Regretting


I have many regrets – as many painful ones as mundane ones. But I do not regret regretting. It is because I regret, that I suffer no delusions about my humanness or the humanness of others. Having said that, there are at least two significant and life-altering events [i.e., regrets] from which almost all my other regrets flow.

The first of those two is that I profoundly regret being absolutely terrified of my mother’s husband — so much so that I did not kill him before he used me as unwitting bait in order to murder her. He murdered my mother when I was twelve. That failure to kill him eventually led to my joining a religion that was more divisive and more controlling than most mainstream religions. Being a “faithful servant of Jehovah” set me back at least twenty years and costs me in too many painful ways. These two regrets are my “sins” of omission and commission — not having done something and having done something.

I am clearly aware that had I saved my mother or decided not to join a “cult” that my life would have been different — perhaps better, perhaps worse but certainly different. That difference would have also led to my being a different person. I like who I am; I do not like the life I had to lead to become who I am — hence, my numerous regrets. On the opposite side, there are a few joys I have experienced because of the above-mentioned omission and commission. My children, grandchildren and friends head the short list of those joys.

It can be argued that those things I regret are what shaped me more so than the events in my life that I do not regret; I would not resist such an argument. I would also argue that regretting, as opposed to not, gives one an advantage. Choosing not to regret anything that has happened in one’s life amounts to more than a tacit acceptance of events; it amounts to equating the good with the bad — a benign or perhaps malevolent indifference. Of course, regretting can be paralyzing and one must keep matters in perspective. I believe I have managed to do so.

Descartes is cited as having said, “I think, therefore I am.” I say, I regret, therefore I am better.

Published in: on May 31, 2013 at 4:50 AM  Leave a Comment  

Males Who Impersonate Men


Referring to the title of this work, the term “males” is defined as human beings with “XY” chromosome and who will typically have a penis and testicles. Thus, being a male is more or less a function of the time and chance of conception. Obviously, these males do not choose to be male but they can choose to be men. Therefore these terms, males and men, are not necessarily interchangeable.

Pathetically, many males define their manhood [being a man] in terms of their sexual orientation. These males consider heterosexuality to be a badge that reveals them to be men and that homosexuality is the antithesis of manhood. Such a  definition is short-sighted and woefully incorrect. At the risk of sounding trite, being a man is what you do but not who you “screw”. Males who assert they are men because of their heterosexuality are merely a cheap and woeful imitation of what they think they are.

If heterosexuality is a crucial part of the definition of a man, then what if he has sex with an underage female? What if he is a pedophile? Is he still a man? What if he rapes women? Is that something a man would do, or would someone who is simply a male do that? What if he is impotent or suffers from erectile dysfunction? Is he no longer a man? What if he is asexual? What would you call him then? Or what if a male is bi-sexual? Is he half a man? In other words, the inclusion of a man’s sexual orientation and/or activity in the definition of being a man can be problematic.

In ancient Rome, if a male was the “active” partner in a sexual encounter with another male [as opposed to being the “receiver” or the passive one], he was still considered a man. Even today, among the Sambians of Papua New Guinea, the rite of male passage into manhood entails performing oral sex on the older men of the tribe and swallowing their semen. The point I wish to present is that the definition of what constitutes a man can be far more encompassing than one’s sexual proclivities. But those examples aside, could it be that sexual orientation is irrelevant or at best, it obfuscates the issue of what constitutes manhood?

One or two emotions often drive many males’ reactions to homosexuality: Fear and/or hatred. In this context, these emotions are often used to cloak the frenetic, irrational child within. [One of the frailties of being human is that humans often experience discomfort when in the presence of the “different”; human prefer a certain level of sameness or conformity. True, diversity is often the source of conflict – sometimes resulting in fear –  but it can also be the catalyst for progress.]  Fear, however, should be rational; it should be driven by the capacity to be harmed. How is it that two gay men or two lesbians can cause harm? This kind of fear is a fool’s fear. In fact, it can be argued that a real man does not waste fear on that which can cause no harm.

Many males hate gay men or lesbians. How irrational is it to hate ? That is, to actually expend a serious and potentially dangerous emotion. Hate should be felt and shown with great care and deliberation — not a knee-jerk, thoughtless reaction. It may seem like a paradox but hatred should be done without emotion — even though it is an emotion. To that end, what would be a legitimate rationale for hating men who prefer sex with men or women who prefer sex with women? Never mind, hating “the act”; why hate or even dislike the persons? Is having a different preference legitimate grounds for hatred? Petty and pitiful people hate for reasons often cited by males who are not men. In fact, if anything, an argument can be made that heterosexual sex causes more harm than homosexual sex. Heterosexual sex can result in difficult pregnancies, unwanted children, over-population, and all the things that flow downstream from that. Yes, I am saying this with tongue in cheek but the point is that homosexual acts between consenting adults is no more harmful and deserves no more hatred or fear than sex between two heterosexuals.

Even if a person’s sexuality is a matter of choice [for the record, I do not believe it is. My being heterosexual is no more my choice than my being a male or African-American or …], there is still no harm. Thus, no grounds for fear or hatred. Lastly, however, for those who cite religion as the basis for their negative reaction to this matter, I point to the marked difference in their reactions to the other “sins” that are lumped in with homosexuality. The day these religious zealots protest and scream at thieves, liars, adulterers, alcoholics and the like with the same fervor and vigor as they do homosexuality, then they would have some credence. Otherwise, their hypocrisy is both foul and feculent.

Definitions are often not exhaustive or comprehensive but dare I declare my definition of a man: “a male who honors the humanity of others in concert with deep respect for himself; a male who thinks critically and deeply.” But perhaps my most controversial definition would be: “a real man is no different from a real woman – one having a penis and the other a vagina, notwithstanding.”

Anything other than, is simply an impostor not worthy of anything, “man”.

Published in: on March 29, 2013 at 8:25 PM  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , ,

My Mother’s First Child


I am more afraid of running out of time than of dying. I am not confused about the difference between the two.

If my mother knew all that I have done that I should not have done and all that I have not done that I should have done, she would be both proud and ashamed of me — one just a bit more than the other.

I do not love or hate easily; I believe both emotions are important. One should be done with care and caution while the other with deliberation and decisiveness. Which is which depends on the context.

I realize that the kind of parent one is, is often, to some extent, a function of the kind of parent the other parent is. Somehow, however, that fact does not make me feel any better.

I have been a fool many more times than once — and so have the “gods.”

I have many regrets — as many painful ones as mundane ones. But I do not regret regretting; because I regret, I suffer no delusions about my humanness or the humanness of others.

I am a deist. I believe that a First Cause, or an Uncaused Mind/Intelligence, is responsible for the existence of the universe and all its component parts — including life. Immediately thereafter, this Being or Beings, i.e., “God,” abandoned us and left humans to the devices of the maleficent trinity: Whimsical Chance, the Workings or Agenda of Others and alas, Our Own Doings. Everything that has happened, does happen or will happen can be traced to those three alone — not “God” or his “Devil.” “God” does not deserve credit for any “evil” and no blame for any “good,” or vice versa.

I am my own hero, for who could be a better champion for me than I?

I am not a happy person. There are certain things, however, for which I am happy — even delighted. But in the heart of my heart, between each beat, there is sorrow. I am pained at what humans do to other humans. I grieve at the exploitations, the sufferings, the injustices. I see the strong, and all they do to those not. And my heart weeps. I can only savor the few joys and cherish those who and that which bring them.

I am guilty of not saving m mother — of not being able to deliver her from her tormentor. But in that regard, I am as guilty as Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu Zeus and all the other “gods” because they did not save her either. Nonetheless, their cowardice does not diminish mine.

I hate being wrong; I detest it. In fact, I abhor being wrong so much that I desperately want to know when I am so that I can stop.

I wonder, at night: What did “God” do today?

Published in: on November 10, 2012 at 3:29 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

SMH


The vile and despicable legacies of slavery in the US are many but those legacies are trivialized when ludicrous or absurd connections to the realities of today are inaccurately linked to the slavery of African-Americans. For instance, Olympic medalist, Michael Johnson, stated that African-Americans have a superior athletic gene because of surviving the horrific rigors of slavery.[1] Does that assertion remain solid even after a cursory evaluation?

Mr. Johnson and others, such as geneticist, Dr. Rachael Irving, believe that there is a straight line between Africans taken as slaves and brought to America and the athletic prowess of certain Olympic sprinters. Dr. Irving is quoted as averring, “There was not much oxygen on slave ships so they had to use whatever they had to survive.” Then, as proof-positive of his belief, the article cited in the footnote quotes him as saying, “Of the eight 100m finalists four years ago … All eight are believed to be descended from slaves.”

Dr. Irving is a nocent sophist. What he posits just might sound logical, but only if one suffers from a condition commonly referred to as – being stupid. Only people who would rather leave their thinking to those who are deluded by their own sense of intelligence would concur with the likes of Dr. Irving. Please consider the following:

What if someone proposed that African-Americans today are burdened with low self-esteem and they lack self-respect because the slaves who survived the trip from Africa to the US were feckless and psychologically weak? In short, the psychologically strong and self-respecting captured slaves either fought back and were killed or they jumped overboard to their deaths rather than be treated like vomit. Once here in the US, any who happen to become strong tried to escape or otherwise fought back rather than to cower and at best, be treated like fertilizer or at worst, raped, beaten, scorned, demeaned and systematically traded like animals. Therefore, most African-Americans today are at the dirt end of the social and economic totem pole because they are descendants of those who were too psychologically weak to fight to the death or try to escape rather than to remain a slave.

Or maybe most African-Americans today do not perform well in school because of the meager supply of “oxygen on slave ships” which had a deleterious affect on our brains’ ability to process numbers and words.

Then again, perhaps the reason why most serial killers or mass murderers are not African-American is because slaves knew that they were not even suppose to even think about killing a woman who was not their wife or girlfriend. To do otherwise would result in a good ol’ fashion beat down or lynching by ‘Massa.’

With regard to Dr. Irving’s comment, “Of the eight 100m finalists four years ago … All eight are believed to be descended from slaves,” all the members of the US Olympic shooting team are White. Is that because they are descendants of slave owners who had plenty of practice shooting at wily runaway slaves?

I could concoct many more asinine scenarios to link with the experience of slavery in the US but I believe my point is made: Stupid has a way of sounding intelligent or logical and stupid is essentially innocuous until someone empowers it by embracing it.

To be certain, slavery did produce legacies that are evident today – most of which anyone with the ability to think critically and honestly can easily cite. That being said, people like Mr. Johnson and Dr. Irving actually make a mockery of the dastardly history of slavery in the US. People like those two humans just leave me SMH [shaking my head].

Published in: on August 8, 2012 at 4:43 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Eleven Pieces


 

I hate being wrong; I detest it. In fact, I abhor being wrong so much that I desperately want to know when I am so that I can stop being wrong.

 

I am a man not because I am a heterosexual male. To me, manhood is independent of one’s sexual orientation. I am a man for the same reason a woman is a woman. Humanity trumps all the labels we pin on each other and humanity is the idea that being straight is no more relevant to being a man or a woman than being a fish has anything to do with riding a bicycle.

 

I have seen many males who impersonate men; they beat women.

 

I want to know everything – everything from why is there each and everything, to how is there anything. In short, I want to know what “God” knows because what we know is worth as much as what we flush down the toilet.

 

I am more afraid of running out of time than of dying. To me, those are two different things.

 

I have never tried to control a woman. To the weak, that was a license to try to do to me what I refuse to do to them. Oh darling, thy name was “fool” and thy status, “alone.”

 

I do not love or hate easily. I believe both emotions are precious; one should be done with care and caution while the other with deliberation and decisiveness. Which is which depends on the situation.

 

I realize that the kind of parent one is, is often, to some extent, a function of the kind of parent the other parent is. Nevertheless, I wish I could start over.

 

I have many regrets – as many painful ones as mundane ones. The most profound regret, however, is not knowing the why that would explain all the regrets and every single other thing about this reality.

 

If my mother knew all that I have done that I should not have done and all that I have not done that I should have done, she would be both proud and ashamed of me – one just a bit more than the other.

 

I wonder why White people do not go to beauty shops to make their hair look like Black people’s natural hair. Then I also ask the obvious question.

Published in: on June 27, 2012 at 3:08 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Gweneth Paltrow, Jay Z and the “N word”


[The following is an excerpt from an essay in my book, “Why They Think I’m Crazy – Except When They Really Think About It” in response to a recent tweet by Gweneth Paltrow about her experience with Jay Z during a concert in Paris, France.]

If denying the holocaust can be deemed a serious crime, why can’t we as Black people “outlaw” the use of the word that was designed to paint us as less than a piece of used toilet tissue that White bigots used to wipe their asses? Our use of the word, even within a different intent or context, does not in any manner render it acceptable, no more than a Jew wearing a swastika to a Halloween party changes what it stands for. The “N-word” is forever contaminated and heinous; it is offensive to all the senses as well as to the moral sensibilities of anyone with even a half a sense of self-respect – its context notwithstanding. 

From time to time, there has been much debate and controversy about the use of the word, “N_ _ _ _ _” (written hereafter as the  “N-word”), especially in the Black community in the US. By “N-word,” I specifically refer to the word that rhymes with “bigger” and is most often pronounced by Black people as rhyming with the word, “bigga.” Either pronunciation carries the same weight1 and either pronunciation is used to refer to African American Blacks. The use of the word within the African American Black community has generated tremendous heat between the camp that believes the word to be colloquial and acceptable or demeaning depending on the context versus the camp that believes the word to be inflammatory, degrading and revolting no matter the context. Hence the question: Should Blacks embrace the word as having various shades of meaning or should we eschew it with disdain at all times?

Conclusions 

That word conjures up an image of what many White people judged to be foul, scornful, contemptible, revolting, despicable, loathsome and evil – or stated otherwise – what those White people thought of Black people. Not Jews, not people of the First Nations, not Latinos, or other non-Whites. This term was designed to reflect many White people’s view of Blacks – all Blacks – not just unscrupulous, low-life Blacks – all Blacks no matter if they were fathers, mothers, children, lawyers, business owners, physicians, teachers, President of the United States. As long as they were Black, they were considered an “N-word.”

Yes, I understand words and their definitions can change because language is vibrant and dynamic, but that particular word has not (because it cannot) morphed into a word so different in meaning that its original meaning is lost or its definition appropriately expanded. In short, no amount of using it in a different context can rid it of it foul-smelling, feculent stain despite the fact most Whites today do not view Black people in the same way those of previous generations did.

In other words, no matter how much we as Black people use the word in a different more benign or affectionate context, its original meaning looms large in ways that cannot be ignored or obfuscated. The word cannot be sanitized because its original meaning is stamped into stone. Not even “God” – so to speak – can change the meaning of that word.

Black people who use the word – whether referring to other Blacks or not – demean their own humanity and continue to give life to the original and only meaning of the word – one of contempt and scorn for all Black people. Not even the worst of the worst of Black people deserve to be called by such a word because in its origins it meant that all Blacks were less than their White counterparts or any other humans – including most animals. The word meant Blacks were less than the slimy droppings of a pigeon. It was irrelevant to the racists that Black people are no worse than White people and that White people are no better than Black people.

Consider this: History tells us that, for some Jews, the name of their “God” was considered too sacred for any one to even utter. On the opposite end of the continuum, I believe the “N-word” is too despicable for any one, especially Black people, to utter or write.

Continuing with a similar path of reasoning, it is currently a crime punishable by imprisonment, in more than a dozen European nations, to deny the holocaust. The holocaust was one of humanity’s darkest displays of raw evil. Drawing a parallel (at least in my mind): To use the “N-word” constitutes not only a flagrant minimizing of the history of slavery in White America and the subsequent Jim Crow laws, but also an overt approval of all forms of White racism against Blacks. A Black person using the word is tantamount to a Black person joining the Ku Klux Klan at best or eagerly helping them to find the rope to lynch you with, at worst.


1 For those who think the pronunciation makes a difference, I present the words “floor” versus “flo,”  “more” versus “mo” or “it came loose” versus “it came a loose.” In short, the second pronunciation is simply the “ghetto” or “ebonic” way of pronouncing the word. The meaning remains the same.

Published in: on June 13, 2012 at 5:13 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Father’s Day


Every few years “Father’s Day” falls on the day the man who claimed to be my father and the man I will forever loathe, murdered my mother. The year 2007 and now 2012 are such years. Imagine the irony. This year, as I do on every June 17th, I mourned my mother’s death and as I usually do on “Father’s Day”, I did not even think of the man who was my biological father [someone I never met or knew anyway].

This year, however, I will not only mourn the death of my mother but I will ponder fatherhood — as I may or may not have demonstrated it. Three of my four children have denounced me because I have denounced the religion in which their mother and I had actually raised them. How twice ironic: Father’s Day is the day the “father” who raised me murdered my mother and I raised my children — as their father — in such a way that they do not honor me on Father’s Day or any day for that matter.

In either event, I accept the agony of this life as partly the consequences of my own doings as well as this is the nature of life on “God’s” planet, Prison Earth. I enjoyed being father to my children; I love them  and miss them. Nonetheless, fatherhood, like motherhood, is a phenomenon that receives too much credit and too much blame and as in other aspect of this life, we work with what we have at the time and do the best we can.

Published in: on May 31, 2012 at 7:04 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Stupid Is, As Stupid – As Ever


There is no record of who actually said these words: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” In short, this assertion is that stupidity can sometimes be the best explanation for actions that might otherwise be deemed as being motivated by malice. That quotation implies that malice is more pernicious and sinister than stupidity. I assert stupidity, however, can be equally as dangerous as malice.

Stupidity, to any degree, can be dangerous to all involved or impacted, and that potential for danger should not be underestimated. This is especially true when those in positions of authority – real or perceived, spout stupidity. As an aside, smart people can say stupid things, so to that end, I will ask you to judge whether the following person is painfully stupid or whether he is a smart person saying stupid things. I present him in the context that what he said was not said with malice or baleful intent but with dangerous sincerity.

In May of this year [2012] Annie-Rose Strasser posted from ThinkProgress LGBT a video of a North Carolina pastor, Charles Worley, who stated the following:

“I figured a way out — a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. But I couldn’t get it passed through Congress. Build a great big large fence, 150 or 100 miles long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. Have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. Feed ‘em, and – And you know what? In a few years they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.”

My reaction to this man’s solution is two-fold.

First of all, I believe this pastor has overlooked a vital aspect of homosexuality. If it were possible to round them all up and confine them, only those that are confined would “die off.” But that would not rid the US of all “lesbians and queers” because [and this might come as a shock to the pastor] the heterosexuals outside the fenced-in area would continue to reproduce, and approximately 10% of the children born would be homosexual. Thus, for as long as men and women continue to have children, homosexuals will continue to also be born; they will not “die out.” His solution would not “get rid of all the lesbians and queers.”

Even if you believe homosexuality is a deliberate choice rather than being of genetic origins, heterosexual parents will continue to produce them. Therefore, the only solution to rid the US of homosexuals is for heterosexuals to stop having children.

It would appear that the pastor’s solution is, at worst, completely stupid and, at best, simply stupid. I wonder, how many in his congregation actually gave this solution any critical thought? Pity that congregation if he is the smartest one in the bunch.

The second aspect that gives me cause for pause is that the vitriol directed at homosexuality seems to be disproportionate vis a vis other “sins” specified in the Bible.

Christians believe they are not subject to the Old Testament Mosaic Law but to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles/disciples. According to I Corinthians chapter 6 verses 9 and 10 [New International Version], “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

One thing is glaringly obvious from this passage: No one sin is worse than the other. Therefore, if that is the case, then I think the pastor should recommend that an electrified fenced-in section should be constructed to contain the swindlers and greedy people as well as adulterers and the other kinds of persons cited in I Corinthians.

Religious groups have stood outside funerals of US military personnel while holding up signs stating that those deaths were God’s way of saying that homosexuals should not be allowed in the military. But, to date, no such groups have stood outside anybody’s funeral while holding up signs condemning slandering and swindling or idolatry. Furthermore, where are the gangs of hoodlums who wait for the sexually immoral [e.g., those who have pre-marital sex] or thieves or greedy persons to leave the bar and then attack and beat them up? Why do they do that to homosexuals but not to the others listed in I Corinthians? There is no indication that any one of those types of behaviors condemned in I Corinthians is worse than the other. In short, being greedy is as “sinful” as being a homosexual – neither one will get into the kingdom of God.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not care what homosexuals do any more than I care what heterosexuals do. Furthermore, I do not accept the Bible or any religious book, as the word of “God,” but I quote it to make my point about the utter hypocrisy [i.e., stupidity] of believers who twist themselves out of shape about homosexuality while they react as if the other “sins” are less “abominable.”

What I do care about is honoring the humanity of others – homosexuals, heterosexuals, bi-sexuals, asexuals or whatever. Thieves, greedy persons and swindlers, in my opinion, produce far more harm to society than do adulterers or homosexuals – but to the “God” of the Bible, they are all unworthy of entrance into his kingdom. The pastor would have more credibility if had suggested that all those guilty of the “sins” listed in I Corinthians should be confined behind an electrified fence. But if he had suggested that, I wonder how many in his congregation would be left – not just in his congregation but any.

So, is the pastor a smart person saying stupid things or is the pastor simply stupid? An ancillary question would be, how many times must a smart person say stupid things before he is no longer smart but stupid?

In any event, stupidity of that sort is frightening in its essence and can be dangerous in its consequences. Stupid is as stupid as it ever was.

Published in: on May 29, 2012 at 4:06 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

Wolves in Thug’s Clothing


On 18 May of 2012, television pundit, Bill O’Reilly, interviewed Geraldo Rivera about the Trayvon Marin/George Zimmerman case. During the interview, Geraldo stated that Martin was “dressed in that thug wear,” meaning a “hoodie.” He further stated that being dressed in that “thug wear” was just cause for Zimmerman to suspect that Martin was up to no good. Weeks earlier, Geraldo verbally chastised parents for letting their children wear “hoodies” [even though his own son wears them].

If what Geraldo posits is valid then I assert the following: Given that the greediest and vilest of thugs can be found on Wall Street [they precipitated the greatest recession since the Depression and have literally stolen billions of dollars from the middle class], then suits and ties can also rightfully be considered “thug wear.” The Wall Street thugs and other thugs in corporate America [as has been documented by various sources] have fleeced Americans of more money than all the street thugs in the US combined. These thugs have also been the recipients of more government welfare than the 46 million or so Americans who receive monthly welfare payments from the government. These facts are indisputable.

These thugs wear suits and ties, cuff links and cotton dress shirts as well as animal-skin shoes. So, if “hoodies” are “thug wear” then so are the clothes worn by corporate executives who are guilty of fraud. To that end, would Geraldo advise others not to wear the corporate “thug wear?” In fact, why doesn’t the IRS or law enforcement agents profile corporate executives, just like Zimmerman and Sheriff Arpaio of Arizona [the so-called “Toughest Sheriff in America” who is known to profile and arrest suspected illegal aliens], on the suspicion of graft and fraud? After all, if it walks like a thug and is dressed like a thug, then … thug.

As alluring as that fantasy sounds, rich criminals have always been treated with deference and even respect. We fear the street criminal and with good reason, but as a matter of course, those who dress in white collar “thug wear” have been granted tacit permission to deplete retirement accounts of the working class while ravaging the US economy. Could this deference be because their “thug wear” is more expensive than the “thug wear” Trayvon Martin was wearing?

Jesus is credited with using the phrase, “wolves in sheep clothing” meaning by all outward appearances certain beastly people would present themselves as sheep, thus making them more difficult to detect. Well, if I use Geraldo’s insightful observation as the basis for my logic, then thugs today are relatively easier to spot than they were in Jesus’ day – they’re the ones in the suit and tie.

Published in: on May 24, 2012 at 2:43 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

That’s What My Mama Said


From time to time, in conversations with me or with others near me, people have often uttered words of wisdom or other sayings their mothers have oft repeated to them when they were growing up. They often parrot their mothers with pride or at minimum, with a sense of profound respect. I, however, do not recall any such words from my mother.

I was with my mother for almost 13 years before her murder. During that time, we spent many, many hours together, but I do not recall any sagacious words or pithy sayings that would later serve to guide me through this life. That is not to say my mother never spoke any words of wisdom; it is to say, if she did, I do cannot recall.  But what I do remember are the things she did that are tattooed into the heart of my mind.

To be sure, words can be as important as deeds; though deeds tend to have a longer shelf life. Accordingly, I remember a mother who cooked and cleaned for seven children and an ogre who beat her mercilessly. I remember a mother with whom I would walk for what seemed like miles to Receiving Hospital in Detroit. Upon arrival, we would wait, literally for many hours, before a doctor would see me about my migraine headaches  [headaches that evaporated once I no longer lived with him]. I remember a mother who confided in me about her husband’s infidelity and other cruelties – as if I were the only one she could confide in. I remember a mother who, after she left her tormentor and us, would meet me on my way to school and walk with me each day. I remember a mother who would watch my siblings and me from a safe distance as we played in our backyard. I remember a mother who could have completely abandoned us after being brutalized for more than ten years by the “god” of our hell – but did not. Finally, I remember a mother who let her guard down because I was standing there – neither of us knowing what his plan was – for me to be the audience to her murder.

I do not remember any words of motherly wisdom; I only remember her motherly deeds. Admittedly, there are times when I hear others repeat their mother’s words, I wish I could hear in my mind some words of wisdom that my mother spoke, but I cannot. Nonetheless, I take comfort in remembering the things she did as my mother. I guess it can be said that her actions spoke words of love rather than words of wisdom — and love was what I needed most.

Published in: on April 29, 2012 at 4:54 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

A Clash of Convictions


Convictions usually flow from beliefs, and beliefs are often embraced without much scrutiny or examination. Very few beliefs are subjected to a rigorous series of stress tests as a way of verifying their logic or veracity. But whether a conviction is rooted in tradition [usually unexamined] or is the product of dispassionate and arduous inquiry, they will often find themselves in the same space at the same time with other convictions; a clash is inevitable.

When convictions clash there will be a cost — sometimes heavy, sometimes benign or innocuous but there will be a cost nonetheless. This cost can claim not only the participants as its victims but any third-party observers who because of circumstances stand too close. I submit that my grandchildren are third-party victims in a clash of convictions.

When I was a teenager, I was baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Before the age of 19, I married another Jehovah’s Witness and we had four children whom we raised as such. After 20 years of preaching from door to door, conducting Bible Studies, attending meetings at the Kingdom Hall and so forth, I submitted a letter to Jehovah’s Witnesses in which I denounced them. I had finally stopped ignoring my gnawing reservations and put my beliefs to the test; they failed. [That was in December of 1985.] Rejecting those beliefs, however, rendered me an “apostate,” an absolute heretic. Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, that was the worst sin of all and required that all Jehovah’s Witnesses ostracize me. And even though, I never tried to dissuade or convince anyone, I was declared an untouchable.  They were not to even acknowledge my presence. My children, as practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses, were to do likewise.

But for years, they did not; they would talk to me and even let me visit with my grandchildren. As the years piled up, however, they became less accepting of me due to the hardening of the policies regarding persons of my ilk that were handed down by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Then, I made matters worse; I drove the nail into the coffin. I wrote a book of essays. Twenty-three of the 116 essays were an indictment against religion [not just Jehovah’s Witnesses but all religions]. Immediately thereafter, my children [all but my youngest son who had stopped being a Jehovah’s Witness] severed all ties with me and by default, I cannot see my grandchildren either. This despite the fact that I have never — not once — spoken to my children about why I rejected their religion and what I now believe. Nonetheless, I was deemed a pariah and subsequently scorned by judicial decree.

So, there is the clash of convictions, and my grandchildren are “collateral damage.” I miss them, and they will likely grow up not knowing me. That fact is a source of great pain for me. My children and I are at an impasse. If I “repented” and asked for forgiveness and sought to return to the “flock,” I could see my children and grandchildren. Or, if my children ignored the decrees issued by their religious leaders and embraced me anyway, I could see my grandchildren.

Persons who maintain and live by their convictions are often held in elevated esteem. They are often lauded for being true to them, and to violate those convictions would be seen as hypocritical or craven even if the price for doing so were extreme. The strength of one’s conviction is in direct proportion to the cost one is willing to pay for adherence. To put it honestly, being true to my conviction means more to me than being accepted by my children and my children being true to their conviction means more to them than talking to me.

How ironic. I raised my children to be what they are and now what they are comes to a clash of convictions. Nevertheless, what is even more painful than being rejected is being rejected with ease. I truly understand my children’s adherence to their convictions [they probably do not understand mine]; that is painful enough. I can only hope that ostracizing me because I am an “apostate” is not easy for them. I can only hope that this clash of convictions is hurting them as much as it is hurting me. I can only hope that they too see the price for upholding these convictions is exorbitant. If they do not, then my pain is twice felt and my conviction twice costly.


Published in: on April 12, 2012 at 3:33 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

“Standing Our Ground”


The recent killing of Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman has been cited as defensible based on the Florida law, colloquially known as the “Stand Your Ground” law. The law expressly overturned previous laws that required a person to make an attempt to escape before using lethal force. This law has been presented as the basis for not arresting or charging Mr. Zimmerman with manslaughter or murder. Based on what I have read and heard about this case [television, print and internet news], this homicide has the shape, odor and color of a racially motivated killing that had been marginalized by virtue of “stand your ground.”

As black people we need to stand our ground also. That is, we must stand our ground against two forces, both of which are formidable and equally as baleful. Those two forces are racism, which has and will probably continue to be part of the DNA of the United States of White America, and the self-destructive values and beliefs we as black people have long embraced since the inception of slavery in this country. These two forces have essentially competed, in concert with each other, against our interests.

It is alleged that George Zimmerman’s used of the term, “fucking coon” while following Trayvon Martin [after being discouraged from following him]. If so, then this was merely an example of the pervasive and deep-seated scorn other races have toward us black people. The police investigation, cursory at best, was also an indication of how the life of a black person is valued [i.e., devalued]. And wearing a “hoodie” while carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of Ice Tea only made Trayvon Martin even more sinister.  But the primary point is as far as Zimmerman and the local police were concerned, Trayvon Martin should not have been black. To a racist, being black is the crime and being white allows them to be judge, jury and most of all, the executioner.

As further proof of how much we black people are viewed with disdain and disrespect please note the following: In the book, “The Hunger Games” written by Suzanne Collins, the character “Rue” is described as having “dark brown skin and eyes.” Nonetheless, after seeing the movie, several people tweeted or wrote on Facebook –

  • “why does rue have to be black gonna lie kinda ruined the movie.””Kk call me racist but when I found out rue was black her death wasn’t as sad. #ihatemyself.””Awkward moment when Rue is some black girl and not the little blonde innocent girl you picture.””Everything from the innocuous ‘She’s not how I pictured her’ to ‘I was all sad and like ‘she’s black!'”By Vera H-C Chan | Movie Talk – Tue, Mar 27, 2012 2:27 PM EDT [Race Controversy Over The Hunger Games]Racism is more American than “mom, apple pie and baseball.” This racism is both overt and insidious and as such, we as black people must “stand our ground” against it by calling it out and loudly urging our leaders to enforce the laws that are supposed to provide “life, liberty and freedom for all.” This is not pollyannish advice; it is reality. Racism is often an ugly face behind a pretty mask. 

    The other aspect that requires that we “stand our ground” is for us to aggressively oppose many of the notions that sometimes reinforce the racism that pushes us to the bottom of the totem pole. We need to esteem education, and reject the idea that embracing respect for self and others are luxuries we cannot afford. Yes, indeed, we must work harder than, be better than, be smarter than, in so many ways in order to receive a modicum of respect. Such a reality is patently unfair but racism by its very nature imposes that burden on the oppressed and until it is eradicated or at least until it becomes marginal, that is life in these United States of White America. In other words, we must not give racists a stick to beat us with; they will find one without our help.  True, racists will loathe us no matter what, but at least we do not have to be complicit in that regard. 

    This does not mean I am exonerating racists for their actions or minimizing their culpability. This does not mean that Trayvon Martin bore any responsibility for his death. I am simply invoking the spirit of Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman saw racism/slavery for what it was and resisted it – called it out. She also believed in black people helping themselves while fighting against racism. It is this second idea that was integral to who she was. Helping her people to help themselves. She was so emphatic about black people helping themselves that she threaten to shoot any of those in her charge who became faint of heart.

    Thus, with regard to racism, we too must stand our ground against the forces that oppose our advancement [even our existence] as a race. But unlike George Zimmerman and those of his ilk, we must stand our ground, not with violence, but by shining the light on racism – by not letting it go unchallenged and finally,  by changing the perception we have of ourselves as a race. 

Published in: on March 29, 2012 at 3:20 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

The Nature of Power [an excerpt from the book, “Why They Think I’m Crazy”]


Abraham Lincoln once stated, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” The philosopher, Jean Satre believed that more than self-preservation, humans want to project or exercise power [as in, “the Will to Power] and when that power is frustrated, then the words of R.G.H. Siu are most revealing: “Cruelty is only a tantrum of frustrated power.”

Power can intoxicate, blind, seduce and mislead; it is the stuff of horrors and tragedies. Of all the good power can do, it can do even more harm and is most dangerous in the hands of those who are tubby of spirit and mind — those whose perceptions of themselves exceed the reality of themselves.

Note the clerk behind the counter. Even though he may be a low-wage earner, he has the power to obstruct or facilitate the needs of those who seek his services. He can serve or he can rule. He can delay, lose, destroy or expedite. He can do so without technically violating company policy or if he does, he can do so with near impunity. And his boss, the CEO can do the same — and more.

Power is best exercised by those who would sip it from the glass and who drink it as part of the meal. Power is exercised at worst by those would gulp it from the goblet as the entire meal itself. For some, power strokes the ego. For others it masturbates the ego but for a few who are truly worthy, it subdues the ego. In short, the fool who exercises power grabs the sword by the blade. The not-so-foolish who exercises power grabs the sword by the handle, but the truly wise who exercise power first grabs the sheath for she knows power, like the sword, need not always be drawn.

Published in: on March 18, 2012 at 8:13 PM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

The Infection Called, “Stupiditis” [an excerpt from the book, “Why They Think I’m Crazy”]


Albert Einstein is credited with asserting, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former” and Elbert Hubbard, an American writer and philosopher observed, at an earlier time, “Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.”

I am bemused at why human beings have not managed to render themselves extinct, especially given that stupidity is one of the most infectious conditions known to humanity. The antidote is usually in short supply and profoundly difficult to procure.

These are my observations about this infection:

1] Stupidity accounts for as much tragedy as does malice.
2] Passion can make a stupid idea seem intelligent.
3] Passion can mute intellect more effectively than intellect can guide passion.
4] Opinions are often the most effective antidote for intelligence.
5] Parents [or their surrogates] are a common contagion of stupidity.
6] The difference between a stupid man and a stupid woman is the difference between death by cyanide or death by arsenic.
7] Stupidity is more contagious than intelligence.
8] For many humans, the official cause of death and the actual cause of death differ because stupidity is not considered an official medical term.
9] Stupidity alone can be dangerous; stupidity mixed with power is insanely lethal. It is one of life’s most virulent combinations.

Published in: on March 17, 2012 at 4:08 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

About This Blogger


First, to matters of tertiary importance. I was awarded a full three-year academic scholarship to Cranbrook High School in Bloomfield Hills, MI. Sometime afterward, I earned an academic scholarship to Wayne State University where I procured a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration [Finance and Business Economics] with “High Distinction.” Later I earned an MBA from Wayne State University.

Now to matters of primary importance. I am indeed my mother’s son. My name is Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney and I am Mary Alice’s first of seven children born into the African-American experience. I was as much my mother’s confidante as I was her oldest child. For 12 years we suffered her husband’s raw brutality — she far more than I — where finally, he made sure I would be an audience to her murder.

Through a series of life-altering events I underwent a critical metamorphosis facilitated by incessant contemplation and introspection. By the time I reached my mid-forties, all the major components of who I am today had been put in place. I emerged as a synergistic human. Nonetheless, my growth as a person trapped inside the mind of a human visiting Prison Earth continues. That being stated, there are two prime directives which I firmly and fervently adhere — the first of which is as follows:

There is no idea or belief I so dearly cherish so as to shield it from rigorous scrutiny or thoughtful challenge. There is no idea or belief i esteem so highly that I will not alter it or abandon it — sacrifice it in favor of standing even closer to the truth.

Part of my self-imposed mission as a human is to honor what is true even if it means rejecting an idea or notion I once cherished. My second directive is to honor the self I am above all others so I am best able to honor others. Stating this second directive another way:

… naturally then, I am my own hero for who could be a better champion for me than I?

Nevertheless, having observed and experienced the conditions of the human drama, I suffer from a type of quiet and simmering state of relentless pain. The unkindnesses and the cruelties humans inflict on each other choke my heart. I want to know the “whys,” especially why humans are allowed to continue to perpetuate their interminable inhumanities. The holy books, prophets, teachers and other religious leaders and philosophers provide answers that are at best specious and vacuous and at worst, utterly parlous.

As a consequence of these realities [and others] I stumbled into becoming a deist. But my heart weeps because I sense my time trapped inside the mind of this person visiting Prison Earth is all too close to its end. So I can only wish that my sons and my “baby girl” along with my grandchildren and all the few others I love can escape the agony that arises from not knowing the “whys,” either because they believe they already know or they do not deem it important that they do not know.

My blog is dedicated to presenting the realities of the human drama in all its glory and non-glory.

Published in: on March 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Newer Entries »