Godheval.com

Something positive for a change. This is a spoof done by 2-cent entertainment of a Lil Wayne song that is too despicable to mention. With some pretty good production values and some really impressive imitations of Drake, Nicki Minaj, and of course “Weezy” himself, this video turns everything that’s wrong with modern rap into something positive.

Best of all, 2-cent managed to get Scholastic to donate nearly 1,000 books to an elementary school in New Orleans. Incidentally, I too wish I could read every book in the world. But in the meantime, I’d settle for Lil Wayne and Drake taking a break from their idiocy long enough to read one…

Why is it that cases of Attention Deficit [Hyperactivity] Disorder are increasing dramatically with each passing year? Given that there are no clearly identifiable genetic causes, we must assume that the reasons behind it are social. Since diagnoses of ADHD are not more prevalent in any particular setting, be it cultural or socioeconomic, it is reasonable to suggest that the increase in diagnoses corresponds to some larger social shift.

My hypothesis is that ADHD is not a disorder at all, but one manifestation of a shift in global consciousness. I am not suggesting anything metaphysical here, rather that the proliferation of technology – particularly that which allows access to information and/or stimulation – has dramatically changed human behavior and interaction.

That the increasing prevalence of ADHD is most visible amongst the youth population only reinforces this possibility, as children have not merely been acclimated to this new technological climate, but are being born into it. A correlation has already been drawn between the mass proliferation of television and the increased need for immediate gratification. Before television, or even radio, the only way to acquire information privately was to read, which for anyone takes considerably longer than receiving the same information from electronic media. If one becomes accustomed to acquiring and accessing information at high speeds, they will have little patience for slower content delivery methods.

This shift from delayed to immediate gratification can occur in a short span of time. Consider the ease and complacency with which we once surfed the internet using a dial-up connection. Slow as it may have been, it allowed us access to a great deal of information much faster than reading a book, and faster still than searching a library for the particular books containing the information we sought. For those of us who have moved on from dial-up to DSL or Cable or even T-1 internet connections, going back to dial-up is unconscionable. We might even feel more inclined to read a book than to wait minutes for a single web page to load. (more…)

It’s a strange sort of thing when people reveal their personal views to you, before they know whether or not those views will offend you.  There are those, of course, who espouse their views without any concern for the reaction, and others who intend to illicit a negative response.  I’m not talking about either of those.  I mean everyday people in casual company who let on that, contrary to their public image – say, as a school teacher, they harbor some of the most odious views.

I imagine that it must be strange to be a white person of a liberal, progressive, or even anti-racist mindset and find yourself in the company of a casual bigot.  For your common “race”, the bigot supposes that you will not take any particular offense to his off-handed comments about other groups.

I suppose that it is stranger still to be a person of color and to have a white person feel comfortable enough in your presence to reveal that they are a casual bigot.  Where I come from – the east coast – there is hardly a greater insult to a white person than to be called a racist.  It is such a sensitive subject that in “mixed” company, white people take great – and often awkward – strides to prove to people of color – especially African-Americans – that they are “okay”, that they are “down”, that they are not racist.  A lot of fake smiles and superficial banter ensues.

(Note: Those who are not racist feel no urgent need to prove that they are not.)

Things appear to be different here in the West.  And I can only speculate as to why.  For the second time in two weeks, the mentor teacher in my field experience, and his colleagues, let on just what kind of bigots they are.  In talking about the differences between his current and former schools, with regards to the behavior of the kids, he said that the current school had its problems, but was nothing compared to the former, which was 95% Hispanic. (more…)

In my studies to become a secondary school teacher, there has been a major focus on how to provide for the needs of students who speak – or are learning to speak – English as a second language.  There are federal guidelines to that effect, and every state has its own program for meeting the federal requirements, in accordance with No Child Left Behind, and to continue to receive federal funding.

I’ve long understood that language and thought are two sides of the same coin, meaning that language acquisition is critical to learning.  For students from other countries who come to live and learn in the United States, their ability to speak – and think – in English is vital in determining their success academically and in their future lives as participants in our society.  I have never been of the ethnocentric mindset that non-English speakers should learn English out of some obligation to the country or its citizens.  I think that it is well within a person’s rights to maintain their first language and never learn of bit of English, if they are able to live comfortably while doing so.  Where an inability to speak English inconveniences native English speakers, as happens often enough in customer service scenarios, it is not the fault of the non-English speaker, but of the company that hired the worker in a capacity where speaking English was important.  After all, where customer support lines are outsourced to other countries, it has nothing to do with customer convenience, and everything to do with the company maintaining their bottom line – that is, saving money.

What’s important is that we recognize that all language has equal value within its own cultural context.  For non-English speakers who live in and work in settings where English is not used or even necessary, it certainly should not be required.  Any talk of English being the “official” language of the United States is nothing less than xenophobic nonsense.

However, there is much to be said about the practicality of learning and using English in contemporary American society.  Because of the great cultural plurality that makes up the United States milieu, it can be expected that there would be a common language to allow all of its disparate members to communicate.  English is as good a choice of any, and is in fact the best choice, if only because it is the language of academia and of commerce.  This means that in order for people to have equal access to education, and to be well-positioned to participate in the U.S. economy, it is important for them to learn English – and not just any English, but Standard American English (SAE). This is not about acquiescing to the prejudices of those who devalue other languages, but for the the obvious utility of knowing the language that undergirds American society. (more…)

Tops on the list of things that I wanted to see in the 2009 Economic Stimulus bill – but did not expect to see – was more spending on education.  The New York Times reports that the plan includes a stunning $150 billion in federal education spending, which more than doubles the current education budget.

As is their political nature, and in their perpetual push to undermine the public school system – and perhaps ultimately to forsake it completely in favor of private or parochial schools – many Republican members of Congress are opposed to this provision.  Fortunately for the schools, and for the children, they probably will not be able to stop it.

However, as much as I disagree with Republicans and social conservatives of any party on what’s necessary to improve education in the United States, I may agree that spending alone is not a fix.  Spending in any sector, as the Wall Street collapse has proven, requires rigorous oversight. (more…)

Abraham Maslow conceived a model of human behavior based on needs. Called the Hierarchy of Needs, the model purported that people act to fulfill certain needs, which once fulfilled give way to “higher” needs. The hierarchy begins with the physiological needs – things like food, water, sleep – and later, sexual gratification. The second level involves the “safety needs” – a feeling of security in the world, of knowing that you are not in any immediate danger, physically or emotionally. The third level is “belonging needs”, which demands a sense of kinship or family or other intimate association with other people. The fourth and fifth levels are esteem needs, which refer to respect and/or admiration from others, and then self-respect and confidence. The highest level of the hierarchy is the stage of self-actualization, which refers to a period of continuous growth as an individual.

The model applies not only holistically to human behavior, but also to behavior in specific contexts, such as work and relationships. It could also be said to apply to groups as well as individuals. Although Maslow used the word hierarchy, he did not place any qualitative value on the different needs, save perhaps self-actualization, which he stated as the ultimate goal. But at that stage, behavior is no longer even dictated by needs, and in a sense the person has “escaped” the hierarchy. (more…)

In the 17th century, when people from Britain began settling the American colonies, many of them were seeking refuge from religious persecution. At the time the Anglican Church held considerable influence in political matters, and the king of England was none too accommodating of those with different beliefs. When the new nation was founded, one of the first things the founding fathers felt was necessary was to create a land where people could practice their faiths without fear, but also a place where no one religion – as was the case with Anglicanism in England – dominated the others or overtly shaped public policy. However, disparate as their particular creeds may have been, the settlers mostly had one thing in common: their Christianity. While it probably was not the intention of the founding fathers – or at least Jefferson, who was a deist – to create a Christian nation, there was no avoiding it, given that the majority of the new citizens were Christian.

It followed in short order that the political and cultural developments of the next two centuries would be inevitably shaped by the Bible, or rather, the people’s interpretation of it. It is obvious in almost every aspect of American life, from our fluctuating but never disappearing sanctification and/or demonization of sexuality, to the “under God” in our pledge of allegiance. Now one could argue that sexual taboos and the word “God” aren’t unique to Christianity, and certainly they are not, but when a U.S. president quotes the Christian Bible in a state address, only replacing “Jesus Christ” with “America”, the evidence that we live in a “Christian nation” isn’t so subtle or ambiguous. The statistics tell a similar story as well. According to a survey conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) in 2005, just about 77% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. (more…)

“The Bell Curve”, a book written in 1994 by Richard Herrnstein – a professor of psychology, and Charles Murray – a writer of political science, purports to explain the social strata of humanity, mostly in terms of cognitive differences between races. Although the book has been dismissed by many as pseudoscience, it remains a sacred writ of racism and social Darwinism. The best argument against the ideas expressed in the book came from people like acclaimed evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin; and all backgrounds considered, Gould and Lewontin are probably in a better place to understand the subject than either Herrnstein or Murray. Actually, Herrnstein’s and Murray’s thesis is so weak and underdeveloped that someone like myself, with considerably less education, can shoot it to pieces. That is exactly what I plan to do.

As noted, neither Murray nor Herrnstein are geneticists, yet they herald biological differences, i.e. “ethnic” or “racial”, as a primary cause of intellectual differences. One has to wonder then, how do they define these racial differences?

“How are we to classify a person whose parents hail from Panama but whose ancestry is predominantly African? Is he a Latino? A black? The rule we follow here is to classify people according to the way they classify themselves.” (p. 271)

What? How is that scientifically viable? There is relatively large genetic/biological diversity amongst the population of people who identify themselves as “black”. I say “relatively” because ALL genetic differences amongst all human beings account for less than one percent of the common genome. The socially recognized relationship between genetics and racial self-identification is a manifestation of culture, and is entirely subjective. Race itself is a social construct, not necessarily a reflection of genetic makeup. To remind you, Herrnstein and Murray are NOT geneticists, do not anywhere in The Bell Curve cite genetics literature, and yet use genetics as the foundation of their argument! (more…)

In the past year, up until recently, I was seriously into politics. The impetus was a political science class which awakened me to more of the specifics of the US political process and the kind of bullshit that goes on beneath the radar. However, once you’ve read enough political philosophy – and it doesn’t take much – then realize the huge difference between ideology and practice, the disparity is depressing. Despite that, and with the presidential election only four days away, I figured it was necessary and appropriate to state my views. Let me start by coming right out and saying that I am ardently against Bush being re-elected, and honestly, I don’t see how anyone who is socially conscientious can advocate his return to office.

It’s really interesting to see how different people prioritize the issues, and simply baffling how many would be willing to choose a candidate simply due to common beliefs on ONE of those issues. For example, I went to a school out in western PA, in an area where hunting was a major pasttime, and for some, a way of life. To them, gun control is high on their list of priorities, and so chances are they will support a right-wing candidate on the strength of his position with regards to the second amendment. They would be willing to completely overlook a candidate’s track record on issues that I would not only consider important to me, but of importance to humanity. That’s an important distinction to be made. Issues such as health care and education should be of utmost importance to everyone, and yet it can be allocated to a spot of secondary importance if a person feels strongly enough about subjectively significant issues – like gun control.

People are really so easy to read. As Mazlow said, people perceive the world through a filter of their needs, and act accordingly. So, it’s no wonder that right-wingers – who tend to be better educated and wealthier can overlook issues of vital importance to the majority (of which they are not a part) such as education and healthcare. The systems that are in place have provided just fine for them, so why change them? Who cares if poor people in urban areas are trapped in a socioeconomic quagmire due to lack of education. Surely they’re just not working hard enough. And welfare? Clearly that’s only for people looking for handouts from the government. “I made it, so why can’t they?” The number of things people take for granted is staggering.

Another large part of the Republican constituency is composed of devout “Christians”, most notably those of the far right. It is easy for them to take a pretentious position of moral righteousness, because they already have all the answers; they’re in the Bible, afterall, the words of God almighty right there in print. Same-sex marriages? There is no debate, because homosexuality itself is a sin, and the institution of marriage represents the sacred union of man and woman under God. How could anyone think otherwise?

Abortion? Life is precious – a gift from God – and for us to take it into our own hands is to claim divinity for ourselves, a sin amongst all sins, for sure. But be careful not to present these fine Christians with their own rhetoric when the issue of the death penalty arises, because they might not appreciate being confronted with their own hypocrisy.

School vouchers? Why, that George Bush is a champion of the people for coming up with the idea; nevermind that he probably didn’t think of it himself. You see, because if people are presented with a choice of either sending their children to public schools – those havens for liberal depravity – or a nice private school, of course they’ll choose the latter. Hm, and it seems a curious coincidence that the majority of private schools are parochial – fine institutions, those – where a nice wholesome dose of the gospel can be served up at every turn. Afterall, that’s what the people need – a return to those “basic moral values”, as taught by the good book.

Now is it just another coincidence that the money for these vouchers is drawn from the general education budget, the same one that is supposed to fund the renovation of the public school system? Also, is it admissable that money is indirectly being used to support religious institutions, which goes completely against the constitutional mandate of church and state separation? If you haven’t gotten the picture yet, the goal there is the complete destruction of the public school system. The picture starts to become more clear. Who are the primary attendees of the public school system? Where are the funds for education needed the most? Minorities, of course, and in urban areas. How much do you think the right cares if “those people” are further crippled by the socioeconomic divide?

Finally, this brings up “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB), an act whose name represents the kind of lofty rhetoric that keeps the goals of the Christian Right and the administration they advocate afloat. The general terms of NCLB are that students will be given aptitude tests, and where scoring is the highest, funding will be provided. Schools that score low will be punished by a withdrawal or withholding of funding. The logic here is as flawed as only providing fat people with food because they have the larger appetites, and withholding it from the malnourished because they cannot eat as much, resulting in food going to waste.

To hear supporters tell it, NCLB will encourage teachers and administrators to push their students harder, to make sure they perform admirably on these tests. Surely that can only be better for the children. This kind of thinking goes hand in hand with the ideology behind the laissez-faire capitalism supported by the right, because after all, America is a nation built on the backs of hard workers (slaves, mostly, but keep that to yourself). The American dream can only be reached by those with the drive and the determination to see it realized. That point of view, of course, is contigent upon the false pretext of all things being equal, which regardless of what the constitution says, is NOT the case. Many children in poor (and generally urban) areas have not had and still do not have access to the best education, and therefore are ill-equipped to meet the arbitrary standards set by NCLB.

No matter how much teachers pressure their kids, it is likely that the schools that already have the best resources, i.e. those with the most money (upper class and suburban), will score highly while those with meager resources (urban) will score lower. Is it too difficult to see the glaring flaw in this plan? It is actually quite possible that this is a provision of the act, rather than a flaw, although its creators would never say as much explicitly. Now, do you think there could there be a connection between the public school sabotage agenda of the Christian Right and No Child Left Behind? Gee, I wonder.

It is only through this social Darwinistic filter that No Child Left Behind can be foreseen as plausible. If it is meant for the people of lower status to free themselves of their plight, then they will put in the hard work necessary to do so. As for those who can’t, well clearly nature – and as a corollary, society – has deemed them “unfit”, so fuck ‘em. It is no secret that Bush aligns himself with conservative Christians and with the “haves” and “have-mores” (his words), and in a sense, it’s just smart. These are the people who pour money into his campaign coffers, the people who in the past have bailed him out of embarrassing business failures, the people who he and his family have identified with probably for as long as he’s been alive. How could he do otherwise? Oh, I know – because those few do not represent the interests of the vast majority of AMERICANS – you know, those 300 million for whom he is supposed to be (at least symbolically) responsible? But then again, if the under and non-represented majority only comes out to vote in small numbers and doesn’t have any money to contribute to the campaign, what good is it to attend to their needs? Because it’s just? Because it’s the RIGHT thing to do?

Next I’m going to comment (briefly) on the glaring flaws in our political system, which so many people have mentioned and written about before that it almost seems redundant. In this election, it seems that people are going to be voting against the candidate they don’t like, instead of FOR the candidate they do like. It is pretty clear that the strength of John Kerry’s campaign lies in the plethora of little grassroots groups who are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that Bush is not re-elected. Kerry is a democrat, which at least ideologically (and rhetorically, to hear him speak about it) means that his interests lie with the aggrieved and under-represented majority. He’s the “people’s candidate”, but perhaps only by default since he’s the opposition to Bush, who clearly is not that candidate.

Now, I don’t give a fuck about Ralph Nader, and I think that anyone who votes for him is a fool, but his candidacy raises an important point. Our political system is such that we only have two choices, as if all the people in the country fall perfectly on opposite sides of some imaginary ideological line. So whether we who hate Bush like Kerry or not is virtually irrelevant because he is the only man that stands a chance of defeating the president. Now Kerry realizes this of course, and it is probably why he has been so painfully cautious in choosing his words and riding the fence. That he is Bush’s opposition is enough for many people, including myself, until such a time that he proves to be a bigger asshole, which I can only hope never comes.

Since this is becoming long-winded, I’ll close with something that I should have mentioned earlier. One of main bullet points of the Bush campaign is his “record on terrorism”, and the apparent “fact” that he has made us safer. I find it extremely unusual that Bush would be touted as the “safe” candidate, since it was under his watch that the worse attack on U.S. soil occurred. Are we supposed to feel safer because of the reckless wars he started against our “enemies” after the fact? Or is it because ONLY 3000 people died, and no weapons of mass destruction have wiped out half the country yet? Bush would have us believe that under Kerry the terrorists will suddenly go wild, and be encouraged to blow up the whole country. After all, since Bush is the “safe” candidate, and provides us with strong “national security”, his opposition must be the complete opposite – a wimp who will “liberally” allow terrorism to run rampant and put us all in danger.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, reality is not so black and white, and it is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans (or perhaps a testament to the idiocy of many) to think that rhetoric is going to fly. I’m not even going to touch the Iraq war, with all of its ill-conceived motives, poor planning, and sustained incompetence, because the evidence speaks for itself, and I would have to write another five paragraphs. In closing, I’m officially endorsing John Kerry for President, and insisting that all you other socially conscious voters out there get to the polls and make the right decision as well…