Monthly Archives: January 2008

***written in July***

Recently, I’ve been talking to a good friend. He had one of those situations where he maybe lost an incredible opportunity, because he didn’t fully act on the opportunity.

This, I think, is one of the biggest struggles in the entire world.

‘The things I could have said or done’

or maybe it could be put reversely too, ‘the things I did that I shouldn’t have, the things I said taht I shouldn’t have’

either way, I think this singular issue, as far as personal issues go, may be the biggest obstacle to fully living

I have struggled so many times with this way of thinking, in particular one issue, when I look back and say to myself ” I shoudln’t have done this, I shoudln’t have said this.”

Regret, is a big deal, and living in regret is a sure fire way to never reach your potential.

I was reading about Bear Grylls, obviously my favorite guy on tv right now (man vs. wild) and probably the number 2 person I wanna meet (behind muhammad ali of course). And i was reading about his various accomplishments, climbing Everest, jet-skiing around the UK, paragliding over Everest, crossing the Arctic, former British Special Forces, went through Foreign Legion Basic training, etc. etc.

But the thing that most impresses me about him, is the fact that when he was 21, jumping over southern parts of Africa for training he broke his back in 3 places. He says it took 2 years to recover. I’m not impressed that he actually climbed Everest (in of itself it is very impressive) in comparison to the fact that he broke his back in 3 places and came back and is doing what he loves, and doing acts of charity and what not.

I was talking to the same friend from above, about Willis McGahee. Anyone who knows me, knows my favorite current player is Reggie Bush. He is simply insanely ridiculous and seems pretty chill. But McGahee was huge coming out of Miami, until the national championship game that is. It still gives me chills seeing the helmet to knee hit that tore all 3 of his ligaments.

So McGahee to me, is the most inspirational football story. It took him 2 years or so to rehabilitate (this is a recurring theme, lol) and he came back to not only make it to the nfl, but to be a legit nfl running back.

Bear, Willis, the friend from above, might all wonder, “what if i would have landed differently,” “what if i would have juked or jumped or been tackled just a little higher or lower” or “what if i would have told her how i felt.”

You don’t regret, you can’t, no matter how big your loss is, because you must come back, and you must LIVE.

The things I could have said, The things I could have done. Wow. It brings me to tears when I think about it, because in most instances, opportunities, friendships, family members lost, never come back. The only time they come back is to haunt you, when you can’t sleep at night.

Thinking of the things you should have said or done.

I thought about leaving it like that, but there is no hope in that message.

Instead, I take joy in the fact that, although something might be lost forever, I focus on the good things. I do not believe everything bad that happens, every opportunity lost, was simply “meant to happen”

I think that’s a crock of doo doo.

But, despite of all the bad things that happen, all the things you lost, all the things you should have said or done, there is always hope, there is always love, and there is always healing. And whenever you’re consumed by regret, by despair and desperation, wondering how your life would or could have been, pick yourself up, and focus on the good and not the bad.

Simply, focus on the things you CAN DO and CAN say.

So the things you should have said or done turns into

the things i Should say, the things I should do

Oh, how beautiful is this life, haha…

This is a rough write-up of an interview I did with an economist/trader for a Collegian article. Most of this is not showing up in the article, but I thought it was pretty valuable. Economics is a very tough game, and economists usually disagree, so I don’t expect you to necessarily agree with or understand anything below.

Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez, a vocal opponent of the Bush administration, urged his Latin American allies last Saturday to begin pulling out billions of dollars from U.S. banks in light of the recent economic crises, according to The Associated Press.

Chavez, presenting at the summit of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Nations of Our America, put a voice to thoughts running through the minds of many political leaders around the world — the U.S. economy is not only tumbling; we’re possibly in a recession.

The U.S. economy is facing stiff shocks to the economy; most recently with the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the rising costs of oil and natural gas, the continued decline of of the U.S. dollar’s value, and agricultural goods that grew as much as 50 percent over a one-year period.

Throw a war on top of all that, and economists are debating if the economy is in a recession, and if so, when we will recover.

One professional currency trader said the recession is not just a possibility, but that it has already arrived, and it may be the after-shock of the greatest tragedy in modern American history: the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

9/11

We are well past the line of recession … there’s no doubt in my mind that we’ve been in recession for some time,” said Chicago-based trader Tim Morge. “This is the first time in 40 years that we’ve had a decline in housing prices — and that’s as long as we’ve been keeping records.”

Morge, who has 35 years of trading experience in billions of dollars, said current U.S. economic problems lay mostly at the feet of a patriotic man who was formerly at the helm of the Federal Reserve Bank, the U.S.’s central banking system: Alan Greenspan

Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan relaxed all of the lending regulations [after 9/11] and printed money like there was no tomorrow,” Morge said. “I think he thought he was the economic savior of America, showing the rest of the world that we were still strong … he was wrong, but he was being patriotic.”

Morge said a combination of politicians ebbing away at anti-trust policies during former President Bill Clinton’s administration, as well as bravado on the part of Greenspan, led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, which many economists say has spurred the decline of the U.S. economy, if not a full-blown recession.

But the buck doesn’t stop there.

For the past three years, banks were giving interest-only mortgage loans at up to 125 percent of the appraised value of the house. When the value of the houses began to fall, millions of Americans were left with loans they could neither afford nor pay.

A bank like Citi Bank is probably holding $50 to $60 billion of these types of loans, Morge said. He estimates that 3 of the 5 major US banks will go “belly up” in 2008.

Banks, such as Citi, would bundle the loans, and in turn sell them to investment banks and hedge funds for a premium, who Morge labeled as “the greater fools.”

The problem, however, was much larger than the sub-prime mortgage, Morge said.

For the past two years, the Chinese have been selling billions of dollars of U.S. debt in the form of treasury bonds and treasury bills. In effect, a foreign central bank such as China can “own” the U.S. debt when the U.S. government releases treasure bonds and treasury bills, which are basically ‘I.O.U.’s’ in which the government makes promises, or debt, in return for money up front.

The Chinese were the first ones to step up to the plate and say ‘having all of our money in America is not a good thing,’ ” he said. “We had $5 or $6 trillion in debt, all issued in bonds and bills.”

As the Chinese central bank disinvested — or took their money out — of the U.S. economy, many nations were soon to follow, Morge said.

This disinvestment is helping to drive down the value of the U.S. dollar, as the Euro, British Pound, Canadian Loony and a host of other currencies’ values climb versus the dollar.

Our interest rates are going down, all of Europe’s central banks said ‘we’re not going to lower rates with you,’ and their interest rates are going up,” Morge said. “China, in the next 3 to 6 months, will float currency and start raising their interest rates — and the demand for U.S. money will only decline.”

The interest rates to which Morge is referring are the federal funds rate, or the rate at which banks lend federal funds at the Federal Reserve to other banks, usually overnight. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who, since October 2005, has been Ben Bernanke, uses the rate to try to regulate the money supply in the U.S. — something most students learn in ECON 004 (Introductory Macroeconomic Analysis and Policy).

This past Tuesday, Jan. 22, Bernanke lowered the rate .75, the largest cut in US history, and he is expected to cut the rate again Wednesday.

Morge said that the interest rate cuts, as well as the economic stimulus package totaled at $150 billion announced by the President a few days ago, are not only too little — they are much too late.

The economic stimulus means nothing — CitiBank and Bank of America are writing off more than the stimulus package is going to be. And in reality, Bernanke knows that he’s sitting on 17 percent to 18 percent inflation … maybe as high as 20 percent,” he said. (The official number released by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics is 4.1%, but Morge, who worked for the Bureau in the past, said they “blatantly lie,” to try to assuage the fears of the American people.)

Benjamin Bernanke

Morge said that Bernanke, along with the treasury department, Congress, and the Bush administration, want the American public to feel good, but that the “tax credits” won’t have any affect.

Combine rising prices of oil, agricultural goods, copper and steel — due to the rocketing demand in China and India — and Morge said we’re sitting on a time bomb, and we’re “due for a reckoning.”

Eighty-five percent of all industrial cranes are in China now for their various construction needs and from the middle of 2006 to 2007, auto sales in China grew six-hundred percent, in comparison with the U.S. growing at 4 percent,” he said.

How can you compete with that?” Morge rhetorically asked.

Not all is lost he said, but the battle for the presidency of the United States will be certainly affected — no matter who wins, Morge said, their affect on the U.S. economy will be moot, because the majority of the power will rest with Bernanke.

As stock markets crumble — and Morge said will continue to do so for the foreseeable future — there is only one solution: get rid of inflation.

Morge’s proposal includes raising interest rates, and he adds that people will lose jobs and homes, and he expects to see unemployment in the “teens.”

Although Morge’s news is bleak, he says he doesn’t want to be the “dooms-day prophet,” and had some practical advice for students concerned with the plight of the economy.

If you have the opportunity to get more education and stay out of the current job market, take it,” he said, encouraging students to try to find jobs where the employer guarantees educational benefits.

Your career is for your lifetime … find what you like to do, and do it. The money will take care of itself.”

Motion picture alliance retracts student blame

In 2005, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) blamed college students for 44 percent of their revenue losses, but more recent figures show that coeds are actually responsible for only about 15 percent.The incorrect figure, blamed on “human error”, indicated that college students were responsible for losses totaling about three-quarter billion dollars, mostly from the illegal downloading of movies, The Associated Press reported. The industry’s total loss to piracy is about $6.1 billion.Some students say the industry’s scapegoating of college students is unfair.

1. Photo Tagging

This has been the biggest, as well as the most controversial, feature Facebook offers its users. Some have lost jobs opportunities, others have broken up, while others have just faced public embarassment — and even caused great hurt by their Facebook Photos.

Forget Flickr, Facebook Photos began a revolution where tagging your friends (and those tagged photos showing up on your profile) has an almost cult-like following.

Not many will admit it, but I know some who spend hours stalking looking at others photos.

2. Mutual Friends

There is almost no bigger surprise then when you look at somebody else’s profile and say “I didn’t know HE was friends with HER!” NOt that being a friend really means they’re friends in First Life, but it’s still pretty interesting to SEE the degrees of separation.

One of the best things FAcebook offers in terms of managing your social graph.

3. Mini-feed and News feed

Again, a very controversial topic, the Mini-feed, which came first, just gives you a personal run down of what a particular person has been up to.

Looking at my mini-feed I’ve changed my status twice as well as posted two links in the past few days. Without mini-feed Twitter does not exist.

Newsfeed as revolutionary, giving you a home gossip page, running mini-feeds from your social graph on your Facebook Starting page.

One of the biggies is “added” so and so as a friend, and making or breaking relationships.

I have some friends tell me, “if it’s not on Facebook, it’s not official” in regards to relationships.

4. Relationship Status

While it’s on a plethora of other sites, both those that have come before and after Facebook, the validity of Facebook (i.e. most have profiles under real names, as opposed to absurd monikers a la AIM or MySpace) has increased the importance of the ever-present relationship status.

5. Legitimacy

As I mentioned in the above bullet, knowing that David ADewumi is really me, not yalo1 (my AIM profile) or some other moniker I’ve come up with for email, is so advantageous.

It means that when I meet someone, I can search for them on Facebook and I”ll probably find them. Obviously the more users who sign up, the better chance you have of finding someone, and your First Life social graph gets transferred increasingly online — as well as the possibility for creating relationships where there were none.

6. Simple, yet elegant

I told my sister a year or so again, that Facebook would destroy MySpace. Not because of Zuck or the Fbook team, although I’m sure they’re pretty impressive, but because I for one hvae always hated the clutter of MySpace.

MySpace, more or less, other than being a career-maker for artists, is AIM on steroids, while I consider Facebook to be Gmail on steroids. Simple, effective, easy to maneuver, and not a lot of extra garbage (before May 2007 that is, when they opened up the F8 platform).

I’ve read that it’s closely related to demographics: the preference among the educated, particularly white people prefer Facebook, while Latinos and Blacks prefer MySpace.

Case-in-point I met an old friend from high school, who is definitely a member of the lower-class in my mostly middle-class town. I hadn’t seen her in about 6 or 7 years and so I looked her up on Facebook after our brief encounter.

Couldn’t find her.

So, with the thought that she’d probably be on MySpace ( Hey, I wanted to test the socio-economic theory) I found her there, with a pretty active profile.

Go figure.

7. Javascript

Another distinguishable feature on Facebook, is the ease and speed you can open and close forms. This is the information, and the speed as well as the ability to find information is huge, and I can quickly scroll through a friend’s profile and open/close forms to find out the info/ wall, etc. that I am looking for.

I don’t remember exactly when they phased this in, but kudos to Facebook — another huge feature that most don’t consider, but very , very important to the simple design.

8. Message Threading

Facebook’s inbox, in my opinion, was the major influence on Gmail. Now Gmail’s user-interface is better and easier to navigate (it helps to have that powerful Google search in your inbox) the threading system was clearly employed first by Facebook.

It’s so easy to send messages, as well as group messages (just can’t stop them from continuing to show up in your inbox once your part of a conversation thread) that even my dad could do it.

Even Xobni has realized the power of threads in their Outlook Toolbar plugin.

9. Wall Posts

Probably the absolute biggest reason Facebook has gone global , is the ubiquitous wall posting system. Later improved with wall-wall, which is more proof of their superior message threading system.

Again, private messaging has gone public, and many-a-person has come up to me and relayed information they either gleaned from my wall, or another’s wall.

In fact, I often hear the comment “I confirmed it on Facebook,” while somebody’s gossiping about a third-person they never talk to, neither in 1st life nor the 2nd.

10. Groups

Although I’m not personally a big fan of these, Facebook groups are so “important” that main stream media journalists are often citing the groups as proof of a point of view (e.g. “the facebook group supporting Barack Obama now has x millions of members”).

You know you have arrived on the scene, when the same reporters who are loathe to use Wikipedia as a source are now citing as Social Network’s group numbers, as concrete evidence to support a fact.

11. Networks

It’s the same reason why Craigslist is taking marketshare away form Ebay (who has a 25% stake in Craigslist thanks to a buy-out from a former employee): Users People, connect better in a community.

It’s great to have a yahoo or Gmail account, but you can’t find people in your regional/work/school network easily, if at all.

With Facebook, I meet a student at Penn State, or a member of the community, and the search for their name is indexing users by 1) people in my immediate network and 2) their proximity to my network if they’re not in it.

This saves so many headaches, as hunting down an old friend is very easy — throw up a HS or College network search, now employers and localels, and I’d say you’re 10x more likely to find them.

People were meant to interact in a community-setting, period.

And Facebook has done an incredible job of bringing that to the internet.

It may be a case of “right time, right place,” but I think these 11 features have really set Facebook apart from the crowd.

I’m sure Matt, Adam, Gabor and the talented Xobni crew must realize this, but I would say Plaxo is their main competition.

Matt recently wrote a note about community.xobni.com, suggested to them by Chief Xobni Evangelist, Greg.

I left this comment for him:

“Matt,

I’m just waiting for two things from Xobni.

1. Xobni on the web (maybe email is coming? Is that what i heard in the Intruders tv interview?)

2. Xobni plugin everywhere: get my contacts/conversations form Fbook, Gmail, Twitter, etc.”

Honestly, Xobni is an amazing tool.  The potential is limitless, and once it gets itself online, it will be a huge  killer app.

Right now I’m on my sister’s computer so I can’t use Xobni to find info I need, so if/when that power is transferred to the internet (in my opinion preferably as a plugin, rather than a stand-alone service) than sparks will fly.

One thought: if they’re partnering with Microsoft’s development program, does that mean we won’t see a Xobni plugin for Gmail?

“The term African American is too much of a label. Blacks with ancestors from African have been in America since the 1600s just like whites with ancestors from Europe. However; whites are rarely referred to as European Americans. The term implies too much that blacks are inferior to whites. In other words blacks still have to be referenced to another continent as if blacks have just immigrated over here and are not used to the American Nationality. Blacks are just as American as whites and the term African American conveys otherwise. Most blacks are not even just sub-Saharan African; many are mixed with good size traces of Native American and/or white. So why not just say Black American or Black if one needs to refer to race.”

Reginald Bryant

*****Wrote Dec. 2, 2007

Sean Taylor was shot and killed earlier this week.

It was reported by many people, yet there was a recent article that made me literally stop in the middle of it, and begin to write this note.

The Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/73347 i encourage you to read both this article and the newsweek one) was commenting on the stigma of being an ‘African-American’ young male, and went on to note how Michael Wilbon an ‘African-American’ journalist wrote a column. For all you sport junkies you will recognize Wilbon from the famed show Parton the Interruption, which he co-hosts with MNF announcer Tony Kornheiser.

Does any other ‘African-American’ find it annoying to be referred to in that manner. I am black, not literally, but when you say black, you typically refer to a dark pigmentation, right? When I say white, I’m not talking about that hue often found on wedding dresses, but rather that pinkish tone that some of my best friend’s have.

You know when I was in Georgia, there was a girl there that worked at the library that I became friend with. She, who will probably see this note, refused to be called African-American because she feels that she descended from native Americans (now called American Indians in present-day political correctness…it’s hard to keep up with these ever-changing terms). She claims that her ancestors did not come from Africa but were those already here before the white man came and took over (which leads to another interesting discussion about exactly WHO is the illegal immigrant in this country, but that’s an article for another day.)

Although it is sometimes debated by scholars exactly WHY they did, but it is known for sure that the Ancient Egyptians called themselves, their land, and their country Black. (the word is most often written khmer- which was black) and that even in ancient Greek texts, they referred to the Egyptians as black men. I am of the school of thought that agrees that the ancient Egyptians were black, and most surely a lot darker than those there now. In fact, Yoruba tradition points to the first Yoruba coming from Egypt, and our traditions mirror and parallel those found in Ancient Egypt, in fact as we were at the Museum of Natural Science & History over thanksgiving (located in Chicago) my Dad was just startled by how many of the traditions paralleled that of our people.

But I digress.

The point of that last paragraph, although long winded, was to point out, well if the most advanced civilization to walk this planet (even today we can’t figure out how they did some of the things, like build the pyramids of Giza) could call themselves black, why can’t we?

I among all people, who am first generation American would want to be called African-American, right?

Not so fast

Let’s take the example of someone, who however, is first generation, but arrived from a country like Brazil, where some numbers put their black population at 50%.

Should a black Brazilian who migrates to the US than refer to himself as an “African-American” when his forefathers have walked the lands of South America for a few hundred years–and yes they may have come from Africa before that, but why must they be an “African American? Yes he is from the Americas, but we all know when people say America, they refer to the United States

Another point of discussion: If we all really do come from Africa, as most of those who believe in evolution believe –(why of course, the Africans are the closest links to apes, how convenient?) why don’t they preface EVERY PEOPLE GROUPS African–(fill in country(. In fact, when I was in Kenya, I wanted nothing more to go and set my eyes upon “the cradle of life.”

Then that way, we can truly be correct, and then we will have African-German, African-French, African-Indian, and whatever other absurd invention we can co me up with.

(A note for later discussion: why the term sub-Sahara Africa has such a dire implication—the ancient Eygptians also called what we refer to as South, North, so maybe it should be Sub-Sahara when referring to what is not Black Africa, such as modern day Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, etc..)

Not to mention all the discrepancy of being born ‘half-black’ those of uyou fortunate & unfortunate of being mixed races. My niece and nephew are such, and from all looks of it, my kids will be too. From the experiences I’ve seen from friends, this is not something I’m looking forward to–having my niece, nephew, and even my own kids struggle to identify exactly who they, and where they come from.

You may think I’m wasting my time by even broaching this subject, and I may be wasting my breath here, but I think I’m on to something. Maybe this fits into the larger topic of social & cultural identity, I don’t know.

So anyways, the next time you’re around me, don’t worry about some social faux-pas and talk about another black person and say “i was talking to this African-American kid” because I will most definitely laugh at you and tell you to repeat the sentence and insert the word black (Just ask Chris if you don’t believe me)

I could go on and on about this, and how Black is referred not to as a color, but a manner of being–for example, being Black is not about physically being Black, but about speaking uneducated, dressing with clothes that don’t fit, and playing bball or possessing the skills of tongue-twisting, otherwise known as rap (ask Eminem if you gotta be black to do it)–but again, another topic for another day

It’s not surprise for Africans reading this that my dad doesn’t like my hair in twisties, although it’s a lot more common for those who have been away for the homeland for a while–in a lot of places in Black Africa, that’s something women do, as well as pierced earings. But my dad’s biggest concern–is being labeled by potential employers and other important people who might not take me seriously because of the style of my hair-automatically lumping me with those trouble makers who get arrested for possessing and smokin weed, drive-by shootings, and ‘great’ shows like Flava-Flav or I Love New York. (the same black people who newsweek said ages 15 to 19 die by homicide at 46 times the rate of white males their age. They are also seven times more likely to be incarcerated than their white peers )

There’s a great story he told me about one of his graduate students, who went to an important meeting with my dad, plus all white people. The first day he had his hair in a fro, well combed & shaped-up. The next time he saw them,(which I think was the next day) He had his hair in cornrows, and they all asked him “what happened to you, we thought you were a reputable young man.” You see, that style of hair had such negative connotations, they immediately doubted their previous respect for him, all because of a different hair style.

True story.

I could also tell the story where Al Roker (not the real one, but a nickname for JR) and Jahmal would fight over what it meant to be black–one was your more typical ‘black’ person raised in a black community with all the stereotypical black ideals (number one being NOT to date a white person) and the other, although from the Bronx, had an educated style of speaking & debating that irked the other black kid.

How amusing, as if black people in this country did not have enough things going against them, that they must argue about the level of ‘blackness’ and accuse others of not being black, simply because they date people of other colors, or they don’t talk like a stereotypical black person. (think— “how are you doing” in stead of “what’s up my nigga”

if you know me, you know how irritating that is to me, because for a black person to fight over with another black person over something so trivial as their degree of blackness, only shows how far out of whack some of the thinking in this country has gotten–and although I understand this is a nature vs. nurture thing, where that annoying black people attitude where you have to “act Black” –or wahtever it is people do on BET and the latest hip-hop video–was developed from their surroundings and not something innate, it still urks me to my core.

But hold on, let offending Black person from the above example grab some Tims, Air Force Ones, or some Jordans, some baggy pants, beater with a long white T, and a du rag to go under that fresh fitted NY cap, and all will be ok.

(I hope you’re catching my sarcasm)

I know it will take a long time to change this fallacious way of thinking (or should I say jacked-up) again, as in all things, you must call something (in this case the various problems of name association for black people in this country) by its true name–in other words voice the problem, before you solve the problem.

But when all is said and done, I am not African-American because my parents came from Nigeria, I am black because I was born that way. I am not talking “white” when I stop mumbling and speak clearly, I am simply educated and black. And lastly I am not obliged to acquiesce to all the trappings of that “young African American” life style, because being Black is not up for debate.

It is the color of my skin.

Update: Comment from Reginald Bryant:

“The term African American is too much of a label. Blacks with ancestors from African have been in America since the 1600s just like whites with ancestors from Europe. However; whites are rarely referred to as European Americans. The term implies too much that blacks are inferior to whites. In other words blacks still have to be referenced to another continent as if blacks have just immigrated over here and are not used to the American Nationality. Blacks are just as American as whites and the term African American conveys otherwise. Most blacks are not even just sub-Saharan African; many are mixed with good size traces of Native American and/or white. So why not just say Black American or Black if one needs to refer to race.”

(Co-authored with two other mates years ago — one of the most interesting pieces I’ve ever helped out with…)

In this age of wonder we have arrived at the very apex of technological
advancement, we have pondered the inexplicable intricacies of creation,
and presumptuously we take pride in the establishment of a civilized
society. Yet have we indeed reached the pinnacle of our societal potential? The
history of man is embellished by achievement, yet marred by atrocities, and whilst we
acknowledge these superficial achievements, we pay no heed to the blatant
inhumanity that has been incorporated into the root of in our nation. What age
do we live in that advocates death in place of a chance at repentance, that
establishes vengeance as an integral factor in its judiciary system, that
zealously supports the practice of legalized murder in the name of personal
retribution? We have erred. We have strayed from the path proposed by the
founders of this nation. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness; these ideals
embody the aspirations of our forbearers. This nation was founded upon these
immutable principles; this nation founders gave their lives in the hope that
their children would realize, would actualize these three essential principles.
Instead we have tarnished their legacy, tainting such magnanimous an institution as

Justice with the barbaric, anachronistic practice of capital punishment.
Yet let us for a moment address the issue of cost, as it seems that some are
governed more by the pocketbook than by logic. The morals of America have been
sold, replaced by inherently capitalistic ethics. We are governed by the
dollar; it has infiltrated our minds erasing our ethics, replacing them with
capitalistic greed. So it comes as no surprise that some would dare to measure
the significance of life, in terms of dollars and cents. It comes as no surprisethat some would weigh the significance of human sentience, in terms of tax dollars. It comes as no surprise that the leaders of this nation would dare to place a price tag on life, on liberty, and on justice. Can money nullify
the indisputable fact that over the last twenty years, one hundred and one men have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death due to the fact that they did not posses the financial resources to provide basic representations? Who shall be held accountable for the blood of five innocent men every year? Will we so callously wash our hands of innocent blood? No justification can provide
consolation to the devastated, embittered families of the condemned innocent. The supporters of this depraved institution proclaim that their hard earned tax dollars should not go towards sustaining the life of one deemed unfit to live in our civilized society, that the upkeep of these miscreants drains our tax reserves, therefore the cheap butchery of these malefactors would indeed be a sound solution.

Yet in this fallacious, unfounded argument lies the greatest
deceit of all. In a compilation of data by the state governments of the United
States of America it is estimated that a single case warranting the death
penalty, from point of arrest to execution ranges from one million to three
million dollars. Other studies have even estimated that this figure is as high
as seven million dollars. Cases resulting in life imprisonment average around
half a million each for a sixty year life sentence. Not only is life long
imprisonment much less expensive than capital punishment, but state spending on
capital punishment is directly linked to the degradation of funding available
for expenditure on essential public services. It is Ironic that five hundred
police officers were laid off in the state of New Jersey as a direct effect of
the implementation of the death penalty. It is Ironic that the very entity that
stands between the upholding citizens, and the criminals, between the single
mother in a low-income development and the neighborhood thug, between your
children, and the pernicious, predatory rapists, is being directly weakened by
capital punishment. Yet let us embark on a theoretical tangent. If in fact it
were cheaper to execute these offenders, does this validate the taking of a
human life? Can any value be placed on a human life? When did we decide that
that money is the equivalent of the pursuit of happiness? Or more importantly
when did we come to the audacious conclusion that we could balance the scales
of life with money, and negate a God given right?

It has also been stated that capital punishment acts as a crime deterrent. That
by instilling the fear of punishment by death will deter a possible offender
from committing their crime. By making such a presumption we presume that the
people who commit these crimes are in full possession of all their capacities,
that murder is always premeditated, and that these criminals stop to access the
pros and cons of such an act. Yet the basis of many an argument supporting
capital punishment is that by committing as irrational an act as homicide, it
is clear that the criminal, has lost the ability to discern right from wrong
therefore, they have relinquished their status as a human being and deserve to
be slaughtered as animals. So in affect the two arguments are antithetical,
conflicting and nullifying one another in such an obvious and palpable manner.
How does a society that has established itself as the moral standard for the
rest of the world, which esteems itself as the most civilized and advanced,
still practice such a primitive, ineffective, obsolete means of crime
prevention? Why does our country still at the dawn of a new century linger upon
the ethical relic of an eye for an eye? It has been argued that the homicide
rate has dramatically decreased since the reinstatement of capital punishment
nation wide, yet there exist a plethora of external factors that could
influence this decline. Would we rather believe that practiced barbarism is an
effective way of instilling fear into the public, or that we as a people have
matured, have grown and have become more civilized? It has been established
that capital punishment is an inadequate means of crime prevention. Therefore
what is the purpose of capital punishment? Does it exist as a means to gain
personal retribution for the victims loved ones? Taking the life of another
cannot possibly fill the void of the loss of a loved one, of a father, a wife,
of a child. Capital Punishment should not be used as a tool of vengeance to
punish murder with murder.

The existence of the death penalty derails the
purpose of our criminal justice system that exists to rehabilitate, not
condemn. We must strive to find more humane ways to make these people repay
their substantial debt to society, if in case reintegration is not a plausible
option. By working, the criminal inadvertently has the opportunity to once
again contribute, even if in a minor fashion to the society that he or she once
plagued. In essence what we would have is free labor. One of the most
recognized cases of the criminal contributing to the betterment of society is
the case of Leopold and Loeb. Leopold and Loeb were nineteen years old when
they committed “The Crime of the Century.” In 1924, they kidnapped and
brutally murdered a fourteen year old boy; the only apparent motive being to
see if they could succeed undetected. They were both spared the death penalty
and sentenced to life imprisonment. Together, their accomplishments includes:
work at hospitals, instruction of illiterates to read, creation of a
correspondence school, significant developments in the World War II Malaria
Project. Please do not misinterpret our words. Know that we believe that
nothing can nullify such heinous a crime as murder, but know also that by
willingly aiding in the destruction of another human life, we are naught better
than they. We the people of the United States, and being so, have a direct
obligation to uphold the highest of moral standings on every last facet of our
society as we embark on a quest to usher less fortunate nations into the role
of democracy, of liberty, of justice, and of freedom. We cannot afford to seem
hypocritical in the eyes of our international peers. The United States should
exemplify that rehabilitation; that repentance takes precedence over
condemnation and death. Let us be a source of moral clarity for this earth, not
a detriment to its morality.

The very concept of capital punishment is in itself, morally redundant.
It is true that one cannot seek to condone the reprehensible act of murder;
it is a sordid affair, and perhaps the most deplorable action ever partaken by
man, yet to punish a murderer by murder? There can be no gain in this. One could
argue that by supporting Capital punishment we are aiding society by ridding
it of its unwanted elements, and in effect improving the general welfare of
the common man. In theory this concept has its appeal, in practice this
concept has manifested itself again and again in the history of mankind. We have
come to know it as Genocide. We are human; we must be humane lest we live as
beasts acting purely on stimulus, propelled by the need for immediate
gratification, constantly striking out in retaliation, abandoning the notion of
preconception, of thought, of rationale. Rationale, after all this is all that
separates humanity from the lesser beings, the ability to discern right from
wrong, to take action whilst perceiving consequence. Where in case we might
falter, our ingenuity has created a failsafe. It is known as Law.
By incorporating this practice into the law of the land, we set an extremely
nefarious precedent to the actual concept of law. Is the purpose of law, and
the criminal justice system to preserve order, and stem the occurrence
of vigilante like action, or does law exist to facilitate the concept of
vengeful retribution? If so we have indeed created a fascinating paradox.
There are a multitude of reasons why capital punishment cannot be
allowed to continue in The United States of America, or in the entire world. If it
is not evident by now that no amount of money can be worth a human life, even
though it is less expensive to preserve it; If it is not evident by now that
capital punishment does not act as a crime deterrence in any measurable manner
and is not an effective tool for vengeance; If it not evident by now that the
morally redundant affair of killing someone to repay another’s debt is
illogical, than maybe it never will be. However, we acknowledge the struggle that
our forefathers, the oppressed and disaffected of many a nation, embarked
on a perilous quest to establish a land free of the evils that they had left
behind. A land that advocated three essential ideals. Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. We trust that we the people make the right decision and
oppose this immorality indivisibly as one nation, with liberty and justice for
all.

(Disclaimer: I currently don’t support any of the Presidential candidates right now, so don’t take the conjecture below as my political beliefs, rather I like to call it how I see it.)

1. He’s black.

Now being black myself (not African-American, but Black) this may seem like an odd comment. I’m not talking about the hordes of white people who won’t vote for him because the color of skin, I’m talking about another racially classed group: Latinos.

Many in news media automatically assume that minorities will stick together, but they either are a) clueless or b) don’t want to talk about what many already know — many “browns” don’t like “blacks” and the feeling is often mutual.

I have a Puerto Rican fiancee, whom I met in the Dominican Republic, so let me speak a bit about my experiences. In the DR, they didn’t like me at first sight, because  I am black, and in Puerto Rico it was the same story. In fact many of my Boricua friends tell me that their parents and grandparents often told them to never marry a black person.

Obama ad en Espanol

Heck, my own fiancee didn’t like black people when she was a child and once claimed, “I’ll never marry a black person.” How things easily change when we get to know each other.

The director of my school in the Dominican Republic is Mexican, born and raised in Mexico, but went to work in his late teens as a laborer in the state of Georgia. Many of his friends ridiculed him for marrying a Brazilian, because a lot of Mexicans think that all Brazilians are black.

They wanted to know why he’d marry a black woman.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t claim to lump a whole group of people together. I am fluent in Spanish, and that I think learning the language is one key in breaking down the walls between black and brown, but hear me out: never assume that minorities group themselves together, because most times they don’t.

I have good Mexican friends from L.A., from South Texas, from Chicago, and even from Colorado, and many of them allude to the racial tension that exists between Mexicans, or Latinos in general, and black people.

Black Americans have problems with not only Latinos, but often times Koreans, Chinese, and even African immigrants.

Clinton won the ‘Latino vote’ 2 to 1 in Nevada, and the polls have her at 3 to 1 in California, a state heavily populated with Latinos. (Read the HuffingtonPost article)

I don’t think this will be as much of an issue in the North East U.S. where there are hordes of Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, but as for California, Texas, Florida and the whole west/south west, I don’t think we’ll see many Latinos voting for Obama.

2. His full name is Barack Hussein Obama, which happens to rhyme with Osama.

Be it trivial as it may, the Republicans were certainly holding back the Muslim trick if/when Obama won the democratic nomination.

How a man whose middle name is strikingly similar to the deposed (and now decapitated) former Iraqi dictator, and rhymes with U.S. enemy number one, is going to be elected President of the United States of America, I don’t know.

Whether he went to a madrassa or was raised as a Muslim is immaterial, the fact of the matter, it’s not about America being ready or not for a black president, or a female president for that matter, it’s all about image.

Barack Osama

Each candidate says they stand for change, from McCain to Obama, Huckabee to H.R. Clinton, but this election is not about change, its not even about the economy or the war.

It’s going to come down to image, and whose candidate image will win out in the majority.

Remember that old Sprite commercial — yah, it’s still true.

“Image is Everything…Obey your thirst.”

This election, we shall see which group’s (evangelists, economic conservatives, “liberals,” etc)  thirst wins out, but I’m telling you now — don’t bet on Obama.