White Washed Broadway

In the interest of full disclosure, I work in marketing and public relations and fully understand niche marketing.  That, however, in no way means that I like the concept or that I think it's valuable from a consumer/user perspective.    

The consumer me sees niche marketing as a ploy by companies to get me to spend my money and most of the time I tend to reject that sort of marketing/outright ploy.  The primary reason I do so, is that it rarely means that the company supports your "community" but rather that there is market research that shows you and your "community" are an "untapped market" or is a growing consumer segment.

Why Asking "Why Can't 'Successful' Black Women Find Good Men?" is a Stupid Question

Why can't "successful" black women find a "good" man? It seems to be a controversial and thought-provoking question on the surface. But when examined more closely, it's a question that is bound up in heteronormative, reproductionist and sanguinuptial notions about men and women and family.  First, it is heteronormative in that it assumes that the role of women (and men) is to couple through the bonds of the socially constructed institution of marriage.  It also presupposes that women want or need to be married.  As if there is something wrong with women who either chose not or are not "honored" with having a man ask them to be married.  The whole premise assumes that for these black women, there is a problem because they can not find suitable mates.  And while it may be true that some women bemoan the unavailability of "good" men (often anecdotally blaming gay men and incarcerated black men), there are other women who are financially secure, have fantastic friends and as such, don't worry about finding a "good" man.

Xenophobia Reins Supreme in Arizona

I sometimes cannot believe my eyes.  I knew this legislation was in the works, but for it to be signed into law is a completely different thing. (Deep breath!)  OK, in Arizona it is now illegal to teach ethnic studies courses because, well, let me just put a quote here from State schools chief Tom Horne who says:

"...A Tucson school district program promotes 'ethnic chauvinism' and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race.'"

The first problem is that these "ethnic studies" programs are the only place where minority students can get a comprehensive history of their ancestors. When I was in elementary school, black history in the larger history books consisted of Harriett Tubman (she helped free slaves) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (he led the Civil Rights Movement) -- pretty insufficient. 

Contrary to belief, American isn't a melting pot.  Rather, we demand that people assimilate -- which adapting to "the American Way."  But even as people of color, we are constantly reminded (particularly in today's political climate) that we are different and in the eyes of those who largely hold power, inferior.  As such, ethnic studies is a necessary part of educating students.  (Not to mention that there are non ethnic students who take these courses as well because they want to expand their knowledge -- isn't that what education is supposed to be all about?)

CNN Does it Again: Gary and Tony Have a Baby (UGH!)

CNN continues to prove just how useless and inane its coverage is/can be with the announcement that they will air a CNN Special Report called Gary and Tony Have a Baby in June.  I find it useless because I continually question the wisdom of a very middle class, assimilationist thread that runs through and dominates gay rights in America.  The major way that many gay rights organizations attack those who oppose gay rights is by trying to show how much gay couples are "just like the 'rest' of us" (i.e. normal, whatever the hell that is!).  Not to mention that a special like this does nothing to unseat the idea that gayness = whiteness.  As someone who does research on gay black men on television, I know that the universe of gay men of color on television is small, particularly when you discount unscripted and cable television shows, but white gay men appear on many network shows like Modern Family and Brothers and Sisters.

WWW: The White Women's Workout; or So Funny, It's Kinda Sad

I saw this video and was torn -- it's actually laugh out loud funny, but also incredibly sad, particularly as I inhabit my black male skin daily.  Certainly media, including music, movies, television (both the news and television shows) and even art to a certain degree (and the Reagan administration) has helped to perpetuate the idea of the menacing black man.  But at the same time, this manages to skewer the sheer absurdity of a monolithic idea of black male menace (as well as monolithic ideas about any group of people).

Unpacking a Racist Harvard E-mail

A friend of mine tipped me off to this e-mail that purported to defend the idea that black people are genetically less intelligent than other people (presumably, mainly white people).  I won't even try to unpack this nonsense because Feministe does it far better than I could.    It's a long read, but it's well worth the time and energy to do so.  Unfortunately, these are the kinds of serious, and well-informed conversations that need to be had about race in America, but that we simply are not well-equipped enough to have.  But is more troubling is that, as Feministe points out, this woman is going to be charged with making and upholding the law some day. No doubt, those who believe in her particular brand of "logical" thought will herald her as one who reads the law as it was written while those who seek to uphold the rights of those less advantaged will be seen as "activist judges."   

When Rhetoric Fails

We have evolved (or devolved) into a society where rhetoric and soundbites rule the day.  And we also largely, get our soundbites from media outlets that support our ideas and ideals and regurgitate those soundbites to people who ideologically share our beliefs.  It's a great opportunity for us to feel smart and well-read.  But it's when you are challenged by someone who is your ideological opposite that problems tend to arise. 

PSA: More Than One Source Needed to Develop a Political Position

I never really care what political bent one has, all I ask is that you REALLY know what your positions are and be able to stand by them when asked to elaborate on your "talking point." That is not the case in this video and it shows why we have such a politically uninformed populace in the United States. Certainly FOX News is not the only culprit, CNN and MSNBC are guilty as well (While Hilary Clinton should have exited the presidential race earlier, I think the overwhelming pressure came from 24-hour news stations like CNN and MSNBC).

The Politics of Activism

Justice John Paul Stevens pending retirement from the Supreme Court has been met with a collective yawn by most Americans.  But his retirement offers a great opportunity to examine how the judicial system, an entity that is supposed to be free of politics, tells us more about party affiliation than we like to admit.  In recent history (particularly during the Bush II administration) we heard a lot about so-called activist judges.  But when we deconstruct the term "activist judge" all it really means is someone who disagrees with our position. 

Health Care Reform Post Script

My head is still reeling from watching C-SPAN for most of the day yesterday and watching the "debate" unfold about health care reform. What I think became abundantly clear over the weekend (and arguably through the whole debate process) is not just a difference in ideology, largely going along party lines, and not just the suspicion that we have elected a bunch of 3 year olds to represent us (could they have been less mature) or that our political process is really a time drainer (did it really take all day to get to the vote when largely no one was moved to change their vote by debates, but rather by deals).

Rather, a real socio-economic ideological rift was exposed. I believe health care reform isn't really about access to health care as much it's about the classic American battle between the haves and the have nots. Those who have, want to keep things they way they are because "they work hard for their money and don't want to give it away to those lazy ne'er do wells who only want government handouts." Those who have not, just want access to healthcare for themselves and their family members.

This was crystallized this morning when I went on Facebook and a "friend" invoke the old Reagan line about "the welfare queen" and how she lives on the southside of Chicago (which implies that she's black) and gets $150,000 per year from the government through handouts and use of her four assumed names. Sure, there may be "welfare queens" who do abuse the system and I in no way condone their behavior, but there are also hardworking people who simply cannot afford health care coverage. There are also hardworking people with life threatening diseases who are either uninsurable or are forced to keep jobs for fear of not being able to get coverage from a new employer.

For those who opposed (and still oppose) healthcare reform, I'd be interested to see how they feel about "socialized" medicine and government handouts if they lose their jobs. Or when (and if) they reach age 65 and want to take advantage of "socialized" medicine in the form of Medicare and/or Medicaid.

Perhaps I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't mind paying a little more in taxes to ensure that all American citizens have access to adequate health care. The racial and sexuality-based epithets that were thrown around over the weekend illuminated how important and necessary this reform really is. If it wasn't people would not have been so passionate about it. It wouldn't have been so divisive. This legislation has a 50/50 chance of failing. But if it fails, at least we know that we tried to fix a broken system.

Healthcare in America

If there is any doubt that we need to seriously consider health care reform in America, here it is. This is truly sickening!

http://tinyurl.com/yj5gkom

Whose Fat is it Anyway?

I've listened to the debate over childhood obesity with interest. I've been interested because I am conflicted about how I really feel about the solutions that have been posited about "curing" childhood obesity.

My immediate "go to" is that parents need to take responsibility for what their children are putting into their mouths (and bodies) most of the time. Sure, kids are going to eat junk at school (and trade away or throw away the healthy options packed in their lunches), but parents can control what their children eat for breakfast and dinner. Parents also have the ability to limit what food they bring into the home because they buy it. I know that the counter argument here is that parents are busy and more homes than ever are run either by a single parent or two working parents. I grew up with two working parents as well. And you know what they did? On Sunday, they cooked for the whole week. That's what refrigerators and freezers are for. That's not to say that we didn't have junk food and fast food, but it was eaten in moderation. But we also were forced to go outside and play, which got us doing some kind of physical activity rather than sitting in front of a computer or game console for hours on end.

In other words, the media (and the Obama administration) are making the food manufacturers the evil bandit in this scenario. Which is not to say that the food manufacturers don't have some culpability but the last time I checked we were free to make choices about the foods that we eat. That was one of the thrusts behind giving more information on food labels (including fast food), so that we had the information about what we were putting into our bodies and could make decisions based on those labels. But the bottom line is that Coke, Frito Lay, McDonald's and all the other businesses that make junk food are publicly traded companies. If we stop buying, they stop making because they're all about making money and making their shareholders happy.

Taxing us into allegedly not wanting to purchase fattier foods is a lame idea as well. While it may have an impact, my hypothesis is that it'll largely affect lower income people who perhaps won't be able to afford to buy these fattier foods. So, we'll have a slew of higher income level obese people? What does that really help? But as we have seen with cigarettes, higher prices/taxes haven't really stopped people from smoking. In Chicago, when the tax on cigarettes was raised, many smokers drove to Indiana to "stock up" where the tax on cigarettes was not as high.

I think the real solution is to make healthier eating more affordable and accessible. I am grateful that I can afford to make healthier eating decisions, but I pay for the decision I make. Whenever I go to a healthier grocery store like Trader Joe's, Sprouts, or Central Market, I pay more. A bag of fruit is oftentimes more expensive than a bag of chips. A gallon of water is often the same price as a 2-liter of soda. The price of ground turkey escalates as the amount of fat decreases, which is more expensive than buying ground chuck or ground beef. A bag of almonds (with their anticarcinogen properties) is more expensive than a bag of candy. Trader Joe's, Sprouts, Central Market and other health food stores are often located in the tonier neighborhoods and communities -- and for good reason. The residents of those tonier parts of town can afford to shop there while if a person with less economic resources wants to shop there, there are the added costs of travel as well as the physical expense of buying the food. So, for many, it's cost prohibitive. That is not to say that the Dominick's, Randall's, Jewel's and Kroger's of the world don't offer healthier eating choices. But the fact is, it'll cost more. So, let's focus on that disparity and perhaps when healthier eating choices are more affordable, then people will chose that as an option more frequently than they do now.

What TV Teaches Us About Higher Education

I had a conversation with a friend yesterday about the notion of undergraduate education is a bit of a racket. The reason I believe this to be so is largely because we award degrees to students for completing a degree but we rarely have any deep understanding of the subject matter of our major. Most people don't necessarily use their degree to work in the field in which they are allegedly supposed to be "masters." Rather, I believe undergraduate education is designed to essentially reward those who can afford (or are willing to take on the debt) to attend college to get a degree in something. For instance, my second career was in public relations and those working in the field had degrees in English, Journalism, Business and other degrees that did not necessarily prepare them for a career in PR.

That haven't been said, undergraduate education is still important. And that was underscored in an episode of the new NBC show Parenthood in its second episode. In it, Sarah, played by Lauren Graham, is out of work and looking for a job. Through nepotism, she gets an interview with a company who ultimately chooses not to hire her because she doesn't have a college degree. (Skip ahead to 21:45 for the interview and 28:40 for the post-interview/decision call).

.

So it begs the question, what's so special about a college degree? My opinion is that it is a way to weed out less desireables. In every way, Sarah on Parenthood seemed to be qualified -- except that she doesn't have a college degree. That college degree kept her out of the club, even though she had the experience doing what she was being hired to do. The deficiency? She didn't have the stamp of approval from an institution of higher learning to show that she had paid a lot of money (or gone into a lot of debt) and "paid her dues" in order to gain admittance into "the club."

I believe that the educational system is rife with classism. But what TV shows like Parenthood teach us is that if we want to get ahead, we have to play the game. Afterall, the income disparity between American workers and CEOs, while down, was still 317 to 1 in 2009. And there are few CEOs that don't have college degrees.