Category Archives: Social

I have not really said much about the whole TechNigga ‘controversy’ and now I will throw in my 2 cents into the shuffle, lost in the din and clatter of all the ‘racist’ and ‘anti-racist’ speak. If you’ve had your head in the rocks, or have just been avoiding the situation, TechNigga was a video-parody by 1938media’s Loren Feldman, who, because of the video, Valleywag called ‘The Don Imus of Silicon Valley.’

I’d like to preface this by three simple statements.

1. Perception = Reality, especially in the United States of America. The way you perceive yourself, is exactly the reality you have then created, altering your paradigm to be viewed through that lens. Your perception is your reality, but it is not necessarily the reality of the situation.

2. You can’t judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. I don’t understand how people all over the tech blogosphere are arguing about the integrity or character of a few choice individuals. This concept to me, is actually quite laughable, the idea that you can accurately have a bead on a man or woman based on one video, one blog post, one photo, one e-mail conversation is frankly quite absurd. Relationships are very dynamic and complex. People, are very dynamic and complex, and it often times takes several days — but more often months and years — to truly get to know somebody.

3. As a good friend of mine used to say — ‘I am very racist. I believe in the human race, and very much prefer humans over any other race or species.’

I was recently moved to speak after reading Hank Williams ‘The 2008 Definition of Racism‘ and also ‘Self-righteous protesters kill video blogger’s deal with Verizon‘ written by the Industry Standard’s Jason Golson.

Both of them, while clearly passionate, both miss the marks of what I believe to be their common goal — moving the ball forward, honestly and opaquely in a calm, collected, open dialogue.

Hank, who writes from the perspective as an older, wiser blogger who has been around during the civil rights movement, argues that racists are now anonymous and underground, and that the term racist has been sanded down such that only an act of extreme and palpable racism can be called such:

Unlike in 1964, the year I was born, today few people are comfortable being labeled as racist. The successful tactics of protesting, boycotting, and social and pressure have been incredibly effective in applying shame to the label.

Unfortunately, in demonizing, racism, we have done two things. First we have driven the unrepentant racists underground, and into anonymity. And second, we have sanded down the meaning of the term so substantially that almost no acts committed by those outside the underground anonymous can be categorized as such.

He’s also concerned about those who say that the video was not ‘a big deal:’

But the most troubling group to me, as I discussed on Monday, are the ones that just don’t think this kind of material is a big deal. They believe blacks are too “thin skinned” about this stuff. “What’s the big deal, it’s all in fun.” Or to protest is violating Feldman’s right to free speech. This group fascinates me, and as far as I can tell, it a not inconsequential percentage of the tech blogosphere.

And although he is right when he says ‘words matter,’ he concludes that racism is more than the obvious hate, but the subtle words and actions, accepted and defended by his peers and fellow countrymen.

This was my (first) response:

Hank,

At the end of the day, I feel this article does nothing to push the conversation forward.

There are two reactions to be had to this — affirmative or negative, and for obvious reasons one would expect there to be a lot more affirmations than negations.

This whole racism meme is well overplayed — it’s not that it does not matter, it’s just that it doesn’t, won’t, and shouldn’t have that great effect on anyone.

In this epoch of human history, it is a times painful (and at the low point in the last several hundred years, VERY painful) to be a black. The recent era in the years ensuing the civil rights movement, it is very livable in the United States as a black. The internet is no exception — you can start a web business, you can earn money, you can profit, you can secure a liquidity event, you can blog, you can comment, you can generate user content, you can connect with friends, you can peruse, you can browse, you can learn.

The internet is not restrictive to black people, just as it is not restricted to most of the western world.

What new pain point are you solving for then? You personally have been very irritated by a) the actions of a few and b) the reactions of many who felt that the actions of the few were not a big deal.

The pain point to me seems to be your emotions and reactions and does precious little to generate noteworthy conversation that will move the buck forward. It is simply a type of discussion where the ‘good’ people affirm, and the ‘bad’ people (probably anonymously) negate whatever you have said.

There is no idea generation, no problem to be solved, just one man of one color with a big axe to grind in light of the personal context of his history.

In an interesting action, Jason posted a comment on Friendfeed, that incited some interesting dialogue, asking ‘where are the prominent black tech bloggers,’ the Scobles and Arringtons of the tech world

To this I replied:

“I think the most important thing is in fact not to distinguish by skin color, gender, eye color, or any other physical characteristic.

Om Malik is a well-known blogger. Is he a well-known Indian (guessing) blogger, or is he just a well-known blogger. Mike Arrington is a well-known blogger. Not a well-known WHITE blogger, but just a well-known blogger and entrepreneur.

Is Will Smith a well-known actor, or a well-known black actor? Judging by the success of all his movies (he has the $100 million golden touch) I would say he is a well-known actor, regardless of his skin color.

The more you focus on any physical or genetic distinction, the more you miss the big picture. America is about equal opportunity. Not just on websites and employer contracts, but that for many from all over the world of whatever background, America levels the playing field. Is it perfectly level? Of course not. Never in history has everyone been born into an equal situation, even in all-white societies, all-red societies, or all-black societies and cultures.

We don’t focus on color except when it comes to blacks. I rarely see commenting or post concerning Om being Indian, Jeremiy Owyang being Korean (i’m guessing), or Loic being French.

Don’t miss the forest for the trees.”

And Hank tells me:

I fear you are too young, too sheltered, and too “internationalized” given your family background, to have an accurate perspective on what race really means in this country. Like Clarence Thomas, inadvertently or otherwise, you serve here as an apologist for those who wish to make racially (or religiously, or sexually) driven policy or perspectives acceptable, which is truly unfortunate.

To which I respond as such:

Hank,

I’ve been discriminated against by parents of a white girlfriend, friends and family of a Puerto Rican girlfriend, slandered and spited in my travels to the Dominican Republic, and singled out in the Army — all for the color of my skin.

I’m young, sure, and I’ve been to a few countries, black, white, Latino, and others, and have seen a few things in the World, as well in this country.

I’ve stayed in Camden, NJ — the worst city in the US a few years running — Baltimore, and also towns where the make-up was mostly White — Boulder and my home town.

While it’s great for you to presume that you understand where I’m coming from given a post you read and a brief meeting, you are far off the mark.

For a black to tell a black who has lived his whole life in this country that he does not understand ‘what race really means’ in this country is absolutely absurd. Do you think people look at me and think ‘here comes an African — his parents flew on a plane and didn’t come in slave ships.’

For 99% of the American populous, black=black, and for this reason I am speaking out. I fear many will take your words as the words of ‘the black guy’ — the Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who sits on Fox News or CNN, and is the voice of the black people. I want to make it clear to those on the web that you are not the voice of the black people, but rather the voice of one man, deeply conflicted who has seen much through a certain taint, good or bad.

I will say that in this flick, you are the angry black man that every movie-goer knows to watch for — the one who is easily offended, defiant, rebellious, and generally violent.

Physically, maybe not so, but it is clear that this issue wears deep to your soul.

The more you talk about ‘race’ the deeper the hole you are digging. Instead of being defined as American, or as an entrepreneur, or as a blogger, you are caging yourself in, being defined by the color of your skin, something so inherent and hereditary, it takes generations to strike from your line.

It’s not about being a ‘black tech blogger’ or a ‘tech black blogger who happens to be black’ it’s about the inability to see the forest for the trees.

When you think about Obama, do you think about him as the democratic nominee for President of the United States, or do you think of him as the BLACK candidate for President of the United States.

The distinction is very important. Your perception defines your reality, and I believe, unfortunately, that in this case your perception, your paradigm, is severely tilted.

One of his technology advisors is an advisor for my startup. He is White, probably of Polish descent for his last name. When he became an advisor as a startup for my team (which also features another black guy) it wasn’t about charity, it wasn’t about his color, and it most certainly was not about my color.

That is the whole point I’m trying to make, the forest I want to paint for you, that you miss for the trees.

It’s not about being black, and the more you make it so, the worse it is for blacks everywhere. The more people think of Obama as a ‘black’ President and not just the ‘President’ (if he were to be elected) is worse for this country.

As one who has grown up around racists and race-neutral people alike, I can guarantee you the best multi-cultural relationships that foster community, collaboration, and friendship happen from those who are color-blind.

Oh they may realize you are black, or I may realize they are white, yellow, or red, but it’s not the White Elephant in the room, it’s simply not an issue. It’s about who you are and what you bring to the table as a human being.

I understand your zeal, I understand that you were raised in a time that may have pre-dated some of the commenters and writers (including myself), and I certainly understand that you come from a different paradigm and worldview than many of us –including me myself.

This is why I say your conversation is not moving the buck forward — it is not moving the buck forward for black people, or any other minority or ‘oppressed’ group that suffers for a pre-determined physical, hereditary, or social characteristic.

I don’t know Loren Feldman. He could be racist, he could not be racist. His friends suggest that it was satire to prove a point — and I think by the discussion this has generated, his point was well taken. I’d like to give people the benefit of the doubt and think that he is a good guy who likes to poke fun at people, and like anyone who likes to poke fun at people will oft do, some of those he pokes fun of do not like it at all.

My reaction to the video?

My point is that it does not matter. It does not change my life for the better or for the worse. His words matter. My words matter. All our words matter. But watching the video I thought it a ridiculous caricature given by the point of view of someone who either a) doesn’t like black people or b) doesn’t know that many black people, or c) knows black people and doesn’t realize that some (possibly many) will be offended..

Thought I often talk about certain issues from the point of view of a black person (such as my most popular writing, ‘Why Black Nerds are Unpopular.’ but I like to speak from the educational point of view. I think that is what I find so disappointing about Hank’s post.

While I completely understand his sentiments, I don’t see how taking a hardline stance against a video like this is a long-term win for anybody. I’ve always found, that when dealing with those who have a predisposed paradigm that causes them to view (insert here___________ ; black people, homosexuals, females, Indians, Mexicans, illegal immigrants, et. al) in a negative light, usually one around intelligence and the ability to put out top-notch work, whether in business, a certain field, or school…(deep breath) the best thing to do is to shut them up.

I strongly believe that in America, unless someone is visibly infringing upon your right to pursue your own endeavors, dreams, and goals, the best practice is just to let it go.

Let.It.Go.

We, black men and white woman, brown gay and red atheist, yellow muslim and pink Christian — we are all one human race.

It’s my hope, that as one of the nations that so violently adheres to the ‘one nation’ principle, we would bury our axes, and live our own lives without the distraction to the left or to the right…

and try to walk a mile in each other’s shoes’.

I recently purchased the book Hackers and Painters, a collection of essays written by Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham.

The first chapter,‘Why nerds are unpopular,’ is probably the single, most cogent analysis I have ever read on the social hierarchy of middle and high schools across America (although, as I will point out later, this is definitely not unique to the United States).

Paul’s experiences mostly correlate with American ’suburbia,’ and as my high school — located in Central Pennsylvania — is actually a short trip away from his, I can’t imagine the two are entirely different.

While many have posted responses that both affirm and challenge Paul’s experiences, I decided, however, to take a different approach with my reflection on his essay; instead drawing out some of the more pertinent points, and applying them to the Black Nerd culture.

I know a lot of people who were nerds in school, and they all tell the same story: there is a strong correlation between being smart and being a nerd, and an even stronger inverse correlation between being a nerd and being popular. Being smart seems to make you unpopular…in a typical American secondary school, being smart is likely to make your life difficult. Why?

I would say, as a young black male, there is a strong inverse correlation between being a nerd and black, and being popular. I’ve seen many black friends who are fairly intelligent that were mediocre students in high school, and either failed out or were equally mediocre at the University level. Why? Popularity is, as Paul mentions, often times a choice of priorities — some sacrifice intelligence for popularity — and for blacks, this probably happens for 9 out of every 10.

Despite our different sets of diagnostics to accurately peg intelligence, the term is generally ambiguous, but at least on the Paul Graham scale of smart, I would put myself on the lower end of the super nerds. I was a National Merit scholar, easily figured out how to beat the standardized tests (don’t we all), and in the military scored a perfect score on the ASVAB, the Armed Force’s versions of the SATs, and twice was offered appointments to West Point, the US military academy. Intelligent, but by no means one of the brightest of the people I’ve met — I’m not even the smartest in my own family.

But my intelligence didn’t make me popular, in fact, in the black sub-culture of my high school and town, any sign of great intelligence is to be avoided like the plague.

So if intelligence in itself is not a factor in popularity, why are smart kids so consistently unpopular? The answer, I think, is that they don’t really want to be popular…But in fact I didn’t, not enough. There was something else I wanted more: to be smart. Nerds serve two masters. They want to be popular, certainly, but they want even more to be smart. And popularity is not something you can do in your spare time, not in the fiercely competitive environment of an American secondary school.

In the black culture, popularity may be even more important than in the typical American secondary school that Paul describes. I would say this is due to numbers — because black people are so few in comparison, the number of popular ’spots’ available, greatly declines, and there is little to no chance of slipping through the cracks unnoticed, blending in, as there might be at a typical suburban American high school. In a white school, a black will stick out obviously for the color of their skin, and even in an urban, pre-dominantly black school there is a higher degree of emphasis based on popularity than their white counterparts.

For blacks, it goes above and beyond just clothes — sneakers (Air Force ones, Jordans, etc.), jewelry, hairstyle, shape ups, belt buckles, chains, tattoos, diamond studs, do rags, fitted caps — which makes popularity that much more exclusive and more difficult to attain. If you ever watch a black family (and this holds trues from Latinos whom I’ve spent time with as well) they spend much more time worrying about the material and outwardly appearance — driving the right car, clothes, accessories, hair, etc. Paul alludes several times throughout the essay (and indeed, in his response, ‘Re: Why Nerds are Unpopular’) that these experiences are more present in American high schools, but I would beg to differ.

My dad, born and raised in Nigeria, once told me a story. When he was growing up, his family was poor, really poor. So poor, in fact, that he did not receive his first pair of sandals until he was 14-years-old, which, ‘even’ by Nigerian standards signifies near abject poverty. He missed more than a few years of school working on farms in order to raise money just to complete high school. The schools, still adhering to the British system, enforced a uniform dress code. My father’s family only had enough money for him to own one uniform, which he wore day in and day out for an entire school year. With a bit of wear and tear, he developed a hole in the bottom of his school shorts roughly two hands across.

Needless to say, not only was my father not popular in high school, but he was, of course, picked on for not having adequate clothing. One would think that in a uniformed high school society, such as an Anglican school like my father’s, the dress code would make clothes less important, but I’ve actually found the inverse to be true. In travels to Jamaica, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Peru, Nigeria, Kenya, and the Bahamas, I’ve seen the school clothing emphasis devolve into belt buckles, shoes, jewelry, hairstyles, tattoo, headgear, etc. The dress code is only a pretense at uniformity, kids will just spend several hundreds of dollar on accessories instead of clothes.

My grandfather gave my dad a piece of advice: ‘Don’t waste your time chasing girls, just focus on your studies, score high marks and when you are successful, the girls will come chasing after you.’ Sure enough, when he aced the West African Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE), scoring what was thought to be the highest mark in the entire region, he was offered full scholarships … and the girls came chasing.

So even in some countries outside the US (and I could give more examples), being popular and being intelligent are usually mutually exclusive, and popularity is just as important and time-consuming as it is in America.

The popular kids learned to be popular, and to want to be popular, the same way the nerds learned to be smart, and to want to be smart: from their parents. While the nerds were being trained to get the right answers, the popular kids were being trained to please.

An interesting phenomenon I’ve witnessed in the lives of my black friends, is that their parents give much lip service to the importance of education, graduating from high school, college, and graduate school, yet they do not reinforce this with their actions. The black kids who are trying to be popular did indeed learn it from their parents (or older siblings, who themselves learned it from their parents). One of my best friends’ dad takes him shopping one or two times a month — shoes, clothes, suits, accessories — he wants to make sure his son is dressed to impress.

I’ve never once seen his dad invest in a book, or some other apparatus that would lend itself to learning — yet his dad will claim with his words that education is the most important thing for a young black male. While I have not grown up with this particular kid since childhood, it’s hard for me to imagine he was reading books, playing with flash cards, or engaging in other educational experiences at an early age. Most likely he was given the hottest action figure toys, sat down in front of a TV, and dressed up to be a handsome little tyke.

In fact, he, like most of my black friends, looks at me askance whenever I talk about reading books. You might think that reading were an incurable virus from the way they look at me with a book in my hand.

This would seem to reinforce an article that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly comparing consumption expenses of blacks and whites.

On race, the folk wisdom turns out to be true. An African American family with the same income, family size, and other demographics as a white family will spend about 25 percent more of its income on jewelry, cars, personal care, and apparel. For the average black family, making about $40,000 a year, that amounts to $1,900 more a year than for a comparable white family. To make up the difference, African Americans spend much less on education, health care, entertainment, and home furnishings. (The same is true of Latinos.)

For my family, however, it has been a different story. When my dad was growing up, there was a keen emphasis on perfection in education. If he scored a 99 on an exam, his father would not congratulate him, instead ask him why he was lazy and missed the last point. He was however, the first and only of 10 siblings to graduate from high school, subsequently university, all the way through Ph.D. While my dad was not that stringent and overly-concerned about 1 grade point with his own sons and daughters, both parents have made it absolutely clear my whole life that high marks in school is top priority. My older brother and sister taught me to read when I was very little, and we didn’t play with action figures or watch Barney, we read books, practiced flash cards, and did word problems with my dad. For my next door neighbors, also Africans, they never owned a video game system, didn’t watch much TV, while instead were encouraged to do mathematics, science, and reading from an early age — as both hobby and school.

Few smart kids can spare the attention that popularity requires. Unless they also happen to be good-looking, natural athletes, or siblings of popular kids, they’ll tend to become nerds.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) this is where my path diverges somewhat from Paul’s. While I wouldn’t consider myself to be possessed with a movie star-like appearance (and I wasn’t the sibling of popular kids), I was what many would call a ‘natural athlete.’ Personally, I detest the term natural athlete, as it implies, as Paul refers to in his comment about drawing, that it is something innate, that I was born with, upon which I have nothing to improve. Conversely, I have spent hundreds of hours honing my skills and abilities in various sports, and was fortunately able to draw fruit from my labor while still in high school.

For example, most people seem to consider the ability to draw as some kind of innate quality, like being tall. In fact, most people who “can draw” like drawing, and have spent many hours doing it; that’s why they’re good at it. Likewise, popular isn’t just something you are or you aren’t, but something you make yourself.

My athletic prowess, looking back on my high school years now, was probably one of the few things that allowed me to attain a fair measure of popularity. As a junior I started on the varsity football team, and, even though a grade ahead and therefore a year younger than most of my comrades, I anchored my high school relay team to one of the fastest times in the nation, for which we were recognized as National High School All Americans. I was even lucky enough to get recruited by some Division I schools for athletics.

That, however, was high school. As Paul writes, the worst stretch for most kids is junior high, somewhere between eleven and fourteen years of age. And so it was for me as well.

Because I didn’t fit into this world, I thought that something must be wrong with me. I didn’t realize that the reason we nerds didn’t fit in was that in some ways we were a step ahead. We were already thinking about the kind of things that matter in the real world, instead of spending all our time playing an exacting but mostly pointless game like the others.

This, too, could be said about black nerds. We’ve been trained by our parents — or come to the realization ourselves– that the current system is severely broken, and we’re merely biding our time, working the system, while not focused on our immediate surroundings (popularity) but rather on future gain (learning from other really smart people and/or most likely figuring things out on our on.)

Life in this twisted world is stressful for the kids. And not just for the nerds. Like any war, it’s damaging even to the winners.

Very much so (damaging) to the black, non-nerd counterparts I know. Sure, some of them will become professional athletes, although only one or two I know, and neither success nor happiness in life is determined by one’s intelligence,however, of what I witnessed, mediocrity is a shell that few break out of.

Many of the popular kids, having sacrificed learning and building on their intelligent nature, are set back for years, from which many never catch up. What Paul doesn’t mention, is how the emphasis on popularity can be cyclical — if the desire to be popular, or conversely intelligent, is mostly learned from one’s parents, than logically if you weren’t a nerd than your kids won’t be either, and this is what I’ve seen amongst my black friends.

Realistically, I should have used the term ‘African nerds,’ because almost all of the smartest black people I know were either born in Africa or are first-generation Africans. On my neighborhood street alone, there were 8 black kids — all first generation African — and between us eight, 5 or 6 of us were National Merit scholars, two went to MIT for computer science, one to U Chicago, four others offered full scholarships to a number of universities across the country, and one even got a perfect score on her SATs, the only one to do so from my high school in recent years (that I”m aware of at least.) Between our four parents, three have attained a Ph.D in their respective fields.Keep in mind there were maybe 50 to 60 blacks in a graduating class of about 650, in a high school that has roughly 2800 people.

I’d like to think that there are black nerds whose families have been raised in the US generation after generation, but personally, I just don’t know of many. The only other black girl in my graduating class that was fairly intelligent — a nerd — was also first-generation American, although her parents were from Jamaica. Even that one guy running for President is a first-generation black nerd. This isn’t to say that aren’t many generational black Americans in the US, I just haven’t come across many –from Camden to Baltimore, and Colorado to Pennsylvania.

I would go so far as to say that the lack of black nerds is probably a cause for major concern, but within the scope of this writing, possibly too large a problem to properly address, although certainly an interesting one.

Logically, this discussion might lead to the question ‘Where are all the Black Entrepreneurs?,’ but I think that’s better left for another day.

(Some interesting discussion on Reddit and Hacker News).

Ken Robinson on TED

“Why don’t we get the best out of people? Sir Ken Robinson argues that it’s because we’ve been educated to become good workers, rather than creative thinkers. Students with restless minds and bodies — far from being cultivated for their energy and curiosity — are ignored or even stigmatized, with terrible consequences. “We are educating people out of their creativity,” Robinson says. It’s a message with deep resonance. Robinson’s TEDTalk has been distributed widely around the Web since its release in June 2006. The most popular words framing blog posts on his talk? “Everyone should watch this.”

A visionary cultural leader, Sir Ken led the British government’s 1998 advisory committee on creative and cultural education, a massive inquiry into the significance of creativity in the educational system and the economy, and was knighted in 2003 for his achievements.”

The problem isn’t just mixed Americans (black & white, latino & black, white & latino) it’s also First Generation Americans. From the NYT:

Jenifer Bratter once wore a T-shirt in college that read “100 percent black woman.” Her African-American friends would not have it.

“I remember getting a lot of flak because of the fact I wasn’t 100 percent black,” said Ms. Bratter, 34, recalling her years at Penn State.

“I was very hurt by that,” said Ms. Bratter, whose mother is black and whose father is white. “I remember feeling like, Isn’t this what everybody expects me to think?”

Being accepted. Proving loyalty. Navigating the tight space between racial divides. Americans of mixed race say these are issues they have long confronted, and when Senator Barack Obama recently delivered a speech about race in Philadelphia, it rang with a special significance in their ears. They saw parallels between the path trod by Mr. Obama and their own.

But you may remember I recently wrote about this same issue:

We have no one to relate to. We are not fully (Mexican, Nigerian, Korean) but we are also not white Americans. We cannot blend in anywhere we go; we can never truly be accepted. When we go home to our families, we are made fun of by cousins, nephews, and aunts alike for being a “gringo” or “oyimbo” or “muzungu” which in three different languages, essentially means a white person, and not a pleasant term for one at that. I had a friend in my Spanish class (for bilinguals and native speakers) who is Venezuelan but was raised here in the US and speaks English with a slight accent. When she ‘goes home’ to Venezuela, her compatriots ridicule her for being a ‘gringa’ while here in the US of A she can’t escape the hate and racism against her as people mistakenly assume Mexican heritage. In a mostly western-European descended world, if your name isn’t Jessica Alba or Eva Longoria, olive-shaded skin often times does not bode well. Although this society, this country, worships stars of many different racial upbringings on the stage, silver screen, and playing field, up close and personal it is a very different story.

That is the country we live in, and we must choose to embrace that which makes us different.

Or fail as a nation.

Well, remember how I said the law should be changed in regards to drinking?

Read this:

“The best evidence shows that teaching kids to drink responsibly is better than shutting them off entirely from it,” he told me. “You want to introduce your kids to it, and get across the point that that this is to be enjoyed but not abused.”

He said that the most dangerous day of a young person’s life is the 21st birthday, when legality is celebrated all too fervently. Introducing wine as a part of a meal, he said, was a significant protection against bingeing behavior.

What is the evidence? In 1983, Dr. George E. Vaillant, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard University, published “The Natural History of Alcoholism,” a landmark work that drew on a 40-year survey of hundreds of men in Boston and Cambridge.

Dr. Vaillant compared 136 men who were alcoholics with men who were not. Those who grew up in families where alcohol was forbidden at the table, but was consumed away from the home, apart from food, were seven times more likely to be alcoholics that those who came from families where wine was served with meals but drunkenness was not tolerated.

So the burden of teaching kids’ responsible drinking seems to be on the parent…

A politician is a politician is a politician.

Again, real change does not come from the top, it comes from each one of us on the bottom.

This doesn’t mean that Obama agrees with Wright’s thoroughgoing and conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism. Rather, Obama seems to have seen, early in his career, the utility of joining a prominent church that would help him establish political roots in the community in which he lives. Now he sees the utility of distancing himself from that church. Obama’s behavior in dealing with Wright is consistent with that of a politician who often voted “present” in the Illinois State Legislature for the sake of his future political viability.

The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. But there’s not much audacity of hope there. There’s the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit — all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different.

Obama said earlier today that he would not push to lower the drinking age.

SCRANTON, Pa. - Democrat Barack Obama on Monday promised Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans help with their grievances — save one. “I know it drives you nuts. But I’m not going to lower the drinking age,” the presidential candidate said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Army veteran Ernest Johnson, 23, of Connecticut, said one of the things that peeved him before he turned 21 was that he couldn’t come home and drink a beer — even though he was old enough to serve in the armed services and die for his country.

Obama told Johnson he sympathized, but that setting the legal drinking age at 21 had helped reduce drunken driving incidents and should remain.

Senator Obama, I’m sorry, but you don’t get it (or more likely you don’t want to alienate voters who would disagree with pushing to lower the drinking age.).

There’s something called artificial scarcity.

Artificial scarcity describes the scarcity of items even though the technology and production capacity exists to create an abundance. The term is aptly applied to non-rival resources, i.e. those that do not diminish due to one person’s use, although there are other resources which could be categorized as artificially scarce.

I believe that lowering the drinking age to 18 — or even 16 — would lower the artificial scarcity of being 21-years-old to purchase and or consume alcohol in the U.S.

And believe me you, it is certainly artificial scarcity.

STudents create fake I.D.s, sneak into bars, go to parties, go to cabins, and any way they can usurp the rules.

Of course, after having spent some time in the military, one can see how ridiculous the 21-year-old age limit to drink alcohol.

“Die for country but can’t even drink a beer legally.”

I mean, there really is no argument against that.

Of course, alcohol abused can endanger the lives of others, needlessly, recklessly, and most definitely foolishly; but will the lowering of the age increase DUIs or DWIs?

I always think to myself — what is the difference between a person with 20 years and 355 days and a person with 21 years and 0 days (in the US)?

Absolutely nothing.

Again, it creates artificial scarcity, as youth just want to catch up to their friends and older peers and participate in the ritual of “becoming” an adult. (i.e. getting hammered)

Take away the age limit — take away the artificial scarcity.

Is that system perfect? No. — but the truth is the current alcohol system is broken. How many kids would want so desperately to go to College and party hard if they could throw the same sort of alcohol-infested parties as a 17 or 18-year-old?

I didn’t used to think like this by the way. I’ve been raised from the school of thought that alcohol is a detriment to society and people should refrain from indulging it regardless of age.

But the school of real life has taught me differently, and while I still refrain from the consumption and abuse of alcohol, it has more to do with taste and opportunity — I’d prefer a Coquito or Malta India to a Guinness any day.

Take away the artificial scarcity, and it will be a lot less “cool” for under-21s to go out and party, and alcohol can simply exist as a healthy part of culture and society rather than a drunken rite of passage.

And then Mothers Against Drunk Driving can change its name to Mothers Against Dumb Drinking.

I love all these so-called “experts” (i.e. they have their own TV show or wrote a book) who get on Larry King Live, Fox News, AC360 and spout some garbage about “why is Spitzer’s wife standing by him” and “this is a crime with a victim.”

That is wrong on so many levels.

First, I’m not even going to link to the many pages, but just look for Dupre, and I’m sure you’ll find that this girl got like 700k plays on her myspace page yesterday and she even UPLOADED A SONG to Amie Street.

So, Dupre is obviously a smart cookie and is TAKING ADVANTAGE of her recent fame to parlay it into a quickly rising music career. Now whether she can make it last is another story, but she’s certainly hot right now.

Second, to ever call a woman weak or stupid for standing by her husband is absolutely ridiculous. This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high in this country — because you have all these fools standing up on their squawk boxes preaching “female empowerment.”

Female empowerment is saving the victims of sex slave trade (that’s the REAL time when there is a crime & a victim in prostituion.) Go to IJM.org and see real women victims who need empowerment.

To ever lambast a woman for standing by her Husband is absurd, and it shows the utter stupidity of the pyschologists, authors, and famous people writing books today.

So some woman who it happened to before spoke /wrote about the struggles. You know what? Life’s tough. Relationships are tough.

And who are you — who have no knowledge of this marriage, who have nothing to do with the family, that have no idea hwo this relationship started, how it developed, and how they have endured — who are you to say anything?

Third, honestly, this is when I say Americans are incredibly stupid.

Always focusing on the wrong thing.

They should looking to see who aer the people who most benefit from Spitzer stepping down (i.e. the crooks on Wall Street) and say to ourselves — hmm, now that Spitzer’s gone, can we make sure we get behind Paterson & Cuomo and allow them to tear down any corrupt super-wealthy fools?

The Victim in this crime is the people of the US, because with the fall of Spitzer, we have lost (not only a future presidential candidate) but someone who went after the big boys and made them shiver in their pants.

The fact that they cheered when he fell should be a red flag to anyone — with Spitzer gone, let’s hope Cuomo can help take on the ridiculous insurance companies, lying & cheating investment bankers, et. al.

Nick Kristof wrote something very similar to me:

The ugliest prejudices in this campaign season are not directly about race. Barack Obama’s skin color may cost him some working-class white voters, but it’s also winning some votes among blacks and among whites eager to signal their open-mindedness.

Sexism seems more of a factor. Americans have typically said in polls that they are less willing to vote for a woman than a black, and Shirley Chisholm (a black woman who ran for president in 1972) always said that she encountered more prejudice because of her sex than her race.

Yet the most monstrous bigotry in this election isn’t about either race or sex. It’s about religion.

The whispering campaigns allege that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim planning to impose Islamic law on the country. Incredibly, he is even accused — in earnest! — of being the Antichrist.

Proponents of this theory offer detailed theological explanations for why he is the Antichrist, and the proof is that he claims to be Christian — after all, the Antichrist would say that, wouldn’t he? The rumors circulate enough that Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev. John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist.

These charges are fanatical, America’s own equivalent of the vicious accusations about Jews that circulate in some Muslim countries. They are less a swipe at one candidate than a calumny against an entire religion. They underscore that for many bigoted Americans in the 21st century, calling someone a Muslim is still a slur.

There is a parallel with presidential campaigns in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when one of the most common ways to attack a candidate was to suggest that he was partly black, or at least favored racial intermarriage. For example, the Federalists charged that Thomas Jefferson was “the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” And the word “miscegenation” was coined in 1863 and 1864 in charges that Abraham Lincoln secretly plotted for blacks to marry whites, especially Irish-Americans.

This is what I wrote Yesterday:

I’d wager a good deal of my networth (which is negative btw) and say that ALL OTHER THINGS HELD EQUAL, (looks, politics, style, career, family, etc. etc. etc.) Barack Obama would not be a Presidential candidate right now.

I don’t care what anybody says, in America, it does matter where your parents were born, what color your skin is, and which sexual reproductive organs you were born with.

Not to all people, all dreams and to all occupations.

But in the case of President it most certainly does.

So I ask, if Barack Obama’s dad was from the middle east, as opposed to Kenya, and all other things were held equal (including the exact same skin tone) would YOU vote for him?

Don’t kid yourself, America is not ready for that.

I’d wager a good deal of my networth (which is negative btw) and say that ALL OTHER THINGS HELD EQUAL, (looks, politics, style, career, family, etc. etc. etc.) Barack Obama would not be a Presidential candidate right now.

I don’t care what anybody says, in America, it does matter where your parents were born, what color your skin is, and which sexual reproductive organs you were born with.

Not to all people, all dreams and to all occupations.

But in the case of President it most certainly does.

So I ask, if Barack Obama’s dad was from the middle east, as opposed to Kenya, and all other things were held equal (including the exact same skin tone) would YOU vote for him?

Don’t kid yourself, America is not ready for that.