack up, because I'm leaving. So for those of you guys who are allergic to CNN, like my brother is (he breaks out in a nasty bout of hives, it's really quite disgusting...and funny), then you may have missed this story. So this lady, named Shirley Sherrod, used to work for the USDA helping out poor farmers. She started off helping black farmers who were having their farms taken away. I guess I should mention now that Ms. Sherrod is black. Sherrod was speaking at a gathering, of what I assumed was at a church, about an experience she had with the first white family she had helped. Someone posted some video of it and it seemed as if Sherrod was racist. So in light of this evidence, people took the most rational of approaches...they called for her resignation based on a youtube clip. Sherrod was fired and absolutely no further investigation was done. In fact, another lady stood up for Sherrod and suggested that people investigate this situation and she was fired. As in all stories like this one, we find out that the person who posted the video edited it and made it look like Sherrod was a racist. The complete video shows Sherrod using the story to tell people about how she overcame her initial reaction and saw that it wasn't a black farmer and a white farmer thing, it was a poor farmer thing. She goes on to state that we need to help everyone in a desperate situation, not just those we identify most with; because the struggle in this country isn't just about whites versus blacks, it's about poor versus rich. It also turns out that the person who posted the edited video was a member was on the conservative side of the political spectrum and the video was heavily trafficked on Fox News. Now I mention that to lead into my next point.

The back story on this, I feel, is that there's been a lot of beef between the Tea Party movement and the NAACP. The NAACP called out the Tea Party movement on a lot of the racist undertones, and overtones for that matter, going on at some of their gatherings. They are not saying that all members of the Tea Party are engaged in this behavior, but they are just asking for someone to step up and address this issue. The NAACP recognizes the Tea Party movement as being a political party that stands for fiscal responsibility and a reduced role of governmental control. They also recognize that there are blacks and african americans who are members of the Tea Party movement because they strongly believe in these ideals and identify with the movement. It makes it hard for these blacks and african americans to support a party that they believe in when they also feel that the party tolerates this kind of racist policy. After this issue was raised by the NAACP, the video of Sherrod pops up and all of a sudden Fox News and the Tea Party movement are pressuring the NAACP to put up or shut up. So the NAACP spoke up without investigating, eventually finding out that they were wrong. Instead of fessing up and saying they made a mistake, the said that they were "snookered". Who uses that word anymore? Basically saying that they were tricked and they didn't know what to do, so that caused them to act irrationally and not investigate the facts that people gave them. I have to give it up to Campbell Brown last night because she called the NAACP out on this point, if you can you have to watch it.

So here's my thing. First of all, I think we as Americans need to admit that there is still discrimination out there in the world. We need to realize that people are still discriminated against because of the color of their skin and the birthplace of their ancestors, amongst other things. We need to eliminate that by challenging the validity of the old way of thinking by our parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on. We can no longer accept this as being "snookered" or making a mistake, or whatever other reasons we can come up with to justify our continuing to think this way. Second, we need to hold these people who willfully manipulate evidence for the political gain accountable. This guy, or gal, who intentionally doctored this video and slandered Sherrod needs to be punished so that no one else will ever think of doing this again. It can't be enough to read, "I'm truly sorry for my transgressions and vow to never do this again." from a page and that be acceptable. Everyone who was involved with this (reporters, organizers, conspirators, everyone) needs to be held accountable. Third, we need to slow down and think about our response. We need to allow time for investigations to happen. We can't call ourselves an enlightened society if we continue to act in a reactionary, knee-jerk, impulsive nature. I remember getting into a discussion with someone who told me that racism wasn't a factor in our society anymore. I responded by saying it's still there, it's just more sophisticated. I really hate being right so much, because most of the stuff I'm right about I pray that I will be wrong.

I hope my conservative friends don't feel like I'm blaming them for this, because I don't. I blame people who put political power over humanity. I think that most of us feel the same on almost every issue. I think that people don't want the government telling them what health care coverage they need to buy just like most women don't like the government telling them what to do with their bodies. Same issue, different point of view. We just need to put humanity before our political allegiances. Sorry if I ruined your racial utopia, but I'm just thinking out loud.

Transparency Promised...Transparency Received???

What's up everybody? I know that one of you three are going to say, wow two blogs in a day. You can calm down, because I'm not that prolific of a writer yet, but look out for my book to be released in about a year about nothing important. We'll see how that sells. I figure that if I can sell two on my own, then I'm big time and I might just have a future. But until then, I'll stick to what I do best...pretending to be a trombone player on tv...not even sure I'm good at that. Anyways, just wanted to talk about transparency. Spelled tee, are, eh, in, ess, pee, eh, are, ea, in see, why...transparency. The dictionary on my computer, which claims to be the Oxford American Dictionary, defines transparency as the condition of being transparent. Thanks dictionary for being so clear in your definition by defining the word with another condition of the word I'm trying to define. So the dictionary defines transparent as:

1. allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen
2. easy to perceive or detect
3. having thoughts, feelings, or motives that are easily perceived
4. (of an organization or its activities) open to public scrutiny

Now of these four I believe the fourth one deals with what I'm looking to talk about today.

So how many people remember the 2008 presidential elections where the American People elected the first African American President. Now I know there's gonna be a couple of people asking for birth certificates and everything, but let's just get past some things ok. Anyways, remember when candidate Obama promised transparency. And here we are 1.5 years into his presidency and we haven't seen a change in the process that the president goes through as far as making and implementing policy. Well I really didn't expect that to change because of, as I wrote in my last blog, there's just some stuff we don't need to know. And it would actually make us less safe if we knew them.

But I can tell you that there has been transparency. Please don't think that I'm trying to make excuses for Obama's shortcomings, I'm not. I realized politics was a job a long time ago. What better job to have than one that you can only do for a maximum of 8 years, get paid $200,000 a year, get a free house for that time, and continue to get paid your salary after your done. That's the job I want. "Alright Kenny, we're going to pay you $75,000 a year, you can only teach music for 8 years, and after that you can't do it any more. But don't worry, we'll still pay you for not teaching until you die." I think I'd be all over that, after I made sure they weren't going to kill me at the end of eight years...sounds a little too "Logan's Run"-ish to me. Back to transparency. One thing that has become EXTREMELY transparent is the process that our democracy takes to ensure that we remain the "Best Nation in the World". It's like they take an issue, let's say Best California Bay Area City, and half of them will say San Francisco. Since that one half said San Francisco, the other side has to say something completely opposite like San Jose. And the reality is more likely that it's somewhere in the middle like Mountain View, Palo Alto, or Los Altos. The reason for this is that the best result is usually somewhere in the middle. These cities would be better because they have equal access to both environments. San Francisco is 20-30 minutes away, which is coincidently how long it takes for a buzz to turn into completely drunk after slamming that drink between last call and closing, and close enough to all the high paying jobs in San Jose without any of the side effects of overpopulation and crime.

This is the same situation our political system is in. Our political parties hold on to an antiquated ideal system that served us well when our country was, no pun intended, black and white. We have a more complex society which begs for a more sophisticated governing style, system of ideals, and view of ourselves as a nation of states, not as a conglomerate of nations...which was the original plan for the United States of America. Which is why we have this huge divide over state and federal rights. That's because the United States of America was not intended to be one country with fifty states. It was supposed to be fifty countries with rules to manage how all the countries would interact with each other. But we need to understand how our country has changed from the original designs of our forefathers and evolved into this thing that no one could have even thought of back 200 years ago, before we can fix our government and make it more effective for our future.

So has President Barack Obama given us the transparency he promised us? Probably not, I would say definitely not. But he has given us transparency. Whether he, or any other politician for that matter, wanted us to see or not; we have been granted transparency to the facade of the political process. The hypocrisy of finger pointing, when they know good and well they are doing the same thing. The back room deals and the special interests. That old adage about one finger pointing at someone and three pointing back at yourself is really the case politicians. In an age where everyone is about 10 internet searches away from their darkest secrets being exposed, you think they would be a little more worried about not drawing attention to themselves. Just an observation. Sorry if all my black friends think that I'm a sell-out now that I said something bad about Obama. I think he has a rough job, which is why I don't want it. So don't take this the wrong way, I'm just thinking out loud.

Can't We All Just Get Along...Seriously Women Democratic Leaders, Can't We???--From Thursday

I was perusing CNN.com this afternoon, and came across an article dealing with spies. I got excited, because I think when everyone was wanting to be firemen and police officers, I'm pretty sure I really wanted to be a spy. Not only that, but I love watching James Bond and the Bourne Series, so I was like, "Yay!!!". I read the article and found out that it was nothing like I expected it to be. I thought that there was going to be intel about how someone can become a spy. Instead of the exciting $#!t, it was about how the Senate, Diane Feinstein, is holding up the nomination of the guy to take over all the spies because the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is holding up the bill to reform how spies do their jobs and requiring the President to tell all of congress, not just the "Gang of Eight" about what the covert actions are for, what covert actions are taking place, and how they are going to take place. Now that I look at it, it sounds pretty cool. I know it seems all convoluted and stuff, but I'll start from the beginning.

So I guess that the way things work now is that the president only has to tell 8 people about what he is planning on doing as far as covert operations go. I mean he does have the choice of telling everybody about our top secret plans, but we know how well politicians keep their secrets nowadays...anyone want to go to Argentina...err I mean hike the Appalachian Trail...Nobody...Ok, I'll just go by myself, again. And by tell, I mean kinda hint at. And by hint at, I mean he really doesn't have to say anything. He can call a meeting with the "Gang of Eight" (that sounds so cool) and say, "Hey Gang, I call this meeting to order to tell you that we're gonna do some stuff to some people. Meeting adjourned." And they'd be like, "Ok boss, thanks for the heads up." For all who don't agree with this, or any of you who thinks that this is wrong, please remember that George Bush had this power for 8 years, and a huge majority of his meetings were with the "Gang of Eight" and so just bite your tongue on this one, cuz you got nothing to say...especially since you didn't speak up 6 years ago. But they were enhanced interrogation techniques, not torture...sure they were, now go away.

So Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat from California, wrote a bill wanting this to change. I guess she feels out of the loop and kinda pissed cuz no one trusts her with secrets. However, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, has held up the bill. I'm guessing cuz she knows that Senator Feinstein can't keep a secret to save her life. So what Senator Feinstein has done is held up the guy who will be in charge of all of our intelligence operations, spy $#!t, from being approved (and just when I feel that there's nothing less productive than black on black crime). Is everybody up to speed now?

So here are my issues with this. First of all, as someone who executes several covert operations all the time, I have found that as awesome as a "Gang of Eight" might be, eight people knowing a secret is about 7 1/2 people too many. And when it comes to government secrets and covert operations, I don't know if I want all of congress to know about that stuff. I mean let's look at it this way, how many people are there in the House of Representatives alone? 435. Are you telling me that a terrorist cell couldn't kidnap one, or more, of the 435 congress people and torture them for the information. Like one from South Dakota, that would be pretty easy I think and now we have terrorists knowing everything. Secondly, why would everyone need to know. As awesome as Al Franken was on Saturday Night Live, I don't know if I want him to know detailed information on secret military operations; nor do I think he needs, or even wants, to know. Lastly, a major part of this bill will require spies to legally justify the methods that they are using to get information. Now, I guess it kinda makes sense as far as water boarding is concerned. But on the real, I don't think I really care so much about spies water boarding other spies to get information. That's what makes a job as being a spy cool. But let's say the spy is married and he had to sleep with some secretary to get access, how do you legally defend marital infidelity? It was in the interests of national security. I'm sorry if it hurt you, but look, baby, we caught Bin Laden. And this situation happens all the time according to James Bo...I mean the classified training videos I've watched.

Ultimately, I guess it comes down to this. There's just some things we don't need to know. I mean, I would love to know what spies have done. I have a buddy, who's got a brother, that is married to this girl, who has a nephew that is special forces. And I would love to know what he does, but I can't cuz I might get kidnapped and tortured, by our military. As long as spies are doing cool stuff, let them do it and give geeks, like myself, something to aspire to and lie to women about. So Senator Feinstein and Speaker Pelosi, get over yourselves and get my friend a job that pays some money. Sorry if I've spoken ill of your political role models ladies, but don't blame me, I'm just thinking out loud..

Have I Really Been Wrong for the Last 26 Years???

I know what my brother is going to say, "Finally, he admits it!!!" But as I like to do so often I'm going to shatter his dreams and say, "No B, I'm never wrong. Except for when I am, then I admit I'm wrong and that makes me right." So I'm laying in my bed and I'm pondering about that good old phrase...no not that one, but often times three are better than two, Makes me wish I had a third hand...name that movie. But the phrase, "If it feels good, do it." Now, I guess this isn't something that most people have to think too intensely about. But if you know me at all, you know two things. The first thing is that I think too intensely about everything. The second thing is that I don't follow that rule. The reason why I don't follow it is that I've been programmed to think that there is a right way and a wrong way, a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do. Very rarely is there a gray, or grey (lack of a red squiggly line tells me that I spelled them correctly, gotta love those Brits), area. So now back to the quote. Is it that there is always a right ro a wrong? Or is it that there are only justifications, or as I like to call them excuses, about a decision that a person has made? Hmmm...I know kinda deep for 1:00 in the am, but that's what happens when I get to take a nape for three hours. Man, the Spanish know what they're doing, but I digress. I'm going to try something out this summer, and we'll see how it turns out at the end of the summer. I'm going to do what feels right and see what the results get me. I know that two of the three people that read my blogs are going to be like, "Yay, he's not going to overthink everything anymore!!!" And the third will be like, "I knew this guy was a dork." I mean there's got to be something to a phrase like that simply because I've never heard anyone who's lived like that complain about their awesome experiences. You can all relax, because I'm not going to start doing cocaine, heroine, or meth; but I'm just going to live a lot more and not be so concerned about the consequences. Because you only live once right...unless there's something to that reincarnation thing. In which case, I'd want to make sure that I enjoyed myself as a human. Because I don't want to live this life and come back as a cow. That just doesn't seem like you were winning the race of life. "Congratulations Kenny, you've lived a great life and helped thousands of people! We give you the privilege of coming back as a cow!!!" And the crowd goes wild...yay...Sorry if my Hindu and Buddhist friends are offended by this, but I'm just thinking out loud.

Really America, I thought we were beyond this...Part 2

What's up everybody, I hope all two of you enjoyed my last blog. I went back and read my othre blogs. Other than the one about Proposition 8, I thought all the other ones were pretty funny and silly. I also understand that both of you may have thought that I made up the story in my last blog. I would like to assure you that I'm not that creative, the story is completely true. I only changed the name of my assistant principal. So I guess today I want to get back into another thing that makes me angry, sorry bro. Today we are going to talk about people who are angry about illegal immigration. This has been on my mind since a friend of mine began posting comments on her Facebook page. A huge discussion grew from that, which resulted in hurt feelings and strained relationships.

So this friend I have is also a teacher. She has been having a discussion with a couple of friends about the immigration "reform" law that was passed in Arizona. In short, this law gives police officers the authority to ask any citizen tat it suspects of being an illegal immigrant for documentation to prove that they are a legal citizen of the United States of America. Not only that, but any city that is suspected of not enforcing these rules can be sued. From what I hear, documentation is either a US Passport, US Birth Certificate, or immigration papers that show you are a legalized citizen. I actually tried to verify the requirements to prove citizenship but couldn't find any, so if anyone could point me to information about that, it would be much appreciated. As a result of the conversation, a thought popped into my head. I'm wondering how does a person tell the difference between an illegal immigrant from Canada and an American citizen of Caucasian or European American decent. I mean it's hard enough to tell Irish Americans from Welsh Americans apart. But to require police to tell the difference without advanced training in linguistics and behavorioral patterns of Canadians in contrast with the American citizens from towns and cities near the Canadian border is ridiculous. Talk about a losing battle. And this is only one example, we haven't even discussed any of the 50 or so countries in Europe. Eventually, what's going to happen is that all people of European decent will be profiled in an attempt to keep their cities and towns from being sued. If I were of European decent, I would be outraged that this is actually law. Simply because of the color of your skin, you are going to start being asked if you're a citizen. Not only that, if you don't have your documentation handy, you will be incarcerated for three days. If you still cannot get your documentation while you are in jail in those three days, you will be deported. So good luck to all of you in Arizona, you're gonna need it.

So I guess that what I was saying isn't exactly true because we all know that the only illegal immigrants we have in the United States are Hispanic or Latino, right? I mean, even my students are saying things like, "it's hard to tel a Canadian illegal immigrant from an American citizen." Then I look at my hand and aske them to define an American citizen. ***for those who don't know, I'm Black*** He said us. I then looked and said it's pretty easy to tell a Canadian immigrant from myself or Raphael, who is an American citizen also. So I guess that what we have here are two different issues.

The first issue is our definition of an American citizen. I would argue that just as it is hard to distinguish a Hispanic or Latino American from an illegal immigrant from Latin America, South America, or the Caribbean Islands; it is equally as hard to distinguish a European or Canadian American from an illegal immigrant from any of these regions. The problem is that most Americans identify only Americans of European decent as being American, along with the occasional Black or African American. There's not that many people who see Latino, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, African or Middle Eastern as being American citizens or naturalized citizens. The mindset is that these aforementioned ethnicities are seen as being illegal immigrants. This is where the real profiling comes into play. I doubt that anyone in Arizona that is White will worry about being asked to show documentation. If I were a European illegal immigrant, I'd flock to Arizona. Why? Because I would look like everyone else, and this bill is obviously targeted toward Hispanic and Latino cultures. This is the reason everyone is shouting out about securing our borders. In Arizona, the only border this border is between Mexico and Arizona.

The second issue deals with how this is being done. Again, we have a situation where the law is being manipulated to target and discriminate against a culture of people. Now, it might be said to be "consistent" with the Federal laws, however, I'm sure the enforcement will not be equal under the laws. I'm willing to bet that the only people who appear to be engaging of "suspicious" behavior will be those who are Latino or Hispanic. I would also like to know what are suspicious behaviors that the law enforcement professionals will be looking for. That would be interesting to see put in a newspaper article or a blog.

If I were a citizen of Arizona, I would be upset. There are many far reaching implications from this bill that I don't think many people talk about.

• First, it opens your town up for inevitable lawsuits. Either cities are going to be sued for harassment of it's citizens or cities are going to be sued for not upholding the law. The result is going to be that if anyone in the city does not have their birth certificate with them, they will be arrested. If they arrest enough people, either the citizens will move out of Arizona, or they will sue for harassment. Or on the flip side, the cities aren't going to enforce the law, which will allow them to get sued.
  
• Second, if they actually uphold the law, the economy will falter. This will occur when people actually start being thrown in jail for not having identification. People will not be able to show up for work because they will either be detained or deported. I guarantee that trucks will stop driving through Arizona if the law starts to be enforced. People will move from Arizona in order to find a place where they will not have the possibility to be harassed every time they go to a restaurant, the store, gas stations, to pick up their kids.
• Third, eventually they will not be able to house all of the detainees who do not have proper documentation. Arizona will run out of jail space, or they will have to spend more money building jails.
• Lastly, what do you do when a mother has her birth certificate, but she doesn't have the birth certificates of her children. Do you arrest and detain the children? What if their house burns down and everything was destroyed, do you deport the children if they can't produce documentation in three days? Where do you deport people who are US citizens, but can't produce documentation while being incarcerated? Just some questions I have.

So here's my advice. Repeal the law. I understand that many people feel that illegal immigration is wrong. Don't believe me, ask the American Indian tribes how they feel about the issue. I'm sure they've got a little bit of historical insight on the subject. I bet in retrospect, the American Indian tribes would have poisoned the corn on that first thanksgiving, knowing what they know now...I'm just kidding, I'm sure they're exstatic at how things have turned out. In all seriousness though, there are better and more effective ways to deal with this issue. We can't react out of frustration because that never ends well. If the law isn't repealed, I would just start filing lawsuits, because this law is really unenforceble due to to the breadth and scope the nature of illegal immigration. The shear number of lawsuits and the cost for defense will financially hurt Arizona, especially it being in the middle of a recession. So figure it out law professors, it can't be that hard. This isn't be being angry or militant, I'm just thinking out loud.

Something new...

So my brother is like the only person I know that reads my blog. He told me that all I talk about is political stuff and I seem angry all the time. So I'm gonna try to do something apolitical...is that a word? If it's not, at least it's spelled correctly. Anyways, I work at a middle school and a high school teaching a subject that everyone thinks is important, but everyone thinks is easy to teach. Sometimes I make to the front office while there are parents there. This week we are having people sign their elementary students up to shadow a student so that they can see what the school is like, and what teachers are like and what not. Today, a mom dropped off her 5th grade girls. The conversation went like this; the names have been changed to protect my job.

Mr. Williams walked into the middle school office to ask for a stamp. Mom of two
elementary school daughters walks into the office. Mr. Williams' back is to the mom.

Mom: I'm looking for Miss Gates.

Miss Gates: Oh I'm Miss Gates, how can I help you?

Mom: I need to sign my daughters up for that shadowing thing.

Mr. Williams ears perk up as he realizes that something absurd is about to follow.

Miss Gates: Oh no problem, what are your daughters names?

Mom: Alize and Cristal.
And Scene

I'm not sure what possess parents to name your kids after alcohol, but I'm pretty sure that everyone else looks at you with two assumptions. Assumption #1, you're not very intelligent or original. In plain people's speak, you're low-class. I'm sorry if I offend people with this one, but you brought it on yourselves. Out of all the things that you have control over when bringing a baby into the world, names are pretty much it. You can't control whether your kid will be smart, funny, athletic, charismatic, disabled, healthy, or tall. But you can control what people call your child, at least until your child is 18 and they decide the name you chose doesn't fit in with their persona. I get that Alize and Cristal may seem exotic, but people don't think of exotic places when they hear these names. People think of dark bars, shady old creepers, and Ben Roethlisberger, all things you should run away from. People do not think of high society, white parties, and yachting. Assumption 2#, that these are the beverages that you were drinking immediately before and/or during conception of your children. Fair or unfair, it's probably closer to the truth. A person can't say that they planned on having a kid and always dreamed of naming their kids after alcohol. If that was your plan, then I say you failed a long, long time ago. Regardless of whether or not you planned on having a baby, you should realize that naming your child should take a little more research than walking down the liquor aisle at your local grocery store. And if it does, you should at least have the fortitude to make it past the C's.

So check it, the one thing that you can control as a parent is what your child will probably be called for the rest of their lives. Give them a name that will give them the greatest opportunity to be successful in a range of occupations. You've gotta plan for the future. Because the only opportunities that you are giving your children is a future in dancing, and that's not the exposure you want for them. So take it or leave it, but I'm just thinking out loud.

P.S. There was a third girl who was in like second or third grade. What do you name the third daughter, if your first two are Alize and Cristal? Here's what we got so far:

1. Corona
2. Stella Artois
3. Margarita
4. Frangelico
5. Skyy
   

Really America, I thought we were beyond this...

One thing that tics me off is how uneducated people are about the facts. People in our country, for the most part, believe most of what they hear...wholeheartedly, without any personal investigation or questioning. For example, we here in California had a constitutional amendment that changed wording to include language that recognized marriage as being "between a man and a woman." Now I'm not exactly sure what it was changed from, but I'm pretty sure it said two persons or two people, hence the "need" for a change. Now, all religious sentiment aside, what the passing of the amendment did was take away the rights of millions of people in our state, which is fundamentally wrong. I have two arguments for this (I know some of you are thinking, "only two" but it's about quality, not quantity):

• First, if people are saying that marriage is a "religious" institution, then all marriages granted by the State of California should be rendered null and void. Due to separation of church and state, the state of California cannot issue something that is religious in nature. This means that everyone with a California "Marriage" License is not married, all children born to couples with marriage licenses are now born out of wedlock, all men who are paying alimony (and women paying palimony) do not have to pay anymore (in fact, all monetary awards should be paid back since the contract was invalid), and all Christians who have a state marriage license (not a church marriage license) have been living in sin for however long they've been married.
• Second, if it is not a "religious" institution, then we can't use religion as a means to keep people from having the same state and federal rights as everyone else. If we believe that "all men are created equal" includes men and women of different ethnicities, cultures, religions, creeds, and so on, then we fundamentally believe that the state institution of marriage has constitutional bounds to everyone, including same sex couples. I'm not saying you have to be in favor of same sex relationships, but you have to give people the right to do what the constitution protects for all Americans. If you are Christian, you know that your belief has to be a choice, your own free will. The Bible emphasizes FAITH in God and Jesus, being the Son of God, who died on the cross for your sins, is what "saves" you from an eternity of damnation. I met someone who told me, "But it [not being homosexual] is the right way to live and we need to make sure that people live their lives the right [Christian] way." My response to this was that if you are making it a requirement to live a Christian lifestyle, then you are damning millions of people to hell. Follow me for a minute; if you require people to live a Christian lifestyle, then you are taking away their free choice, which is the foundation upon what faith is based on. If you take away their free choice, they are not living the Christian lifestyle through faith; they are doing it because it's required. This, in all actuality, makes it so that faith is removed from the equation. "And without faith it impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and the he rewards those who earnestly seek Him." If people are being required by the law of man to live this way, then can they earnestly seek God through faith?

So what is a major reason that people voted to take away the rights of a whole culture of Americans, thus violating their civil rights? I say fear. People are so scared of things that are foreign to them. I guess it's the closest thing to a reflex we have. It's funny how these fears change as generations progress. Let's go back a mere 50 years ago, I mean we could go back further, but I don't want to wake up my history teacher friends for verification. So 50 years ago Black people did not have the same rights as everyone else. I think the main fear was that people didn't understand black culture and didn't know what would happen. You saw a huge negative attitude toward interracial dating and "fraternization" with people of Black American and African American decent. People were afraid of their children showing characteristics of a culture they didn't understand. Eventually, through acculturation led in the music and sports industry, it became understood and generally accepted by mainstream cultures. We can trace the same attitude toward any culture that is Fox News or CNN.

I had a friend, I don't think we're much of friends anymore...mostly my choice, who said the reason they supported Proposition 8 was because she did not want homosexuality taught in schools. Before we get into the obvious response, let's continue with the conversation. She said that even though her teacher friend had already informed her homosexuality was taught in schools, she still voted on legislation to keep homosexuality from being taught in school.. Now, I sat there and listened to her make this nonsensical argument to me and couldn't believe what she was saying. First of all, if your reasoning was to keep homosexuality from being taught in schools, then you should make a proposition that deals with curriculum, or talk to the CDE (California Department of Education), or talk to your superintendent. You don't change the constitution and support discrimination in order to keep homosexuality from being taught in schools. Second of all, if homsexuality is already taught in schools, it seems a little BASS ACKWARDS to pass a propostion to keep something that's already happening from happening.

So now we have a culture of people who are homosexual that are being denied the same rights as I was given as a result of my ancestors and their friends fighting and giving up their lives and futures for. Friends of all races, nationalities, creeds, religions, sexual orientation, and ethnicities. Am I saying that what Black and African Americans have gone through since slavery is the same as what same sex couples are going through nowadays? In a word, NO! I am not saying that. All I am doing is stating that the denial of "inalienable" rights is still prevalent in today's America as it was back in Benjamin Franklin's America, if not more so. It has just become more sophisticated, subversive, and devious. Sorry if I've offended people, but I'm just thinking out loud.

People who cannot spell

What's up everybody, I guess I'm going to start blogging a little bit more frequently, I hope you don't mind it. Why should you mind, it's not like any of you read this anyway...which begs the question why am I writing? I don't know, but today I want to vent about people who cannot spell. I actually started this yesterday, but due to some physical complications I didn't finish it. The complication was that my body wanted to sleep and instead of fighting with it, I let it win this time. To continue, I find it hard to believe that everyone in this day and age does not have a computer that will put a red line under every misspelled word. Since this is the case, about 73.283994029% of Americans must be color blind to red on white. I find it hard to believe that with technology where it is, that so many people still misspell words. Everything has a spell check (and if it doesn't, learn how to spell or type everything into MS Word or Pages or something), so either we are the laziest group of people in the world (because we won't move the little pointer to the symbol that checks our spelling and grammar), or we are the stupidest group of people in the world (because we can't spell and we can't figure out what the thing that says "ABC✓" means). Someone please tell me why it is impossible for people to put an apostrophe, one of these thingies ', for a possessive noun or when omitting letters from words or numbers. And how come we no longer know the difference between your and you're and use the previous for both instances. I don't think it's coincidence that we are last amongst the world's educated and why we import people to perform jobs, or outsource the jobs to people, for customer service. I know we all want to say it's for cheaper labor, but you have to admit that command of the English language, more specifically the American dialect, is necessary. Looking at the writing of a majority of our citizens, especially our young people, we are not even close to the level of others who are learning our dialect as a second or third language.

Does technology make all things better...

This blog comes to you as a result of the movie clash of the titans. I was having a conversation with a guy I know named Smartie Artie. Now Smartie and I had a conversation about whether or not the new 3-d technology is worth it. I say no because it hurts my head. I find that my brain wants to focus on something off in the distance, but I can't because it's shot blurry. So my brain works hard at trying to focus something unfocussable (is that a word). His argument was that it will take a while for directors to figure out how to do it so that's why it's cool. Also, just the fact that it's new technology automatically makes the experience better. So with Easter just passed, let me ask this question: Do peeps enhance the spirit of Easter, simply because it utilizes 'new' technology as opposed to chocolate bunnies and painted boiled eggs? I don't think so, nor do I think the new 3-d technology makes a crappy movie less crappier. I do however think that attractive women make a crappy movie more tolerable. So in short, if you like looking at attractive people fight an epic mythological story, go see this movie. If you like a little bit of a plot, watch Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief...or don't, but this is just me thinking out loud.

I think the rest of the world is just sitting back and laughing!!!

So this morning, on my work, I was listening to this station on XM called POTUS. This is a non-partison station that I think does a great job of just playing audio without putting a spin on it. I recommend it for everyone. So they were playing a question and answer session with the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. Now before I start getting labeled as a Socialist, just hear me out. They asked him what he thought of President Obama and the passage of health care. He said that he was happy to see Obama have is legislation pushed through. It sounded as if he was going to be political about the whole situation, but then he added something that I take as "politician code". He said that all of Europe has found the fact that we Americans have been having an intense debate about whether or not everyone should have health care "intriguing". Now I guess this might not mean much to you, but I've had my actions described as "intriguing" and "interesting", which really means comical or peculiar. Basically the President of France says that Europe is laughing at us because we are actually fighting over this.

So here's what I suggest:

1) I think we should realize that we pay for poor peoples health care anyway. Whenever someone goes to the emergency room without any money, we tax payers pay for that. Now it is cheaper to keep people healthy versus to pay for emergency procedures, just as it is cheaper to get regular oil changes for your car versus replacing the engine when it blows up.

2)I think we should realize that things are cheaper when you buy in bulk. I call this one the CostCo Philosophy. When you are taking a trip to Dismaland...I mean Disneyland by yourself and the hotel costs $300, then you are solely responsible for the cost of the hotel room. However, if you take multiple people, then the cost is cheaper. The bigger the pool of people buying insurance, the lower the cost for everyone.

3)I think that we should start holding these congressmen...congresspeople...congresspersons...these people in congress more accountable. Because until we do that, all we have are a bunch of old people who don't really think the way we do. So get educated, find a news outlet that gives you unbiased information and presents both sides of the argument and make your own decisions. Sorry to get all political and stuff, but I'm just thinking out loud.