Book Review: The Autobiography of Malcolm X

The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a collaboration between Malcolm X himself and Alex Haley. The book details his entire life and is easily one of the most powerful things I have ever read. The first thing you have to know is that Malcolm X was an ever changing and dynamic character. Any criticism you read of the man might be true depending on what stage of his life you are looking at. This seems pretty unextraordinairy, you could say that about anyone. The difference between Malcolm X's auto biography though, is how many times he went through a complete overhaul of his identity. He changes his names 3 times alone, each reflecting a new life, a new ideology, and a new kind of leader.

Malcolm X's most consistent quality is his "fire". It really defined him as a leader of the struggle, probably more so than his often confused ideology. This fire manifests itself in a variety of ways that make Malcolm so facisinating. Sometimes it is aimed at the collective action of the white man in the form of pure, unabashed truth telling. Despite the fact that he was never formally educated, his mastery of knowledge over the history of his people can indict even the most progressive whites of his time or any. No one is safe. He takes on the given racist institutions like prisons or the government, but he also takes down education and the media. He went after them in ways the more peaceful leaders did not. Every word is deliberate, every message is clear. It is almost hard to describe how blunt and truthful this man could be, the conviction he gave to his words made everything he said hammer home. No other word but "powerful" can convey this mans presence, even his literary one.

For the same reasons it was the most powerful book I ever read, it was also the most challenging. It challenged everything I previously thought about race and everything that ever taught me about it. The power behind Malcolm's accusations that welfare tore up his family or that the integrated school systems were used to ensure the demise of his education, had me seriously questioning these systems. Obviously I believe in integration and government assistance to the poor still, but this is why reading Malcolm was so challenging. He shook the foundation of what I know to be true. One line captures this perfectly for me. Alex Haley is telling Malcolm that whatever he says, the white publishers are contractually obligated to publish. X says he doesn't trust the white man, Haley assures him he can, and Malcolm responds: "You trust them and I don't. You learned about him in schools where he taught what he wanted you to know about him and I learned about him locked in the ghetto streets and in prisons - I will tell you about trust". This had me thinking about how in public school I never learned about Malcolm X, or Angela Davis, or Stokely Carmichael or any movement that was outside the most famous, non violent, civil rights  movements. I did learn about Christopher Columbus' heroic discovery of America, our heroic founding fathers, our historic sense of justice as a nation. Of course I knew all these things were just pretty pictures of our past that were painted to hide the real ugliness of it. What I never really suspected was that other movements and conditions were left out by design, in order to write off their importance, their reality, or even their existence. The most challenging and powerful part of this book was reading Malcolm lay these truths out in front of me and making me aware of how little I know about my own education.

But despite its power and challenge, there are some serious flaws in Malcolm, his ideology, and his book. Malcolm I believe was deeply sexist, which is a hard thing to admit, but ultimately true. It is hard to admit because he has so many speeches that really empower African American women, but he expresses too many times his belief in their fundamental weaknesses and toxicity to men. This duality made me uncomfortable and didn't seem all that useful to the narrative. I'll grant that it was at least honest. I've also mentioned before that his ideology was confused, but people often cite how his discovery of true Islam (away from the Elijah Muhammad Islam of Black America) and his pilgrimage to Mecca helped change his personal philosophy into one of brotherhood. Yet I find his understanding of Islam to be surprisingly flat. He points out that Muslims don't often care about color, that white muslims and black muslims work together sincerely, this leads him to believe that Islam is the only true religion of brotherhood and he doesn't hesitate to tell this to everyone. While I think he is right about the muslim community's regard toward race, he seems to completely ignore the history of violence within the religion as he uses it to assail christianity. This shows an unprecedented ignorance of history - it is fairly disappointing to see. Finally, the book glorifies his criminal past far too much. In its first chapter and a half, we are met with vivid and powerful memories of racism unlike anything I've ever read. Yet when Malcolm falls into the life of crime, it reads like a crime novel; drug runs, shoot outs, showdowns, the works. As destitute as he wants you to believe it was, it is hard to believe it when he treats his criminal self as a hero of the underworld. The re-birth into Islam then seemed insincere and caricatured. It made his transition away from this phase all too unbelievable. It set kind of an off pace for the rest of the book.

Overall though, reading the autobiography of Malcolm X is worth it. It is bound to inspire and challenge, but it is not guaranteed you will like it. After reading this book I think it is upsetting to hear Malcolm's constant comparison to Martin Luther King Jr. It is true they often criticized one another, but Malcolm was the fire under America's ass - his goals were not the same. This devotion to the struggle of his people, his willingness to burn himself to extinction in order to incite change...or else, makes for a very riveting and mind altering read. This book offers you something very deep; I think whether you walk away with it like Spike Lee did, or you walk away from it - you will not be the same after you've seen it.

Political: 5 Reasons Michigan Should NOT Allow Businesses to Discriminate

On December 2nd, Michigan's House approved the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The MRFRA simply stated bans the government from impeding on religious freedoms. This sounds like a nice, I don't want the government telling me what to do piece of legislation. However, the MRFRA will be used to justify discriminatory practices against members of the LGBT community. Businesses will no longer be required to offer goods or services to members of the LGBT community and there is strong evidence that many won't, this means many businesses would also be able to discriminate in hiring practices too. All on the basis that by not being allowed to discriminate, their religious freedoms are being inhibited. Many small government Republicans and Libertarians believe that legislation such as the MRFRA promotes freedom, some even go so far as to say all government regulations banning discrimination should be cut. To call this freedom is flagrantly inaccurate as it does nothing but limit the freedoms of American citizens. Furthering the effects of legislation like this so all businesses have the right to discriminate against whomever they want, will harm large swaths of the American people who used to be protected under the law. Libertarians and many Republicans believe that government intervention is no longer needed to stop discriminatory practices and so allowing these freedoms will mean less government oversight and depend on consumer awareness and activism to bring down discriminatory businesses. This is one of their basis for a free society. Here is why this is shamelessly incorrect: and why legislation seeking to limit government regulation against discrimination, like the MRFRA, should be stopped at all costs:

1. Government intervention has more power than consumer boycott to end discriminatory practices

Let the record show that corporations and businesses fear government regulations for a very good reason. That reason is that it causes a slew of consequences that hit them in their pockets. There are very few examples of consumer awareness and activism bringing down a corporation or a business with absolutely no government support. There are even times where, even with big government support, consumers were unable to stop businesses from unethical practices. Lets get into how governments can be powerful tools for the people and how, without government support, consumer awareness and activism would do little good against unethical businesses. The government can make businesses disclose unethical practices that they may wish to keep hidden from consumers, they can levy hefty fines, they can wield heavy taxes, they can even go so far as to seize incredibly unethical companies or firms and/or their CEO's or owners. Even the strongest consumer bases cannot stop unethical businesses in as swift a way as governments can. It may take several years before a company "goes under" because of unethical practices and this doesn't stop the owner or majority share holders from making money and doing the damage to communities that comes with discrimination.

For an example, take Mike Jeffries at Ambercrombie and Fitch. He was accused of discriminating against plus sized women causing consumer activism, a lot of people boycott Ambercrombie and Fitch clothing including big name celebrities. Despite a slight drop in sales, the company did not stop its discriminatory messages and Jeffries kept making $1.5 Billion dollars. What really began to hit the stock price, was the lawsuits that were coming out over his discriminatory hiring practices. The company had been sued at least 5 different times for a variety of discriminant cases including ethnic discrimination and ageism. Because these lawsuits were being won, consumers decided to shop there less. The government also imposed fines on the company for discrimination and kept a heavy watch on any future cases. Through a combined effort of government legal battles and consumer pressure, Mike Jeffries had stepped down. This does not mean that the company is going to stop being discriminatory, so the battle is far from over. The point though, is to demonstrate that government intervention is a tool that can help stop discrimination in ways that consumers cannot, as well as help consumers in their own endeavors.

2. Consumer awareness and action are not always enough

This segues into the next point which is similar to the first. While the last point demonstrated government capability, this point demonstrates the shortcomings of average consumers in their attempts to stop unethical and discriminatory practices. There are many ways that companies can be discriminatory without bringing attention to themselves as being so. Michigan is an At Will state and therefore does not have to provide you with a reason for why you get fired, if they fired you because you were gay you may have no idea that was the reason. It may take a long time for people to know enough to "out" companies as being racist, homophobic, or sexist. Or say you live in a small town in the Midwest. Often times these towns have a corporate headquarters, or a mine, a factory, a mill, a corporate farm etc... that runs the monopoly of employment in that area. If they decide to discriminate against members of the community, it can have economically devastating effects. Not to mention a boycott may cost others their livelihood and is consistently unlikely in these situations. Lawsuits though, call in the government or the power of the law, to safeguard against any harm caused by employment discrimination. Many Libertarians and Republicans would argue that another company would resurface in the area creating economic opportunity, but this is an unsubstantiated theory and we will discuss this later. They might also argue that the discriminated against may move, but this limits their freedom to live where they would like to live because of economic ostracism  - this does not sound like a free society to me. So given the lack of power employees and consumers have in certain situations, the government can be an effective tool for change.

To demonstrate that a boycott or consumer activism falls short without government support, the Chick - Fil - A case offers good insight. Chick - Fil - A engages in discrimination covertly by donating money to organizations that discriminate against members of the LGBT community and regularly violate gay rights. It took some serious digging to find this out. When consumers did find this out, there were widespread boycotts and condemnation of the restaurant. The restaurant continued to blunder through what many thought was a PR nightmare. It turns out though, that Chick - Fil - A is thriving, potentially doing better even. Of course, it isn't illegal to give your money to organizations that actively discriminate (I don't believe it should be, that isn't the point of this) and so there is no government intervention that turns up the pressure on this company to do the right thing. This is only one demonstration of how consumer activism can fall short without government action.

3. Free Market principles are only theories and may or may not come true

As stated before, Libertarians and Republicans believe that discrimination is wrong, but that it will be rooted out without government intervention. They think that by allowing the right to discriminate, through volunteerism and other free market theories, the problem will solve itself. Say you have a company that discriminates against black members of the surrounding community, here are some things that could happen according to free market theoretical situations: the company stops discriminating because it becomes less profitable to do so (either consumers make it less profitable via boycott or economic exclusion becomes nonsustaining), a rival business surfaces and offers business to everyone/just the discriminated against communities, internal company pressure forces new leadership (and I'm sure there are more). This is all possible, but this is also only a theory. There is no proof that these things would happen and allowing safety net regulations to be cut based on a theory with no proof is reckless and could cause greater overall harm. This is not to mention the historic examples of these theories not happening, making government intervention necessary (see the race riots Detroit). And even with government regulations and protections, there were over 93,000 charges of employment discrimination filed last year (2013), which says nothing of the unreported cases.

In the Economics of Discrimination by Gary Becker, trends of discrimination in companies are studied and labeled Taste-based discrimination. His studies show that unless drastic efforts are made to make all people as near equal as possible in the public eye and in qualification (and they are not in 2014, see section 5) then companies will continue to discriminate. He acknowledges that diverse companies have the likelihood of  being more profitable, but he does not believe they have that in mind when they do their hiring or performance reviews. When the perception of a whole group of people is of a low status, companies will hire and pay that group of people less. In part 5 I will go over exactly why the perception of certain groups is of low value, but assuming they are - according to Becker hiring and paying these groups competitively is not seen as an economically profitable decision. Further, these employees, because of the societal view of them, must work harder to justify their hire and rate of pay. This means it isn't just overt forces of racism that cause discrimination to occur, it is a more subtle racism that free market theories don't even begin to acknowledge in their solutions (again, refer to section 5).

4. Religious freedoms and freedom from the government should not be manifested in discrimination

This section is short and to the point. Religious freedom is important, so is living without the tyranny of law. However protecting citizens against discrimination is not an over reach of government power. Seeking to justify discrimination because certain religions don't wish to offer goods and services to certain groups of people is cultural relativism. This means we are acknowledging that discriminating against LGBT, though wrong, is morally right for that religion/culture and therefore they should have the freedom to do it. Yet our laws should not be dictated by cultural relativism because what is right for one culture or religion is not right for everyone. If we deem discrimination as a harmful act, as we all should because it is harmful, then we should not let any religion or culture do harm to any citizen only on the grounds that their religion says it is morally admissible to do so. We would not let men stone women because their religion dictates they do this in certain instances, so too should we not allow discrimination on the grounds of religion. Put simply, the freedom of one should not inhibit the freedom of another as much as can be legally controlled. If my religious practices are forcing you to move out of the community you live in or forcing you to be serviced/provided goods at a separate and potentially unequal business, then my religious practices should not be protected under the law.

5. There are large systemic problems in America that play a role in taste based discrimination

As stated before, the Libertarian/Republican theories of free market tend to ignore the problems of a more subtle and systemic problem. This means that the problems are more a result of a broken system and the subsequent perceptions than people's overt hatred of others. Many Americans may feel uncomfortable around gay people, they may feel women in power are bitchy, they may perceive black people as lazy. The largely constructed inequality among those in power and those without it is very black and white...literally. With inherent and constructed inequalities in this system it is easy for those in positions of power to look down on the societal status of those in need (even just in need of a job) by examining their marriage status, their education, their every day economic decisions. Yet gays cannot get married in many states, minorities generally have less access to education, and those in need often make poor economic decisions. It is true that not every minority is in need, not every gay person is without a partner, not every economically disadvantaged person is economically irresponsible - however the perception exists and this feeds a subconscious, taste based discrimination when it comes to selective employment and pay grades (see section 3) as well as who you offer your products to. These subconscious tendencies can ensure that discrimination will exist until these large systemic problems are fixed and they are far from being fixed.

For example look at the inequality between blacks and whites. Humanitarian and New York Times editorial author Nicholas Kristoff points to data that shows:

The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)

The income gap is 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967, black boys have a 5 year shorter life expectancy of white boys, Black students are significantly less likely to attend schools offering advanced math and science courses than white students, they are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled, and because of massive incarceration and inequalities in the justice system, black men are 70% more likely to go to jail (making it harder to get a job). Whatever is going through your head while you read those statistics could be going through the head of recruiters, hiring managers, CEOs, small Business owners etc...These problems are deep seeded and will remain because of government action and government inaction, as well as action on the behalf of American citizens. Until these problems are widespread addressed, discrimination will be a very real institution in our nation, despite what year it is.

So...

Obviously the government is far from perfect and obviously there are exceptions to everything that was said. Obviously not every company given the right to discriminate will. Obviously there are companies run by gay men, women, minorities. The larger point is that we should not be relying on theories to protect us from unethical business practices, but rather aggressively protective legislation. Discrimination is just one unethical practice, many Libertarians and Republicans would like to do away with environmental regulations and regulations protecting against consumer fraud. Yet, with employment discrimination it is a particularly vile plot. With employment comes empowerment and to legally protect businesses who discriminate against anyone on any unethical ground, is to encourage the dismantling of the economic empowerment belonging to those who are discriminated against. It makes matters worse. If it is true that young people are forward thinking and progressive, if it is true that we value diversity, then we would send any politician cutting protections for our already oppressed fellow citizens a clear message: we will not stand for discrimination of any kind, we demand legal protection for those being discriminating against, and we demand that the government stop this insidious plan to render itself obsolete in order pad its own bank account.

Essay: Peter Pan 1, Washington Redskins 0

I have seen a live production of Peter Pan the Musical on 3 separate occasions, I have seen the animated movie hundreds of times, I've read the book, I've even been on the themed ride in Disney World. This may lead you to believe that I am in some way a fan of Peter Pan. I'm not. I think the musicals are terrible (which is not to bash the brilliant young actors who star in them), the animated movie is probably the worst Disney film, the book is incredibly creepy, and the theme park ride is no Wicked Twister. Of course my feelings for Peter Pan are irrelevant, the Pan legacy is for children to enjoy and from what I understand they do. Here are where my feelings become less irrelevant: I'm concerned that kids are watching Peter Pan and enjoying it...because Peter Pan is really racist. This isn't a secret either, there is a strong history of racism towards Native Americans in Peter Pan stories. In fact the only reason I wanted to watch NBC's live production of Peter Pan the Musical was because I wanted to see how NBC would handle the racist depictions of Native Americans.

But let me back up. I think it is important to note that there are still plenty of racist depictions of Native Americans in 2014 America. I would say the worst perpetrator of this cultural appropriation is Sports. You have the Cleveland Indians, the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Kansas City Chiefs, and probably any number of smaller teams with similar names. The reason I believe sports are the most guilty is because it seems the most institutionalized. I'm unaware of any restaurant chains, or company names, or chocolate bars, or major brands that borrow (read: steal) from Native American culture. Which isn't to say those things don't exist, I'm sure you can find them, but none are more well known and vigorously defended as American sports teams. Which got me thinking about why Peter Pan hasn't changed over the years. Our sports teams cite reasons like tradition, and branding, and endearment toward a culture (all of which are terrible arguments, I'll get to that later), but what reason does Peter Pan have for not editing its racist content, especially since it is specifically designed for children. Put simply; why do we think it is O.K. to keep depicting these stereotypes when it is clear we have the capacity to change them?

But let me back up even further. I need to reiterate that this is not O.K.Cultural appropriation is hurtful. I think this is a hard thing for people to grasp because their culture is not as painfully distributed as that of the Native Americans. Redskin, for example. After the trauma (read: genocide) the Native American people have suffered throughout history, for white people to tell them that they have changed the meaning of the word redskin to simply a benign nickname is outrageous. We should not get to decide how a certain word, a word with historically painful connotations to a group of people, should come across to those people. But isn't it enough that Native Americans are saying they don't want to be depicted like this any more? This should be enough to make you stop dressing like them for Halloween, it should make you not want to get Native American Tattoos, or Native American themed clothing, and it should certainly make mainstream brands change their image. Why not? I've never understood why we should just go on offending people, especially people who have endured unfathomable offenses for many, many years. I'm not asking for laws that force the name change or organizational oversight, though that would be nice, I'm asking why the team doesn't change it when it is clearly hurtful to a group of people. I'm asking why fans don't feel the need to pressure their team to change the brand. I'm genuinely curious if it is because the pride and money and brand behind the word Redskin is, and Americans will admit this, more important than the pride and feelings and brand behind actual people. We are telling Native Americans that our symbol for them is more important to us than they are.

Back to Peter Pan. If you know the movie you know the brilliantly racist song "Why is the Red Man Red". The Musical has a song called "Ugg - A - Wugg", which has Native Americans singing utter gibberish in what can only be described as a parody of their language. Not to mention the Native Americans are prancing around in red face, doing stereotypical and, in all probability inaccurate, Native American things. However you can't just take them out altogether, they provide key plot points! I wanted to see how the NBC production would handle this dilemma and I truly believe they did not receive enough credit for what they did; they went over the top in an effort to make this less offensive. For one, they cast the actress who plays Tiger Lilly (the fictional tribes matriarch, which is actually pretty cool) with a girl who has distant ties to the Cherokee nation. This to me always seems like a cop out, like the "I'm not racist I have a black friend" argument. Yet it wasn't the only thing; they changed the lyrics in "Ugg - A - Wugg" to include actual Native American phrases, so it is less of an outright joke. The characters are not dressed like stereotypical Native Americans, they are referred to as islanders or simply Natives, and they aren't caricatured (saying things like, "me like Peter"). They seem to belong to no specific culture, if anything they might even be considered pacific islander. Which, don't get me wrong, is still far from perfect. The point I'm trying to make is every one was so busy bashing Christopher Walken's acting and talking about how boring it was, that they didn't give credit to the production for really trying.

Notice the sea shells? Eh?

That isn't entirely true. The New York Times had made mention of it, so did some other major arts and entertainment commentators. They pointed out that NBC tried to make Peter Pan less racist, but kind of as an after thought. No one though, at least in my opinion, has given them enough credit. The production team at NBC responsible for putting this together acknowledged that the cultural appropriation was offensive and they made a concerted effort to change it. They changed the establishment of Peter Pan. They changed Peter Pan because it was the right thing to do. Not because hundreds of Native Americans would be tuning in, not because they would make money on the deal, but because they found a reason to change it. There is no way to know why for sure, it could have been disingenuous, they may have just feared the backlash from the PC crowd. Even then, that means this major network felt accountable. I believe that is more than you can say for sports teams. They may never change their branding. While I agree that a team brand is different than a depiction of real people in fiction, it stands that both these depictions have real world pain associated with them. As passive fans and consumers, we have not created the backlash that NBC would have gotten for running a racist production. We are too afraid that allowing the Politically Correct movement to make significant changes in sports branding we are allowing our masculinity to be be challenged. Well I'm here to assure you that there is nothing weak about asking a brand to reconsider its approach, there is value in standing up for those being made fun of. Native Americans have truly endured, they are still here, we shouldn't be treating them like they aren't. It's time to grow up...

Book Review: The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is the proud owner of a Nobel Peace Prize in Economics, which is great, but his work in The Price of Inequality is far from peaceful. The book is a non-stop assault on austerity and the politics of the 1%. Stiglitz uses vast amounts of data, ranging from social experiments to primary economic studies, to explain exactly what is wrong with our economy, the politics surrounding it, and how to fix it. The amount I learned from this book will have me running back to it again and again. Why? Why read this book more than once or reference it on a weekly basis? Because it will help you understand who is to blame for the mess we find ourselves in, and no one is safe.

Stiglitz rips up NeoLiberals like Clinton, Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, Progressives. This is because Stiglitz has no time for partisan name calling, he has an economy to save. His agenda is simple: point out that wealth inequality and poverty are gaining momentum and harming a vast majority of the American People. Check. Point out that this massive amount of inequality and poverty is deliberately caused by the wealthy, as it is in their best interest. Check. Demonstrate that both government action and inaction are just as much to blame for this inequality and poverty as the wealthy are. Check. Dispel any myth that the impoverished and less fortunate are a necessity in America. Check. Outline a series of comprehensive political moves that would balance the budget, lessen the amount of poverty and inequality, and protect the US consumer/economy. Check. If these issues interest you, regardless of political affiliation, you should read this book. Even if these issues don't interest you, you should own this book. That way, when you're sitting around and wondering why your four year degree was so expensive, you can look up that education funding was cut - raising the cost of tuition - and then that same money was given to students in the form of loans so that the schools could still get paid, but banks can make money off people going to college! Boom! Now you know.

Not impressed yet? In the age of the internet where people explore and express their feelings about economic policy via memes it is frustrating that there isn't a lot of substance behind them. This is what I love about Stiglitz. He has a level of ferocity that makes his work exciting and dynamic, his lack of political affiliation helps him stick to principles, and he explains the motivations behind major political policy that things like a meme or a fancy youtube video cannot. So if you're left leaning, you're not just making the empty claim that the minimum wage should be raised, but instead you're explaining to a crowd of adoring fans that the reason it hasn't been raised is because it cuts into profits in a way that can't be avoided...unlike taxes. Or maybe you're right leaning, but instead of complaining that our jobs went over seas or into Mexico, you're tucking your kids in at night with a bedtime story all about how free trade agreements allow doing business in deregulated markets incredibly cheap and now kids just like them are being worked literally to death because we don't have protective tariffs that deter businesses from going elsewhere for cheap labor.

Stiglitz turns policies of any party inside out so you can see the lobby at work, what government action or inaction lined whose pockets. He analyzes how our billionaires and millionaires are plaguing the entire planet, with a process called rent seeking. It is where a few vastly rich people own everything, every single thing, and allow you to use it for a price. Monopolistic cable and utility companies, dominating telecommunication companies, bullying corporate farms, tech giants, Too Big to Fail banks that owns everything you think you own, etc etc...I can almost guarantee you are frustrated by rent seeking in some capacity and if you want to know why, I cannot recommend this book enough.

Book Review: The Stars of the Sky by Jim Arapostathis

The Stars of the Sky is a science fiction young adult novel by Michigan native author Jim Arapostathis. Although the book is clearly geared toward a younger crowd of readers, the young adult side of science fiction often uses the fantastic to provide simple and open understanding of the real world we live in. This makes Stars of the Sky an excellent read for any age group, it constantly reminds us to stay curious, adventurous, and honorable.

The story follows Krown, a young cave man coming of age. He wants to partake in his tribe's mammoth hunt, a ritual reserved for the brave men of the tribe. Essentially Krown gets separated and decides to help a crash landed alien named Gothis get the necessary supplies for his ship. Thus, Krown, Gothis, and Star (a young girl from Krown's tribe) set off on a journey where they meet impossible odds. Literally, there is absolutely no end to the danger and it seems to get worse and worse with each page. Extreme cold, giant animals, space alien pirates, etc etc... And the moral of all this danger isn't something as banally thrown around as "be brave" or "never give up" - though those are there too - I like it because it teaches you to think critically about your doubt. Krown is constantly doubting his own ability, his relationship with start, his own reality. And Arapostathis doesn't just invite his readers to reject it, but rather treats it as it is; reality. We all doubt, Harry Potter doubted, but the way Krown doubts is so refreshingly realistic and anyone who has been through 9th grade can relate. Krown reconciles with his doubt the only way we ever can; by pushing on and doing the right thing. Helping Gothis is impossibly dangerous and risky, there is no reason to trust him, but Krown does because it is the right thing to do. He doesn't just think of himself, he doesn't just think of Star, he thinks of and takes action on behalf of the least well off in any situation.

This is why it is important for any young adult to read The Stars of the Sky. When one is 14, they are literally coming of age. They began to think critically of themselves, they become self conscious and aware, they began to doubt their own abilities. To Arapostathis, this is a critical time to think, not of oneself, but of what we can do for others. We know our own limitations; Krown is smaller than the creatures he faces, he isn't as technologically advanced as space pirates, he isn't smooth talking, and he isn't especially wise. Yet despite all this, by doing the right thing, by helping others, Krown proves his ability to himself. Stars of the Sky invites us all to be curious, to be doubtful, to be brave, to do the right thing, and above all; to take action. Any person, of any age, can be inspired by such an invitation.

Capital in the Twenty First Century by Thomas Piketty

"Yet it seems to me that all social scientists, all journalists and commentators, all activists, and especially all citizens should take a serious interest in money, its measurement, the facts surrounding it, and its history. Those who have a lot of it never fail to defend their interests. Refusing to deal with numbers rarely serves the interests of the least well-off"

This is the last statement of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the TwentyFirst Century. It is a comprehensive look at the history of wealth and income inequality through the past two and a half centuries. The amount of research and accuracy is staggering, they are largely irrefutable, and they are almost all primary (this book exists as documentation of his study, not a fragmented compilation of other studies followed by a political conclusion). Piketty's piece proves that America, and the whole rest of the world, is at the same level of wealth/income inequality that it was at before WWII and posits that this is a problem.

I led with the last quote of the book for two reasons. The first is that it is totally true. Piketty's book may not be the most riveting read; there are no sparkling vampires, there is no humor, it isn't laden with references to hip things that will make the younger readers say "I know that one!". We, my generation in particular, are not interested in numbers as a political phenomenon and maybe we should be. Many young voters are quoted saying things like "I don't know much about fiscal policies, but I really care about social issues". I find this unacceptable. I care about social issues too, but social and fiscal issues are not separate spheres. The problems of today have a lot to do with economy, many people protecting their money appear to be protecting their morals or their rights for example. Citizens and journalists and activists need to watch were the money is going, where it has been, and why. Only then can any political opinion, even one of pure ideological social justice, be fully formed.

Off my high horse; the second reason I led with this quote is because it is one of the only demands the author makes of his reader. Basically I thought that as someone who advocates responsible government intervention in capitalism, this book would be a silver bullet against opinions differing than mine. This is incredibly egotistical of me and if I had held this expectation for long I would have been disappointed in the book. This is because Piketty does not write rhetorically, he is not flashy, he doesn't need to call for reader action. Although he points out that no research can be perfect, his book stands as the closest thing we have. And despite little gems like, showing that levels of inequality have been at their starkest before 1930 and 2008 in the past two centuries, does not really argue much. This is because he doesn't have to. If his statistics are largely irrefutable, so too, is his conclusion; it should be taken not as a demand, but a fact as plain as the sky is blue.

Oh right. His conclusion. Here you go; "The overall conclusion of this study is that a market economy based on private property, if left to itself, contains powerful forces of convergence, associated n particular with the diffusion of knowledge and skills; but it also contains powerful forces of divergence, which are potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based". He essentially proves that though the market economy based on private property creates great equalizers, its inevitable outcome will be that the return on capital will outpace the rate of growth (represented by the equation r > g). This creates a society of rentiers (or people who own everything and simply rent it out) who become more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. And his numbers back it up: the global inequality of wealth is currently increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained.

Piketty has many suggestions; a global progressive annual tax on capital being the best, followed by a heavy handed use of inflation, and even some simple taxes like the estate tax and a wealth tax. However after each suggestion follows; "but this should be left up to democratic debate". This means that Piketty is simply calling for us to do...something...even if it is give tax breaks to the largest corporations because you think that is what is going to improve the quality of life and justice. This brings me back to the beginning. The men and women voting, or revolting, or even just complaining need to take a vested interest in numbers and money. Piketty's book is a great start, but you have to be willing to suffer through the immeasurable historic context to find what you ultimately believe is the right solution to our century's greatest problem.

Book Review: Karen Joy Fowler's We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves

We are All Completely Beside Ourselves is a novel about the Cooke Family. A father, a Mother, a Brother (Lowell), a Sister (Fern) and our protagonist Rosemary. Spoiler alert: Fern is a chimpanzee. I thought at great lengths whether or not to say this fact seeing as the first few chapters hide it from you. However I think you're supposed to know that Fern is a Chimp, I think Fowler anticipates you knowing because you read the back of the book, or you read about the book in the NY Times, or your friend told you. Anyway I think it is part of Fowler's craft, keeping the reader in the dark even though they already know what is coming. That seems to be the structure of the entire narrative. The protagonist Rosemary tells us straight up that she's starting in the middle of the story. From there she takes us on a wild ride; jumping from memory to memory, decoding them, adding details, taking parts out that were made up, pulling some details (even some memories) out of her deep subconscious, all while dealing with the harsh realities these memories have caused for her. I have never been on such a realistic and deeply personal journey with a fictional character before.

And Rosemary's journey is a pretty fantastic one. Fern was a chimpanzee that her father, a prominent psychology professor and scientist, was studying in conjunction to Rosemary herself. That means these two children were both experiments on language, understanding, and psychology. They grew up in a house full of grad students and observations on their games, conversations, and interactions. Obviously man has a lot to learn from chimps, Because they are so closely related to humans a study performed on chimps is a study performed on The Self. Much like Fowler's novel is a study of the self. Each memory that Rosemary recalls is initially foggy, she has repressed a lot. Having a chimp for a sister and the trauma that follows has clearly left her with guilt, emotional damage, self loathing, etc... But mostly it has left her with a lot of questions. We meet Rosemary right at the moment in her life when she wishes to finally face these questions, naturally when she is in college. Her parents are too Midwestern and guilt laden to provide her with the answers and she won't get anything from her missing fanatic brother; so she looks into her self. Fowler's protagonist is so genuine and so real in her guilt that you can't help but become infatuated with her inner journey.

This is because we are so used to totally omniscient narrators and suspense coming from plot points. But Rosemary's journey through her memory is different. For one it is incredibly difficult because she was so young. Each memory has to be carefully reconstructed physically to make sure it is real. For example she has a memory that pops into her head from time to time, of her father purposefully running over a cat, but she knows this cannot be a real memory as she would not be able to see over the dash in her car seat. It was a memory that she fabricated as a young child. And this has obviously been done before, in college we all learned about narrators that couldn't be trusted  and our professors used to think it blew our minds. However Rosemary's "unreliability" isn't tricky, she's trying to bring the audience with her to the truth, not hide the truth. In this way we are watching a character face facts and be honest with themselves, our narrator has to be willing to say "I've repressed that memory because...", which makes you absolutely love her. Because we have these sorts of moments where we are fighting to be honest with ourselves, especially in the context of where and who we are now, being a result of where we came from. The feelings evoked in this journey are so potent, if only because they are invariably true of all people.

And speaking of truth, it seems like Fowler had to have actually had this happen to her (obviously it did't). She writes so vividly, not because every action performed by her character is a deliberate one, wrought with detail, but rather because every single one of her characters messes up, or says something stupid, or that they regret, or they do something stupid or incomplete, arbitrary. As I said before, Fowler's novel is a study of the self and we won't necessary like what we see. It makes us ask if everything we hate about ourselves, if every mistake we ever made, was totally preventable. This is the type of question that makes us hate novelists like Fowler, we want to believe that our past did not create us, but the only way to be free of the mistakes we made in the past is to face them in the present. Fowler's study is to show us a mirror, via a chimp, where we see the very worst of ourselves. The results of the study? When the subject looks in the mirror and sees their self, they are proven to be a more intelligent, rational, and free human being. They lead a much more honest life, if not a happier one.

"The world runs on the fuel of this endless, fathomless misery. People know it, but they don't mind what they don't see. Make them look and they mind, but you're the one they hate, because you're the one that made them look" - Lowell on the seemingly impossible task of stopping animal cruelty. A point that rings so painfully true in my life and the lives of anyone who wishes the best for all creatures.

Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

We've all heard that our identity is not a matter of choice. We don't choose our race, we don't choose our gender, we don't choose our sexual orientation. But in Americanah by Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie, this claim is wrapped in the poetry of a love story. Which sounds really cheesy; we don't choose our identity like we don't choose our soul mate...sounds stupid. However when Adichie does this, in the way she writes her novel, it is far from stupid, it is just the truth.

The novel's protagonist Ifemelu, is a Nigerian immigrant to America. Though, she is also so much more than that. Ifemelu, is beautiful, she's smart, she's hard working, she has values. Which are things you expect out of every literary character, but in Americanah, attributes like these play a tremendous role in the lives of the characters, more so than other novels. For example Ifemelu, due to her attractiveness, finds a rich white boyfriend in the states who uses his money/power to get her a green card and an eventual path to citizenship. Something she may not have gotten had she not been very pretty, smart, or an immigrant (the white fellow would not have dated an American Black). Privilege in this book comes across as more idiosyncratic, every little aspect of our identity can manifest into privilege (or the opposite), and to Ifemelu, it is impossible to fight, the only way to combat it is to merely notice it.

And reading Americanah it hits you how true that is. How the aspects of our identity, including our privilege, carry us through life. We are simply along for the ride. So what is Ifemelu's response? To write a blog. Ifemelu is a young blogger who starts the prolific race blog; Various Observations About American Blacks by a Non American Black. The novel is peppered with posts from this blog; posts about Barack Obama, about questions one will get as a black woman, a very kick ass post on hair. But they are never argumentative, only observations. Ifemelu is acutely aware that being pragmatic will not change your identity, but demonstrating how ones identity might effect their living conditions, leaves the reader with the irrefutable message of love and understanding. This way no one feels the need to escape their identity, or try to become something else.

Which is all anyone is ever trying to do in this novel. In Nigeria, all of the character's were trying to become European; putting their kid's in European schools, structuring their families the way Europeans do, going to Europe on vacation, moving to Europe.  In America everyone is trying to become rich, many who are black are trying to become white (or less black). Some American's are trying to become non-American (while laughably trying to hold on to the privileges that being American comes with). Everyone is living this single track story of someone other than who they really are. There is a painful lack of honesty. Which is why Ifemelu's blogs (she starts one in both America and Nigeria) are so important. More importantly though, is Obinze.

As I said, the novel is, at its heart, a love story. Obinze is Ifemelu's love in Nigeria, she moves, loses touch, he moves on, she comes back etc...(no spoilers). Though they both have other partners, they both have other lives, we as the reader get the feeling they are not fulfilled with anyone but each other. One is constantly present in the other's life, no matter how hard they try, they cannot choose to stop loving one another. In this way, one is part of the other's identity. The love they share is not something that even the most traumatic of drama can shake. Loving who we are truly meant to love is the most beautifully metaphoric way to tell those struggling with their identity to be who they were meant to be. The language of Aichie's love is so somatic that it cannot be interpreted as love that one decides to walk towards or away from, but the love that one falls into, the way one falls into their body, or their situation, or their sexual preferences.  And if we can love someone else with no choice in the matter, then there is no reason we can't love ourselves and who we are.

Book Review: As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner

Whenever summer hits I always reach for a Faulkner book. Reading about the American South in the sweltering heat of the summer always spurs a deeper sense of empathy for what is going on in the novel. This summer I decided to reread As I Lay Dying. 

The novel chronicles the Bundren family on their journey to bury their newly passed mother in town. Anse, the husband, has promised to bury Addie in the town she was born in and will stop at nothing to do it. He and his family pass trial after trial in Anse’s effort to bury his wife where she promises. This seems very noble, endearing, and could maybe make for a really great read in a summer book club for moms. But the Bundren family is far from perfect; in fact every trial they face, putting themselves and others in danger, is almost directly a result of their stubbornness. Every member of the family “refuses to be beholden to any man”, meaning they will not accept any favors, they will not be in the pocket of anyone. And it is frustratingly selfish considering they have children, they have injured, and it seems they have little to no respect for the dead. The Bundren family is a profoundly selfish family, but their task seems uncharacteristically selfless at the same time. I won’t spoil any endings, but the duality makes for a tantalizing read. 

On top of this, it is incredibly fun. The style is written from the perspective of every member of the family and a few outsiders. Each “chapter” is a different family member’s name and their account of how they experience every scene in the book. This is strikingly biblical, multiple perspectives on the same series of events, each one unique, but each one offering the same narrative. There actually aren't a lot of events at all, but the length of the book is due to multiple perspectives on what is happening. Some of the more interesting perspectives include a 7 year old child, a father in denial of his own seemingly righteous motives, and the deceased herself: Addie Bundren. Because Faulkner can seamlessly transition into a completely unique and new perspective in each character’s voice, this book is great for anyone who loves to read into the psychology of characters. It requires motives to be questioned, sense imagery to be interpreted (is that a cow mooing or someone having sex?), and almost a complete distrust of what anyone is telling themselves. 

The most amazing part to me is how Faulkner, through the use of the aforementioned style, is able to change the perspective of the reader. We begin to question the merits of the Bundren family; whether it’s the whole family or any single member. A completely non spoiler example would be whenever we are inside the head of a Bundren, it seems they are speaking Standard English, but if we are seeing them from an outsider’s perspective; they are speaking with a rural vernacular that connotes a less educated individual. Now we are questioning what the Bundren’s must think of themselves; do they have overblown expectations of how they must sound? Or do they do this unwittingly? Faulkner allows his readers to look disapproving at this protagonist family without being overly didactic or writing in a way that makes people use the word pathos too many times. If you like to analyze the psychology of characters by seeing the world as they see it, you will not find a more fun way to do this than As I Lay Dying and many other Faulkner novels. Prepare for headaches.

Book Review: Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace

Maybe you've experienced this: you meet someone who has traveled all over the world, maybe doing philanthropy, maybe doing anthropological digs, maybe "back packing". As you talk to them, you hope they have something to say, you're waiting for them to drop some "truth bomb" on you about the countries they have visited and the things they have seen, but they don't...they just talk about themselves...or maybe they talk without saying anything. And maybe you feel this way secretly when you read a collection of essays by an author you like. If you feel as I do, maybe you'll enjoy Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace.

DFW's forte seems to be dropping "truth bombs". He notices things that we, the readers, either don't think about or don't notice. Wallace is witty and acute, he might remark on something small; that the campaign trail coffee he was forced to drink while following John McCain's early political career "tasted like hot water with a brown crayon in it" (Up Simba). Other times he will remark on something big and less tangible; the conundrum of being a tourist for example - how you always wonder how much more beautiful a place would be without all the people there, but you in fact are one of the people there ruining it. This is a catch 22 I had never thought about, but love keeping with me in my back pocket whenever I find myself a frustrated tourist. These are only some of my favorite examples, the book is literally full observations like these.

And I don't think it's that Wallace has a better sense of awareness than other people. No natural affinity for seeing what others can't. In fact if you read DFW enough, maybe even a few times in this collection, he explains how he does it: he puts the work in, and I mean WORK. He'll remark in almost every essay that he is not an expert in whatever he is about to talk about, but then he goes on to discuss the neurological infrastructure of a lobster, the tedious grammar war between prescriptivists and descriptivists being waged in every dictionary ever written, or the inner workings of the two big radio licensing companies BMI and ASCAP. The "work" is Wallace delving into these subjects, subjects that would ordinarily bore us to death, with the concentration of a mad man. He then proceeds to resurface with a truth the likes of which many of us have never seen, and he then communicates it in a coherent and witty way to the rest of the world.

Wallace has both the ability to endure through the insignificant and the ability to then communicate significance in an engaging way, a way that forces us to consider it. Consider the Lobster is a testament to this ability. It's little wonder we might get frustrated with people who have traveled the world and can't speak to it. To me, Wallace really gets to the heart of this, in his essay "How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart". In it, he touches on America's obsession with understanding how an athlete is able to do the amazing things they do, how we want a step by step mental processes of exactly how they did it and how it feels in the moment. Unfortunately according to him, America will never know because the act of not thinking about what you are doing is necessary for doing the sorts of feats that athletes do. In my mind, David Foster Wallace can do just that, but in the literary sense; he can tell you, engage you with, exactly how the totally useless bits of unnoticed information in the world is in fact dictating our lives. Then he asks you to consider the insignificant.

Book Review: On Beauty by Zadie Smith

I had first picked up Zadie Smith's White Teeth in college for a contemporary British Literature class. At the time, I thought the novel was funny so at the time she struck me as a British version of Junot Diaz. After reading On Beauty, I realize that Smith can effortlessly create struggle for her characters in a way that I don't think any other contemporary author could, even Diaz.

The novel focuses on the Belsey Family. Each member of the family faces what might be considered face value issues, but are in fact attached to something far deeper, issues that even the characters themselves sometimes miss. Kiki, a black American nurse by profession heads the family as the matron opposite Howard, a white, British University professor. They have three kids; Jerome, Zora, and Levi. The family is altogether lovable and well written. It is apparent that Smith thinks that the problems of mixed children often disguise themselves in more trivial problems, so much so that they are not altogether recognized on a deeper level. For example, trying to take work off on Christmas day becomes a crushing realization of one's own privilege. In fact the Belsey children are constantly butting heads with their privilege, it becomes a deep source of self loathing for them, but they do not necessarily see this - it comes out in the way they choose to express themselves and what they choose to fight for.

This is all related to the heart of what this novel is about; beauty. The central debate is theory, represented by Howard, Zora and many other hilariously stuffy academic characters, versus Sensuality, represented by the poets Claire, Carl, and many other flirty liberal arts characters. It seems that Smith, however, has a different approach to beauty; just being a real ass person. Here she employs wickedly realistic characters like Kiki, Levi, and Choo - individuals who are outside of academia and seem to live in the real world with the rest of us. Smith travels these three realms effortlessly, showing she is intelligent, artsy, and brutally real. The struggle of living as someone of color with means and an astounding education comes alive in this novel in every character she employs.

This comes to be the only real problem I have with novel and ultimately Smith herself as a novelist. I noticed it first in White Teeth where it is more prevalent, but Smith tends to pull characters out of no where in order to illustrate a point. Granted, they are usually good points, but the characters come too fast and are too perfect. It seems almost Ayn Randish. I'm willing to forgive Smith this, as the main character's she creates are powerful representations of ideas and struggles few could capture, but other's might not be so lenient.

Overall, Smith's novel is great. Every character learns exactly what you would expect them to, but in a way that sticks it to any academic you wish you could stick it to. She crafts unusual circumstances in the realm of the University, but she does so in ways that are so believable you never once stop to think of how impossible it might all be, how perfect. In On Beauty Zadie Smith rips the Liberal out of "Liberal Arts" and delicately places something else, something more real, and more human....something as a recent college grad, I wish I could have done.

Book Review - The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen

The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen follows the Lambert family dynamic as Christmas time fast approaches. This novel is an ideal read if you dread connecting with your family during the holidays...or really any other time. Alfred and Enid are an older Midwestern couple with three adult children: Chip, Denise and Gary. The story is that of a culture clash; 3 individuals trying to escape from their parents and the suffocating Midwest culture they grew up in. Each character has their own way of not just self medicating, but self correcting - working to become less like their parents, as an almost last ditch effort to be happy with themselves.

Enid and Alfred begin this wild symphony of characters. Franzen's portrayal of an older Midwest couple is guaranteed to eerily remind you of a real life couple you know yourself. Enid is incessant in a way that only a Midwestern mother can be; her constant disapproval stemming from the stubborn belief that things should be a certain way and any deviation from this way is wrong. This obsession with being right all the time is the heart of this book, it broaches the idea that we spend so much time correcting ourselves and others, that we don't even bother to enjoy life any longer. Alfred, who formally used his job on the railroad to work himself into a state of constant distraction, is now quite retired and quite sick. Franzen employs these two parents as a rallying point that their children proceed to flee from.

Chip, a New York College professor, largely regards himself as a failure. He fled to New York as an intellectual where he continues to constantly indite the American Culture. As Chip's life seems to crash down around him, he loses track of his sharp critiques in favor of a eat or be eaten survival mode that ends up taking him from New York, to Lithuania and back to good ole' St. Jude in the Midwest. Gary, the most responsible of the three siblings, battles with depression and his creeping subconscious that seems to be forcing him to be more like his father. Despite all his efforts Gary is alarmingly similar to his father, but with every refusal, he dives further into a guilty depressive state. Gary sees things in the most literal sense, a trait reminiscent of his Midwestern parents, which puts him at odds with his own wife and children - something he must continue to fight at all costs. Denise is the youngest of the Lambert's and is by far the most bruised character. In a constant struggle with her sexuality and an almost crippling self consciousness we watch Denise crash through life too afraid to settle for fear of her life being a perpetual wrong move. Her battle is one faced all too many times by young people that her section of the novel alone makes it a must read by all.

The novel culminates at Christmas in St. Jude, where Enid has insisted that she host and that all her children be in attendance. Every character seems to have their own internal language and the settings are so incredibly interesting. As painful as it is to get to know every Lambert, you watch them interact with individuals that are dealing in the face of infinitely worse family lives than them and you begin to wonder if their constant escapism isn't their own worst enemy. I'll let you read it and determine if the character's make any lasting change by the end of the novel, but one thing is for sure; The Corrections forces us to take a hard look at why we believe ourselves to be such fantastic failures at every turn in our lives.

Sick Culture Part I

Both Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto respectively won an Oscar for their performances in Dallas Buyers club. I have yet to see Dallas Buyers club, but I really want to. Lately I've been reading and seeing a lot of flack for the movie, for Leto's performance and for Matthew McConaughey's acceptance speech. There was this article, this one, and then there was this one. All these articles point to something important; that a trans role should have went to a trans actor, that the movie should have involved trans people in some way, and that the movie's stars should have been more cognizant of what they were representing. And I don't disagree...necessarily....what I disagree with is our need to boycott or otherwise denounce this film because of the problems (no matter how justified) our education has allowed us to see.

I love video games, I always have loved video games, but video games often perpetuate stereotypes. I'm fully aware that video games feature violence towards women, propagates the damsel in distress trope and there isn't a video game (to my knowledge) that doesn't focus on a brilliant and capable female protagonist that isn't overly sexual. The point is that video games can be sexist, for more information, see this video. Now I'm aware some of you may not agree, but stay with me. I am fully aware of these things, but I do not stop playing video games and I certainly do not encourage others to stop playing video games. This is because I believe in thinking critically about mediums of information I thoroughly enjoy (yes video games are mediums of information).

In the case of Dallas buyers club, it is necessary to point out that trans people are underrepresented in film. In fact, whether it is in character or in person trans people, black people, Latino people, gay people, and women are all underrepresented in film. This year in 2013; Dallas Buyers Club, 12 Years a Slave, Blue Jasmine and even Gravity (Latino director) all represented these underrepresented groups, the focus was brought on them. This is one of the many positives of this movie, a fact we can look at and at least acknowledge is, at the very least, a nod in the right direction. It is still important to think critically about this movie though, about the lack of trans people in movies, and why they weren't at least brought on as consultants. But it is not necessary to hate this movie, like it isn't necessary to stop playing Grand Theft Auto because you can kill prostitutes, but it is important to think critically about whether or not that is an appropriate thing to put in a video game. Because with discussion comes education, with education comes change.

This is a fundamental way of thinking for me, it is how I decide to bring about societal change. I understand it may not be what others think of as effective, to others it may not even work. But I believe that if you cut, and poke holes, and deny, and denounce, and boycott, and cherry pick, and cut (again) any medium to the point where it is nothing, then you will be left with nothing. And society does not want nothing, the America we live in does not want nothing. We do not want to be left with no video games or movies that we enjoy, but we may be willing to listen about how they could be different. If you can do this, then over the course of time our mediums will start to change into a more progressive and inclusive standard. This is not new, this is how it works, we have the most progressive mediums that we have ever had in America, we have a long way to go, but when you try to force change in a way people do not listen to...then we don't move. No movement is bad movement.

Thanks for Listening,

Kyle

Flipping S***

When I don't know what I'm doing in the car, like if I don't know where I am going, I flip a shit. Combine this with traffic, poor drivers, a full working day, as well as my timid under practiced driving and a lot of shit is flipped in my 2010 Chevy Malibu. Yesterday I met some coworkers for drinks and couldn't find where the bar was right away, plus people suck at driving on Big Beaver because they all apparently need to get home and defuse a bomb or something. It was then that I realized, when I am stressed while driving, I turn into the worst person I could possibly be. I say racist things, sexist things, homophobic things and if I'm not saying them I'm thinking them as I scream other things. There is a general peace that is about me, and when I am stressed out it seems to rupture - and nothing I stand for is safe anymore. This is extremely worrisome to me because it makes me wonder about the genuine nature of these beliefs, but not in the sense that I don't genuinely believe them, rather where they come from, where they go, and why they aren't always with me.

I generally advocate forward thinking, I want nothing more that the acknowledgment of inequality and a collective move towards a solution to a bigger problem - a sickness - that plagues the American Culture I love (not sarcastically either, I love America). Why then, do I scream "OF. FUCKING. COURSE" when a polite looking Indian family almost, completely unbeknownst to them, kills me on the expressway? I can't simply just get mad at bad driving, I have to assign their bad driving to the most obvious quality about them. Like I'm trying to really hurt them. I'll point out here that people might give some shoddy explanation about the "truth" of stereotypes, that's fine they can think that, but my point goes deeper; if I never adhere to this implicit racism in my day to day, why do I seem to devolve into it in moments where I am incredibly stressed out? Also, there is no longer a censor, words you couldn't pay me to say are all of a sudden free flowing. I don't condone stereotyping or saying words arbitrarily because we don't think they are bad, I understand that words have meaning and can be a harmful act. This of course does not stop them from blurting out.

This is a hard thing to admit. I get so easily flustered when I'm lost or someone does something infuriatingly ignorant when I'm already stressed out. It boils down to my deep seeded fear of tardiness and my even more seeded fear of disappointing other people or letting them down in some way. I can't seem to overcome this feeling, as much as I try to force myself to think positively, to come back to myself in a sense,depending on the stress level; I can't. I'd really like to work on this, I'd like to exhibit self control whenever I feel this stress boil up in me. I'd like to level with myself, look at myself in the mirror and tell myself to settle down. The problem is; I never get a chance, it just happens. Fast. I wish I had the solution, but I don't and it is throwing me into a panic. I don't like who I become in the car, afterwards I have to break things down and convince myself that I didn't mean what I said or what I thought.

One time I saw a woman walking out of a yoga class, she was the picture of zen; her face held a relaxed smile, her walk was casual, and she seemed as though she had just finished sighing a gigantic sigh of relief....when a car speeding by almost clipped her. At this time, she proceeded to fill the air with expletives and her middle finger and a whole lot of "negative vibes". I bring this up because I think people in my generational category will try to forward me information about yogic culture, or eastern religions, or breathing techniques and meditation. It's not as though I'm completely unwilling to try these things, but the random and primal nature of these...attacks...makes it difficult to simply breathe through them, seeing as they are over almost as soon as they start. It seems like yoga is a great way to selfishly unwind after a long work week, but that its abilities are futile against any everyday instances that might insta-boil your blood. In that sense, these eastern culture remedies are more like detox diets and less like adrenaline shots.

No. The judgement comes from a deeper part of me, one that wants to hurt people. This is how I've managed to reconcile with it thus far; by convincing myself that I don't really belief the terrible things I think and say, but that my brain births them from a desire to harm my "aggressor". My question then, is what I need to do to relax this desire to do harm to others mentally, to go for blood. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know. And as always,

Thanks for Listening

The Big Fish Eat the Little Ones

Here is an anecdote that has been on my mind for some time. If you know anything about Oakland University, you will probably know that it is the home of the only Chick - Fil- A in Michigan. This is one of those facts that is deemed "fun" in nature. In its quirkiness, it has become almost a novelty selling point by university officials, as though you come for the Chick - Fil - A, but stay for the academics. The sandwiches are apparently delicious, how unique they can be as compared to the rest of the chicken based restaurants is difficult for me to fathom, but I'm told they are good. And by good, I mean that their food is good, because I have been told many times, by many others, that they, Chick - Fil - A, are bad. They are bad because every year their organization gives money to other, "non-profit" organizations that actively discriminate and persecute members of the LGBT community.

This is where the story starts: the information gets out and members of the LGBT community begin to take action. They petition, they protest, they ask for a boycott, they ask the administration to discontinue the company's presence on the campus as it is personally and deeply threatening to them. They make a good deal of noise, that apparently fell on deaf ears. The administration asked questions, but in their own haplessly annoyed way, the way that seems to wink at the perpetrator, letting them know they're really on their side. The campus dinning services on the other hand, claims to have taken action. And to their credit they did, they issued a survey, an attempt to poll the students on whether or not Chick - Fil - A should be on campus. It seems to me that such an important decision being made on the premises of a progressive institution should not be merely left up to a vote, especially since votes do not solve ethical dilemmas, but just prove they are in fact, dilemmas (I.E. we could have all held a vote on slavery and regardless of conclusion, would have still had a civil war). Beside this, the survey was downright tactical, I remember one question in particular: "are you aware that Chick - Fil - A is staffed by students of Oakland University?". Whether the answer is yes or no it does not yield whether or not you like Chick - Fil - A or not, it is just a shameless way of telling you sympathetic facts that might dissuade you of any bad it is doing because it is also doing good. This puts the University Dinning Services clearly on the side of the restaurant. To be honest, I think the members of the LGBT community would have just rather have been told to "fuck off".

To my knowledge, the restaurant still stands at the university, as a pillar for their inability to make any move that might be deemed, in the most remote way, as controversial.

This is not a rant, there is a point here. The point is, that the Google empire knows more about me than most of my family members do, but we are incredulous when we hear the government is collecting our data. My point, is that I think we need to start reassessing who Big Brother really is. I'm not trying to be cliche here, I'm not just going to aimlessly talk about the flawed system I am fortunate enough to be apart of. No. I only want to rail against what I truly feel helpless against.

For example; take the way we vote. We vote both politically and with our dollar, but in both sense of the word, I feel as though I carry no value. Despite my refusing to shop at Wal-Mart or BP or Chick - Fil - A, there are still floods of people who rush to these institutions and cast their vote every single day. On the flip side, the incentive of receiving my insignificant vote does not seem like it pushes the politician to do what I elected him to do. Meaning this, Chick - Fil - A is always going to win because people are always going to go there and the powers that are supposed to stop it have no incentive to stop it. So what do I do?

In order to live in modern society, we have to buy into a system. This system is incredibly indifferent to us, it doesn't matter how careful you buy and it doesn't matter how often you buy, at the end of the day you will always buy. In order to use the internet and talk on the phone and send letters and emails and texts, we have to share our data, our identity, with the rest of the world. We are like children playing with sharp toys, but we're worse because we recognize the toys are sharp and we're still outraged when they are taken away from us. I don't think anyone would know what to do with pure privacy, because no one would be listening.

Again, not a rant. A request. I want the NSA to take all of my data; my phone calls, my emails, my bank statements, my texts, my diaries, my receipts, my random book annotations, my grocery lists, my love notes, my birthday cards, my bathroom stall carvings, I want them to assemble it all in a bin and label it "to do". Then I want them to go through and read it, have to read it, the president and congress and the CEO of Chick - Fil - A should be forced to read every single one of these "to do" files.

Then they will have to pay attention to us, not necessarily to what we're saying, but to the fact that what we say, says a lot more about us than they are even willing to pay attention to.

Thanks for Listening,
Kyle

Writing Through Life

It's been awhile since I've written anything in this space. I started this whole endeavor so I could have a place to be brutally honest with myself as well as work on my writing ability. This past week in a half, I started a new job and I haven't had much time or energy to write anything. That being said, I couldn't stop thinking about writing, not in a pretentious way, like a "I can't stop thinking about writing because I do it and it's something cool and different that I do, look at me" kind of way, but rather in a "I need to fucking do this" kind of way. At work I keep wishing I had more to write, I think I'm going to start teaching myself how to write copy, at home I offer to help my girlfriend's siblings out with their papers. When it first hit me, that I need to write, and this past week in a half it really hit me, the first solitary moment in time when it hit me was when my little brother messaged me on Facebook with this, the blog he created. I was speechless, mostly because it is so apparently inspired from what I did here, but also because it's good, it's insightful and it has opened a window into my little brother Mike's life that I wish I could of had when I was younger. But this inspiration is not without context, this is coming from an area of great conflict for me.

When I was younger I played a lot of video games, entire summers would go by and I would hardly see the light of day. My games of choice were role playing games, mostly fantasy ones, because I loved any game with a good upgrade and because I loved being a different person in a different world. I'm sure any novice student of Psychology reading this is pining to tell me it was to escape, a means of getting away from the real world with locker room bullies and maybe I liked upgrades because I was crippling self conscious of my own abilities. This is probably true on some "sub level" somewhere in my inner psyche, but all I can say is that I thought they were fun. My cousin or my best friend and I would sit there for hours on end playing this massive game that wasn't about beating, but just about playing, about being in a world unlike your own. 

My brother has a very different gaming experience, one that is enveloped in the world of online gaming. When he plugs in, he is entering a world not unlike his own, but one full of his friends, his family (my uncle and my cousin are avid gamers) and a level of comfort that probably only exists in places he deems safe (ie not school). I think he said it best when he said: "it gives me and a lot of other people a place where they can fit in, where you don't have to be judged upon what you look like (unless you're camping in halo, no one likes a camper)". I never thought of them in this way, I only saw my brother sitting in front of a TV screen looking really concerning. It would make me nervous, it still does. It's not that I misunderstand and it's not even really about the video games, it is about his slipping grades and the fact that he doesn't seem to be able to pull away from it in order to take care of his day to day mundane tasks.

Then he shows me this blog. It is genius in a way that I was never capable of seeing in my brother before. The posts are very relevant, he is able to deal truth to himself and others fairly; he knows he needs to play less, but he wishes people could see it more of a balance issue than one of abstinence. He posted a piece on pushing your limits, but never getting lost in the conundrum of trying to be better than others. He posted an incredibly brave piece about the use of the word gay as an insult, something too few high school kids ever actually talk about. Even the title of the blog itself, the double meaning makes my English major blood rush with pride: Gaming through Lives, lives meaning lives in a game or life itself as we live it. What an accurate and fun way to portray what he's actually doing with what people perceive him to be doing. 

I guess what hits me after seeing this, is that my brother looks up to me. He sees me doing something that I love and it speaks to him in such a way that he is inspired to start a blog himself. I realized that I have to write because every day I am inspired by people I look up to doing what they love. I want my brother to get his homework done, to turn his grades around and still game, to be the exception to people's expectation of gamers everywhere. I want my brother to keep writing too, but mostly, I want my brother to game as hard as he can and school noobs and buy upgrades and fight demons and play In the Arms of the Angels over his headset whenever he kills another player's dog in COD. I want my brother to game through life in the most deliberate way he can because I know my brother wants me to write in the most deliberate way I can, which is why I need to write. I hope I can continue to do that for him.

Thanks for Listening,

Make sure you check out his blog too!

Kyle