Stanza One

Coming live from NYC; hailing from Trinidad & Tobago; Bringing Royalty to your screens! Here, you're going to find everything from my own poetry to articles about pretty much anything and any other kind of posts that I'm certain will be relevant to you all. Thanks for following :-)

[stanzaone]

Don’t Change

My friend told me don't change, And I wanted to ask her why? Why try when you lose, And hope is the belief of fools. Selfless or selfish? Make a choice, Said the whispering voice, Don't lose your poise, Even though it's hard to hear the truth in all the noise.

[stanzaone]

Question from "Black is a Shared Experience" ?

felicitypursuit replied to your post“Lupita Nyong'o's Black is a Shared Experience (A Contentious Relationship with African-Americans)”

If you don't mind me asking, how do you self identify? As an islander myself the answer to the question "what are you" always depends on the person asking. I know that any American asking that question will never accept me as American regardless of my citizenship while...

That's a very good question, and I definitely understand what you are saying. Very naturally, I first and foremost self-identify as a Trinidadian, regardless of where I am currently living. Trinidad will always be "home" - it's the place that's had the biggest influence on who I am. I'm also a Canadian citizen, and I've lived there in my youth also, so that's my second "identity". I very rarely call myself a "New Yorker", and I doubt that anyone will ever have to ask me my race (lol). 

[stanzaone]

Lupita Nyong'o's Black is a Shared Experience (A Contentious Relationship with African-Americans)

I am Trinidadian. That is my nationality. In the segregational considerations of that country, I am, more specifically, Afro-Trinidadian, but the color of my skin says that I am black, and that is an indomitable fact. I've been in New York City now for four years, and although I had been here and in other parts of the United States frequently before that, the things you feel when living somewhere are different than the those you feel while visiting. In those four years, few things rival the friction and contention that I have with the African-American populace and their engagement of the race issue. 

In an unexpected fallout in the hours following the wins of Lupita Nyong'o and 12 Years a Slave, that friction reached a tipping point. A series of tweets, illustrative of the congregation of stupidity that often occurs on Twitter, voiced the opinions of some African-Americans that actress, Lupita Nyong'o, actor Chiwetel Ejiofor and director, Steve McQueen were not theirs to "claim". 

Idk why Black people love claiming folks. Lupita is not Black. Neither is Chiwetel. Nor Steve McQueen @abelleinbk

— Duchess of Brooklyn (@IamJavone)

March 3, 2014

There is a major discussion on my IG about whether Lupita Nyong'o is black or not. I get why folks wanna claim her, but come now.

— Demetria Lucas (@abelleinbk)

March 3, 2014

When you get past the initial shock of first reading the tweets, the simple point that they, both, want to make becomes clear. Neither Lupita (Kenya/Mexico), Chiwetel (Britain) nor Steve (Britain) are African-American. But when you dig deeper, both into the tweets and into their usage of "black", the issue that sent me over the edge becomes even clearer than before.

@ProJones22 @IamJavone @abelleinbk Actually the term "black" is used in America. She is African.

— VFiggins (@VPonder)

March 3, 2014

Lupita is a brown girl like me. And I'm sure she experiences certain things like me. But she isn't Black like me.

— Duchess of Brooklyn (@IamJavone)

March 3, 2014

This is problematic, to say the least. The idea that the label or concept, "black", is only used in America has the stench of pure ignorance. Whether that is a failing of the American education system, or a product of American nationalism is a debate far beyond this discussion. Indeed, it is far less important than the consequences of that idea. The people that feel that black is an American label fail to understand that the blacks around the world suffer through a multitude of similar experiences. Contrary to the tweet below, those experiences are a consequence of our color, not nationality. 

@ProJones22 @IamJavone @abelleinbk Being black is a cultural experience. Lupita is not a product of "slave experience".

— VFiggins (@VPonder)

March 3, 2014

In an effort to be consciously objective, I will say that there is some relevance in her tweet. There are cultural idiosyncrasies that affect the forms that racism takes, and consequently, the effects that racism has on the subjects of a particular culture. Structural racism, for example, is dependent on the country in focus and its history. Subsequently, the psychological effects of structural racism differ across nationalities. Learned helplessness differs across blacks according to where they have undergone their culturally, morally and ethically developmental years.

So, the reality is that I understand the desire to separate oneself from others, culturally. I, like many other Caribbean people that migrate to the USA for a variety of purposes, often explicitly and subliminally distinguish myself from the African-American populace. This is an observation that is often made of Africans that migrate here as well. From the end of the migrator, it is often a dual-layered reason - pride in one's home country and dissatisfaction with components of the local intra-black culture. My dissatisfaction is not meant as an affront to any African-American. Aside from the fact that I've met many good people while I've been here, I've also gained a better first-hand understanding of the structural factors that influence the way that so many think. The truth is, however, that there are just a variety of things that I cannot agree with, condone or endorse - from what I perceive to be too frequently playing the race card, to destructive interactions between black men and black women and the way that black men here approach and speak to women. 

Still, we cannot fail to differentiate between internal perceptions and external perceptions. We do not always get to successfully project the way in which we want to be perceived. Regardless of how one feels the situation should be, the actuality says that we are all black. That is how the white perceiver will view us. We don't get to stop the racist in the street, the subway or the office and tell him, "Hey, I'm from Kenya by the way, not America. My descendants didn't go through the slave experience, so please judge me differently". It simply does not work that way. The Grandmaster of Calypso, Kitchener, said it himself - "if you not white, you considered black".

Now, Lupita Nyong'o has received a slew of support and love, especially from the black female community in the recent month and a half, and it's easy to see why. She's a beautiful woman. She's a beautiful dark-skinned women. Personally, she is not very attractive to me (making the distinction between a perception of beauty and a state of attractiveness, I believe that attraction is much more subjective), but that has absolutely nothing to do with her skin color. Spurred on, or irked by the support that Lupita has received from the black female community, the members (regrettably) of the black male community have shown their colorism in excessive numbers (indeed, even if it were just one, one is one too many).

This is just unfair. RT @SKTV_: Wasnt me Bruh RT @jaywise3: Is this your work @SKTV_ ? pic.twitter.com/auuHfyNkka"

— Greg (@SwishNBA)

March 3, 2014

And this is the problem. One of the accounts on that tweet belongs to a black British man. The negativity against black skin (and by extension, blackness) and in this case, self-hate is not confined to America. The experiences that black women go through are not unique to America. 

The black stakeholders of 12 Years a Slave may not be claimed as African-Americans, no. But they can be claimed as BLACK. Black people, regardless of their nationality can find joy, solace, inspiration, or whatever else they want to take away from the victories that were earned at the Oscars 2014. In black women, there is a community that has been psychologically molded to believe that lighter is better. Given this, it's no secret that Lupita herself says she once, "prayed for lighter skin". Regardless of what I, or any other person, thinks of her physical attractiveness, she's a woman of substance that Hollywood is in love with for non-sexualized reasons. She won the highest recognition in her field for her first role out of university. Even more importantly, she deserved it (unlike Halle Berry where it can be, and is often argued that she won her award for submitting herself to Hollywood objectification and sexualization). 

I am no Lupita fan. That isn't my domain. But I recognize the importance of resisting the resistance towards her that comes from inside my own race. Divide and conquer isn't just a cliché. 

[stanzaone]

The Best Comment I've Seen...ANYWHERE...about this Miley Cyrus...debacle.

""I'm from one of the wealthiest counties in America," she says. "I know what I am. But I also know what I like to listen to. Look at any 20-year-old white girl right now – that's what they're listening to at the club. It's 2013. The gays are getting married, we're all collaborating. I would never think about the color of my dancers, like, 'Ooh, that might be controversial.' What do you mean?" she says with a laugh. "Times are changing. I think there's a generation or two left, and then it's gonna be a whole new world."

I have no love for this woman or her work but I thank her for saying this.

All the pieces on her, including the ones lately on Jezebel, come from a place of such race-wanking, old-fashioned bigotry, that it's surprising more people haven't called the writers out on it.

A white person listens to and loves music that black people happen to make and picks up style and language cues from the practitioners of that sound! STOP THE PRESSES, I SMELL APPROPRIATION!!!

Except not.

On one side, you have racists decrying this white girl for being "ghetto" or "thugging out" or being a "wigger". On the other side, you have racists decrying this white girl for "appropriation", and "minstrelsy".

And both sides are full of shit.

If she's appropriating or using a black sub-culture, then so was every goddamn white artist of the past 60 years in American and English rock and pop music. She's no different. And I refuse to get pissy and self-righteous as a black person because she's mining the sound, style, and language of a sub-culture. That happens all the time INCLUDING within the larger black culture, which is not all the same, for those of you who didn't know and think she's stealing from "blacks". She's stealing from SOME blacks. Not all of us. And that's no different than various black acts from boring middle class backgrounds who suddenly went "ghetto" to get recording contracts and attention. (I will say she's as guilty of thinking of blacks as a mono-culture as some, if not most, of her critics are.)

I'm immune to the bullshit being thrown by both sides that only shows the people saying it are entrenched in narrow-minded and frankly silly ideas of how young people see themselves. A lot of race-wanking for profit is all I see them doing" - From a user, "Eileen Gray" on this Jezebel trash...sorry, I mean article -> http://jezebel.com/miley-cyruss-antics-are-being-encouraged-by-black-peop-1377352058

I think that the greatness of the comment peaks with this sentiment:

And that's no different than various black acts from boring middle class backgrounds who suddenly went "ghetto" to get recording contracts and attention. (I will say she's as guilty of thinking of blacks as a mono-culture as some, if not most, of her critics are.)

I, for one, am ready for this discussion to be over. When Jay-Z & Kanye dubstepped their way to success in Paris, nobody accused them of appropriating. Everyone, chill.

[stanzaone]

Heartbreak often reveals the true measure of a person.

[stanzaone]

Sometimes the World Gets you Down

However, for me, the emotions were in full flow. You see, I wasn't particularly affected by the incidents of the week - I'm rarely shocked by these types of occurences, nor do I go into the state of disorientation that other people seem to be overcome by. For me, the strongest effect was caused by people -  the observers, the newcasters, the commenters, the self-appointed analysts and the politicians. It was the ignorance and bigotry that was laden all over the news networks and cyberspace that disturbed me the most. It is hard to describe the gut check you get from being reminded that one of the world's most self-professed "progressive" nations has not progressed very far at all. It is not that I live my life shrouded by the cover of naivety. In fact, my life is quite the opposite of that. I seek knowledge constantly, but in an attempt to balance the energies in my life, many times I will deliberately bias my attention away from the yang to my ying. As I have matured, and my time has become more precious, I've learnt to restrain myself from entertaining volatile discussions with people who have already made up their minds on a subject. It simply is, the key to a calmer life.

I spent the Friday glued to the social networks as my main source of information. Admittedly, I couldn't help but follow it - the apparent elusiveness of the second suspect was something straight out of a movie. I decided to turn on CNN to check out their coverage. Mistake number one. I stomached their amateurish coverage. Although delayed and misinformed, I stomached it; that is, until they brought in their anti-terrorism "experts". From immediately attempting to link, without evidence, the attack to Islamic terrorists, to later presenting a crash course on Chechnya that made the country seem like a government housing program for separatist terror cells, which had been senselessly attacking Russia for the past 20 years, CNN did a great job showcasing a mixture of America's islamophobia and its population's incompetence in international awareness in one fell swoop. A twitter contact was watching NBC. It sounded like they were carrying, at least, more exciting coverage, so I decided to change; I had already had enough of CNN after about an hour and a half. Mistake number two. NBC turnt out to be more of the same fear-mongering coverage, propped up by a better quality telecast. I left the TV on NBC, but I quickly drowned out the sound of the telecast.

But that's news networks right? Surely, they only care about trying to get the jump on anything "newsworthy" ahead of the other networks. I returned my focus to the twittersphere, and what do I find? Senators had taken the opportunity to attempt to use the ordeal as the foundation for immigration reform criticism. The move was misplaced, opportunistic, and everything that political moves are made of, yet somehow, I was still amazed at the insensitivity, crassness, and ignorance behind the senators' opportunism. Maybe that's my fault.

Then Talib Kweli tweeted. A sarcastic reply to the former game-show host, now turned rabid conservative, Chuck Woolery, caught my eye. The message was striking. The ignorance was clear. The confidence with which we combined those two was most disturbing. Most terrorists are muslims, he implied. He retweeted a follower - "What we need is Islam control". The underlying message was clear - Islam is the enemy.

It has taken the actions of a small minority of the largest religion in the world just about a decade or less to misrepresent the ideologies behind it. It has taken American bigots even less time to distort the perception of Islam in the minds of the wider American society, using these anomalies as their foundation. Now everywhere you turn, self-endorsing christians have turned religious radicalism into an Islamic thing - forget about all the christian radicals that have committed heinous acts of their own. People like Chuck Woolery will continue to proudly modify the truth and depend on their faithful followers to repeat the tomfoolery. Forget the fact that the FBI released a report back in 2006, which included a detailed chronological listing of all terrorist incidents on United States soil between 1980 and 2005, that practically shows incidents related to radical Islam is a small minority. But No. What we need is "Islam control", because white privilege means that white terrorists are psychologically compromised, while those linked to radical Islam are simply full of hate, intent on harming the United States of America. 

Remember what I was saying about living in a "progressive country"? Yea, sometimes, the world can let you down.

As much as you may do good in your own life, on a daily basis, the world will always take an opportunity to remind you that you are surrounded by people who are doing bad. Perhaps, that's just ying and yang. Perhaps it is nature's way of balancing things. On the other hand, maybe it's not. Maybe it's not balance for people to expend so much effort accusing others of being full of hate that they cloud their reflections so much that they can't see the hatred in their own hearts.

Boston celebrated on Friday night. When Dzhokar Tsarnaev was captured, cameras didn't take long to cut to scenes of cheers and chants of Boston residents. It was a scene that perplexed many on social media, especially those outside of the United States, but I understand. As much as I disagree with the celebrations, I understand them. More than half a million people had been advised to stay inside of their homes for the day, for fear of hidden explosives and other potentially dangerous situations, effectively creating a self-imposed house arrest in Boston and its environs. The arrest was a moment of triumph for Boston, and the rest of the United States which had been glued to their televisions sets and social media for much of the 24 hours preceding the arrest. For a country as patriotic as this one (or a country with as much of a victim complex), the reactions were...expected.

What was not expected was how quickly the country would attempt to turn its back on its own constitution - a thing that they hold, albeit hypocritically and with delusion, in high esteem. So when Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted the suggestion that the suspect's Miranda Rights be withheld, the shit-storm that followed at least let me know that there is still hope in humanity. It's something that, with terror and the opinions that often follow it, is easily forgotten. Still, calls to treat the surviving Tsarnaev brother as an "enemy combatant" persist without having identified an "enemy". Who are you at war with America? Oh right, Islam.

Ultimately, the only fact that remains is that there is a myriad of ways to examine the millions of opinions that are floating around. As much as I wish I could eliminate all of those that are based on the inspiring foundation of hate, the ascension between one people of different ilk, origin and culture, seems to be something that we have no choice but to accept.

There really is, only one sure, constant thing - Sometimes, the world can get you down, and often, people will let you down. But, in true ying-yang fashion, it is the good amongst us that balances the equation, and that is the truest reality that we can never let ourselves forget.

[stanzaone]

The False-Righteousness of Monogamy

Monogamy is overrated. It isn't natural.

In the current vernacular, monogamy refers to having one sexual partner, irrespective of the presence or absence of a relationship. The concept of monogamy contends that the optimal state for a person is within a one-to-one relationship that confines emotional and sexual attachment within an exclusive state between those two people. It is the basic foundation for the popular, western incarnation of marriage. Between 1976 and 1996, when the acceptance of divorce had became more widespread, divorce rates in the United States doubled. Even Outside of marriages, in less serious (legal and religious) states of commitment, men and women continually struggle to successfully execute monogamous relationships. In a culture that places such high value on monogamy, why are we, as a people, so bad at it?

It's not for everyone, although it is not a question of capability. I believe that once a decision is made honestly, we are capable of dealing with the consequences of the decision. However, it is a question of desire. In order to properly execute a monogamous relationship, the persons involved must respect, and agree with, the institution of monogamy. However, while we are raised to almost feel an obligation towards monogamy, we are seldom given the opportunity to develop and consider our own opinion on the concept, as well as the many available alternatives. In many ways, it is not dissimilar to religion. Many of us find ourselves in religions that we had no choice in joining, because that decision, for many, lies with our parents at an age where we do not have the ability to form coherent thoughts of our own. It is the same with monogamy essentially. We grow up, and the popular, accepted culture influences us strongly to believe that monogamy is the only, righteous, state of being. In many cases, this is strongly reinforced by the presence of religious beliefs that prescribe monogamy as the righteous state of being. As a side note, and extension of my preceding assertion of religious reinforcement, it may be interesting to note that agnostics and atheists boast the lowest divorce percentages in the United States at 21% (compared to the population wide average of 41% of first marriages).

Unsurprisingly, we fail terribly at upholding the main principle of monogamy. Others, who may be considered successful, often feel a great sense of dissatisfaction because they lack the buy-in necessary for one to develop the true desire to be singularly faithful. Shouldn't everybody consider what it is that they truly desire?

As people have begun to move further and further away from the established societal standard, new structures and concepts have began to emerge. Swinging, open marriages, and polyamory have become more and more common. Although these concepts are not without their own problems, they each provide alternative lifestyles that may better match a particular person's beliefs. Still, they sit outside of the accepted norm, and despite their emergence, the perception of them is still mostly negative. Simply put, we aren't taught to think like this. From young, we are covered with fairytale stories of love, where a person finds their ONE true love, and they live "happily ever after". Relationships with multiple persons are discouraged, regardless of the honesty of the participants and their interactions.

Personally, I have spent more time in monogamous relationships in the past seven years than I have spent outside of them - I am perfectly satisfied with the concept of monogamy for myself. Still, I firmly believe that everyone needs to strongly consider the alternatives in order to ascertain what practice works best for themselves. More importantly, it is a process of internal reflection that needs to be approached, and then communicated and acted upon honestly. The honesty is important because any relationships that one builds should be with another person who shares those beliefs. Indeed, it is so currently; at least, it is so in theory. The truth is that not everyone who attempts to practice monogamy agrees with it.

That is, in my opinion, the most damaging truism. Societal pressures have forced large numbers of people to conform to something that does not work for them, nor match the most honest version of their own beliefs. The clarity and satisfaction that can come from honest introspection in any aspect of one's life should be the desire of every person.

[stanzaone]

Does this darkness have a name? This cruelty, this hatred, how did it find us? Did it steal into our lives or did we seek it out and embrace it? What happened to us that we now send our children into the world like we send young men to war, hoping for their safe return, but knowing that some would be lost along the way. When did we lose our way? Consumed by the shadows. Swallowed whole by the darkness. Does this darkness have a name? Is it your name?

One Tree Hill - With Tired Eyes, Tired Minds, Tired Souls, We Slept

[stanzaone]

No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true

Nathaniel Hawthorne - The Scarlet Letter

[stanzaone]

Adapt, Don't Complain!

Speaking to my Trinis here. It's time for local artistes and producers to adapt. Complaining has never been a successful strategy for any new entrant into any type of market. So why do the undiscovered and irrelevant insist on feverishly complaining about what the market is rewarding?

You cannot escape it, and even if you wish to see it eliminated, no successful system has ever been teared down from the outside. For the most part, all of those outside what can be considered the top tier of the local industry have failed to adapt to the changes in the music industry in the last five years. And for those outside that group who have attempted to adapt, only a very small proportion have done it proficiently. Ten years ago, radio was the dominant distribution network. It was the aim of all new entrants. Now, however, the landscape is much changed. Radio is now an indicator of success, rather than an antecedent of success. The internet and all its rich-media enabled tools have taken its place. It is a more accessible medium with a quicker feedback loop, and, when used correctly, allows new entrants to build the fan bases which are now so critical to larger success. The success cases are readily available - Wiz Khalifa, J. Cole, and most recently, Trinidad James.

So why then, are local artistes still viewing the radio as a mechanism of success? 

The internet has no filters. There are no censors. It is a cheap, yet high-quality, accessible medium through which an artiste can reach a wider demographic that he or she could ever reach through a country-specific radio station. Traditional websites, blogs, video-based communities, such as Vimeo and YouTube, and audio-based communities such as SoundCloud are all well established avenues. The examples for emulation are readily available.

It is time for our budding artistes to stop complaining, and adapt to the changed environment. The middle man is less of a factor, now, than ever before.

[stanzaone]

President Obama, Mitt Romney and the Concept of Winning

The conservatives are rejoicing over what they are portraying as a game-changer. With their shallow-reasoned anticipations of massive changes in the polls in the coming days, the community that had been left speechless constantly in the past six months as a result of Romney's continuous media gaffes and outlandishly out-of-touch statements is now loud, raucous, and most of all noticeably, hopeful.

The Obama-ites, on the other hand, have been left twiddling their thumbs wondering what happened to their beloved POTUS on Wednesday night. "Why was he so passive?" "Why didn't he attack Mitt and call him out over his video?" Those are just a couple of the questions that dominated social media in the 24 hours following the closing statements of the debate.

Was Obama really that bad? 

He wasn't. He showed up at the debate prepared to defend his policies, positions and most importantly, his performance in his first presidential term. As a debate should be, he battled based on facts, not attitude, not verve, and not deception. What he met in his opponent on the night, was a Mitt Romney, who admittedly, was better than he had ever been in the past 18 months. Romney, for the first time, was well put together, and he was on the offensive, as a challenger always should be. But Mitt Romney was not better on what should matter - the issues.

As a matter of fact, anyone who has been properly following Mitt Romney's campaign will know that he told a shocking multitude of untruths during that debate, conveniently changing his positions (temporarily) in order to provide the appropriate audience engaging responses. I don't have to list them. Think Progress has done that for the world already. Romney's performance, from the standpoint that matters, was terrible.  The packaging on the product was nice; and by nice, I mean loud, belligerent, and opportunistic enough to take advantage of a moderator who had lost control of the debate from the start. Indeed, Jim Lehrer will want to forget that night, and unfortunately for him, it isn't all his fault, but I digress. Mitt Romney delivered a performance based solely on criticisms, without ever remotely attempting to detail any of the prospective policies he cited in his answers. The reason he couldn't do this is obvious - the vast majority of the answers he provided misrepresenting the platform on which he and Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan are running. Regardless of that fact, Romney delivered a performance that energised his supporter base.

The fact that the Obama-ites have let all this slip past their sensibilities and fallen prey to the way that the media has chosen to portray the debate is no surprise to me. It could never be surprising that a movement of people who, in large numbers, didn't vote for a man because of his policies, but because of who he was, became disenchanted by Obama's performance on the night. They didn't vote for the policies. They voted for the man.  

The irresponsibility of that arguable truth is way beyond the scope of this discussion, but its existence is important in understanding why the media has been allowed to freely run with the spin that they have put on the debate. Whether it was because he was simply the better man than John McCain, or whether it was because he is black, or whether it was the opinion that he seems like an honest, real, in-touch person, very few can objective argue that the voter base that Obama carried in 2008 cared about, or were even cognizant of his prescribed policies. I'd even argue that without the ignorance of his voter based with regards to his policies, Hilary Clinton would be the democratic participant in the debate as the incumbent.

When Obama's supporter base saw him in the debate, as a passive participant, on the defensive, they were shellshocked. Arguably, until this point, Obama had never been that passive on a public platform. He wasn't the inspirational, captivating speaker that he had been in 2008, and in the State of the Nation addresses throughout his first term. It's almost as if they were looking at a person they didn't recognize, even though his policies shared the same foundation that they always have. With all due respect to each and every Obama supporter out there who felt that his performance was terrible, the debate was not, and should not be the forum for that type of performance. He did what he is required to do as the incumbent, and that is (for the sake of repetition) to defend his positions, policies and performance.

If anything, the fallout from this first debate has shown that the line between politics and marketing is not only thin, but also transparent. The media have made sure of this.

But traditional political scientists have constantly refuted political pundits' exaggerated emphasis on the importance of presidential debates. Instead, even the more recent research show that the majority of those who watch the presidential debates are doing so more as a matter of support, than as undecided voters attempting to make up their minds. Those with substantial political knowledge seldom change their minds as a result of watching the debates. On the other hand, those with less knowledge have been found more likely to have their opinion turned by the rhetoric in the debates, but they are also the demographic which is substantially less likely to turn out to the polls to vote. [Benjamin Knoll 2012]. 

Should Obama supporters worry a little though? Will he be more aggressive in the next debate? Probably, but If they expect the POTUS to get involved in a finger-point match with Mitt Romney in the next presidential debate, and lose sight of the focus on the policies he so clearly believes in, they will be in for yet another disappointment. He played the marketing card to get into office, but it seems that he is quite comfortable going it alone in this election. Moreover, if the baseless method of post-debate assessment continues, expect Romney to "win" the two remaining debates, and maybe even "crush" the President in the process.

One internet author asked, "when does the high road become a road that leads to nowhere?", and if anything, that is the conundrum that has plagued the POTUS in his first terms' bipartisan efforts. But, will the challenger win the election come October? You'd be better of betting on peace in the Middle East.

[stanzaone]

It doesn't matter what percentage," he said. "The story is that a black kid from a single parent house made it from [the Marcy Projects] from about six minutes away from here. So the fact that I have any ownership in this franchise is fucking amazing. The fact that I have any ownership in this venue is fucking amazing. Don't let them diminish your accomplishment or dim your shine. It's fucking amazing.

Jay-Z speaking about the media's criticisms over his ownership percentage of the Nets.

[stanzaone]

For Friends and Family

It gets better.

That's what I tell myself when things here get difficult. I'm a five hour trip away, in another country navigating the hustle and bustle of New York. This is where I spend most of my year. I came back here today after a much needed 5 week vacation at home in Trinidad. I'm on the doorstep of another level in my educational development. I'm 24, with a Bachelor's degree from the University of the West Indies, and a Master's degree from the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College. 

It hasn't been easy, but it gets better.

This is for the eyes of all those who know themselves. Thank you for being the constants in my life. Thank you for believing in me, and thank you for supporting me in whichever way you have chosen to do so.

If anyone asks, tell them I'm far from finished. The best is yet to come.

[stanzaone]

It's a long article, but it's a feature that I feel a lot of women should read, contemplate, and formulate their opinions on. The author rights from a powerful perspective, and she's got the experience and inspiration to do it honestly. 

[barackobama]

When you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot… And so if your main argument for how to grow the economy is ‘I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,’ then you’re missing what this job is about.

President Obama on why Mitt Romney’s record in the private sector matters (via barackobama)

[urbanfuck-deactivated20130112]

[stanzaone]

Couldn't be more accurate

[stanzaone]

In Defence of Same Sex Marriage

How is that the heterosexual community has been spurred on to so fervently protect an institution that we have disrespected at an increasing rate for the past three decades. Divorce rates have been on the rise and the institution of marriage is, without a doubt, failing. However, even as it fails without any rescue in sight, homophobs and holy-book-believers tighten their grasp in an effort to control what is left of it.

The truth is that it is not necessarily their own to claim. Western society has grown into an obsession with the "original" definition of marriage, which has become understood to constitute provisions for a union between individuals of the opposite sex. But, that isn't original at all. It's ironic that what American society sees as "traditional" or original is so heavily influenced by the impact of Christianity in Medieval Europe. In the 21st century, America remains constrained by the impact of those who conquered it hundreds of years ago. 

And about Christianity, since when did it become ok to be so radically selective?

Most of those among you running around quoting Bible verses left and right choose not endorse the stoning a woman who has committed adultery, nor do you recognise the "right” to own slaves, both as prescribed in Leviticus, so why is it that in your disagreement with the sexuality of another person, you have suddenly decide that a holy book written hundreds of years ago by men with an agenda should be infallible and binding in 21st century western law?

To put it straightforward, homosexuals have the right to marry, not because it is condoned or prescribed in any holy book, but because of the fact that they, as human beings, are entitled to the rights of any heterosexual, bisexual, asexual or anysexual individual. How is it that every opposing government official and citizen conveniently attempts alter the discussion by the inclusion of religious considerations without anyone stopping them and saying, “Hold the fuck on. This is illogical”.

The separation of church and state is a very real necessity, and in a country that would like to see itself as the leader of the "free world", there is no room for the imposition of any religion's belief onto issues and matters of legal institution. It is apparent to me that the discord is not over their rights. The discord stems from the dissatisfaction with the practice of homosexuality, and when the status quo has rejected the validity of its existence for so long, what else is to be expected really?

What we fail to understand is that the duties of a government are not supposed to be bound by the individual beliefs of its members. A person does not have to like something to recognise their responsibility in their requisite position. As long as we do not acknowledge this, society will fail to hold its politicians accountable for failing to represent the body that has elected them into office. The failure of democracy is in the ignorance of the population it serves.

The time will come, in a progressive society, where people will have to stand up and say "FUCK THE CHURCH". When that will be occur is anybody's guess, but as long as hate is perpetuated throughout all sectors of society according to the prescriptions of beliefs created by fallible men, there will be nothing progressive except for the excuses created in place of action. 

I thought about putting a disclaimer, but I decided against it.