What In The Hell Is Wrong With Young Black Males??

A couple of nights ago, I had a truly retarded interaction.

As I’m walking home, I see four shadows in the distance walking in my direction. It’s dark, so I can’t make out any details of their appearances, no big deal.

As I get closer, one of the four shadows starts rapping, no lyrics that I recognize, just a bunch of gibberish, like he’s trying to free-style and can’t flow.

The second I’ve passed him and am about an inch behind him he raps “see that guy– he is a square.” I knew this was directed at me. How did I know this for certain?– pattern recognition, that’s how. Similar yet different situations happen to me on campus regularly. Every so often when I’m walking somewhere on campus, I will pass a young Black male, and as he gets closer in passing, or I get closer, all of sudden he will break out a rap, usually something “gangsta” and threatening. And as I’ve completely passed him, he stops. My presence alone seems to be the catalyst for this verbal show of bravado; it doesn’t start until I get close, and it stops as I get further away from him.

If it wasn’t in the socially acceptable form of a rap, such behavior would look like a schizophrenic talking to himself. But they aren’t talking to themselves; for some reason, they want me to hear this. I don’t get the motivation behind this. It reeks of insecurity and a cry for attention.

But this incident was a little different because this swag-fag lobbed an insult at me, in an indirect/ yet direct/ passive aggressive manner, and I’m 99% certain it was directed at me. The only people on the sidewalk were me, this guy, and the three people he was walking with, two males and one female. There is no one else around. I’m pretty sure I was the “that guy” he was calling a square. I know this m.o.

I wasn’t in the mood to lay down to an insult, so I decided to check the kid: I turned around and asked “who’s a square?” He didn’t respond. I then said “Hold up, are you talking about me?” Then he did respond. He started yelling his head off, saying he wasn’t talking about me.( when I knew he was) He then yells “You wana lose yo’ life tonight,nigga.” I’m not one to automatically dismiss such talk, but what he did next let me know he was full of shit.

He didn’t lift up his shirt to display a chrome .45, like Ice Cube in Boyz In The Hood. Instead he yells out “ALL I GOTTA DO IS MAKE ONE PHONE CALL.” “I GOT THE PHONE RIGHT HERE.” This made me think he might have been mentally retarded. I didn’t have to pull his bitch card; he put it on display when he held up his cell phone, like that was supposed to scare me. I guess an iPhone is an instrument of death now.

He’s talking about making a call when he’s got backup with him, and I’m all by myself. I asked who he was going to call and told him “that’s a lot of bark.” He then parades out into the street, away from me, posturing like he wants to fight and yells “THE STREET’S RIGHT HERE NIGGA.” I told him that if he was going to attack me, I would defend myself. I then walked away, continuing on my way home, and he continued yelling the typical shit. By turning my back, I gave him the perfect opportunity to run up on me. He wasn’t serious; it was all bravado and posturing. If he was a “gangsta,” he would have shot me; if he was brawler, he would have socked me. He looked like he was all of 18, and he was acting like he was about 11.

Such nonsensical behavior is not a rarity; it’s common among a huge segment of Black males. Such behavior is the reason why I have more Asian friends than Black friends, why I have a lot of international student friends, yet I’m friends with none of the basketball players at UCM.

As I arrived back at my apartment, I thought I should have hit him. But that would have run counter to the credo and code of behavior I’ve adopted. When it comes to violence, I will only get violent if someone brings violence to me, in the case of self-defense or to help a friend who is in harm’s way.

Given my analytical nature, I started thinking about what compels someone to act like that. My guess is it’s partially the result of what happens when someone listens to Rick Ross all day and believes the Scarface inspired fantasy tales from a morbidly obese former prison guard can become their reality.

I also have to wonder how did this behavior become so prevalent throughout a race of people.

George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, once said “ the Negro is an immature race,” and unfortunately I see that. The perspective of someone like Rockwell was undoubtedly from the fallacious point of view of an assumed genetic inferiority of Blacks, but because I have knowledge of psychology, I’m able to probe a little deeper and come up with more substantial reasons.

What creates frozen emotional development? One answer is trauma. You will see this in those who have been molested, along with alcoholics and drug addicts. A history of trauma is prevalent with the history of the African-American. The system of slavery itself served as a long time hindrance to development and advancement.

The fatherlessness that is prevalent among African-Americans also factors into the equation. It might be an old school point of view, and some of my professors with feminist leanings might accuse me of using gender biased language, but only a man can teach a man how to be a man. Part of being a man is conducting yourself in a dignified and respectable/respectful manner, respecting those around you, until they give you a reason not to. When you have widespread fatherlessness and broken homes among a people, that leaves the perfect opportunity for any type of nonsense to come along and fill the void of a male role model.

I can understand the contributing factors that lead to douchebags acting like the swag-fag I had words with, but it’s a universe removed from my mentality; I don’t see how it’s OK to fuck with people at random who aren’t bothering you, but I think I can explain that, too…

Both the swag-boy and the dignified, intelligent brother were raised in a society with the lingering ghosts of a past that placed them both as second class citizens. The ambitious, intelligent brother gets busy using his talent, intellect, and drive to help dismantle the fallacy of Black inferiority. The swag boy and the pseudo gangsta corroborate the so-called “stereotypes.” They can’t compete in a so-called “ White man’s world,” so they create an insular, micro world in which they can feel important and valued in, but in the back of their mind’s they know the educated, ambitious, suit and tie brother will end up surpassing them in the game of life, so they lash out at him, knowing he has the potential to achieve what they can not. In psychology, such behavior is called misdirected aggression, but in the modern, common vernacular it would be called being a hater.

To be completely on the nose about things, the behavior of most young African-American males is embarrassing and pathetic and would have Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, and Frederick Douglass spinning in their graves. While incarcerated, Malcolm X read the entire dictionary from cover to cover. Paul Robeson was classically trained in the art of opera singing . In this day and age, to be a young Black man pursuing such high-brow interests is to run the risk of being called a sell-out, bitch, or square.

I once had someone tell me I could serve as a role model for wayward Black youth. I wouldn’t even want to do that. I’m not trying to play a Joe Clark role, and for someone to play the role of a role model, they have to be in a position in which they are looked up to. I don’t think those who he would have wanted me to reach out to would even listen to me. They think I’m a square, and at this point, I think the damage is irreversible, with lower-class millennials in general, and concerning the mentality that so many young Black males have chosen to accept, it’s now become a matter of self-inflicted damage.

Convergence A Part Of The Changing Face Of Journalism

Convergence a part of the changing face of journalism

by MITCHELL BROWN, Muleskinner

As a new semester at Central begins, I find myself thinking about the amount of changes I’ve witnessed while here.

One university president left, and a new one took office; a new student recreation center was built; and the major I chose, journalism, was phased out, but those enrolled prior to the discontinuation of the program will still graduate with a degree in journalism.

In 2010, a few other majors were discontinued or amalgamated into a new major, which is what happened with journalism courses. Many of the courses that were part of the journalism program will now go towards the new Digital Media Production major, which combines journalistic writing with video editing and production, etc.

Proponents of the new major said it would enable journalists to be better equipped in a changing field, a field in which convergence is the new name of the game. Convergence is the process of combining divergent media into one body. It’s the reason why the modern journalist should be more versatile. In today’s industry, a journalist who started out working in print might also end up shooting video footage.

The practice of journalism will not disappear. As a glut of information exists in an unregulated format online, reporters are needed to sift through that information. I’m not at all worried about the changing face of journalism. I fully accept the challenge and am actually excited about it. Maybe the transition going on within journalism will act as a form of natural selection, and the best and brightest in the field could create an increased standard of excellence for modern journalism.

A human element exists with convergence. Convergence involves working across interdisciplinary lines. Last fall, I was working with a group of broadcast media students as on air talent for a news magazine show we had created called Central Talk, with the hope of having a strong online presence. I had no prior experience in front of the camera, but I figured I would take a chance. As fun as the experience was, it didn’t last.

As finals drew closer, one of the main students behind the show said he wouldn’t have time to edit any more footage. After only two episodes, the show came to an end. But during that brief period of time, I learned a valuable lesson about what can be created when students from different majors work together.

I don’t see why inter-major cooperation has to end there; it could easily be transferred to this publication. The more students who are involved, the more diverse the content becomes, which could lead to more students reading and contributing to the Muleskinner.

One of the aims of the journalist should be to capture the diversity of the human experience. Such a goal can more easily be met if you have a diverse staff working on a publication. I’m not only a journalism major; I’m also a history major. With a lot of the columns and news stories I write, I like to bring a historical perspective to them. I’m sure, somewhere there is a science major with a knack for writing who would be equipped to cover stories pertaining to the sciences, or a music major who could apply his or her knowledge to stories about musical events.

The ability to capture diverse story content lies within a diverse student population, and a more panoramic view could come into existence by building more bridges between majors.

?p=567

A Few Words On Tribalism, Commonalty, And The Leviathan

I’m overjoyed when I find a well-matched proverbial sparring partner on serious, relevant issues. I’m not the type of person to shy away from a conversation with someone who has an opposing view. It’s something I actually enjoy, nor will I become upset or overly-emotional during such a conversation. I think whatever stance someone takes, they have an obligation to defend said position. When I encounter someone who isn’t able to, I start to suspect that that person’s point of view, opinion, or ideology is built on shaky ground, or they’ve taken a stance because it’s a popular trend, and there is no real meat behind his or her stance.

In a fellow student named Sean, I think I have found a decent proverbial sparring partner, as we hold radially different world views, and neither of us will shy away from speaking our minds. In our feature writing class, a few weeks ago the issue of tribalism and commonalty came up.

We of course have limited time in class to discuss such a weighty matter, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about and could go into further depth about. The conversation started out about the issue of students selecting roommates based on profiles on social media sites. Sean was against it because he said it could lead to people not learning how to better interact with people different from themselves, and some could never leave a selected comfort zone.

My response was that that’s something that happens in the “real world” and is simply being transferred to online communities. The internet is not the cause for social stratification. I then elaborated and presented my perspective, one in which a bond is based on commonalty: when you find increased, commonalty, you have an increased chance for the building of bonds. When you have diminished commonalty, you have a lessened probability of bonds being forged. To a certain extent, everyone sticks with their own kind, however you wish to define that, and it can be defined on multiple levels. For some, it could be an issue as superficial as skin color. But it could also be that having the same major in college is enough to form some type of minor bond. ( I speak form experience on that one)

Sean said what I was advocating lent itself to tribalism. I said that whether you are comfortable with it or not, tribalism is still in effect. It’s not something relegated to ancient societies of yore. The reason why St. Patrick’s Day means something more to someone of Irish lineage than it does to me is due to tribalism. Nationalism/patriotism stems from tribalism. When you go to a ball game and rise for the singing of the national anthem, you are participating in a form of tribalism. The idea of the American experience is supposedly one of multiculturalism, the notion of the melting pot, but just because you have a diverse population in the same area doesn’t mean that a tribal identity is automatically washed away. An Irishman who emigrates to America doesn’t all of sudden stop being Irish because of his change of location. By birth, he is still connected to the Celtic tribe.

Sean said that if we still had a tribal society, we would not have a civilized society. I didn’t get to raise my rebuttal in class, but my rebuttal is that tribal division does not always lead to tribal warfare. You can also have cooperation among varying tribes.

Coinciding perfectly with the conversation is a book I’m currently reading entitled “The Better Angels Of Our Nature: Why Violence Had Declined.” by Steven Pinker. Some might scoff at the title in light of modern violence. But it really makes so much sense when you dig into the book. Pinker’s thesis is that even in light of modern violence, our world today is for less dangerous, on a unilateral level, than it was during the days of the brutality of Roman gladiators, or when Genghis Khan and the Mongols laid waste to Central Asia, or the time of torture devices in medieval Europe. Part of his thesis is that that was a more violent era, in that a larger swath of the population were universally affected by a greater level of barbarity than today. Pinker backs up his claim with historical, mathematical, and statistical evidence. He also focuses on how empathy and human rights movements spread to how much of the violence of the ancient world was partially a result of a stateless society.

The latter claim would be in line with what Thomas Hobbes wrote in “the Leviathan.” Hobbes’ view of human nature was that if man is left in his natural, unfettered state, he will resort to “the war of all verses all.” Hobbes’ remedy to man’s own nature is the creation of the Leviathan, a centralized government. The Leviathan restricts and controls man’s own nature, a form of subduing the id. The Leviathan eradicates the stateless society, but it doesn’t eradicate tribalism. For that to happen we would have to live in a society that would resemble the Borg from Star Trek.

My Thoughts On Pussy Riot, Obscenity, And Free Speech

This has been an interesting summer for news: the pro Chik-fil-A vs. anti Chik-fil-A war of words, two mass shootings, and now making the news is the trial of Russian punk, feminist, band/performance art troupe– Pussy Riot. I’ll have to admit, it was amusing and entertaining to hear serious journalists like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now say the words Pussy Riot over and over again. On Friday, the Pussy Riot trial came to an end with the verdict of the band being found guilty of “hooliganism” and a “hate crime” and sentenced to two years in a “labor camp.” In case you didn’t know, the trial is the result of Pussy Riot disrupting a church service and playing their song “Prayer For Putin.” The most fucked up element of the situation is that they were charged with a “hate crime.”

Hate crime legislation is absolute bullshit. A hate crime is a thought crime. It’s a matter of punishing someone’s motivation and adding a more ghastly label onto an already illegal act. Whether someone is killed because of the color of his or her skin or if someone is killed over five bucks, both victims are equally dead. At that point, the motivation for murder becomes a moot point. It’s not as if a different motivation would change the outcome in either case.

The other bullshit thing about hate crime legislation is that it is not unilaterally applied. If a bunch of psycho-ass rednecks tie a Black man to the back of a truck and drag him for a country mile, they are charged with a hate crime. If a couple of gang-bangers beat down a White kid for being the wrong color, in the wrong part of town, and at the wrong time of night, would they be charged with a hate crime? I doubt it. Laws that are not unilaterally enforced are unjust, bullshit laws, which is one of my major issues with the war on drugs, but that’s another issue for another day. Right now, I’m still talking about Pussy Riot and free speech.

So if Pussy Riot had staged their impromptu to disruption/ protest/ performance in a super-market instead of a church they would not have been smacked with “hate-crime” charges. What if they felt hatred towards the super-market. Ah-ha, now we reach the crux and bullshit of the matter: a religious institution has protected status, and a super-market does not.

To be honest I really don’t understand why the Pussy Riot story has been making waves. Let’s see, three Russian women in neon colored ski-masks disrupt a church service with performance art as a protest against Vladimir Putin. Isn’t this the type of shit that is usually relegated to a blurb in the news of the weird as opposed to head line,/cover-story content? As this chapter of the Pussy Riot saga comes to a close, I can’t help but feel grateful that I live in a country that has a First Amendment that protects artists and the rights of dissident voices, well some of the time.

I have a long memory, and I’m always doing a compare and contrast with all sorts of things, so when I found out about the Pussy Riot verdict, I started thinking about obscenity trials of musicians right here in America in the past: I thought about the obscenity trials of Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys, Luther Campbell and the 2 Live Crew, and Wendy O’ Williams and the Plasmatics. The aforementioned cases are really more dissimilar to Pussy Riot than they are similar, due to a few crucial factors: Along with all of the aforementioned plaintiffs being acquitted, in the cases of the Dead Kennedys, the Plasmatics, and 2 Live Crew, they faced obscenity charges because of the content of their albums or concerts that their fans bought or went to of their own free will.

Pussy Riot essentially forced their art on an unsuspecting audience; they aren’t entirely innocent. If they were living under a democracy, instead of an authoritarian state, they probably would have been charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct, which usually amounts to just a fine. In the case of Pussy Riot, the amount of time they were sentenced to does not match the severity of their action. I think the verdict is bullshit, but is it an injustice?, maybe a minor injustice, but not a major one. If the members of Pussy Riot fell into a time portal and were magically transported back to old Soviet Russia, what type of punishment would they face for pulling their little stunt? (a lot more than two years) What would have happened if they had staged their protest/performance in a mosque in Saudi Arabia? They would have probably been put to death.

I find it hard to get worked up over Pussy Riot. You won’t see me in a free Pussy Riot shirt anytime soon. I don’t view them as some type of righteous martyrs, regardless of what Madonna or the Red Hot Chili Peppers say. I do not view the group in the same light as people like Nelson Mandela or the Dali, fucking, Lama. As I follow this story, I simply shrug my shoulders and move on. But I must admit, those neon ski-masks look cool as fuck.

A Few Words On Vinnie Paz

I guess Vinnie Paz is due to have a new album, entitled God Of The Serengeti, out on October 23rd of this year. The video above is the first video from the album. I still constantly play his last solo album “Season Of The Assassin.” I once told a friend he should check out Jedi Mind Tricks and Vinnie Paz. He then asked “who is, is it cool?” I said “Yeah, it’s really cool: he’s a white Italian Muslim from Philadelphia. My friend responded with “Oh, I’ve gotta hear that.”

When I first heard Jedi Mind Tricks’ “Servants In Heaven,Kings In Hell” album I was blown away. Both Vinnie’s identity and lyrics were like nothing I had ever heard before. A complexity and duality is prevalent in his lyrics, as gun talk and thug talk meshes with theology and a historical knowledge of the ancient world. Like KRS-ONE and Chuck D, Vinnie Paz is a true street scholar. Vinnie Paz represents the polar opposite of the mainstream swag rap. Sure, you can feel free to listen to Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, Drake, and Waka  Flocka, but that type of stuff doesn’t even exist in my world. I’m too busy listening to Paz. Hip-Hop isn’t dead:people like Vinnie Paz are helping to keep it on life support. 

 

                                                                                                                                                                      Vinnie Paz-one of the coldest to ever hold a microphone

Fuck Modern Pop-Culture, Fuck Television

When I hear someone babel on about some meaningless, mindless pop-culture bullshit, particularly TV shows, I feel a sense of liberation in that I usually have no idea what and who they are talking about. It feels like I’ve escaped the Matrix.( and I didn’t even like that movie) I’m so disgusted by most examples of modern pop-culture, I’ve made a deliberate effort to remove it from my life. I’m so out of the loop with most of this shit, because I’ve chosen to be. I’ve never seen a full episode of the Bachelorette, Glee, Desperate Housewives, the Real House Wives of.(insert whatever city) When someone starts talking about movies like the Hangover, Superbad or Pineapple Express, I get up on my high horse and proudly state “ I don’t watch stupid shit like that.”

 My opposition to these programs is not due to depictions of sex, violence, drug use, or an exploitative nature of reality TV: it’s in relation to how fucking stupid these shows are, completely geared towards the lowest common denominator. Most stuff with mass appeal is; otherwise it wouldn’t be able to sell on a mass level. Most people are stupid ,or at least of only average intelligence; the existence of a bell curve regarding the measuring of IQ proves that. Intellectualism is not marketable to most people: the very nature of intellectualism will leave the average mind isolated from it and unable to understand.  Evidence of a society in mental decline and a state of devolution is partially taken from my observation of pop-culture. It’s like TV has gotten dumber.

 I honestly don’t see the appeal of this shit. In 2010, when Jersey Shore had seemingly reached the height of its popularity, I had yet to see a single episode. I heard so many people talking about it all the time, talking about how so-so acts like Ronnie, or how someone in class looks like Ronnie, people talking about Snooki and the Situation. I didn’t get it. (maybe because I hadn’t seen it) It was a fucking reality show. I would have thought that well would have run dry by now. I’m not saying that I thought reality TV would disappear, but I don’t see how a reality show about people clubbing, drinking, fucking, and drama became such a phenomenon. Haven’t we seen that before with the Real World? I finally got around to watching Jersey Shore for the first time this year. I watched one episode on MTV’s website, and that was enough. As I was watching it, I was thinking this is shit! It was nothing but mundane carnality, and this somehow became a runaway hit??

 What is the appeal? I took this question to my friend Mike, and he said people who are big fans of reality TV are people who were the gossips in high school. ( and never grew out of that stage) They are people who probably lead boring, mundane lives, so by watching this shit, they are able to live vicariously through the exploits of someone more interesting, more popular, better looking etc. etc. I think the popularity of Jersey Shore can be attributed to the return of the party life in pop-culture. With Jersey Shore, college kids see a lifestyle that might bear some resemblance to their own, or one they can easily replicate. Furthermore, what I also fail to understand is when people talk about celebrities and reality TV show stars as if they have a personal relationship or connection with these people. The only people actually personally affected by what a superstar is wearing at a red carpet premiere would be designers like Vera Wang, maybe Joan and Melissa Rivers, and the actual celebrity wearing the dress. If someone gets emotionally worked up in response to what a celeb is wearing or someone being voted off of a reality TV show, I have to question the emotional stability of that person.

 The significance given to insignificant TV pop-culture nonsense is all part of a larger plan. It’s called subterfuge. It directly benefits certain people in power to have a mass population whose minds are focused on the irrelevant. The Roman emperors gave the plebeian class bread and circuses to keep them pacified. Today, people are given American Idol and Jersey Shore, but the result is the same

I Am Not A Sociopath Just Because I Don’t Give A Shit About You

 Back in 2009, when I was working as a cook at a drug and alcohol rehab, as I was getting ready to cut the lasagna, we were to serve to the clients; this dumb bitch of a co-worker said something along with lines of “here, I’ll do it.” The tone of her voice was as if she was belittling me, implying that I wouldn’t have been able to cut it properly, and she would automatically be able to do it better. I felt as if she was attempting to proclaim herself as superior to me, which is something I refuse to put up with, so I grabbed one of our knives and proceeded to mangle the lasagna as though I were possessed by the spirit of John Belushi’s Samurai chef.

 After doing this, I asked her if she had ever heard of the book the Art of War; I then spat out a quote from the book “Never allow the enemy to impose his will upon you; always impose your will upon the enemy.”(or something like that) This might have been over her head, but her stupid ass might have been able to see how I was relating it to what took place in the kitchen.(although in an indirect manner) Her rebuttal was to ask me “Have you ever heard of a book called the Sociopath Next Door? She is trying to imply that I’m a sociopath, and it wasn’t the first time the charge has been thrown at me, and I know the reason why: at times I seem to lack empathy, sympathy, and compassion for others, but a lack of empathy alone does not make one a sociopath. There are other personality types and personality disorders in which a lack of empathy is also a prominent feature: histrionic personality type is one; borderline personality disorder is another, and people with Asperger’s also lack sympathy/empathy. Aspies often have a stronger attachment to things, inanimate objects, rather than people.

 There are a whole host of traits associated with the sociopath that do not apply to me. While having a conversation with someone who has a background in psychology, he said I’m not a sociopath, because so many of the other traits of a sociopath do not fit with my personality and behavior. Sociopaths are impulsive and view life with short term/for-now mentality. I can spend so much time thinking about the possible outcome of an action that it leads to inaction. I next to never throw caution to the wind. I plan things out. The sociopath is a thrill-seeker, and I’m not. They like to victimize people, and are able to do so easily because of that lack of empathy. That’s not what I’m about. I have a live and let live, and leave me the hell alone, mentality. You do your thing, and I’ll do mine. Leave me the hell alone, and I’ll leave you the hell alone. I’m not out to cause suffering, but the suffering of most of the human race means nothing to me. To be honest, there is just too much human suffering for me to be connected to all of it. An attempt to do so would probably result in endless depression and agony. Buddhists believe that suffering is an inescapable part of human existence.

 I question the motives of the humanitarian. I think these misguided Dudley-Do-Rights lack an understanding of their own nature, the nature of the human animal. How many people are on Earth?

It would be impossible to love and honestly care about that many people and have that love actually be sincere, so I’ve come to see the humanitarian as a fraud, someone who is dreaming an impossible dream. Why would you want to love everyone on the planet? Mixed in with those likable people are detestable people: pedophiles, rapists, bigots, murderers, liars, sociopaths, users, dumb-asses etc. Loving some of these folks could be hazardous to your health. By loving everyone, you’ve reduced the value of love. My love and respect is reserved for those who deserve it. Those who are in my life, and I care about, I will do just about anything, within in reason, to help them, but a stranger is just that– a stranger.

 I think the selfless person doesn’t actually exist. Selflessness runs counter to our nature. The most prominent of all natural laws is that of self-preservation. It’s always in effect. If you fall upon economic hard times, you will be reminded of the primacy of self-interest. If you are starving, you are more likely to be concerned about putting food in your belly instead of someone else’s. To choose the latter over the former is a subversion of natural law and really fucking stupid. You can only extend your hand as far as your arm will allow you to. Anton LaVey once said you cannot be good to others until you are good to yourself first. If you aren’t financially stable, you do not have the disposable income to donate to charity, or at least, in my eyes, to do so wouldn’t be a wise move. The question I have for philanthropists: Are their charitable actions exclusively for other people? Or are they also doing it for themselves? Is it done to make themselves look good? How many people in college are involved with some type of philanthropy because it will look good on a resume’? How many philanthropists give because they get some type of emotional satisfaction, some type of good vibe, heart-warming tingly feeling. If that’s the case, they are involved in a self-serving activity.

 I’ll always remember the time when I got one of those I care about everybody types to admit her underlying motives were self-serving. It was a former co-worker who seemed to bend over backwards to help people. I asked her why she did it. She told me she believes in the pay it forward concept, which is the idea that if you help others, other people will help you or be kind to you later on down the line. I ended the conversation right there, but the unsaid question that popped into my mind was if she didn’t think she was going to get a karmatic refund, would she still want to help people. Her pay it forward concept would see her getting something in exchange for doing good deeds, which is a self-serving motive. She’s doing good deeds and anticipating being paid back for it later. That is not a selfless act: it’s an exchange, even if it’s with some unseen, undefined, unproven cosmic force.

Someone can become uncaring due to environmental factors. If someone was raised in, or lives for an extended amount of time, an uncaring environment, someone could become uncaring. Urban environments reinforce the primacy of self-interest. The rat race, a faster paced life reinforces a do for self mentality. I’ll never forget this time when I was living in KC and I saw a drunk bum slip off of a bus stop bench and cracked his head on the side walk. He was down for the count. He stayed planted on the ground. No screams of pain came from him. He wasn’t struggling to get back up. He just stayed there. No one at the bus stop came up to him to see if he was ok. These girls did try to flag down a cop car, but the cop car just rolled on. Should I have helped him? Should I have even cared about him? My answer is no. I had been at work all night, unloading packages for UPS, and was getting ready to catch another bus home and go to sleep, and this is the part of the story where the bleeding hearts talk about how he probably had some type of pain and strife in his life, and that’s why he’s a bum getting sauced up at nine in the morning. We all have pain and strife in our lives, yet not everyone becomes a bum. I didn’t put that beer in his hand or push him off the bench. I find it hard to have sympathy for people when their problems are self-created.

 In my eyes, the ideal society would be a meritocracy, a society in which someone’s status, wealth and well-being is merit based, a society in which those who contribute the most would have the most, and those who contribute nothing would have nothing. Which category would the bum on the bench fall under?

 Have you ever thought that by helping the “disadvantaged” that, on a macro level, you might be doing harm to society as a whole? I proposed this question to a bleeding hurt acquaintance once, and she said she didn’t understand what I was trying to say. Someone who takes the offerings of others, yet does not contribute to society, is by definition a human parasite, and parasites maintain their existence by drawing blood from healthy organisms, so by helping those who do not contribute to society, you are helping to feed parasites.

 The words you have just read are not the words of a sociopath, but rather the words of someone who is able to see human beings, along with life itself, for what they are, the good, the bad, and the ugly, sans any type of rose-colored glasses or delusions.

What’s Wrong With Music Today

Music has been a part of my life for as long I can remember, but now a days, I find myself disinterested in most of what’s being recorded. It wasn’t always this way. My discovery of underground music, my discovery of punk and hardcore hit like a bolt out of the blue. A lot of music I hear being made today doesn’t affect me like that music did so many years ago.

I came of age during a wonderful time for music, the alternative boom of the 1990s. In the early 90s, for a brief moment, the musical status quo was turned topsy turvy due to the sucess of Nirvana’s Nevermind. In the fall of 1992, I would come home from school and see videos from Sonic Youth and Morrissey on MTV. This period of time was so brief ,from about 1992-1994, the point when alternative went mainstream, and an alarming number of artists who actually maintained a sense of artistic integrity were able to gain mass exposure like never before.(without compromising their sound) Of course the prevailing pop formula was re-established in the late 90s, due to the rise of the boy-bands and the teen pop phenomenon.

The chart success of Nevermind was often described as coming out of nowhere, but it was actually a culmination of an underground music scene, which had previously existed on the fringes, reaching a point of critical mass, and finally boiling over into the mainstream via Nirvana. I remember reading a Nirvana biography entitled Come As You Are. The book was littered with references to a number of bands I had never heard ,and in some cases never heard of. I had to know what this stuff sounded like. I had to know what Black Flag, Husker Du, and the Bad Brains sounded like. Around age 13, I started searching out music that was before my time. I had recently been introduced to the music of the Sex Pistols, the Smiths, and David Bowie, but it was a couple days after my 14^th birthday that I bought Black Flag’s Damaged album, and life would never sound the same again. The album was recorded and released in 1981, the year after I was born, but I felt such a deep connection to the record. Black Flag is my favorite band of all time, and that album is my favorite album of all time.

The intensity of Damaged is unrivaled. It’s pure sonic napalm, a musical embodiment of rage, anger, and nihilism. I was frustrated and pissed off, and the album resonated with me, saying everything I felt, but was unable to express at the time. After listening to the album, I dove head first into whatever underground music I could find. After getting into Black Flag, I started listening to the Dead Kennedys, Minor Threat, Bad Brains, and Agnostic Front, and a host of other bands. I feel in the love with early 80’s hardcore. I still play that old-school stuff. Also during this time, I was searching out underground music from the era I was growing up in. I first heard AFI back in 1995 on an obscure compilation, which now goes for hefty price, called This Is Berkeley, Not West Bay. I spent my teens into my twenties listening to punk and hardcore, and now they are genres I no longer pay much attention to, with the most notable exception being that of Madball.

I think one can not have a true understanding of artwork, movies, or music without an understanding of what was going on during the era they were made in, a historical perspective. An understanding of events of a particular era can produce a greater understanding of what influenced and inspired the artist’s work.

 The nihilism and anxiety that was prevalent in so much of the the hardcore-punk of the early ’80s was partially a result of the increased tension between America and the Soviet Union. Many historians and political analysts have cited the early ’80s as the closest the two super-powers ever came to a nuclear showdown since the Cuban missile crisis of the ’60s. You can hear the anxiety over the threat of “mutually assured destruction” in the lyrics of the Circle Jerks’ song Stars and Stripes: “What they did past or present, got us in this situation, predicament, no where to run, everybody’s building bombs.”/ “Science, modern technology digged your grave, care of Moscow and DC, votes you never gave.”

 Let’s switch gears into the present: What can be learned about what is on the minds of young people by looking at the lyrics of contemporary pop music? It doesn’t even seem like there is much there. I have a hunch that the popularization of “swag” rap is actually a plot by the Illuminati to dumb down the youth population. Ok, that was me joking, but seriously, I see humanity in a state of devolution, which appears to be the most noticeable among millennials. I see a society that is rapidly hurdling towards what is depicted in the movie Idiocracy. Ke$ha becomes the perfect soundtrack for the dumbing down of a society that was never all that bright to begin with, and I really don’t have a problem with Ke$ha. It’s obvious she is doing a send up, a parody, an exaggeration, similar to what the Beastie Boys did on License to Ill.

 

In contemporary pop music, the party life has become a central lyrical focus, a defining feature of this era . Some would say that’s nothing new: just look at Animal House. As long as there have been college kids, there have been festivities. That’s true, but I’ve noticed an excelration concerning a love of partying, like the ante has been upped. In the the 70s, FourLoko and Tilt were not available. The weed around today is stronger than that of the 60s and 70s; it contains higher levels of THC. The credo of the current party generation seems to be to “go hardcore,” to “go all out,” to live without concern for consequences. This mentality is displayed in songs like Wiz Khalifa’s “Young, Wild and Free” and movies like Project X. Are these celebrations of debauchery and recklessness a reflection of youth culture or are they creating it? That’s a chicken/egg question that I don’t have an answer for. Is the return of the party life in music a response to so many things turning to shit and falling apart, so more people are eager to boogie down to take their minds of the collective problems we face as a nation?

 Music is still an integral part of my life although I don’t like most of what’s being made. My musical tastes have expanded far beyond the confines of the punk and hardcore of my teens. When I actually pay money for a CD, yes I still do that, 70 percent of the time it’s hip-hop, but I’m not talking about Lil Wayne or Gucci Mane. I’m talking about underground hip-hop,Jedi Mind Tricks, Immortal Technique, Ill Bill, MF Doom. Most mainstream so-called hip-hop/rap holds no interest for me. It’s rather mindless, often presenting the worst, most degrading, stereotypical representations of so called “black culture,” serving up images that harken back to the days of the minstrel show. So much of it sounds like it was manufactured on a conveyor belt. It’s monolithic and monochromatic, but with underground/independent hip-hop there is a diversity,a variety, concerning flow, beats, and subject matter. There is a universe of difference between Talib Kweli and Brotha Lynch Hung, yet they are both equally hip-hop and equally talented. One of the reasons why mainstream (false) hip-hop does nothing for me is because I focus on lyricism. I want to hear more than someone talking about diamonds in his mouth or I got my drink my cup type of stuff.

 A prime example of what I want to hear in hip-hop is Vinnie Paz. ( of Jedi Mind Tricks) When I bought JMT’s 2006 album-Servants in Heaven,Kings In Hell-I was blown away. The lyrical content of the album was a combination of gritty, grimey street level content combined with complex political and theological themes. Some of the lyrics went so deep, they served as a catalyst for me doing research: I had to in order to follow what Vinnie was talking about. Example: “Fuck around and get laced with the Luger if you sympathize with the Hellenization of Judah.” A Luger is a pistol, but I wasn’t able to decipher the second part of that verse until I took a class on the history of the ancient world.

Throughout all the various changes and twists and turns in my life, music was always there, and it always will be there. My days of stage-diving and roughhousing in the pit are long gone, and the Doc Martens were retired years ago, but some of the spirit from those days still remains. The way I function today is a lot different than how I lived at age 19, but one feature from those days still remains: I have never truly conformed, given one inch, or submitted to bullshit. That’s a quintessential “punk rock” attitude. Sure, I’m in college now, working towards a “professional” career, and to a certain extent, I’ve learned how to “play the game,” to shake hands and break bread with people I don’t really like when it’s called for, but I have never, and will never sacrifice who I am, my core ideas, and principles, and regardless of what future changes will happen in my future, I will still need a soundtrack to my life.