I Didn't Realize the Camden School District Was So Ballin'

       Camden is makin' it rain. A grant from Jersey's Departmant of Criminal Justice is helping to fund a five week long program in which 65 high school students will attend anger management and conflict resolution classes.  They will also sign a pledge not to cut school and attend all the sessions.  Each student that completes the course will receive $100. 

       I realize $6500 isn't really going to break the bank, but is this really the best way to spend it?  The money, as reported here, comes from a $63,000 grant.    I don't know where the rest of the moeny is going, but part of the grant mandates that the money be spent by the end of September if the city wants to be eligible for the same grant next year (I assume to prevent the city from simply hoarding the money).  But it still kinda seems like it's being pissed away.  And with that kinda money, you'd think they'd come up with a better name for the program than ICE T (I Can End Truancy; he's from Newark, not Camden).  Since the kid has no obligation to not cut class after September, critics say there's nothing to keep them in school after the program ends.  The kids in this program are most likely either the kind who would show up anyway, or the kind who wouldn't (for whatever reason; this post isn't talking about why urban school districts suck).  So, either they are problem students that will simply repeat their past behavior after the incentive is gone, or they were would most likely go on to graduate regardless, there doesn't seem to be any real effect on the likelihood of the selected students' graduating.

       But I suppose there is more involved.  For example, the number of students that could be positively affected in the long-term because of this program.  I'd like to see the kind of data used to justify the program.  The cynic in me wants to assume that the students were chosen so as to ensure that the program will have a high completion rate, although there would still be some token problem students chosen as well.  I would say that if a program like this really worked, it would be more widely-used, but I don't think this has ever been done before.  I still don't think $100 and a couple classes are all it takes to resolve the real problems here. 

All-in-all, I'm kinda on the fence about this.  I can't imagine that the burden of this program on the individual tax payer is very difficult, especially if that one small percentage really does change the life of another human being.  But it certainly seems more practical to buy better books or equipment or fund a music program or something.

So it comes down to this: do you want to improve the value of one person's life, or help fund the development of the next Beethoven?  This is beginning to sound like an argument against abortion.  Quite a subtle, slippery slope, no? 

Will Smith Becomes Real Hero, Working on Saving the Rap Game

       Having three hip hop artists on my iPod (Mos Def, Lupe Fiasco, and Talib Kweli), I consider myself an expert on the genre.  And it is in bad shape.  Like nearly all genres of actual music, it is facing very real threats from commercialization, materialism, and dumbing down.  Every time you turn on the radio, you hear some auto-tuned asshole with an almost-catchy beat and corny-ass rhymes invariably talking about the same thing that everyone else is.  It's either "I sell drugs better than you", "I rap better than you", or "I fuck more bitches than you".  My favorites are the guys who rap about rapping.  Why actually do the work to become a legitimate hip hop artist when you can just make your first single all about how you already are the greatest ever?

       I don't expect every song to be a serious piece of art dealing with real social issues like poverty and racism, but does everything on the radio have to be so mind-numbing?  Not anymore.  Big Willy is back!  According to the Huffington Post, Will Smith has been working with producer "Mars" Edwards.  Having saved the world so many times, you know he has the street cred to change the game.  His smooth and manly voice will be a much-appreciated alternative to those awful noises that come out that hole in Lil Wayne's face.    I just hope he hits the studio in time to make another Men in Black song when the third installment of that series hits theaters in May 2012.  That should leave him plenty of time to solve the 2012 Doomsday Prophecy.

      

Media Irresponsibility

I don’t know if the news was any better back in the day, but it can’t have been any worse.  It seems a new low is reached every day.  Remember the grilled Cheesus?  That seems positively highbrow compared to some of the things I’ve seen lately.

On the websites of both Yahoo! and AOL, there was a link to an article about how “devastated” Lamar Odom and Khloe Kardashian were after they were involved in a car wreck that killed a 15 year-old kid.  I’m sure they were, but shouldn’t the focus have been on the family of the victim?  I know that the only reason this death was reported at all was because those two were involved, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the family didn’t want to engage with the media in their time of grief.  But neither article seemed even slightly interested in the actual tragedy, only in how their precious celebrities feel.  After the accident, Kardashian tweeted, “Angels are surrounding me always...Thank you!”  Not one word about the poor kid.  

Disclaimer: I don’t follow her on Twitter, so for all I know she could have expressed her

condolences before or after that tweet.  I refuse to look at her Twitter to find out.

I can see why celebrities are consider celebrities newsworthy because they are public figures.  But not everything that is newsworthy should be on the front page.  Why is it cost-efficient to pay millions of dollars for pictures for pictures of an infant who has done nothing more than be born to famous parents?  Because there are even more millions of people out there that will buy the magazine simply because it has that picture on its cover.  As far as I’m concerned, “celebrity news” magazines should be no more popular than a newspaper printing stories about a Bat boy-chupacabra sex tape.  Actually, now that I think about it, it should be way less popular than that newspaper.  

Unfortunately, it gets worse.  A CBS affiliate in Chicago aired a story about a night of violence in which a 16-year-old was killed and two others hurt.  During an interview with a four-year-old witness, an anchor asked if the boy would stay away from guns.  The answer that was seen on TV was “I’m going to have me a gun!”, after which the interview ended and the anchor commented, “That is very scary indeed.”  However, the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education got a copy of the entire interview.  As it turns out, there was an unaired portion in which the anchor asks why the boy wants a gun, to which he replies, “I’m going to be the police!”  Stay classy, Chicago.

As depressing as the success of celebrity “news” is, the racism is even worse.  The unfair representation of minorities in the media is nothing new.  But editing a recorded interview with the intention of portraying a four-year-old boy as a stereotypical gangbangin’ black kid is disgusting.  The worst part about it is that that’s a financially successful way to run a news network; if it bleeds, it leads.  The fact that the truth was uncovered is only mildly encouraging.  I sincerely doubt this was an isolated incident. 

I understand that journalism is a business, and a successful business has to appeal to enough customers to make money.  It’s just a shame that enough people consume the dumbed-down garbage produced  by so many media outlets that it’s actually profitable.  Never mind the fact that fewer people watch the news and read the paper; the public never should have accepted this as news in the first place.  Like I said, there’s a place in the news for celebrities.  But it should be sandwiched between black and white ads in the middle of the paper, not above the fold.   

Should Everyone Really Have the Right to an Opinion?

What a day.  After work, I ran a few errands.  In one store, I heard two old women talking about all the foreign countries that make the goods sold in America.  Lady One said, "It's so funny!  This shirt right here was made in Guatemala!"  Lady Two replies, "Oh, I know.  I won't buy anything made in Pakistan, though."  For real?  You don't mind supporting manufacturers that pay people, often children, shit wages in dangerous conditions, but Pakistan is a clear no-no.  Is supporting terrorists so much worse than running sweatshops?  I'd be willing to bet that more lives have been destroyed by sweatshops than terrorists.  I don't understand how someone can justify supporting one and not the other.

So then I went to buy some groceries.  I was looking for powdered Gatorade mix when the middle-aged woman in the same aisle asked if I was looking for a good fruit juice.  I told her what I was looking for and she ignored what I said and suggested Fuze juice because "it has lots of vitamins and minerals."  I so regret not shattering her sense of self-righteousness by telling her Fuze only contains 5% actual fruit juice.  I guess I'm getting soft.  I'm sick of being told what I should and should not eat.  I have every right to weigh 700 pounds if I want to.  And do your goddamned homework before you go making suggestions to people as to what to eat and drink.  By which I mean read more than a few words on the label.

So then I went home.  I checked the websites I usually check and found an article on yahoo! that caught my eye.  A man in Indiana was denied the opportunity to donate blood because he seemed gay.  And that is entirely legal!  The ban on allowing homosexuals to donate blood dates back to 1983, a time when there were no reliable ways to test blood for HIV and AIDS was believed to only affect gay people.  Despite every single blood donation being tested for HIV, just last year the decision to ban gays from donating blood was upheld by the Department of Health and Human Services.  And again, this guy, while "admittedly and noticeably effeminate", is straight.

And then the icing on the cake.  Another yahoo! article about some guy Herman Cain, apparently a "Presidential hopeful", who supports the attempt by some Murfreesboro, Tennessee residents to ban the building of a mosque in their town.  Not only does he believe this is legal, he actually said that building the mosque is an "infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion".  It's hard to explain how ass-backwards that statement is.  It's like trying to explain why blue is not yellow.  George Orwell himself could not come up with a better example of doublespeak.  He went on to say, "Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state.  [We're] objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws."  He is such a satire of himself that I almost suspect this to be some kind of Stephen Colbert prank.  How does someone whose reasoning power is so flawed even make it to adulthood?  Does he not see the influence Christianity has on almost every law that this country has made?  And what would he say about the poll that shows 2/3 of Americans consider this nation a Christian country?  I'd be willing to bet his stance on separation of church and state would soften a bit.  I also wonder how he would feel if a largely atheist town wanted to ban the building of a church?  By the way, this guy used to run a pizza franchise.  Quite a resume for a Presidential hopeful.

This is why I want to live on a mountain.  The problem isn't America.  It's people.

 

At the Risk of Sounding Like a Hippie...

That's what I'm talking about!  According to Reuters, a hiker in Yellowstone who accidentally came across grizzly cubs was mauled to death by the mother.  It's a terrible shame that this happened; that's obviously not what I'm talking about.  While the situation is still being investigated, Yellowstone's initial response is that the bear behaved naturally and so will not be killed.  So that is what I'm talking about.

To be clear, I agree with the killing of the bear mentioned in the article that killed a man in his sleep in an "unprovoked" attack.  But if you're walking around in an area known for bear activity, you know what you're getting yourself into.  Odds are neither man deserved to be killed by a friggin' grizzly bear.  But it's nice to see that Yellowstone recognizes the fact that the bear was in its natural habitat and behaved as any bear should.  It would be even better to see them stick with that position (assuming the investigation finds that initial reports are accurate), despite possible public pressure.

It worries me that PETA probably agrees with me.  But they probably wouldn't want that other bear killed either.  So I'm not a hippie!

Ballsy Move, NBC. I Like It.

     Apparently, the Constitution is not so much the law as it is a suggestion.  I don't know how else to explain why Americans have been wiping their asses with the First Amendment for so long.  An article on Yahoo! describes the negative feedback from NBC's decision to edit the phrase "under God" from a recording of the Pledge of Allegiance aired during the US Open.  Or some golf tournament...  Anyway, I got your back, NBC..

      From at least the 16th century, North African Muslim nations routinely engaged in piracy in the Mediterranean, attacking European ships and coastal towns and enslaving prisoners.  England's growing naval power led to treaties with the Barbary States that protected them and their colonies from piracy.  After the American Revolution, the United States was no longer protected by those treaties.  After a war or two, the young United States signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, securing peace for American shipping.  Article 11 of the treaty states: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Islam],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

     There is debate as to what exactly the Founding Fathers meant when the First Amendment was written (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).  Interpretations range from the belief that the clause prohibits any acknowledgement of religion in government affairs to the belief that it merely prevents the establishment of a state church.

     I recognize that the language of the First Amendment doesn't explicitly state that the United States should not recognize God, Buddha, Thor, etc.  But the Treaty of Tripoli sure as hell does.  America is not, "in any sense", founded on Christianity.  Some religious nuts will point out that that clause wasn't in the Arabic version of the treaty sent to the Barbary States, but it was the English version that was read and ratified by the Senate.  I doubt very many of them could read Arabic.  When it was signed by President John Adams, he even added this statement: Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

When presented to the Senate, it was ratified unanimously and was recorded as having been so.  Of the 339 other unanimous votes by this time, only two others were recorded.  Clearly, the Founding Fathers felt that secularism was crucial to proper government.  The treaty was then printed in Philadelphia and New York newspapers, apparently with no public disapproval.  Despite this, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll in 2006 that found that 67% of Americans consider the U.S. a Christian nation.  And who can blame them?  Even our secretly Muslim President seems to mention God every time he makes a speech.

     So back to the Pledge.  Did you know it was written by a Christian Socialist?!  More importantly, Francis Bellamy's original version, written in 1892 to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' voyage, did not contain the phrase "under God" at all.  The original version read as follows: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  "Under God" was not added until 1954, during one of America's most conservative and reactionary decades.  I have to end this post.  The irony is too much.

Bravo, NBC.

Cell Phones May Cause Cancer; Not Having One Linked to Friendlessness

     For years, notable organizations and individuals have conducted research into the possible link between cell phone use and brain cancer.  Most have concluded that more information is needed before making a definitive statement on the long-term effects of using a cell phone.  However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization), stated on May 31 that radiation from cell phones is "possibly carcinogenic to humans".  The Agency placed cell phone radiation in the same group as other possible carcinogens, such as coffee and car exhaust. 
     It seems most people aren't bothered by the news.  Some use the same excuse as smokers: "I've been using a cell phone for so long, I'm already fucked."  Everyone else just figures the cancer is better than not having a cell phone.  Besides, they say, most experts agree that any possible link between cell phones and cancer would be very weak, given the low amounts of radiation given off by phones.
     For humanity's sake, I hope they are wrong.  Cancer-causing phones are exactly the motivation scientists need to finally find a cure.  Think how hard scientists would work to find a cure, how much money the rich would donate to research if they knew they and their loved ones were going to develop brain cancer.  Why do you think AIDS still hasn't been cured?  Infect everyone in the WHO with HIV and see how quickly they find a cure.
     Or, better yet, we could infect only world leaders.  Think about it; FDR was president from 1933 to 1945 and quickly became the world's most famous polio survivors.  Ten years after his last term ends, the first polio vaccine is announced.  Coincidence?  What's more, FDR's symptoms more closely fit with Guillain-Barré syndrome!  Just the thought that the President had polio got the job done.  Granted, a vaccine isn't actually a cure, but it's better than nothing.  
     Political leaders always claim to have the well-being of the people in mind when they make the decisions that govern our lives.  What better way to prove it than by willingly being infected with a major illness so that a cure can be found?  At worst, no new cures will be found, but at least we can be sure that our leaders really are the sort of people that put the needs of the people before their own wants.  Or maybe people will vote according to what disease they'd like to see cured; that way, presidencies would have positive, tangible results.