Archives

All posts for the month December, 2011

“Revenge is a dish best served cold.”

- Klingon proverb.

“Whatever. Just toss that mess in the garbage disposal.”

- Me.

Ladies, have you ever felt like your ex has taken your heart, flattened it out, and used it as a coaster for his beer? Fellas, have you ever felt like your ex has taken your heart and served it to her family pet as an entree? Wise men say simply moving on and living a productive life without your ex is the best form of revenge. They couldn’t be further from the truth. The truth is: getting revenge is the best kind of revenge. And believe me when I say: that sh*t is tempting.

After my breakup, I had plenty of opportunities to make my ex’s life miserable. And it would’ve been all too sweet. The problem however, is that while most of the nefarious plots we can come up with may inconvenience those who have done us wrong, these inconveniences are usually short-lived. More importantly, they fail to adequately get to the heart of the matter. The damage inflicted doesn’t hit its mark…while at the same time making you look rather puerile.

That, and…well…some of the stuff we come up with will probably land us in the clink.

That said, if you really want to get even with somebody, I think you essentially have two options: First, you can opt to take the low road. I’m talking something that hits way below the belt. Like hooking up with their best friend. It would be that much more fulfilling if you happened to be immensely rich and successful before hooking up with the friend, but the best friend route is usually a sure way to fire back. Now, obviously there are some inherent risks associated with a move like this. After all, you’re facing a very definite possibility that the friend will be even worse than the person with whom you’re trying to get even. Follow this path at your own discretion.

Or, there is the more mature route: do nothing.

Lick your wounds. Sit back. Bide your time. And wait.

Sit back and let God do the job of unleashing revenge on your ex. It may not be obvious at first. It always starts off with simple things, which progress over time. A scratched CD here, a flat tire there. Those are the warning signs. But if your ex doesn’t see the error of their evil ways, God will visit them with the modern-day equivalent of the Plagues of Egypt: He’ll make them fall in love with somebody who will treat them as bad as they treated you. Or worse.

The old adage just happens to be true: Time does heal all wounds. Eventually you will recover from this. I promise you. But you can take solace in another truth, one they don’t teach but is equally true: Sooner or later, time wounds all heels.

- ACL

So, I have something of a random thought mixed in with a confession: as old (and allegedly mature) as I am, I’m consistently embarrassed when I’m at the store and I have to buy toilet paper[1][2]. It’s even more embarrassing if I buy it in bulk, as if it’s some deeply concealed secret that I number 2.

So, one my new year’s resolutions will be to buy copious amounts of toilet paper with a boisterous spirit of dignity. So, if you ever run into me at the store and I’m loudly and boldly announcing my intentions to purchase that Charmin, extra soft that’s on sale, you’ll know why.

- ACL

[1] I guess the same can be said of condoms. From here on out, I’m done with the black overcoat and dark glasses get up. If anything, I should be given a medal for using condoms.

[2] OK, who am I kidding? I have to actually have sex first. Condoms don’t really get their fully-intended use when there’s only one side of the beast with two backs.

…apparently, a lot.

This story is a little old, but still worth mentioning because of the sheer hypocrisy I’ve witnessed from liberals and the media. Mitt Romney was recently on the receiving end of a wave of criticism after publicly making a $10,000 wager with Rick Perry during a recent Republican presidential debate. Romney and Perry were arguing about details in a book Perry had authored. Instead of focusing their attention on the debate and its substance, attention has been unfairly and distractingly fixated on ‘the bet.’ Though Romney has been subjected to attacks from both sides of the aisle, Democrats have been far more exploitative in their assault. They have been all too eager to suggest that Romney’s wage is yet another indication of how “out of touch” he and his Republican brethren are, compared to most Americans.

In my eyes, this argument falls flat on its face.

First, how many of us have made “bets” with outrageous dollar amounts attached to them? I’ve frequently said things like “I betcha $1 million that Michigan will beat Ohio St. this year” (until last month, I would’ve been out of a cool $7 mil if I was beholden to that wager). The only difference, albeit a very significant difference and one fueling the liberal argument, is that Mitt has the capital to actually go through with a bet like that with relative ease. Whether he actually would (or has) made bets like this before is incidental. His ability to do so and audacity of publicly making the wage, I suppose, is what has him in trouble. But I think it’s disingenuous, misguided, and ambiguous to say that a candidate or elected official is “out of touch” with the American people simply because of their wealth. President George W. Bush, for instance, was vastly considered a “common man”, though he and his family are extremely wealth themselves. And what about well-to-do Democrats? I don’t recall Bill and Hillary’s wealth being brought into the discussion. Even President Obama is rich. Certainly not to the same extent as a Mitt Romney, but he’s no pauper. Remember when Michelle Obama wore those $500 kicks at a Food Bank?

Is that silence I hear from my liberal friends?

Here’s a novel idea: rather than using wealth as the measurement of a person’s electability or their ability to lead, why don’t we focus on substance? While I think it’s definitely true that a person’s wealth and affluence can have bearing on their personality (i.e. wealthy people have a tendency to view poorer people with more apathy and less sympathy), their personality can usually be ascertained without any knowledge of their wealth. Focusing on substance, actual substance, is much more compelling in evaluating a candidate than their bank statements. But considering how clouded the political and media worlds are these days, for us to expect anything other than sensationalized nonsense is foolish and delusional.

- ACL


So the other day, my homegirl Natasha (please check out her blog. She’s a serious mind) put me on to a pretty unnerving article written by Gene Marks, a business and technology contributor for Forbes Magazine. The article entitled, “If I was a Poor Black Kid” (probably putting money in his pocket each time the link is clicked) offered what Marks considered a cure-all to the inequalities faced by impoverished Black youth in our country. Marks’ commentary, laced with naïveté, posited that the key to economic equality for poor black kids was through education; specifically information technology. In theory, I agree. But if the admission into the technological world of which he spoke was so easy, there would have already been an explosion of smart Black kids finding their way into this country’s elite institutions. But unfortunately for Marks (and many others) reciting the “picking yourself up by the bootstraps” narrative doesn’t work when there are no bootstraps in the first place. Unfortunately, the perfect world scenario to which Marks has alluded can’t exist in a nation where the poverty rate for Black children is around 38%, almost triple that of Whites, where the black incarceration is almost six times that whites, and where inner-city schools are closing left and right while suburban schools are flourishing.

I should make it clear at this point that I’m not retreating to the victimization narrative that so many other people use as a crutch. Not in the least bit. And I do believe that personal responsibility must always be taken into account when examining certain social phenomena. But I’m forever annoyed when individuals like Gene Marks (and for that matter, most of the Republican party) lay out a litany of simplistic solutions all rotating around the contention that Black kids should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without critically examining the precipitating circumstances contributing to certain pathological behavior, or – for that matter – recognizing the privilege he and others like him boast. Until he considers those very complex ideas, his suggestions fall on deaf ears.

Marks says that if he were a poor, Black kid, he would make reading a number one priority, regardless of the state of the school. What Mr. Marks fails to take into account is the fact that schools ARE the problem! Many of the brightest Black students at under-performing schools succeed in spite of, not because of the institutional support they receive. Included in the lack of resources are up-to-date books, modern technological tools, adequate college placement or even a modest amount of career counseling. Additionally, the limited access or exposure to various expensive subscription-based scholarly resources only contributes to the steepness of the learning curve. More often than not, students who already felt failed by a disparate educational system are less likely motivated to push for success, even if they perform well in the classroom.

Mark furthers his rather vacuous argument by citing the role of information technology in black youth social improvement. On that point, I can agree. The emergence of social media has given black youth – and people, in general – more opportunity than ever to develop themselves intellectually and increase their civic engagement via cybernetic activity. However, access and a lack of technological proficiency found among poor folks is in this country is no fantasy. All the technological and educational tools in the world don’t matter if your family can’t afford internet access.

Marks adds to his insulting commentary by suggesting that in addition to getting good grades, poor Black kids should focus on improving their test scores. More nonsense. As a person who has taken hundreds of tests over my lifetime, several of which were standardized tests used for college admissions and placement, I can say these tests were not designed to measure raw intelligence. In fact, many of the tests were merely an exercise in memory and regurgitation. But even standardized testing like the ACT and SAT, which require students to have understanding of the content, support is severely limited. Oftentimes, curriculum is not designed to address some of the content found on these tests. Even then, access to test prep materials, courses, and tutorial services can be very costly. Passing exams like this is with minimal resources is not simply a product of “mind over matter” , contrary to how easy Marks make is sound.

All throughout various political circles, critics incessantly default to the Bootstrap principle to confront societal issues, usually doing so without addressing the systemic barriers impacting the ability of so many young people of color to advance. I don’t disagree that personal motivation, and parental involvement are factors that must be taken into consideration as well. However we can’t have discussions like this when disadvantaged people are faced with disparate access to vital resource. Instead of subscribing to the normative behavior of identifying scapegoats in the victims, perhaps we should focus our efforts on getting to the heart of the problem.

What do you think? Do you think Marks is on to something or that he has to walk a few miles in the other person’s shoes first? Holla at me!

- ACL