Thursday, February 11, 2010

I was sent this article today.

This was an article forwarded to me by my older brother.  It was on the revoking of John Mayer's "hood pass", due to certain actions.  It was to me a little bias and I had to make a response, because like so many other opinions wasn't objective and understanding enough.  However, it was what it was and here is my response to it: 


i feel your angst towards john mayer and his supposed missteps on women, black culture, and masturbation.  however, i have to disagree on some points that were made.  i was very happy to see the link to the playboy interview that was referenced in this article.  so, i decided that instead of just accepting this criticism as valid i made my own decision on the matter.  after reading the article in entirety i decided that these judgments were extremely harsh, maybe a little bias. so, for an example here is the portion of the article from which the criticism of his infringement on the black culture and kerry washington were taken:

MAYER: It depends on what I picked up. My two biggest hits are “Your Body Is a Wonderland” and “Daughters.” If you think those songs are pandering, then you’ll think I’m a douche bag. It’s like I come on very strong. I am a very…I’m just very. V-E-R-Y. And if you can’t handle very, then I’m a douche bag. But I think the world needs a little very. That’s why black people love me.

PLAYBOY: Because you’re very?

MAYER: Someone asked me the other day, “What does it feel like now to have a hood pass?” And by the way, it’s sort of a contradiction in terms, because if you really had a hood pass, you could call it a nigger pass. Why are you pulling a punch and calling it a hood pass if you really have a hood pass? But I said, “I can't really have a hood pass. I’ve never walked into a restaurant, asked for a table and been told, ‘We’re full.’”

PLAYBOY: It is true; a lot of rappers love you. You recorded with Common and Kanye West, played live with Jay-Z.

MAYER: What is being black? It’s making the most of your life, not taking a single moment for granted. Taking something that’s seen as a struggle and making it work for you, or you’ll die inside. Not to say that my struggle is like the collective struggle of black America. But maybe my struggle is similar to one black dude’s.

PLAYBOY: Do black women throw themselves at you?

MAYER: I don’t think I open myself to it. My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I’ve got a Benetton heart and a fuckin’ David Duke cock. I’m going to start dating separately from my dick.

PLAYBOY: Let’s put some names out there. Let’s get specific.

MAYER: I always thought Holly Robinson Peete was gorgeous. Every white dude loved Hilary from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. And Kerry Washington. She’s superhot, and she’s also white-girl crazy. Kerry Washington would break your heart like a white girl. Just all of a sudden she’d be like, “Yeah, I sucked his dick. Whatever.” And you’d be like, “What? We weren’t talking about that.” That’s what “Heartbreak Warfare” is all about, when a girl uses jealousy as a tactic.

okay, if you read this with a little reason and understand that the interviewer is directing his questions you can see that there isn't as much malice intent and ignorance as described in the article above.

he first of all says he can't have a "hood pass" in the first place.  secondly, he actually gives credit to resiliency of black people, and is pretty "low key" about his supposed "hood pass".  in the section about his sexual preferences, he clearly makes a distinction that he finds black women attractive and is jokingly making a reference to his "david duke cock", it IS a playboy interview for goodness sake, not a rolling stone or time magazine interview!  Last but not least, the kerry washington section.  this brings me to a very sensitive issue in the black community.  there is a very protective attitude toward women and sanctity of women.  because of the history of blacks in america this makes sense.  however, i remember that when i was growing up in the church the nastiest girls at the building were the preacher's daughters.  they would try to make out with me and be very risque at the church building.  this brought me to the realization that all black women aren't queens and saints! just like for any human being on this planet, and we can't be telling that lie forever, it has no more utility.  so, if kerry washington did get down like that 'she did', if she don't want it happen she is grown and can make her own decisions.  personally the only point i think he really made there is that women are women no matter the shade.  you don't have to be thai to eat pad that, just human.  

now on a another level, i understand that this isn't the only interview he has ever done.  so, his apparent jackassness may be valid elsewhere, but not really in this interview.  Also, i do think that he can be sexist just like your local preacher and strip club owner and customers.  however, it is a broad problem that needs to be dealt with cause it hurts everyone and slows progress!

Anwar Staggers 

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The recent Supreme Court decision on corporation campaign funding

I happen to be very questionable about the recent Supreme Court decision to further protect the rights of corporations (by allowing them to donate a non-regulated amount of funds to political campaigns) under the 1st Amendment (for free speech), this also includes protection under the 14th Amendment (rights of citizens and persons), originally intended for slaves. I due believe that private citizens should be able to own property and not fear "illegitimate" seizure from the government and other citizens. However, I don't actually think that this type of "protection" is really an equitable area in which corporations ought to be included. Corporation's only use their "legal" person status to protect their "pursuit of life, liberty and property", the latter of that being their focus. The other rights in that amendment aren't even an important point of contingency in their operations. All of this is based on a very simple idea that unlike "real" people corporations cannot actually "receive" physical punishment for infractions on the social contract. Instead they usually receive some sort of punitive punishment, which equates to a slap on the wrist. Unlike a "person" corporations don't just feel pain or death from the loss of money. They usually downsize first. They, unlike a "person", can also weather an economic recession for 10-15 years without much change. They have the money, insurance, and time to. They are an immortal entity with an infinite number of descendants who are ready to take charge of the business, resulting in a possibly infinite "lifespan". The only thing they really fear is loss of capital, which can actually "kill" them, as it is their "life blood". However, such a large sum of money is never taken from these companies. Even if it was, the corporation, which is made up of individual stockholders, has rights to not be victim of cruel and unusual punishment. So, in this way they can't be shut down by the government unless they do something EXTREMELY heinous, publicly and premeditated. So, corporations have kind of found a way to "lock" themselves into our society while also usurping power and many of the laws that affect individual citizens/"real" persons along the way. It is this aspect, of not having to follow the "traditional" social standards and punishments of a normal non-"legal" person, that really stabs at me. It is as if we have become less "human" than these immortal, non-human entities. I really hope that this is not the case. If so, our value on human life may have taken a dip somewhere in the stock market that manages our focus on what is important. Money or people?

- Anwar Staggers