Ignorance is Bliss

Have you ever learned something that you immediately wished you could forget?

Some tidbit of information that changes your entire view of a situation? My best friend and I often joke that when women meet men they should keep information about their past to themselves no matter how much a man may beg and plead for the dirt. Both of us can remember times when we've developed feelings for a woman only to have her let some nugget about her past drop in casual conversation that causes a terrible sinking feeling in our guts. When this happens it's hard not to wonder if the woman's whole persona, or rather the persona we created for her, is based on a series of lies and fabrications.

You can never unlearn the truth.

I thought about that recently while reading a book by Douglas Blackmon called "Slavery by Another Name" on how de-facto slavery continued in America long after the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War. I'm just beginning the book, but already I've learned stuff that's made it hard for me to see the world in the same light. How many northern conglomerates, like U.S. Steel, were built on the backs of black men sold into indentured servitude because they happened to be walking down the wrong street on the wrong day? Not only did black folks have to contend with widespread domestic terrorism in the form of the KKK and other groups, but now I learn that they had to deal with the disappearance of loved ones who spent some of their most productive working years slaving in dark coal mines to re-build the Southern economy that was decimated by the war that granted them their freedom.

Can you imagine that existence?

The book's author notes that many black people have contacted him and thanked him for providing them with a reason for the slow march of progress in the black community in the decades following Reconstruction. For them, there was always the hidden fear that all the lies told about black people's inherent inferiority were somehow true, and the proof was in our failure to advance once the slaveowner's manacles were loosed. In his book, Blackmon reveals that those manacles were actually in place up until World War II in a variety of forms.

The thing is, while it's good to learn these types of stories because it fleshes out my understanding of the lives my ancestors lived, it is still jarring. It's tough to know that authorities used crimes like vagrancy, or loud talking, or curfew violations to imprison black people, and then tacked on unfair fines to force them back into slavery. I wasn't ignorant about the venal nature of humans, but I was still shocked that I could live so long in this country and never really understand just how widespread and longstanding this practice once was.

More importantly, it has some uncomfortable similarities to our current prison system. I can't help but notice which crimes black prisoners are overwhelmingly incarcerated for, and how their bodies are used once they are imprisoned. I can't help but see the connection between vagrancy and loud talking and crack possession and three strikes laws.

Sadly, it's obvious that while some of the surface details have changed, the mindset and underlying aims of the power structure has not. I always suspected, but with this new information it's just been confirmed as truth.

And sometimes the truth doesn't set you free, it just weighs you down.





Share

Validation

One the most consistent arguments my wife and I have is about validation.

I readily admit that I'm a fairly self-absorbed and confident man. I'm not oblivious to other people, nor am I always sure of myself, but for the most part, those traits are a big part of my personality. I've been called arrogant and obnoxious on occasion, and honestly, those comments have been accurate.

My wife is not like that.

Most folks see my wife as the quiet, sensitive one in our relationship, and to a degree, they are right. More importantly, while my wife has confidence in some areas, she still often seeks my validation for her decision making and choices, something I rarely do. Sure, I discuss big issues with my wife before I make decisions, but I don't constantly seek her thoughts or feelings on how I'm living my life. For my wife, consensus is important, to me, not so much.

I was reminded of our different thoughts on consensus when I read this article on the NY Times website. The article speaks about fashion websites where folks can go for a real-time critique of their outfits before they cross their doorstep, but it also speaks to something else in my opinion. It points to some human beings overwhelming need for validation.

Look, no one is immune to peer pressure. We all succumb on a regular basis to behaving in a particular manner to maintain our status in certain communities. Anybody who says anything different is a freaking liar. But, some of us go further than others, and some of us crave validation like its emotional crack.

We need people to tell us we're doing well, looking well and living well. We don't trust our own impulses and instincts, even as we all pretend to be "experts" on everything. If you listen closely you can hear a loud bleating from all across the world and it sounds like "What do you think about this?"

Who cares what everybody else thinks? Who cares if people think your dress is fly, your Facebook fresh or your tweets awesome? Why do you need "followers" and "friends" validating your very existence? Trust me, I'm guilty of this too, but it's only lately that I've realized how much it has crept into everybody's lives and it's starting to worry me. This desperate search for validation cannot end well.

Not at all.



Share

I Think You Missed Something

I don't own a pet.

But, I read a recent New York Times article about the relationship between pets and marriages anyway. I'm a sucker for the Times' wacky stories about random trends and New Age science.

Anyway, the article basically tells pet owners that they should consider treating their spouses the same way they treat their pets. The article advocates that married folks refuse to hold grudges, show affection regularly, exchange exuberant greetings, assume the best about their spouses and commit to their relationship for the long haul. The article adds that many people are far more forgiving with their four legged partners than they are with those who walk upright.

I must admit, I nodded my head a little reading it.

After all, the article gave some sound advice about how spouses should treat each other. Hell, it's good advice on how everybody should treat each other. The things is, once I took a step back and truly considered the information, a problem emerged. Basically, human beings and pets are very different, and the reason why we cut our pets more slack is because, well, their our pets.

There is a big difference between a pet and a spouse. There are different expectations, and honestly, different freedoms. The level of intimacy and connection is far greater for most of us with our spouses than it could ever be with our pets. Well, at least for those of us who are not a six-pack away from a bestiality charge.

When I did have a dog, I made sure that sucker obeyed me. When I said "sit" I expected his rump to hit the floor. When I stayed "stay" that dog better become a statue. He ate what I said, walked where I said and slept when I told him to sleep. In fact, he lived in little cage and thought that was normal.

I think we all know there would be a Gary Coleman-type situation if I tried to pull that stuff on my wife, and she's a fairly mild-mannered woman.

We don't have the same level of control over our spouses that we have over our pets, which obviously makes our spouses more aggravating. We also don't expect our pets to be very intelligent, while most of us assume we married somebody with common sense. The different expectations, and the different level of control create a very different type of dynamic.

It's amazing to me that this story sort of glossed over that in an effort to make a point. Well, not really amazing since most people gloss over inconvenient factoids when they're making an argument, but this seems like a pretty glaring factoid to ignore. People and pets are different, and that's why our relationships are different, and why we find it harder to put simple solutions into place.

Now, let me go take my wife for a walk.




Share

Keeping it 100

Today is a happy day for me.

I noticed today that I officially reached the 100 "followers" plateau.

When I started this blog it was in response to my friends complaining that I was always writing these long emails about what people needed to be saying about race and life, and they were tired of reading them. My friends were tired of my rants on the phone, which I'm sure was due to my fairly irritating voice. They told me to get my own platform and share it with the world.

I started in Jan. 2008, using President Obama's campaign as daily fodder. That first year was amazing, man, I look back over those posts and I see some good writing and funny material. I had a lot of anger and pent up opinions I needed to get out there.

Over the years, I've calmed down quite a bit. There isn't very much raving on this site anymore and that's a reflection of the changes I'm making in my personal life. It's why I don't curse on the blog, and I try to be less mean-spirited when discussing some of the foibles of my white brethren. I'm trying to grow as a man and a Christian.

That said, I still cut loose every once in a while and I appreciate it deeply that 100 people think I'm interesting enough that they want to be notified when I have something new to say. It's allowing me to live out one of my few professional dreams.

Anyway, thanks to all of you who follow the blog formally and informally. I'm going to continue to try to stay relevant and entertaining and I hope we all continue to learn from each other.

Stay crazy.



Share

Black In America

I want to talk about being Black in America real quick. No Soledad.

Before we begin, everybody needs to watch this video which will provide the jumping off point for today's discussion.

Now, I know some of you are shaking your heads already. "Big Man, it's Bill O'Reilly, what do you expect? If racism was underwear, Bill O'Reilly would be be Charlie Sheen." I get that, and that's why this isn't going to be a rant about Fox's favorite commentator.

Instead, I want to discuss his guest's reaction when O'Reilly said that this young, black college professor "looked like a drug dealer." (Bet y'all will click on the link now.)

Look at that brother's face after O'Reilly makes his comment about drug dealers. I told a friend, that watching face that brother's face, I could damn near read his mind:

Wait, what did he say? Did this...? Did this cracker just say I looked like a drug dealer. Cracker, I have more degrees than you and my suit costs more than yours! I should come across this table and... Whoa, hold up. Don't forget where you are, you can't do that. I will go to jail for that... But, I can't let this white boy punk me on tv. He thinks that drug dealer comment was clever. I gotta say something to him, but I can't go too hard 'cause then he'll play the white victim card and I'll never hear the end of it.

As y'all could see, the brother went on to make a quip about O'Reilly fitting the profile of a cocaine user, but you could see that wasn't how he really wanted to handle it.

Watching those mental gymnastics brought to mind DuBois often-cited comments on the double consciousness black folks in America typically possess. We have to be able to see the world from various vantage points and process situations in ways that white folks can avoid. It's part of the burden we bear for the privilege of living in America.

Many white folks and a few black folks don't like to acknowledge that burden, or they downplay the strain it causes. It's tedious and tiring having to filter your thoughts and comments. It gets old considering all the possible outcomes of your decision to make things "racial" particularly when you feel like somebody else has already made the situation "racial." Seriously, that brother should have been able to call O'Reilly an idiotic bigot with no repercussions, but in the real world a huge swath of the viewing public would have seen that response as unwarranted and out of line.

That's what it's like to be Black in America, and it's something that CNN never actually discussed.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Chalk It Up

First and foremost, I'm not one of those black folks who gets a couple of degrees, passes a few tests, and then thinks it's okay to condemn and denigrate the masses of black folks.

I don't launch into diatribes bemoaning the actions of "my people," nor do I get too bent out of shape regarding the typical human excesses that can be found in the black community. While I may complain about rap music "ruining the children" that is done half in jest because as a former voracious consumer of rap music, I know that its reach is limited if parents do their jobs. I say all this because without this disclaimer what I'm about to write might get me branded a lame hater.

I'm puzzled by General Ignorance.

Some of you might be wondering exactly what is "General Ignorance." In the past of I've written about "Arrogant Idiots" and regular readers know I skewer garden-variety ignorance in its myriad forms, but I don't think I've ever discussed "General Ignorance."

General Ignorance is spelling the word "hustle" like "hussle." It's spelling fabulous with an "O" and ludicrous without one. It's status updates on Facebook posted in all caps with cuss words. General Ignorance is embodied by women who think it's acceptable to wear sheer tights with no underwear to the club, and men who are perfectly comfortable with skin tight jeans around their hamstrings.

It's general, and it's ignorant.

I'm not just railing against popular culture and while I may be getting somewhat cranky in my old age, I don't think this is just a sign of me crossing over to the dark side. I refuse to become that type of old man.

I'm honestly just puzzled by these life choices. What goes on in the brain of these types of people? Why is misspelling obvious words cool, or funny? Why is dressing like a cheap prossie "sexy?" I mean, I used to sag, but why wear pants that are too short and too tight? This just seems silly.

And these aren't the only examples of general ignorance that I'm bothered by. Don't forget about racially-themed parties, or dressing up like Klan members and Nazis. Or dropping racial slurs in your everyday conversation like that just makes sense.

Can anybody explain General Ignorance? Is it simply a case of lacking home training, as the old folks would say? Are that many parents failing their children? If that's true, then we need to stop shaking our heads at the young people and start punching old people in the mouths!

Anyway, can y'all think of some examples of general ignorance that astound and puzzle you?







Share

Get Golden

My brother and I had our fair share of squabbles as children.

We weren't constantly fighting like some kids, but we had our moments of sibling strife. At times, those conflicts would even turn violent, although I always found it hard to hit my brother hard enough to truly  hurt him because, well, he's my brother.

Inevitably, our brotherly battles would lead to a conversation with our mother. She always hit us with the same line, no matter what we had been fighting about:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I can tell you that as a kid, the Golden Rule seemed pretty ridiculous. It just didn't make sense to go around doing nice things for other folks, or treating them with respect and kindness when far too often they were trying to treat me like crap. The biggest flaw I saw with the Golden Rule was that there was no guarantee that you would be rewarded for doing the right thing, and even as a child I could see how that was a raw deal.

To be honest, I took some of that attitude about the Golden Rule, and my flawed understanding of what it really means, into my marriage. Like many folks, I struggled with the concept of doing what God called me to do for my wife even if I felt like she wasn't holding up her end of the bargain. Hell, who am I kidding, I still struggle with that issue.

But, while thinking on God's plan for marriage recently, I had an epiphany about the Golden Rule.  See, I mistakenly believed that if I wanted my wife to do something for me, I had to do that same thing for her. I thought that if I treated her exactly how I would like to be treated I was fulfilling my responsibilities to her and God. But, while it's obvious that the Golden Rule is about reciprocity, I had the whole concept of what reciprocity means all screwed up.

Quite simply, its not about me, it's about you.

Many people in relationships think that if they treat their spouses or significant others the way they themselves would like to be treated, everything is fine. For example, my wife likes to go out, and she craves time alone away from me and the children. It's high on her list of priorities, and I try to give her that opportunity regularly.

In order to reciprocate, my wife is constantly urging me to take some time for myself, to go out to a movie, or hang out with friends. I do this occasionally, but I don't have nearly the same urge that she does to hit the streets. Therefore, when my wife gifts me with free time, it's far more valuable to her than it is to me. She feels she's making a serious sacrifice and providing me with something more valuable than gold, and I'm often thinking "meh."

I told my wife recently that in order for her to truly be following the Golden Rule, she would have to identify what it is in my life that I value as much as she values her free time. Then she would have to work to provide me with that just as I try to provide her with free time. (Of course this didn't go over so well, and my wife kindly pointed out all the ways I fail to adhere to the Golden Rule. But that's another story for another blog.)

I believe this is true for all relationships, and it's really changed the way I look at situations. It's not enough to treat people the way you want to be treated, it's more key to treat them the way THEY want to be treated. More of us need to challenge ourselves to see the world the way the people we claim to love see it. We have to understand what they value, and why they value it.

Once we do that, then we truly appreciate the impact of our actions. We will understand when our gestures are empty and when they have meaning. We have to commit to true sacrifices, not just sacrifices that make us feel like good people. Relationships, particularly marriages, demand that you "become one" with your partner, and you can never do that unless you're pushing yourself to step into the world as they see it. You can't fall back on the shallow mindset that  you're a "good person" or "good spouse" because you think you're good. You have to examine what the person you have bonded yourself to thinks of as good and use that as your measuring stick. And they should do the same for you.


Obviously, this is difficult and it can lead to abuse since some folks have unreasonable and unnatural demands. Satisfying those demands would only lead to heartache and pain. We all have to draw the line somewhere and we have to trust our own discretion on where that line should be.

But most of us have a lot of room to grow if we really want to live by the Golden Rule.

Pay No Attention To The Man Behind the Curtain

Anti-immigration folks would have you believe that illegal immigrants are just an enormous drain on our resources and a source of violent crime.

Strangely, statistics show that it's pretty much a wash financially for communities with large illegal immigrant populations because of the economies these immigrants drive. And, a new study says that the old trope about immigrants and crime may be off-base as well.

I know what Mark Twain said about statistics, but this study is important nonetheless. It shows that not only did robberies and murders NOT increase in areas with an influx of immigrants, but they actually DECREASED. Now that is a surprise, right?

After all, isn't the standard complaint about illegal immigrants that they are a drain on communities and cause crime to skyrocket? Isn't that why folks believe they need armed militias and laws encouraging racial profiling? Haven't Americans been told it's all about their safety and well-being?

Lies, lies and damn lies.

It's funny how much of our worldviews are based on easily identifiable lies. We've been trained to ignore the truth hiding behind the curtain particularly if that truth would make our lives less enjoyable. Some of us don't even see the truth anymore because we've been trained so well.

It's like Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul refusing to see how private businesses refusing service based on the color of someone's skin was something that needs to be illegal. Or, how Mr. Paul can deem the BP oil spill an accident when all of the news coming out shows it was pretty much the result of gross negligence. It doesn't matter what's actually happening, it matters what the right people TELL you is happening.

Some folks have accused me of practicing that particular brand of self-delusion, particularly as it relates to my faith. That's fine, I can accept that criticism, and I can't deny that my belief system is based on faith. I don't ignore the issues folks have with Christianity, but I'm unapologetic about the choice I've made to believe. It works for me.

The thing is, I'm self-aware enough to recognize that fact while most folks don't see all the faith-based decisions in their own lives. Even more troubling, these people can't see how they allow their own faith to back them into irrational and dangerous positions all because they want to be believe that the Wizard of Oz is all-powerful, and not a stooped-back, white-haired, old man. They want to believe that the police are mainly a benevolent peace-keeping force and not a large gang running a complex protection scheme. They want to believe the folks being kept in prison truly belong there and aren't the victims of a massive scam to revitalize rural communities and provide contractors with cheap labor.

I guess it's comforting to be fed information that backs up the worldview you've chosen to embrace. It's like some people say they'd rather not know if their spouse is cheating on them because they prefer the comfortable illusion to the ugly reality. I'm not one of those people. I like to have all the information so I can make choices. That doesn't mean I treat all information equally, but I don't like it when folks withhold stuff from me because they think it's in my best interest.

I want a peek behind the curtain. Pull that sucker back.





Share

Tears Of A Clown

I'm pretty much over the standard racism apologies.

Whether it's the perfunctory news conference with a non-apologetic apology to "those who might have been offended" or the tearful kiss the ring deal where blubbering and remorse are plentiful, I'm through with the whole scene. It doesn't move me, it doesn't placate me and it damn sure doesn't convince me.

I've written before about pointless apologies and my feelings remain constant. If you're only sorry because you got reamed out and attacked for your choices, then I really don't care about your apology. If you're only sorry that your actions now have serious consequences for YOU, instead of being worried about the consequences for others, then what do the words "I'm sorry" really mean.

My wife and I had a discussion on this very topic recently, and I promise you it wasn't a pleasant one. I was trying to explain to her that I don't consider "I'm sorry" some sort of magic balm that heals all wounds. The pain and the grievance remain no matter how often you apologize, and there are consequences for causing that pain. However, by saying "I'm sorry" you are at least acknowledging that you are the cause of the pain and your remorse for filling that role. At least that's the hope.

The thing is, some folks don't even mean that when they say "I'm sorry." Many folks see "I'm sorry" as a magic antidote for their eff-ups, almost like life is a giant Etch-A-Sketch and saying "I'm sorry" is like shaking the screen. They think that once they utter those two magic words, everybody should move on with their lives as if nothing happened.

Other folks don't even want to say "I'm sorry." They, rightfully, view an apology as an admission of guilt and since they believe their actions were justified, no matter how heinous they might appear to others, they don't feel they are guilty of anything. Thus they either refuse to apologize, or they issue the sort of apologies that admit to nothing.

You see those types of apologies from politicians, police officers, racists and, honestly, pretty much everybody in the world. Because all of us are guilty of issuing crappy apologies when we are just saying the words to cover our butts. Many of us issue apologies not because we feel remorse, but because we'd rather avoid the consequences of our actions.

That's why I titled this blog "Tears of a Clown." When you shed tears during an apology it should be because you recognize the hurt you've caused others. You recognize the wrong you've done them and your spirit grieves because of that.

You shouldn't be crying because you're worried about just how rough things are going to get for you, and that's the distinct feeling I get from most folks. They aren't worried about how their actions impacted anyone else's life, they're only worried about how they impact their own.

Clowns.







Share

That "H" Word Again

On the car bomb guy in Times Square Joe Liberman says:

I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.

Big Man wonders why it has to be "foreign terrorist organizations"?

Do the homegrown terrorist organizations practice a brand of terrorism that is less dangerous or repugnant? Have they gone "Green" or something?

Shouldn't we strip them of their citizenship as well?

Or would that impact the wrong people?

And why are we depriving folks of citizenship based on apprehension and accusation? Is "beyond a reasonable doubt" now passe?

Hypocrisy makes you stupid.

Remember that.


Share

Hold Up, Don't Go There

As part of my growth as a man and Christian, I'm really working on not expressing every opinion that comes into my head.

Seriously, I am.

Folks who knew me as a youngster could tell you all kids of stories about some of the rude and crass things I said and did. Honestly, when I think about that phase in my life, I'm quite embarrassed and I wonder why I was so obnoxious. Who knows?

In my quest to reform, I've been trying to let stupid people be stupid. That's a big task in today's world, but I've decided that it's not my job to always expose the stupidity of others and force them to confront and acknowledge it. I don't have to open people's eyes. If they would rather be blind, then I'll save my light for those wishing to see.

(That sounded kind of arrogant, but y'all know what I meant.)

But, I must admit that sometimes it's hard to keep my resolve. Just recently, a friend of mine told me a story that had me seriously considering how I would have reacted in his shoes, and to be honest, I think some of the old Big Man would have come out.

My homie was at a social gathering talking to this chick we both knew in college. The woman was going on and on about the depravity and uselessness of men, and my boy was pretty much letting her vent. Sometimes sisters just need that ear, you know?

Anyway, he said he was cool as she went through her long-winded tale of how some dude didn't make a move on her even when she pretty much threw the cooch at him. She was heated that the same cat later complained that he couldn't really tell that she was digging him. The dude said she should have just told him she was interested if she really wanted something to pop off.

Apparently the woman was upset by this. I guess she felt that it was the man's job to decipher her feelings and make the first move. Y'all know how women be on that selective chivalry and old-fashioned values kick in these modern times. They don't want everything the "old way" just the stuff they like.

Anyway, this woman couldn't believe that the dude tried to pass that onus to her. I don't really know how she handled the cat that "wronged" her, but she decided to let my friend know that his fellow penis bearer's behavior was symptomatic of a larger deficiency in men. So she said:

"Men of your generation are cowards."

(Record scratch)

What did she say?

See, I really hate when men or women make blanket negative statements about the opposite gender. It's not that I'm innocent of this practice, it's just that when I make my generalizations they are always correct and based solely on stringent research and careful consideration... Lol. Yeah right.

But, I really am irked when people make what I deem stupid comments about the opposite sex. Saying that men of my generation (My friend and I were born six days apart) are all cowards is just ridiculous.

It's particularly ridiculous when the woman making the comment has admitted that she feels this way because a dude she was digging didn't smash while she slept over in his bed.

I've heard too many stories from women about how they slept over with a dude, but didn't really want to do anything. It seems like in these modern times, an opposite gender bedmate isn't a guarantee of lovemaking.

Plus, as a man who has refused to make the first move on a chick sleeping in his bed because he didn't want to cede power to her, I can understand why dude held up. Sometimes you gotta lay ground rules if you want the relationship to operate on the correct wavelength.

But, before I go off on a tangent about the craziness inherent in relationships let me focus on this woman's comment and my friend's reaction. My homie bit his tongue initially, but her comment irked him quite a bit, and eventually he let this woman know that maybe her difficulties with men were due to one common factor: her.

Of course, she didn't take kindly to this observation, blew up and made a scene. Now I chastised my boy for expressing himself honestly because as every man learns early, women hate when you tell them that their problems are because of them. But, I had to admit that I would have been hard pressed not to tell the woman the exact same thing.

See, there are some lines folks shouldn't cross in conversation. You really shouldn't go about insulting entire genders, races, religions and the like. It's unseemly and it's almost like an invitation to a verbal or physical battle. I don't understand how this woman could presume to call my friend a coward, and then get upset when he made an equally personal observation about her.

I'm bothered by people who say offensive stuff, and then have the nerve to get upset when people respond with anger and frustration. Seriously, this chick tells a red-blooded man that all men of his generation are "cowards" and she doesn't think that's going to cause some friction? Clearly she actually believed her own hype. She actually thought that just because she says something, it must be fact, and all men should take it as such. Sorry, that ain't happening with a man with fully descended testicles.

I remember in a media law class I learned that there are certain words that are exceptions to free speech and if you say them you can't fall back on free speech if you get pummelled. I'm not saying this woman should have been beaten, but I'm saying she really should have put some more thought into her comments before she made them. Particularly if she was extra sensitive about folks offering her unsolicited, blunt opinions about her life choices and habit. It's really quite simple. If you don't want to get your feelings hurt, follow one easy rule:

Just don't go there folks.









Share

That's Ostrich Homie

How we gonna' communicate
When we can't even conversate?
You tell me it's converse
I'm trying to expand your Universe.
Show you what is and what will be
Man, you birds kill me.
Holla' "Eff those coons" and "Bomb those sand niggers"
When you facedown, ass up chasin' figures
That's right clown, you getting screwed
Fighting feuds got your brain nude
Naked as jaybird, skinny dipping in life
Crocs in this water, falcons taking flight
It's a food chain game, and you look like dinner
Chances for survial couldn't be slimmer
Keep those blinders, bury that head
Hot sand burns, Third eye closes on the dead
You monkeys blind, deaf and dumb 'bout evil
Faking funk and pulling stunts like Knievel
My thoughts nova, catch the light while you can
Soon enough y'all be asking
"What happened to Big Man?"




Share

Pay to Play

Money makes the world move.

Don't believe me?

What if I told you that rich citizens are given access to the police simply because of their ability to make donations? I don't mean they get to do a poo-butt ride along, I mean they get to use tasers, help kick in doors or even watch a perp get questioned. They get to fulfill all of their law enforcement fantasies with a scratch of a pen on a check.

Would you believe me?

Some of you wouldn't, you'd tell me that's a clear conflict of interest. You can't pay the police for access. You'd be right. You can't give most police departments direct donations. But, you can give police foundations donations. Or organizations like the fraternal order of police. And everybody knows those non-profit organizations are really just an extension of the police department.

If don't believe me, all you have to do is verify what I'm saying by reading the New York Times.

I'm not here to blast the NYPD. Lord knows they aren't unusual in their operation or methods.

Nah, I'm perturbed by something else in this process. I'm bothered by the possibility, wait scratch that... I'm bothered by the fact that rich folks with unprecedented and unequal access to the police always make things worse for people like me.

I know it's not anything new. Money has made its own laws forever. I'd have to be a fool to believe that rich folks and poor folks operate on an even playing field when it comes to the justice system or law enforcement agencies. I've been accused of being a lot of things, but rarely a fool.

But, what the Times exposed was fairly brazen. This wasn't a lost report, or a ride home instead of to the lockup for a rich person's son. This was an entire program where donors were given a taste of what it is like to be a boy in blue, and then hit up for cash afterwards. And instead of being done by a public agency whose records are open to the public, it was done by a shadowy foundation, that keeps its business private.

That should concern folks, for real.

More and more, people with money are creating a separate world with separate rules. And that world is being staffed by folks with guns and sadistic tendencies. It's not hard to imagine the next stop on this train. Private militias running around enforcing the "laws" of private enclaves populated by rich folks seeking to escape the masses.

Gentrification would seem to the forerunner of a new society where rich folks have usurped easily defensible urban areas, while the huddling masses are pushed away from these hubs and crammed into shanty towns. Food and other amenities are brought in from outlying farms to those folks living in the urban areas.

Some of y'all are shaking your heads, and I don't blame you. I typically try to avoid dystopian science fiction as well.

But, it seems to me that nothing good can come of rich folks obtaining increased access to our publicly funded law enforcement system. And, given my past experiences, I know that it's quite easy for those with means to twist a public agency into basically a semi-private agency while still having it funded by the money of the peons.

Trust me, it happens all the time.

So, while some folks might see this Times story as another predictable treatise on the pay to play phenomenon, I see it as more. I see it as opening salvo in a much deeper game. A game that we all need to be aware of and vigilant about because it could have dire consequences.

Guns and money create power.

Who has the guns and the money?



Share

The Eternal Struggle

In my mind there is a battle.

The Filament Doctrine versus The Island Doctrine.

Where will I stand in the end is anybody's guess.

Some days, I feel that Island breeze blowing, and it's hard to ignore. When I see folks complaining and whining and blaming everybody but themselves for their personal failings, it's hard not to tell them to, shut up and man up.

At those times, I truly believe the old cliche, "No man is an island," is a bunch of baloney. I'm convinced that each of us has far more control over our individual choices and actions than we like to admit. Nobody is forcing us to make the choices we make, thus we cannot blame anyone else for our personal shortcomings. Even when the choices are horrible, there are still choices.

Those are my hardcore days.

Other times, I'm on that filament kick. For example, I was thinking the other day about the anti-government and taxes crowd. I was wondering if that group truly realizes how society has created government as a way to create jobs and opportunities for the private sector. All the services government agencies and their employees use help drive the economy of this country.

Seriously. We pay taxes and that money often is spent with private industry in a manner that ultimately benefits us. The folks who work at the DMV aren't just snippy public servants. They are homeowners, car owners, utility users, daycare users, grocery shoppers and everything else that most of us do. They are citizens using the goods and services that drive our economy. Without them, and others like them, private industry would struggle to find enough consumers to support the level of specialization prevalent in our world.

At least that's how I see it. We're all connected in ways we don't even realize and our actions do have an effect on the lives of others. You know, like The Butterfly Effect.

As you can see, there is an obvious conflict between my two philosophies. How can I acknowledge the connections and interdependence of all our lives, all while ultimately believing that all of our choices are truly OUR choices? The ideas don't seem to mesh.

Which means that I find myself applying different philosophies to different situations, which can often lead to the impression of hypocrisy. I don't actually think it's hypocrisy, I honestly believe that versatility is just as important as intelligence, but perception is most folks reality.

In my mind, we are all connected and responsible to each other. We are truly our brother's keeper, whether we like our brother or not. But, despite the impact we have on other people's lives, we must still remember that no one can force us to do anything. Nothing. We need to cling to both of these beliefs because ultimately they are equally empowering.

When you accept that you are truly the master of your own actions, you shed the shackles of reaction and revenge.

When you recognize that loving your neighbor is a 24/7 job you move past unnecessary aggression and agitation.

The more I think about, there is no struggle between the two doctrines that exist in my mind. The struggle is to find the proper synthesis that can be my guiding light on life's dark paths.






Share

The Switch Flipped

Once a person has decided how they’re going to interact with you, it can be difficult to change. Changing it demands a degree of aggression

Man, I stumbled across that quote on this blog and it really struck me. Seriously, it was one of those "aha" moments where somebody verbalizes what you've already known intuitively, but never expressed so succinctly. For me, those moments are typically jumping off points for blogs. Here we go.

1. We all assume.

2. We all are forced to overcome other people's assumptions.

3. Thus, our very human existence is rooted in a never-ending cycle of aggression.

4. Depending on how often erroneous assumptions are made about you, you may constantly be forced to decide between a position of submission or debilitating aggression.

Let's explore.

I think all of us can admit that we make assumptions on a daily basis. It's how we organize the world and simplify our thinking. Assumptions allow us to sort and use large amounts of new stimuli.

That said, most of our assumptions are horribly wrong. That's inevitable given the fact that they are rooted in our individual realities, and thus are often based on incorrect facts. Many of us also make assumptions based on propaganda spread through a variety of sources. There is a reason the old cliche states: When you assume, you make an ass out of "u" and "me".

The thing is, assumptions are unavoidable, and honestly, necessary. They can serve a useful purpose if we know the proper amount of weight to give to our stereotypes, prejudices and assumptions. Sadly, most people DON'T.

Which is why all of us work regularly to combat assumptions. A friend of mine went to Whole Foods the other day. At my urging she was checking to see if the store carried "chia seeds." I was curious to see if the product had worked its way to the mainstream, and how much it would cost.

My friend told me that she diligently checked the seed aisle, then approached three employees having an animated conversation. She waited patiently for one of them to acknowledge her presence and ask if she needed help. She said she didn't want to interrupt their obviously animated discussion about one of the employees working while drunk.

Finally, she said "Excuse me" and asked about the chia seeds, noting that she had checked for them and couldn't find them. One clerk said nothing and immediately left. Another just looked confused. The third clerk got the "stank" face and said "What?"

My friend, taking this an invitation to re-state her question, did so a bit more concisely. Something along the lines of "Chia seeds. Do y'all sell them? I checked and didn't see any." The clerk replied with a bit of an attitude, "Well, we must not have them."

Clearly, this was not the greatest example of customer service or decorum, but I think it was a great example of the premise of this blog. Granted this is a total assumption, but I think that the clerk viewed my friend as an "other." All three clerks were black, but they were black workers in Whole Foods.

My friend was a black woman customer in an overpriced, health food store frequented by mainly white clientele. Her surroundings, plus her inquiry about an exotic food product, most likely led to the assumption that she was one of those "bourgie, stuck up black people who think they are better than people who WORK in Whole Foods." Thus, the clerk, acting on her own erroneous assumption, about what she thought was my friend's erroneous assumption, responded with quite a bit of aggression.

Hope that didn't confuse y'all.

The thing is, this happens all the time. Black people are often accused of being overly aggressive. Yet, we all know that black people regularly have erroneous assumptions made about them. There are assumptions about our education, our intellect, our looks, our jobs, our families and our status as law-abiding citizens, to name a few. We are constantly deciding whether it's "worth it" to combat these assumptions and deal with the hassles associated with being viewed as aggressive, or to just take our medicine and let things slide. It's the ultimate lose/lose.

I'm not saying that black people are unique in this regard, just noting that we have a special appreciation for this daily battle. We understand that whenever you attempt to combat a person's erroneous assumptions, you run the risk of being labeled aggressive and angry. People don't like being corrected.

They don't like their viewpoints being challenged, no matter how simplistic or idiotic those viewpoints may be. Some folks handle disagreement better than others, but typically when people are caught in an error, or they are operating on some long-held assumptions, there will be a conflict if attempt to foster change. People like how they view the world and the people who inhabit the world. Changing those viewpoints means more work and, often, very little tangible reward.

Folks will view your attempts to correct them as aggression, and thus respond with aggression. That in turn ramps up your aggression level and the whole situation spirals out of control fairly quickly unless someone is willing to submit.

And we all know submission is a bad word these days, just like aggression.

I think it's important for all of us to remember that we are both the victims and the perpetrators when it comes to assumptions. We must understand that many of us develop views about other people without enough information, and thus our views are likely wrong.

I think it's even more important to realize that just because somebody challenges one of your assumptions does not mean you have to view it as a form of aggression. You have a choice. You can view it as a form of assistance. Honestly, we need to practice the same patience for other folks that we want people to practice with us.

Submission in the right situation is the best weapon.





Share

Holding Fast

What are you certain about?

What are the things in your life that are so obvious, so blatant, that your belief in them is unshakable and beyond reproach? Is there anything like that for you?

Seems like folks are certain about a lot these days.

They are certain that abortion is an abomination. They are certain that every woman should have a right to choose whether she can end her baby's life in-utero. They are certain monogamy is an outdated standard. They are positive that the real problem in our society is the insistence that people should not confine themselves to one partner.

They are certain racism is a myth and that discrimination is an ancient and powerless relic. They are positive that Phil Mickelson is a much better husband than Tiger Woods and has never, EVER done anything to hurt his wife.

It's obvious to anyone who looks that Obama is trying to ruin this country, and that Big Ben was set-up by a money-hungry gold digger.

Let me be clear, it's not that I have a problem with people have disparate opinions. It's not that I have a problem with people aggressively defending their opinions. What I can't understand is the unyielding certainty so many people bring to their opinions.

Is doubt a forgotten emotion?

The Bible says that the disciple Thomas walked with Jesus and the 11 other disciples for three years. During that period he saw many miracles and wondrous events. Yet, when his fellow disciples came to him telling him of Jesus' ressurrection after his Crucifixion, Thomas said he needed to put his fingers in the holes in Christ's hands and stick his arm in Jesus' side.

Despite everything he had seen, Thomas doubted.

Many preachers use the story of Thomas to discuss the problems with doubt, the failure of our feeble human minds to truly trust despite all the evidence we've seen. I can see that point of view. Yet, I also see Thomas as a man who truly loved and believed in Jesus' greatness, but still found it hard to believe that a man he saw die three days earlier was now walking the Earth again.

His doubt seems to make sense.

How can so many folks eschew doubt? Where does this unshakable certainty in everything come from? For me, life is a constant cycle of considering and re-thinking what I believe:

Am I being just?

Does this make sense?

What's the other side?

What are the other angles?

It's not that I don't have bedrock beliefs, I do. But, I fully recognize the issues with those beliefs, the potential chinks in my mental armor. I see where the central concepts in my life are connected, and I understand that most of my worldview hinges on a leap of faith. This doesn't bother me, but I can appreciate that it bothers many others.

I don't think that just because I believe something it must be a fact.

Increasingly, I feel like I'm in a minority. I see folks, folks I love and some I don't, who are so rooted in their reality that even a Category Five hurricane couldn't shake them. Sometimes that is comforting, other times it's maddening.

Folks are so certain that discussion has become a waste of time. Nobody is truly considering their positions, and nobody is willing to give an inch. Civility is dead and reason has been abandoned. Any action can be justified and every action can be condemned.

We're holding fast to a sinking ship, convinced that we are rising to heaven.


Share

The Brain Game

"I need you to say something nice to me."


Those were my wife's words the other day. We were in the middle of one of our "battles of coldness" when she hit me with that line.

It felt ridiculous at the time. What right did she have to demand something nice from me when I was (justifiably) angry at her. Why should her "needs" be important to me, when I felt like my own concerns were not being heard.

I tend to fight with coldness. I grew up with two great parents, but, man, they used to yell at each other something fierce. No violence, but crazy screaming and doors slamming. I always told myself that when I got married, my kids would never have to see that from their parents.

So, instead of getting hot, I get cold. It's not that I don't get angry. I'm constantly praying to God and trying to work on my temper, trying to slow down that anger reflex. But, even when I get angry, my first response is to shut down emotionally, not to yell or scream. My brother and I share this trait, and the women we've dealt with have complained about it over the years.

Lord knows my wife has complained about it. Still, I'm always surprised at how my cold attitude affects her. I can't understand why my lack of attention is such a hardship, hell, being left to my own devices never bothers me.

I got a little better understanding of the problem recently while reading a book called "The Female Brain."

The book is a study of how the female brain processes information due to its unique structure and hormone mix. I must admit it was eye-opening. As a man, I have always believed that there are fundamental differences in how men and women process information, but it was interesting to see how deep those differences go.
According to the book men and women clash so often because the basic structure of their brains is very different.

Now, the book has been criticized by several scholars for depending on faulty science and for making some fantastical claims based on a paucity of information. I've read of those critiques and they softened my initial enthusiasm about the book.

But, for some reason, many of the book's claims still resonate with me. That's probably because they validate my own preconceptions, but it might be because it actually provides great food for thought when considering male/female relationships.

For example, I got a better understanding for why my wife craves communication and emotional attachment. In the past I had been guilty of chalking it up to the general "spoiled" nature of all females.

But, after reading the book, I realized that she might just be built differently than me. That her brain craves and focuses on different things than mine, and while her needs may seem tedious and ridiculous at times, they are no less valid or natural than my own. Sometimes I need information like that to move me out of my rut.

After all, it's easy to get trapped into thinking that our worldviews are the only true reality. But, that mindset is particularly dangerous in marriages because successful marriages require a constant willingness to see the world from someone else's perspective.

I'm not ashamed to admit I have a LONG way to go in this regard, but I'm thinking this book might help make me make some strides.

Now I just need to read her new book on men.



Share

Time Marches

Got two little boys.

Beautiful, brown, bouncing, beaming, bombastic babies bringing a bodacious bounty of bliss to Big Man's blessed being.

For real B'.

My oldest, who is nearly three-years old, has this habit of jumping in the air just to fall. Not on accident, on purpose.

He yells out "Look Daddy," then jumps in the air, kicks his legs up behind him like a maverick on the Wyoming plains, and then falls to his knees laughing.

It hurts my old bones just to watch him.

My younger son is nearing his first birthday. His will is so strong, I already know we gonna' have beef. When he doesn't get his way, he throws his arms up over his shoulders and tries to make the crown of his head touch his calves, while squealing in dismay.

I wince watching him contort.

Watching their youthful bodies revel in the joy of life, it forces me to consider my own increasingly feeble frame.

Oh, your average septuagenarian would scoff at my melodramatic language, but when I look at my babies, I think of the virility I once felt and I do feel feeble.

If not feeble, then I'll just say old.

I remember as a child how the concept of being "30," was as foreign and fantastical as dragons, and not nearly as interesting.

Once, as a child, I marveled at the fact that a then 35-year old Hulk Hogan could overcome the fragility of his ancient body to rip of his shirt for Hulkamaniacs worldwide.

When I related my surprise to my father, making sure to play up the fact that Hogan managed his magic despite knocking on death's door, my father calmly asked me how old I thought he was? In response to my blank stare, he said "I'm 35, too."

That seemed impossible because my daddy always felt old to me.

Adulthood belonged to a shadowy world where you had to stretch before exercising and were always rubbing nasty liniment on your muscles.

When I played marathon sessions of basketball, often lasting for five hours, I never contemplated a day when just getting off the couch to find the remote would be something I would avoid in favor of calling on the fresh legs on my son.

But, sadly, that day is here.

I'm not totally decrepit. In the last two years I've taken up jogging and I'm probably in better cardiovascular shape than I've been in for years.

Yet, I frequently wake up with mysterious ailments and pains. I find myself more careful about my steps, and conscious of stretching, yes stretching, before any strenuous activities.

The physically carefree days of my youth have vanished and I can only recapture their magic in random spurts. I have become old in mind and body, yet in many ways I don't feel "old" at all.

I wonder if this is how those in middle age feel when they are casually called "pops" or "mister." Do they recognize the inevitable march of time, but still feel themselves suspended in the present?

My momma used to say: "Son, getting old is better than the alternative."

Her wisdom helps me keep things in focus as I feel the green monster creeping into my mind while watching my youngsters frolic. Besides, while I may envy their freedom of movement, I don't envy the hard road they must still travel to get to where I am as a man.

Strangely the good news and bad news about growing old are actually the same news.

You can't go back.




Share

Storytime, Again

Let's go back in time, to a magical place called The Mecca, where a younger, a slightly more rotund Big Man was seeking an education and sex. Not necessarily in that order.

My brother likes to say that I've always had a bit of "Betty Crocker" in me. For you folks not from the South, that means I'm a "cake baker" or the kind of cat that has been known to spend an unacceptable amount of time or effort in trying to have intercourse with unworthy females. I wasn't a full-blown "trick", but I've been known to make some questionable choices.

Anyway, back in the day, I made a date with a young lady who would eventually go on to be my wife. I'd been plotting on this woman for quite some time, but had held off on talking to her because I thought she was still dating a cat I played football with in high school. We weren't close enough friends that I wouldn't date her after they were through, but we were cool enough that I wasn't going to try to cuckold dude.

Anyway, I finally found out that Future Wife and Former Teammate were dunzo, and I made my move. Got the digits, used them to make plans for a movie date, and then began to wait for the Magic Hour.

Unfortunately, as I prepared for our outing, disaster struck in the form of my male ego and my ridiculous cheapness. Up to this point, I'd had some less than favorable experiences with taking young ladies out to what were considered "nice places" in college. By "less than favorable", I mean I wasn't getting the drawers. (Shout out to Martin Lawrence.)

Now, most likely this was due to other flaws in my game, not to a gold-digger mentality among these women, but, like many men, I didn't notice my flaws and instead blamed it on the women. I was young.

As I contemplated this state of affairs, I decided that I wasn't going to spend any money on Future Wife, and would instead invite her to have a Blockbuster night as our first date. By my logic, this was a good way to see if she was after my meager stacks or a decent young lady.

Sadly, when I broached this change of plans, Future Wife refused, and I would later learn that she was very sad that I saw her as a Blockbuster-in-the-dorm room kind of girl. We would eventually move past this in the months to come, but that's a story for a different day.

Anyway, I spun that yarn because I read a piece recently on the blog "Black and Bourgie" about the "pay to play" dynamic. Basically, the idea that men expect sex whenever they spend a certain amount of money on a woman. Each man has a different threshold, but apparently, all of us have a threshold. The blog post looked at the issue of what is an acceptable situation to have this expectation and what is not.

This issue fascinates me. I remember discussing this concept with my wife, and actually being horrified that she felt that it was reasonable for a man to expect sex if he spent money on her when she was younger. The fact that I was horrified might seem a little strange, since I had broken our very first date because I had the exact same expectations of women, but let me explain.

Like many men, what I WANTED to happen when it came to me getting the drawers, was not the same thing as I would RESPECT a woman for doing.

Does that make sense?

Sure, I would have loved for every woman to agree that a trip to the Cheesecake Factory was the Golden Ticket to parting some hairs, but I doubt I would have respected the women who made that choice. Like many young men, what I wanted from a woman was at odds with what I thought was respectable.

I know ladies, men are just as crazy as y'all.

Coming back to pay to play issues, I think that most men feel like if a woman allows us to spend money on them, particularly a lot of money, they should show some appreciation. And not that pat-on-the-back, "You are so sweet" kind of appreciation either. We want to know that you understand that for many men, spending our money is just as big of a deal as you laying down with us. Particularly for a cheap bastard like me, and my ilk.

But, on the flipside, we don't really want it confirmed that a woman we have actual feelings for, is up for sale. I mean, no man wants to know that the woman he cares about has a price tag. The next question in our minds, at least in my mind, becomes, "Who else can meet the price?"

Just like the always dangerous discussion about who many folks have notched your headboard, letting a man know that you think certain expenditures guarantee sex is a dicey move. Sure, you might have a cat who agrees with your sex threshold, but it's just as likely you'll find someone who finds your cost-benefit-analysis hopelessly skewed too high or too low.

My advice is that women should never reveal that any expenditure means guaranteed sex, and they should never reveal that they had this idea in the past. Avoid this conversation, or debate, the same way you avoid the "numbers" question.

In addition, women should be very careful about how much money they allow a man to spend on them because an uneven exchange of funds has to be balanced out at sometime. Yes, free meals and gifts are nice, but the first rule of economics is that there are "no free lunches." Your tab is growing, and you have no idea how the man you're dealing with is expecting you to settle up.

For men, I would say never spend your money expecting sex. It's a losers' gamble. If a woman doesn't pay out, all you have left is complaining and whining and that's definitely not going to get you any cat. If you're spending money on a woman, just look at it as a loan to your momma. That money has no strings, and no expectation of return.

Finally, on last thing for the fellas. Always have a really good explanation when your wife asks why you thought she was only worth a Blockbuster night on y'all's first date.

Trust me on that.




Share

The Arrogantly, Ambiguous Cockblock

For much of my life, I've had more female friends than male friends.

Note: I'm talking about actual female friends, not chicks I hang around with the hope that I'll get to smash in their moment of weakness. There is a massive difference.

As a male friend, I have of course been asked to give my female friends advice on relationships, and I've also voluntarily supplied my infinite wisdom without prompting. But, giving advice to women dating other men is a tricky business, and I have always lived by two rules.

1. Never speak bad on another man, unless he has done unequivocally evil things. Always be the cat that's encouraging women to give dudes a second change.

I mean, you never know when you might need a second chance.

Plus, I've always believed that there is nothing lamer than a dude who bad mouths other dudes to chicks. So, I have rarely volunteered my opinion on the behavior of another man to a female friend, and I when I have asked a direct question I have tried to be as charitable as possible. Now, this rule can be bent if the dude and your female friend have an extensive and troubled history, but those occasions should be rare.

2. Never tell a chick that another man isn't "good enough" for her, or try to tell a woman her standards are not up to par.

This second rule is a serious one. Yes, I have sometimes felt that the women I know were wasting their time with certain men. Yes, this caused them heartache and pain.

But, I've always felt that when a man is telling a woman she shouldn't be with another man, he's actually trying to ease his way into that woman's pants.

Seems like what he's really saying is "That dude is wack, how did he get he draws instead of me?"

Now, one of my best friends told me I was reaching with this topic. She said that when you're friends with people you want the best for them. She compared it to a woman telling another woman that the guy she was dealing with is a loser. It's not about easing your way into the drawers, it's about protecting someone you care about from harm.

Honestly, she almost swayed me. I mean, there have been times when a female has suggested doing something for a man that I find ridiculous, and I've taken it upon myself to point out how stupid she sounds.

However, I usually point this out by asking loaded questions designed to make the person work through their stupidity on their own. There's nothing like having to defend an idiotic position or action to make you realize just how stupid you look. I have rarely, very rarely, just come out and said "That dude is scum and you're stupid for even dealing with him." It just feels wrong to me.

I guess in my heart of hearts, I've never wanted to be that lame dude on the sidelines throwing salt and cockblocking.

Plus, it's a bit arrogant to assume that I have a better idea of what's "good" for another adult than they do themselves. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but saying it feels a tad arrogant. So, I almost always err on the side of letting folks make whatever mistakes they want to make in relationships.

I read this blog the other day where a woman wrote about how she was talking to a male friend about a potential suitor, and the male friend said "Nah, he ain't up to your standards." Then I had somebody else tell me how one of their male friends, well technically an ex-boyfriend, told her that a new dude she was considering was a "downgrade."

Seems like telling somebody a suitor isn't "up to their standards" is a backhanded compliment at best, (After all, it's basically saying you lack the ability to see who is compatible with you) and an egregious cockblock at worst. Now, the situation may not be as bad when it's a woman speaking to another woman, or a man talking to another man, but it still rubs me the wrong way.

So, am I wrong, is this really just an innocent and helpful practice, or is it an arrogantly, ambiguous cockblock?


Share