Sometimes It's Cool to Floss, but Did Kim Ruin Her Credit to Get It?

The wealth gap between black and white women is growing to an alarming level. But you wouldn't know it looking at Kim. Who's Kim? Kim is the owner of the high-end Lexus I drove behind the other day. How do I know Kim? I don't. I never met her before and I'll probably never see her again. So how do I know who Kim is? Well, she told me--with her license plate number:

KI2THA M

I never got to see what Kim looked like, but I've lived long enough to recognize the shenanigans of kinfolk when I see them. Such a blatant display of ghetto fabulosity could only come from one race. (Besides, I don't have the energy to fathom the level of wiggerism (or the non-white equivalent) that would motivate a wealthy Caucasian, Asian, or Latina to engage in such nonsense.) So I'll go out on a limb and assume that Kim is black. And since I'm in a generous mood, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she bought the Lexus with money acquired legitimately.

Now, normally when I see a top-of-the-line Lexus, I imagine the driver being a middle-aged, upper middle class, investment-savvy person (of any race) with stock options, a couple of mortgages, and a child or two in a private college. Why did this license plate turn that into someone who either inherited the money, won the lottery, or maxed out her credit card(s) to get the car? Maybe because the same person who'd invest their energy "keeping it real" by brandishing an orthography inspired by 90's hip hop culture wouldn't normally invest the same amount of energy strategically managing their stock portfolio. Or maybe it's because seeing this license plate reminds me of Sheneneh's friend who got her Lexus stolen and sold for parts by her boyfriend. Or maybe it reminds me of the license plate on the car of Justice's boss:
I don't mean to stereotype, but I can't help thinking the kind of person who'd do this would also spend hundreds of dollars a month getting her nails done and her "hair did" and partying her weekends away dropping it like it's hot in da club. The kind that can manage to work her way up the corporate ladder but insist on "keeping it hood," talking loud, giving major attitude, and crying "racism" whenever her unprofessional behavior is questioned. She'd probably fit in really well with the Real Housewives of Atlanta--or even with Frankie and Neffe! I'd like to think Kim is the type of person who'd volunteer as a tutor or a Girl Scout troop leader, but not enough civic-minded celebrities are paraded in the media to herd impressionable people like her onto altruistic paths, so I'll retain my skepticism.

A rapper by the name of E-40 once opined "sometimes it's cool to floss, but don't buy an $85,000 car before you buy a house." Words to live by. Too bad rare gems like this axiom get drowned out by the countless celebrities in videos and on MTV's Cribs who teach the nouveau riche how to blow all their newly acquired wealth on nonsense. So Ms. KI2THA M is only following the example of the PTB's loudest minions: spend all your Benjamins on as much bling bling as you can find. After all, Americans have been force-fed the idea known for decades that you can't take it with you when you die. Right George? Right.

We’ve been socially engineered to believe that we live in a free country,

I’m open-minded enough to hope that we live in

Look, I guess we live in a free country, right? So if an out-of-touch person like Kim wants to use her $60,000 car to advertise her connection to a community that largely couldn't afford said car with a media-fed neologism of a bygone era, well we’ve been entrained to believe that it's her prerogative and she can do what she wants to do. She made that money, we didn't. Right Ted? Right. So I'll just let go and let God for now.

It would be nice, however, if more Kim's of the world could repurpose some of that Lexus money to connect to the community in a more meaningful way, like donating to a school in need or funding a community project. Then maybe we could begin to reverse that widening wealth gap between blacks and whites. Unless of course Kim really did ruin her credit to buy that Lexus and plummeted her net worth back down to the level of most black women. If so, then all I can say is: Kim, you shoulda been smarter with your money. Of course, she'd probably only take such advice if phrased in the style of a 90's hip hop ditty, so I'll quote another lyric from E-40's song (rapped by Too Short):

You don't really know what the game's all about.
It's bout feedin' the family, not freakin' in the Benz.
Instead of rentin', pay for that roof on yo' head
And stop pimpin' in ya own mind knowin' you a trick.
Put ya hustle down playa go and hit you a lick, Biyatch!

Harsh? Hey, I'm just keeping it real. Trust me. Kim would understand. Right Kim? Right.

Turning Me On, Turning Me Off

I came across this interesting YouTube video that showed a different way of doing arithmetic:



Apparently, the Egyptians used the binary system to perform mathematical calculations similar to the binary system of on and off switches underlying modern-day computer processing. It's an interesting video worth checking out.

I thought it was impressive to see such a nifty way of computing numbers, but I couldn't help but notice that the method seemed less efficient than modern-day mathematics. For one thing, a lot of board space was used to calculate each operation. There also seemed to be a need for using several mathematical operations in order to perform one calculation. To multiply 17 times 25, for instance, you'd need to know how to double each preceding number, which is fine if the starting point is 25. But what if you had to multiply 17 x 486? Or 285.34 x 8,139.8? Imagine how much board space would be required, not to mention the difficult task of doubling 486 or 8,139.8 (and then doubling their doubles, and then those doubles, and so on). In the end, it's much simpler to just memorize a few times tables, add your partial products, and borrow and carry when needed.

It's ironic that the Egyptian system is similar to the binary system that operates our computers today because with the advent of increased computer and internet use, the binary way of doing things seems to govern our communication and information gathering activities. With vast swaths of information just a few clicks away, memorization becomes increasingly irrelevant in today's society. However, even if we have a world of information right at our fingertips, it's sometimes quicker to just know the answer upfront rather than travel the world (wide web) to find it. Not to mention, the electronic device in question (computer, iPhone, etc.) has to be turned ON in order to retrieve the information. Still, in spite of all these inefficiencies, we seem to be increasing our dependence on technology to store, retrieve, and share our knowledge.

Taking the time to understand, memorize, and predict how things work in order to act effectively is time-consuming at first, but can save a person a wealth of time in the long run. It may not matter for a person's high school term paper whether they've learned an important historical date or not, as long as the answer can be found on Wikipedia. But when it comes to making decisions that affect one's life, sometimes having a readily accessible understanding of concepts and processes will better ensure sound decision-making.

With all the ways of gathering and sharing information at our fingertips, we seem to be getting more inefficient. I can't for the life of me understand how people can forgo the more efficient real-time conversation via the phone or in person for the more time-consuming text message or IM chat. Has the elaborate, time-consuming processing of binary computer calculations seeped into our modus operandi?

When the data that informs us is increasingly governed by the binary system of on- and off-switches, will the collective of society have detrimental gaps in knowledge and wisdom? Will we turn on only those people and ideas we're interested in or agree with and turn off those we're not? What does it mean exactly when someone turns you on or off? When did an action performed on a machine suddenly get attached to human emotion? Why has the concept of turning someone on been branded in popular culture as sexually desirable? (Do you think she might have the answer?) Are we being programmed like robots whose behavior may one day be monitored, governed, or even controlled by the power of an on/off switch? Rhi Rhi and Miss Keri Baby may not mind, but I do!

Get Thee Behind Me, Leftie. And Stay Away from Ma Youngin's!

Right when the Obama Administration plans its overhaul of No Child Left Behind, 10 conservatives win a Texas Board of Education vote to change the way K-12 students learn social sciences, not only in Texas but across the nation. Since Texas is one of the largest buyers of textbooks and thus has an influence on the publishing industry, this vote--pushed through by nary a social science expert--could effect the way children in many other states learn history, economics, and social studies. Among the many disturbing changes--including the white-washing of history and the promotion of capitalism and blind patriotism--the main goal of the new indoctrination revised curriculum is to shift the tone from an alledgedly liberal bias to one that espouses more Christian conservative values. A more "fair and balanced" approach, if you will.
George W. Bush is from Texas (well, really from Connecticut but whatever) and he instated the No Child Left Behind law in the first place. Throughout his administration he presented himself as someone who identified strongly with the ideologies of the 10 Texan vigilantes board members. So I wonder what exactly was meant by his phrase "no child left behind." Did it mean more than the obvious: preparing each and every one of America's children to become knowledgeable, productive middle class citizens? Or did it also tap into a bit of wordplay?: "left-behind," as in "the politics of the left and the "liberal media" will cause our children to fall behind in morality and Christian values if we don't stamp out their influence soon. We must not allow our children to be left-behind."

Or was the phrasing meant to tap into the psyche of enthusiasts of the Left Behind series, which conjures up some of the same feelings for its readers: "the politics of the left and the "liberal media" will cause mankind to fall behind in morality and Christian values and we won't go to Heaven when the rapture comes if we don't stamp out their influence soon." Substitute "mankind" with "our children" and "we" with "they," and voila: no child Left Behind.

This may all seem far-fetched, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of suggestion, particularly when the same memetic phrasing is embedded throughout popular culture in various forms that seem unrelated on the surface, but are really quite similar once you delve deeper. Whatever the memetic trajectory of these ideas, the suggestive phrasing of Bush's initiative is finally being carried out by the Board of Education of his own home state in a way that will effect the entire nation. And not a moment too soon now that their enemy (the Anti-Christ Commie Leftie Liberal) is tampering with their "Savior's" original law. Mission accomplished?

Don't Be Happy--WORRY!

The other day I was driving behind this on the freeway:
Crossfire? Really? Why is this the first time I've seen this? Where have I been? Maybe it's a good thing I've never seen it before. It probably reflects the fact that the model had a short run that ended in 2007, which might be a sign that people weren't ready to spend their money on something whose name so blatantly conjures up violence. But then again, this is the same culture that embraced the likes of Grand Theft Auto, so that benefit of the doubt can only go so far.

What motivation could Chrysler have had for naming a car Crossfire? (I mean, really! They might as well have just called it "collateral damage" or "innocent bystander.") They--like so many segments of the PTB--are obviously infusing subliminal messages of violence into the culture and desensitizing us to the concept. What's more disturbing is that gun control is being laxed left and right nowadays. Add to this the PTB's constant rigging of the system to marginalize and enrage an increasing number of people and the likelihood of "getting caught in the crossfire" becomes more and more of a possibility.

Why so much promotion of violence? Are the PTB just thinning the herd? Or are they preparing us for a heightened militarized future? With military drones already in common use and military recruiters providing gaming facilities for adolescents to engage in virtual combat, the notion of crossfire will undoubtedly become a more natural concept for ordinary citizens. And if this doesn't do the trick, maybe we can just sexualize firearms and get 'em hard with videos like this one. Or this one. Or simply glamorize the idea of a police state like this performance.

I often worry that I worry to much. I try to relax, but then something like this snaps me right back into alert mode. This is an undeniable sign that we're on our way to Hades. And forget about that hand basket. We're plowing down a roller coaster full speed ahead, with no brakes (or breaks) in sight!

Disney's New Billboard

A new billboard has been posted near my job for more than 2 months and I still haven't gotten used to it. This Mad Hatter picture is nothing short of unsettling. It might even be more disturbing than Dr. Facilier. At least Facilier was a cartoon. This is something I could easily encounter walking near Hollywood and Vine. (No joke!) Dragging my reluctant butt to work every morning is hard enough without having the Ambassador of Disturbia greeting me in the parking lot.

What exactly is Disney trying to accomplish with these disturbing posters? Both movies (The Princess and the Frog and Alice in Wonderland) have psychologically-balanced female leads, so why are they luring viewers in with these off-beat or sinister male characters? Are we supposed to identify with them from the outset so that we'll embrace their eccentric or manipulative ways? Or are we just being programmed to gravitate towards cringe-inducing characters for the sheer thrill and sensation of it all?

What kind of mindf*ck is Disney trying to teach our children with these billboards? And would it kill them to advertise a movie about a cute little bunny, friendly moose, or talking truck every once in a while? Can we please lay off the creeptastic posters for just a couple of months? For the love of God!

Is It Really Any Wonder?

I came across an NPR segment that featured three authors discussing the current state of black relationships in 2010. The panel included Jimi Izrael who schizophrenically blamed black women for having standards that were both too low and too high, Helena Andrews who admitted to having a self-described "bitchy," defensive behavior during failing relationships, and Hill Harper who promoted the importance of communication and understanding within black relationships. So basically, there was a male perspective, a female perspective, and a consensus-building perspective.

The conversation got contentious, particularly when Izrael called for black women to "get it together" and later dismissed Harper's book as being "too conciliatory." Another notable moment in the show came when a statistic was mentioned, claiming that in 1966, 84% of black children were born into two-parent households while in 2006, that number dropped to 31%. But what caught my attention most was the moderator's (unanswered) question revisited throughout the program: why do black men and women have difficulty forming intimate relationships?

Gee I wonder. Could it have been the media environment they were exposed to during their formative years? The panelists were in their late 20's and early-to-mid 30's. So perhaps the low standards promoted in lyrics like "Ain't no n*gga like the one I got... Sleeps around but he gives me a lot" played a part. Or maybe half-assed attempts at romance like "Meet me at the altar in your white dress. We ain't gettin' no younger, we might as well do it" had an influence. Perhaps the trivialization of marriage and parenthood in songs like "Wifey" and "Half on a Baby" jaded a few people. Maybe both men and women grew fearful of having unfaithful partners when they heard "Friend of Mine," "Say My Name," "Get It on Tonite," and "Stutter" flooding the airwaves. Or maybe the blatant acceptance of adultery in songs like "Creep," "Down Low," "Yeah," and "You're the One for Me" were to blame. Of course, the stupidity of denying infidelity while being caught red-handed ("It Wasn't Me") would crystallize anyone's hesitance to take a chance on love.

Perhaps incendiary songs like "No Scrubs" which discouraged low standards coupled with songs like "Gangsta Lovin'" which embraced low standards sent mixed signals as to what black women (should) want. Songs that promoted distrust of women ("Poison") or that spewed the tried and true "men are dogs" sentiment ("G.H.E.T.T.O.U.T.") may also have fanned the flames of discord between the sexes. If so, contentious songs like "Be Careful" would only make matters worse.

Sure there were a few positive songs like "Brotha" and "Brown Sugar" that extolled the virtues of the opposite sex, but those were few and far in between. For the most part, there were songs like Mary J. Blige's gloomy "Not Gon' Cry" as well as Toni Braxton's perennial songs about heartache, which likely put a damper on the excitement towards romance in general. Relationships would seem even less appealing if one expected to have to put up with the competition depicted in "He's Mine" and "Where My Girls At."

And that's just R&B. Add to that the countless rap songs and videos that objectified women and communicated the message that black men are thugs with only sex and violence on their minds and black women are sexual objects, bitches, hoes, and gold diggers--and you have a lot of mistrust and weariness on both sides.

Then consider all the romantic songs that predominated the airwaves like "Forever My Lady" and the unrealistic "Soon as I Get Home" and you have the primary reason why black women developed such high expectations in the first place. This, along with Disney's relentless "someday-my-prince-will-come" brainwashing and the "soul mate" mentality permeating throughout American popular culture, have most likely engineered a group of black women with high expectations who--probably from personal experiences reinforced by the themes in the aforementioned songs--sense a dearth of good black men, are pissed off about it, and thus develop the defensive "bitchy" posture that Andrews admits to.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have women with low expectations who'll put up with anything, giving the lower-achieving men little incentive to do better. The men that are hard-working and put forth their best effort have to deal with a mix of jilted and jaded women whose expectations are too low, excessively selective women whose expectations are too high, and, yes, even some of those infamous gold diggers. These men will often adopt Izrael's schizophrenic assessment of black women and either stay single or date/marry outside of the race. And no matter which camp you're in, everyone's complaining, pointing the finger at someone else, and amplifying the feelings of discord on all sides.

To be sure, we did have sitcoms like The Cosby Show that featured positive, healthy black relationships. But those were comedies whose depictions of black life would, arguably, be taken less seriously than in a dramatic context. Most of the dramas that were perceived as authentic depictions black life were played out in movies, few of which depicted healthy black relationships (e.g. "Waiting to Exhale," the various "In-the-Hood" movies, etc.). Relegating the positive black relationships to the less realistic sitcom context would only reinforce the notion that it is unrealistic--if not outright comical--to expect be in a good black relationship. And don't get me started on the droves of Jerry Springer and Maury Povich panelists who "represented" the most dysfunctional examples of black relationships that could be found (or contrived).

People often downplay the influence of the media, but you have to wonder if we'd be in a different place today had the messages been more positive and constructive. It doesn't help that polarizing conversations like the one in this NPR program--guised as "conversation starters"--only add fuel to the fire and widen the divide between the two camps. But hey, this program is part of the media too, so I guess they're just doing they're job, right? Keep feeding contention and discord into the minds of black men and women so that over the next 40 years we can reduce the aforementioned statistic from 31% to zero. That way, more black children can grow up in single-parent households with all the inherent social ramifications, including lower academic scores, higher incarceration rates, and lower overall health and wealth. Then we'll be even more susceptible to exploitation and subjugation, right? Right!

Carry on, media puppets. Carry on...

New Directions

Personal circumstances have forced me to take a hiatus from blogging, but in my silence I've been able to reflect on things a bit. During my absence, I've come across some revelations that have led me to think of the world in an even more alarming light than before. It may affect the direction and overall tone of this blog. I guess time will tell.

The theme that presently captures my interest is the media's role in "informing" and shaping society. Though, admittedly, I first got the idea from a YouTube video, the ideas put forth there were still quite intriguing. The narrator made an analogy between the meanings of "culture" and "media" in the traditional sense and their meanings in the biological sense. To paraphrase, a culture is an artificial environment where an organism is exposed to a set of conditions within a media, which is altered and manipulated to yield a specific outcome. Thus culture in the societal sense entails the molding and shaping of people by feeding them artificial (i.e. "contrived") values, ideas, and beliefs through the media. My question is: what is the ultimate outcome and how will we, the organisms, be affected?

Social engineering and predictive programming are themes that I will likely revisit in future posts. Their premises lie in the belief that the "powers that be" (PTB) are using the media to herd us into manifesting certain behaviors that will benefit them to our detriment. I'm speaking in vague terms right now, but I'll go into more specifics when the time comes. For now, suffice it to say that my eyes have been opened--WIDE! I can now longer passively accept information that is spoon-fed to me. I now realize the importance of questioning the true purpose behind media-fed information and of asking who will benefit from the way it's being spun. Hopefully these future entries won't come off as paranoid or excessively skeptical. If so, then so be it. If more people questioned what they were told and were more critical of the information they were provided, perhaps this Titanic will have a chance of steering clear of that iceberg before it's too late. Again, time will tell....