Journal

 Picking a President- August 19, 2007

I think that people don't pick a President based on the criteria they should.  I think that rather than saying "Candidate X believes in __, __, & __ and has pledged to do __, __ & ___," we instead say, "Candidate X seems like the kind of guy/lady I'd want to be my leader... I just like him/her better than that other guy/lady because I get a good feeling about him/her."  I'm not saying it's right or wrong... (the candidates themselves seem to realize this and cater to it), I'm just sayin... 

Actions and Words- May 28, 2007

As I finished up my last few days of teaching, I realized an important lesson. My students had learned a great deal from our lessons and my lectures, yes... but they had learned so much more just from mimicking my actions. I made it a point to "bring it" every single day. From the moment I entered my classroom to the moment I left, I gave 100%... and I could see at the end that my students' behavior and effort were a direct result of that.

It's like a child and his parent... You can tell a child not to say bad words... and to clean up his room. But if mommy curses all the time, and if daddy's garage looks like a forest... then the child will almost certainly mimic what he/she sees. On the other hand, if we want the people around us to be stronger, healthier, happier people, then we must set examples that they will want to follow.

I wish that Christians would take this to heart. Instead of blabbing all the time about how great they or their God is, just show us. Lessons are so much more meaningful when they are seen and not heard. More people are visual than audial... so (and this goes especially for me, I guess) shut up and show us. Be the example... not the talker.

What I think I know- April 16, 2007

With exactly 1 month left in my teaching career, here are a few reflections on things that I have learned over the past two years.

1) Adversity is my friend.

I think most Teach for America teachers would acknowledge that we've gone through some pretty crappy situations at certain points over the past year or two. I think most Teach for America teachers would acknowledge that we've learned more in those two years than in the 24 or 25 that came before them.

2) Everyone/Anyone can learn, it's just that some haven't been taught to appreciate it.

A major insight that I gained from my students is that I am not smarter than any of them. I had better parents, better teachers, better friends (I guess that's relative, huh), and generally a better situation than all of them. That's called luck. I didn't pick any of that... it was given to me... a gift if you will. And the only difference between the rich kids at Liberal Arts U. and the poor kids at Milby High School is that someone actually bothered to explain to the former why things like literacy, reasoning skills, and a diploma are important.

3) Life isn't fair.

It's not. And it's not necessarily fun, either. And if you think so, then you're probably living in a bubble. But every person has a skill set and at least one person who cares for them. I guess it's up to us to actually take advantage of those resources, however limited they may be.

4) The pursuit of happiness is a myth.

I don't think it's happiness that people are after. Not directly, at least. I think what most of us really want, whether we realize it or not, is comfort and respect. People brag about themselves (internally or externally) and tear down their competitors or coworkers not out of arrogance or spite, but because we all want to feel important. I've never met a person who has turned me away when I asked their opinion on an important (or unimportant) decision. It's a simple formula: Happiness = financial prosperity (because of its comfort, stability, and flexibility) + respect (because it makes us feel needed).

5) Sometimes there is no right answer.

Politicians are lying when they pretend to have all the right answers. We live in a world that is so intelligent and so efficient and yet we still worry about wars, racism/sexism, abortions, poverty, AIDS, wealth inequity, and destroying our environment. How is it that we are able to fly to the moon or surf the web on cell phones, but we can't even make sure that every person has food to eat. It's because sometimes the answers we're looking for just don't exist. Maybe the Palestinians and the Israelis are both wrong... or right. Who knows? Maybe we shouldn't punish rich people for their success through escalating taxes... or maybe we really should embrace a communist society and force them to spread the wealth... I don't know. There literally are two sides to every issue... and sometimes, they are so even that all we really can do is try to understand both and make a decision that is compassionate but firm, all the while knowing that it's not right or wrong... it's just... necessary.

6) Girls get over guys much quicker than guys get over girls.

I've never heard of a girl making a drunk phone call to a guy after a breakup. But maybe I've been dating the wrong girls.

7) Teaching is simple.

Be compassionate. Study hard and prepare harder. Admit when you don't know the answer. Mind your own business. And always have a plan D.

Democracy- April 9, 2007

If you read nothing else, please read this.

Democracy can look pretty bad sometimes.

For example… Quick, name 3 candidates on American idol. “Sanjaya! Melinda! Jordan!” Ok… Name 3 of Angelina’s kids. “Shiloh! Pax Thien! Maddox!” Name 5 presidential candidates for 08’ “Hilary! Barack! McCain! Edwards! Umm…Leiberman? Gore? No? Umm…Obama! Oh wait, I said that one…”

Surely many Americans are more knowledgeable than I am when it comes to the candidates, but the problem is that most aren’t. And even if we know their names, we hardly know the differences between McCain and Guliani, much less Huckabee and Romney. Did you know that Mitt Romney is leading the GOP race to raise funds for the election? ($23 million compared to McCain's $12.5) Remember the last relative unknown to do that? I believe his name was George W. Bush back in the late 90’s. Scary, huh?

I can’t help but get annoyed when, as Election Day rolls around, everyone suddenly has an opinion and feels the need to share it or yell it or carry it on their bumper or wave it on a sign in the middle of the street or whatever. I just wonder… how many of you have actually done your homework? Just because you read an article here or there (most of which are biased anyway) or see a mud-slinging commercial (geez… how much damage did those “wavering” commercials do to John Kerry?) doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly become a political expert. In truth, I wish people would just step into the booth, check their box, and be done with the whole process.

And another thing… Don’t encourage people to vote who otherwise wouldn’t. You’re simply encouraging a dumbing-down of the election process. If people don’t have the desire to actually think about the candidates and make a decision, then so be it. But don’t let them come wipe out the votes of the people who actually did the researche and took a stand for something other than “Let’s leave Iraq!”

Anyway, my point is that if we’re going to rely on everyone’s vote to choose who our leaders are… and if the dumb person’s vote counts the same as the intelligent person’s… then the intelligent person sure as hell better do his/her homework. Otherwise, we’re all just a bunch of idiots with opinions.

Conflict- March 3, 2007

I like swimming. I'm not great at it, but as far as exercise goes, a 40 minute swim beats a 40 minute run in the Houston heat anyday. Did you know that the better a swimmer you are, the less effective an exercise it is? It makes sense if you think about it. A beginner will thrash about taking 10 minutes to complete 1 lap with arms and legs flailing. An expert, though, has such refined technique that he/she can move through the water in a sleek, smooth line, barely disturbing the surrounding area. In other words, the more comfortable a swimmer you are, the fewere calories you burn and the less room you have to grow. The more difficult it is for you, the more calories you burn and the more room to grow.

You've heard of the saying "no pain, no gain." The principle goes well beyond swimming and I think it generally applies to all facets of life. The problem is that it is human nature to decrease pain. No one wants pain. No one says, "I want my family to have to struggle for happiness and health." We make decisions and think in terms of "cost-benefit analysis" for the sake of decreasing pain and risk. Growth sounds good in theory, and we'd all like to think that we are growing every single day. But I'm beginning to believe that growth and comfort might be opposites. If every day is comfortable, then how are we any different from the swimmer who tears through the water effortlessly? There is no growth... only "motion."

I think it is important to seek out those times and places when we are most uncomfortable. I find that much of my growth, no, most of my growth has come from awkward, uncomfortable, generally distressing periods in life. The good times are good, don't get me wrong. But at this point, I'm more interested in becoming a better swimmer, I mean, person.

On My Mind-Feb 10 2007

Agnostics, I can understand. Atheists, I don’t get. I’ve presented this argument before to an agnostic who responded “just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.” Well maybe one of you can help me:

Atheists don’t believe in God. Or anything God-like. They deny the presence of any kind of deity. Explain to me, then, how anything ever came to be. We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and we know that matter is a form of mass which is a form of energy (e=mc squared) So, whether you believe in the big bang theory or the single entity theory or whatever, didn’t something have to be created at some point? Nothing comes from nothing. For anything and everything, there has to be an origin. Isn’t the most logical conclusion that some greater “thing” had to create the first “thing”, be it energy or particles or whatever? I just wonder… what exactly is the counter argument to this?

On a completely different note:

People crave conformity. I believe that one of our greatest desires as humans is acceptance by others. Why else is Greek life so popular in university settings. Why else are cliques so common in middle school and high school. Why else do so many forty and fifty-somethings turn to “churches” when their school-mom and soccer dad days are over.

In the book, The Giver, and the movie The Matrix, and the movie Pleasantville and the book Fahrenheit 451 and countless others, a person is forced to choose between conformity and non-conformity. Despite the “happy endings” these fictional works present for the person who stands alone and goes against the norm (Jonas, Neo, Bud, and Guy), I don’t think it works that way in the real world.

A friend of mine once said, the happiest times in your life… or the times you remember to be the happiest will be the ones where you were surrounded by a lot of friends. I think he was right. And I think for that reason, most people will choose conformity, even if they know better.

My law school essay- Jan 17, 2007

I wonder what many of my non-minority friends have thought when it comes to my advantage in academic admissions. It's no small thing to be an African American male when you're applying to a top school. It's a sensitive issue, I realize, and here is an example how I approached it in some of my law essays.

I believe that I am in the rare position of one who has seen and experienced both sides of opportunity. As an undergraduate student in the Goizueta Business School at Emory University, I can recall how my parents were nervous when they attended my graduation ceremonies. As the first member of my family to graduate from college, they were understandably apprehensive about saying or doing something that might not be well perceived by my peers or their parents. It was strange to consider that on such an important day of accomplishment for so many families, mine was primarily concerned with fitting in instead of celebrating.

My parents have never emphasized my accomplishments relative to being a black male in America. Thus, I rarely give considerable thought to them, myself. However, I do recognize the unique position I am in as a representative of my family and my race. I recognize that I am blessed and very fortunate to be in a position that allows me to apply to the School of Law at __________. It is an opportunity that was not afforded to either of my parents despite their academic capabilities and admirable work ethic. It is an opportunity that I do not take lightly.

On the other hand, as a teacher in an urban school that serves, primarily, the students of first-generation Hispanic immigrants, I recognize that my accomplishments pale in comparison to the challenges that still face many of my students. I recognize that many of their poor educational backgrounds were a result of poor teachers, and poor resources, having very little to do with their own intellect or personal desires for success. I understand that a sound education, even today, is a privilege that is not afforded to all people. Thus, I have made a considerable effort during the past year and a half to educate and engage my Hispanic students on the possibilities that are available to them.

I believe that as a student at the ___________ School of Law, I would contribute to overall diversity by remembering those students rather than making excuses for any perceived disadvantages of my own. I believe that, as in law, there are generally two sides to any issue or conflict. In this case, I have been fortunate to gain perspective from both sides and I hope to share those insights with those I come in contact with in my next academic setting. I am appreciative of the opportunity to apply to your law school. Thank you.

The future of Romance- Jan 9, 2006

A panel of relationship experts for Yahoo.com were asked to make their predictions for romantic trends during the new year. My students began reading the Giver today. What do these two events have in common? Well... in chapter 1 of The Giver, Lois Lowry describes a utopia were families are created rather than...well, whatever it is we do in our world. The Yahoo experts predicted two major things. 1) Marriages, meaning, the number of people who choose to get married, would significantly decrease in 2007. 2) Match-making internet sites like eharmony.com and match.com will blow up in 2007. As in EVERY single person will eventually be using these sites.

As my students read about this "perfect society" where all marriages were arranged, and there was no such thing as "love," but rather, convenience, they were appalled. "Why wouldn't you want to be with someone out of love," they asked. Well, you would, I replied. But sometimes it's really hard to find "true love," so often people would rather find "someone" rather than searching in vain for the mythical soulmate.

Which brings me back to match.com and eharmony.com. While I appreciate their services, I think the rise of these type sites is depressing. You don't find "true love" on a matchmaking site. You find convenience. Someone who looks the part, acts the part, and ideally will fit in at Thanksgiving dinner and perhaps draw a tinge of jealousy from friends and exes. I believe our society is gradually progressing towards a form of arranged marriages. But I could be wrong.

Arrogance/Ignorance- Dec. 6, 2006

A few quick hits- Dec. 3, 2006

All these, I've been thinking about for a while and each could form its own entry, but for now, I'll just lay out my initial thoughts about them for now:

1. Anyone catch the inauguration of new Mexican President Felipe Calderon? Apparently members of the opposing party tried to prevent the guy from being inaugurated by blocking (literally) the doors to the ceremony. That didn't work, obviously, so the members of Congress just started an all-out brawl. A bunch of grown men punching each other and throwing chairs because they were upset that their candidate lost the election. Seriously I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. Apparently many Mexicans feel the election was corrupt and unfair, and that may be true, but seriously... I don't mean this in a racist manner, but I've always thought of Latin men to be a bit too emotional and sometimes childish, be it in their romantic endeavors (turn on Univision or Telemundo for 5 seconds... tops) or sports (ever watched a Latin American soccer game... the ones with the brawls and fires and such?), or whatever. For those who would argue to the contrary, I suggest Calderon's inauguration as Exhibit A.

2) The answer is parents. Ever since I became a teacher at a Title One school, I've been trying to figure out who is to blame. Who should I blame for the fact that when I walk down the halls of my school at any given point of the day, 8 out of 10 classes are in pure chaos. CHAOS. And I realized, it's not the students, they haven't been taught better. It's not the teachers, they've been trying for years, and many have just finally given up. It's not the administration, they are limited by resources and idiotic rules and regulations (no such thing as "Special Ed" or recess anymore... Thank you "No Child Left Behind.") Which leaves the parents... It's not the government, see point #4. This leaves...

3) Parents today have no idea what they're doing. It's understandable given the placement of cell phones and instant messaging and adult programming everywhere from televisions (why are there so many erectile dysfunction commercials these days?) to magazines. The problem is that people who can't or aren't willing to put the time into properly raising a child should STOP HAVING KIDS!!! I can't tell you how many parents I've had conferences with this year who have said "I don't know what to do with him, Mr. Jones, tell me what I should do." The problem is that those same parents usually come to the conferences with infants, toddlers, grandchildren, you name it. If you couldn't figure out the first 2 kids, why did you have 3 more? For heaven's sake, why are you pregnant?! I'll say it again: just because you have the power to have kids doesn't mean you have to exercise it. Use a condom.

4) Anyone watch John McCain's interview on Meet the Press a few weeks ago? Or Barak Obama's speech on foreign policy a few days ago? Disappointing at best. Both men seemed so content to walk the line and say things that wouldn't offend anyone. Seriously, I think McCain backtracked on every single question he was asked. It's as if he would answer the question, then go back and revise it several times to make sure he didn't upset any voters. That's not leadership, that's brown-nosing. I like both of these guys and they both seem smart and inspiring, but I prefer it when people tell me what they are thinking... not what they think I want to hear.

Perspective- Nov. 22, 2006

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Lance Armstrong had never gotten cancer. Would there still be little yellow bracelets floating around everywhere? Would there still be the commercials... the Lance Armstrong Foundation, etc. I wonder what the world might be like if Martin Luther King hadn't been born to black parents. Or if Susan B. Anthony had been John B. Anthony instead.

It bothers me that every prominent activist I can think of (even today) had some personal interest in the causes that they fought for. Even the most prominent gay rights activists are gays, themselves, and/or family and friends of gays. Here's why I think it's worrisome: Have you heard about Charles Rangel, the democrat from New York who wants to reinstate the draft? His theory is that if the draft had been in place and politicians would have had to send their own sons and daughters to the war, then they probably wouldn't have ever invaded Iraq in the first place. So he wants to reinstate the draft mainly for the purpose of creating a direct personal interest between the war and the politicians.

Oh it makes sense...definitely. It won't happen, but it makes sense. But the thing that really really bothers me is that it seems like this idea proves my theory that most of us are apathetic to what is "right" unless we are personally invested. We just don't care about a lot of things until we personally are involved. I know parents who were staunchly opposed or very much in the middle of the abortion argument... until their child got pregnant. Then they became (secretly) the biggest pro-choice supporters you'd ever seen. (By the way...I've always wondered how George Bush would feel about abortion if one of his daughters was impregnated by a black guy.)

We all have biases. And we all have causes that directly affect us. For instance, I have affirmative action (which I halfheartedly support) and interracial dating/marriage (which I wholeheartedly support.) Others have breast cancer awareness (which I care about, but don't really know anyone who has it, so I'm not really that invested), the war (again... I care... but not THAT much.) Gay rights (I'm not gay... I care, but you won't see me at any rallies.) and leukemia. (I did the fundraisers...I support St. Judes... but I'm not crying bloody murder if someone cuts their funding either- and if you're one of the pompous asses who would criticize that last sentence, consider every disease that needs funding and research. It's a limited resources argument, not an "I don't give a damn" argument.)

Here's a tough idea, but I think it makes sense: If bad things didn't happen... then I wonder if good people would ever stop and consider their actions or inactions. For instance... if there was never slavery, or abortion, or alcohol poisoning, or divorce, or whatever... I wonder if anyone would ever stop and ask "Is this something I really believe in or am I just following the crowd? Am I really doing the right thing or just the thing that benefits my own selfish interests." It's just another example of the amazing balance that exists in our world.

On Love in Sadness- Nov. 14, 2006

Traditionally, romantic relationships are one of my favorite subjects, but lately I haven't really had much to say on them. So I'll try to catch up with a big idea followed by a few smaller ones:

1) In 1938, a marriage psychologist named James Waller came up with the idea of the "least interest principle." It was his observation that in any relationship, the person who has the least interest in continuing the relationship has the greatest power. In modern times, I'd translate this to mean: whoever has the most options upon leaving a relationship has the power within that relationship... and conversely, whoever has the least options upon leaving a relationship is subject to the decisions and whims of the other person.

The most obvious example of this, I think, is the battered and abused wife who stays with her abuser out of fear that she is financially and/or emotionally dependent on him. It's sad, but I agree with Waller's assertion that no romantic relationship is truly balanced. Someone ALWAYS has a bit more power than the other person. (and as unromantic as it sounds, you'd be naieve to deny it.) Sometimes one person is better off financially than the other. Sometimes one person is more popular or attractive. Or maybe more intelligent. Or maybe just comes from a better background. There's always some "thing" that causes an inbalance. (interestingly, I find that with younger couples, a lot of times it's as simple as one person wanting "someone" and the other person-usually the guy- ambivalent about the whole thing)

Waller goes on to say that the reason divorce occurs is that almost everything prior to marriage is an attempt to cover up your flaws. At the beginning of a relationship, both parties are optimistic and generally try to see the best in each other. On dates and premarital social outings, people are generally on their best behavior, for example. But marriages expose everything and for some reason intiate a greater interest in a partner's flaws rather than their strengths. They are so intimate that neither person has the time or space to maintain the false appearances. You have to become comfortable with the idea that once you are married, your spouse is going to be aquainted with every flaw you've been trying to hide. Once those flaws are out in the open, a lot of people decide to bail.

My advice: Date for at least 2.5 years. Never marry someone unless you've dated to the point where it feels like you are already married. (in other words, there is more complaining about the person than daydreaming) At least then, you know exactly what you are getting yourself into and you'll already have the attitude of making things better instead of just criticizing.

On Democrats, Republicans, and Borat- Nov. 12, 2006

A simple question: If a person isn't allowed to choose....isn't allowed to use his/her mind to make a decision and must simply go along with what everyone else is doing, what is that person? A child...incapable of making his/her own decisions? A slave even? (and really, aren't young children slaves to the decision making of their parents for better or worse?) It would seem that the ability to choose is what makes us human... what makes us individuals. Aristotle himself said that it is reason and choice that form the divide between humanity and slavery. So if choice is so important...here is my next question: Why are so many Americans "liberal" or "conservative" or "democrats" or "republicans"?

This past Tuesday, I repeatedly heard stories of people going to the election polls and selecting the democrat for every single race. "I'm making a statement" they would argue, indicating their indignance with either the republican party and/or George Bush or both. Ok.... On the other hand, there were people (and this is Texas, they weren't that hard to find.) who said "I don't care what's going on, I'm republican, I'm gonna vote republican no matter what." Interesting...

Here is my message to you: If you are so staunchly liberal or conservative or democratic or republican that you refuse to even consider the idea that you or your candidates or philosophies might be wrong... then you have given up your right...your ability to choose. You have literally become a slave to a single party, willing to follow that group whether it is blatantly right or wrong.

I know some very educated people who make some very stupid decisions politically and philosophically because they simply refuse to stop and think. For a person to say, "I'm a democrat so I will always vote democratic" is completely analogous to the child who says "I hate white people and I will always hate white people." This is a battle that I have with my hispanic students everyday.

You cannot simplify complex issues into black/white, blue/red, love/hate. Stop being so Pro-hispanic, pro-liberal, pro-life, pro-whatever that you completely miss all the good on the other side. There is always at least a bit of good on the other side. To refuse to acknowledge that...to blindly check "Democrat" beside every little box on the ballot and to naievely (and arrogantly) think that your allegiance must forever be the best allegiance and everyone else is stupid for not agreeing with you is at best, child-like, and at worst...slavery of the mind.

On a lighter note... did anyone else notice that at least half (if not more) of that Borat film was filmed in Mississippi? Do your research and you'll notice that he lied about most of those locations. The Social Dinner? Mississippi. The pentecostal church? Mississippi. The gift shop? Mississippi. The t.v. station? Mississippi.

It makes sense if you think about it... if you were purposely looking for people to say narrow-minded, one-sided things that would in most cases be staunchly conservative (which plays well, obviously, to more liberal areas like the East and West coasts--where the money lies), there's no better place to go than Mississippi...except maybe Texas.

On why hell probably doesn't exist... but could- Nov. 8, 2006

I don't think I believe in hell. It just doesn't make sense... let's start with the obvious arguments and work our way up. 1) If God is loving and merciful and everything good... then why would he allow there to be a hell in the first place. If he doesn't have to (and he's God... he doesn't HAVE to), why would he punish weak-minded human beings by sending them to eternal torture? 2) He created us. Assuming you believe that, does it really make sense to think that God would create a person for the sole purpose of his personal glory, and then punish that person WHO NEVER ASKED TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE for not glorifying him "enough?"

Even if you can get past those, though, here's the one that really bothers me: 3) No man is truly evil. I really believe that. In fact, Christianity teaches that. Where do Christians believe evil thoughts and actions originate? Satan. Even the ancient Greeks blamed their gods for Pandora's box. No one's ever really blamed man for the origin of evil and I'm not about to start. Think of it this way: If a child is born to a single mother who is a homeless, drug-addict prostitute, what are the chances that that child will end up performing some despicable,, harmful (unspeakably sinful) act before he/she dies? Decent at best, I'd argue. On the other hand, what are the chances that a child born in the safe environment of two religous upper middle-class college professors in "Surburbia-land" will perform that same act? My point is that for most of us, it really is true, I think, that we are the sum result of every person and place that we have ever been in contact with. Do you really think that God would allow the child who was already doomed at birth to suffer even more in the afterlife? Would we really be so naeive as to think that we all begin life on a level playing field?

On the other hand (because as I stress to my students everyday, there is ALWAYS another side.), suppose God in his infinite wisdom knows all of this already and judges us based on a criteria that is completely inivisible to man. Namely, our hearts and minds. I mean, really... just because a man gives money to the church and does good deeds doesn't mean that his heart is pure... and just because a man kills another... or even many others, as in the case of Holy Wars and even legitimate insanity, (think Andrea Yates) doesn't mean that person didn't have righteous intentions. So what I'm saying is... I don't THINK hell exists... I THINK it was drummed up by men who realized the effectiveness of fear in converting Christians and played on that with messages of fire and brimstone and eternal damnation, etc.... but it wouldn't surprise me if I am wrong. Not in the least.

What We do- October 26, 2006

I normally wouldn't do this... but I promise you that every word of this is true and accurate and literally something that must be addressed and mastered every single day:

After being interviewed by the school administration, the eager teaching prospect said: "Let me see if I've got this right. You want me to go into that room with all those kids and fill their every waking moment with a love for learning, and I'm supposed to instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity, modify their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse and even censor their T-shirt messages and drerss habits.

You want me to wage a war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, check their backpacks for weapons of mass destruction, and raise their self esteem. You want me to teach them patriotism, good citizenship, sportsmanship, fair play, and how to apply for a job.

I'm to maintain a safe environment, recognize signs of anti-social behavior, make sure all students pass the state exams, even those who don't come to school regularly or complete any of their assignments.

Plus, I am to make sure that all of the students with handicaps get an equal education regardless of the extent of their mental or physical handicap. I am to communicate regularly with the parents by letter, telephone, newsletter and report card.

All of this I am to do with just a piece of chalk, a computer, a few books, a bulletin board, a big smile AND on a starting salary that qualifies my family for food stamps...

No problem."

I'm just saying... considering how utterly impossible I thought this job was a year ago, compared to how competent (and confident) I feel now... this easily goes down as the greatest success, and possibly the most important 2 years of my life.

Marriage- October 16, 2006

"Change is in the air...the only question is whether it is catastrophic or merely evolutionary."

Admittedly, I'm a Southern boy... almost even on the conservative side. (though I still fiercely proclaim my allegiance to the moderates) And even though I try to be open to more liberal ideas, this one is just too much: http://www.yahoo.com/s/414908

I have this theory that people are becoming more and more self-interested and as a result, less compatible with each other. If, as the article suggests, people really are becoming more "isolated", then doesn't it make sense that our communication skills are decreasing... and isn't communication the basis of all strong relationships?

All I know is that I see waaay more single or disgruntled people these days than I do successful couples and honestly, I can't really imagine that changing anytime soon.

Black Man- October 11, 2006

In the words of John Mayer "this next one is really tricky...it's a really tricky subject, but it fought it's way on here..." I try not to pay too much attention to race. I'm a believer that the more we talk about it, the more divisive it can become...but just for kicks, here is my un-official "State of the Black Man" statement.

"It's much harder to be a black man in America than you might think, however, it isn't nearly as difficult as it has been made out to be."

Forgive me, we're studying paradoxes in my classes right now. Seriously, though... It's tough...really tough. The easiest way of understanding, I think, is to imagine you had to be stranded on an island with 1 other person... you couldn't pick the person, but you could pick their race and gender. Would you pick a white female, white male, black female, or black male? I tend to think that 50-60% of Americans (or maybe even more) would pick the black male last. That's just my opinion. Hell, even I might pick him last.

There's a natural bias towards white females, I think (think about talk shows, news anchors, customer service people) and a natural bias against black males. Their opposites, naturally. That's why I think it's hard. In fact, I think it's really hard. I don't really think it matters WHY it's hard. It just is. Or maybe I shouldn't say "hard." Maybe "harder". Yeah...harder.

On the other hand, I believe that black people, (very similar to my Hispanic students) have become much too comfortable with making excuses. Black women make excuses for dancing in rap videos (I don't know what they are...I just assume they have some excuse, right?) Black men make excuses for not being great leaders (We've got Obama and... who? Jesse Jackson? ugh..) and not taking leadership roles in their communities. Whatever the excuses, the world has become more than politically correct enough for black men to succeed. Can we make it to the very top? Ummm... maybe. Probably not. But that's not enough reason to not try. Colleges practically give money away to black men willing to try these days. Affirmative action has had at least a little bit of a positive influence in hiring practices for minorities. The bottom line is that like all things, this comes down to a balance. No, it's not easy being a black man. But no... it's certainly not impossible either.

Decisions- September 29, 2006

Most people, I think, would argue that there are good decisions and there are bad decisions. I'm going to disagree. I think that decisions are made either for the present or for the future. There's no such thing as good or bad when it comes to decision making... some people are wise and some are foolish, but for the most part, everyone makes the right decision given the info they have at hand... it's just that that decision might work for now... and not so much for later. Or vice versa.

I don't believe that people purposely make bad decisions. I don't think that a person purposely chooses to screw him/herself over with an illogical decision. I do think that some decisions, like sex, alcohol, fights, and general mischief are made with only the short-term in mind. For instance, the mind says "I want sex. It feels good. That's not a bad thing. Give it to me." In the short term, saying yes is probably as right as anything else. But long term, of course, it could be a pretty bad choice.

The opposite of this would be making the decision that seems odd or incorrect in the short term (the head cheerleader dating the school chess champion), but reaps benefits in the future. (the head cheerleader spends the chess champion/neurosurgeon's money)

Strange how that works. There are a lot of girls right now that I think... "hmm...she'd be interesting to date." But when I step back and really think about it... think about the longterm aspect of things, everything makes much more sense. I don't necessarily like my options as much...(which makes sense because we live in the short term), but they make sense. And I'm cool with that. Maybe recognizing the difference between the two is the beginning of wisdom... and maybe not. Who knows.

The Meaning of Life- September 18, 2006

Every major philosopher has some sort of grand idea that identifies him... Freud had the egos, Socrates had the cave, and Gabe Jones has the meaning of life:

(I wanted to turn this into a grand fictional tale, but I just couldn't make it work... maybe later) Every human has 3 solid gifts/talents. Some have charisma, others beauty...some wit, others humor. It just depends on who you are. Every human also has 3 solid weaknesses. These are basically the opposite of the gifts/talents. For instance, some have a distinct lack of charisma or beauty. Some people are mindnumbingly boring or stubborn or constantly depressed. The meaning of life is quite simply this:

Use your strengths to overcome your weaknesses.

Think of it... Many beautiful people are lacking in sincerity and/or intellect or compassion. Celebrities are often gifted in looks or charisma, but suck at relationships. Intellectuals are often great when working alone, but suffer in social settings and teamwork. Football players usually aren't that bright... brain surgeons aren't usually that athletic. And even if they are, there's usually something else that sticks out as a bit odd... The point being that EVERYONE has the 3/3 combo. It just comes in different varieties. The meaning of life, or rather, the way to conquer life is to use your your strengths to hammer out your weaknesses. Think of any successful person (and I mean genuinely... no skeletons in the closet... not under the surface issues) Let's take Bill Gates for example...he seems to be enjoying life:

Gates started off as the stereotypical geek...probably had social skills the equivalent of...well, his computer. But notice that over time, Gates has become quite the entrepreneur, securing networks with everyone from Warren Buffett to Bill Clinton. The anti-social geek became as much of a social networker as anyone else... by using his abilties and his successes to his advantage. The same goes for everyone else. Beautiful people have the gift of being able to interact with just about anyone. Find me a guy who will despise simple conversation with...Heidi Klum, and I'll show you a gay/dead guy. The trick is to use that gift to surround themselves with people who will help improve their deficiences in intellect and even basic appreciation of relationships. Imagine if every one of Heidi's best friends was overweight and single? Imagine how much more sensitive and compassionate Heidi might become. (which isn't to say that she doesn't have those qualities already...only that there's always room for improvement.) to be continued....

Hits and Misses- September 14, 2006

A few random thoughts....

• I read somewhere today that "the loss of innocence occurs when a person learns compassion. Innocence involves an unseeing acceptance of things at face value, an ignorance of the area below the surface. One cannot have both compassion and innocence." There's something that has passively always ticked me off about priveleged people. And I think that's it. They usually never learn compassion... and thus, despite the universal idea that "everyone has problems, they're just different" I genuinely wonder if the priveleged ever truly lose their innocence. Even more... I feel very saddened for my mother...the most compassionate person I have ever known.
• btw... compassion- a deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.
• The trick, I believe, to establishing meaningful relationships with people... is never hiding your flaws. I sincerely believe that the reason my students are so endearing to me, compared to their other teachers, is that they know every mistake I make in class. They hear the apologies... they understand that I'm not perfect... and they realize that they don't have to be.
• Whitney and Bobby finally broke up.... what in the world took them so long to realize what everyone else knew from day one.
• I hope my children are boys. I'm very much afraid that somehow, I'm going to screw up a girl. I don't know how or why... but I'm praying for those Y chromosomes to pull through.
• Young adults and pets. I... don't get it.
• I used to be afraid of the daily schedule of a lawyer. Now, I look forward to it. 10-12 hours is a lite day for a teacher. A good one, that is.

Free Will- September 11, 2006

I know I've been pretty heavy on the religion stuff lately... give me a couple of days and I'll move on to something else. A question I've been pondering: If parents make up 80% of our personalities, quirks, likes/dislikes (and yes, I truly believe that), and the other 20% can be attributed to the result of the people we come in contact with (for example, surround yourself with high acheivers and invetitably... etc.), then what exactly are we choosing? Free will says that we have the power to choose, but what if we never had a choice in the first place?

I find so many of my habits and mpersonality quirks can be directly traced back to my parents or particular friends or relatives... and I'm forced to ask the question, "who exactly am I?" What exactly defines me and qualifies me to make decisions independently? I don't see it.

The best I can do with this idea is to suppose that I should pray not so much for strength or wisdom, but for people who will enter my life with those qualities and set examples for me and rub off on me. If that's not right, then I'm forced to admit that I don't really understand the free will concept... or at least, it doesn't make sense to me.

Raising our Posterity - September 6, 2006

You can't expect your children to make an informed decision if you don't reasonably and wholeheartedly present to them all possibilities.

I know that there are atheists or agnostics who will read this and think, "absolutely not." That's fine, I respect that. And all I ask is that you hear me out before casting judgement.

A former student of mine, Raul, is sitting here with me as I write this, and I'll credit most of the opinion to him because I think it's a great one... so here goes.

Is it reasonable to force your religion upon your children. Or in other words, in 5-10 years, I will be a father... probably... maybe... and being the existentialist that I am, and anticipating the same from my children, is it fair to "push" them in any given direction religiously? I once had this conversation with an agnostic who very much gave the impression that she abhorred those who would force their children to go to church against their will because in doing so, the parent is basically forcing a religion that may or may not be true/real upon children who should be more than capable of making their own decisions.

My problem with this logic is that in not taking your children to church or mosque or mass or whatever they call it you are implicitly doing the exact same thing only in the opposite direction. It seems more than reasonable to expect the children of agnostics to become agnostic right? Are they not influenced by their parents' beliefs and actions just as Christian children or Muslim children or Bhuddist children are?

I realize that the ideal is to present everything to your child and let the child choose on his/her own, but that doesn't seem reasonable or realistic. As Raul says, you have to teach them to make their own decisions before you can allow them to make their own decisions. In that case, the parent, whether he or she chooses is setting an example whether he/she actively practices religion or not... which leads to...

....take your kids to church. Or a temple. Or mosque. Or whatever. Open a Bible, or a Torah, or the Koran, or something.... Teach your children to believe in something other than what they can perceive.

First of all, any child who has been TAUGHT to make his own decisions will not automatically follow in his parents steps. My parents heavily influenced my religious beliefs by exposing me to theirs, but at the same time, mine are radically different from theirs and that's because they allowed me to make a decision by presenting both sides of the issue.

Does this mean that I will teach my students agnosticism? Or atheism? Not necessarily... but honestly I probably won't have to. It is faith that is the challenge to comprehend, not doubt. Similarily, I don't have to teach my students to doubt their abilities... it comes fairly natural to them. But to teach them to believe... to trust that for some reason that they might not understand, they could possibly change their lives... that has to be taught... and retaught... almost everyday.

To not teach your child religion (and faith, for that matter) is to liken it to drugs, sex, and alcohol in that most of that child's experiences with it will come from extreme sources and probably in extreme situations... I'm not saying you should cram religion down their throats... but in a world increasingly cynical and distrusting, it would be a disservice to future generations to not give them a true education in faith.

Feelings - September 2, 2006

My students are reading this book called "The Outsiders." (If you haven't read it, watch the movie...it's got Tom Cruise, Patrick Swayze, Emilio Estevez, Matt Dillon, Rob Lowe, Ralph Macchio, great cast, great director) There's a lot in there about the differences in social classes. At one point while we were discussing the rich kids vs. the poor kids, one student raises her hand and says "so she's saying the difference between rich people and poor people is that rich people don't feel enough and poor people feel too much? Right?"

It's a brilliant observation and one that is pretty obvious when you think about it... it's just that most people never think about it. We know that lower classes place more value in relationships and abilities like charisma and humor than they do material possesions (middle class) and traditions (upper). And we also know that rich people are generally more interested in personal discoveries like traveling and independent growth and excellence than they are relationships. (which isn't to say they don't care... it's just not as much as the middle or lower classes...)

It's interesting, though, that this student would put it in terms of weaknesses: Feel too much... feel too little... It makes so much sense when you think about it... I, myself, have genuinely felt, when in the presence of high class society, a very generic sense of happiness. A very high sense of conformity, and even moreso of expectation. Very little that could or would elicit high emotion. Think of the structure, and rules of of order (even for simple things like tea) that the upper class have invented. On the other hand, when I consider the basic weaknesses both of myself and my immediate family, many of them can be summed up as oversensitivity in relationships and over-analyzing personal feelings towards other people. My students are especially guilty of this, for example, most of them would rather come to summer school than go on vacation with their families because their friends will be at summer school.

It's strange, yes. And probably a bit difficult for one side to understand the other (4 years of immersion at a place like Emory University is the only reason I feel even partially qualified to disscuss this.) But it's not a bad lesson for the third week of school.

Jihad - August 3, 2006

What do you get when you mix irony and absolute absurdity? Religous War!!! Or Crusades, jihad, whatever.

It's amazing to me that Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same entity (Allah, "The Father", Yaweh) but have been warring for years because... umm... because... Let's see, Jews rely on the Torah, which is based heavily on the Old Testament in which god specifically mandates "Thou shalt not kill." So logically, when enemies threaten the state of Israel, the appropriate response is to bomb the hell out of Lebanon...or Syria...or Jordan...or whoever.

But that might not be as bad as Christians. You know what the deadliest war in the history of mankind is? World War II? Not so, my friend. WWI? Not even close. Try the Taiping rebellion in which a Christian convert attempted to bring China to the light... to the tune of 20 million deaths. Love thy neighbor, indeed.

I don't know much about Muslim history, but consistent contemporary cries for jihad (which actually means holy "struggle" as in fasting or martyrdom, not necessarily war or battle) from Muslim leaders is enough to satisfy the argument for now.

How can the God described by any of these religions be so hell-bent on war...on men killing men. I firmly believe that religion, much like most other gifts God provides us with (i.e. sex, our planet, love) has been thoroughly corrupted by the sinful nature of man.