The Thing Is

About a month ago I made a request to one of my kids. The response was, “Is that a thing, or is it just your idea?” The implication was that if it was a thing, i.e. something that is done by a sector of society, then of course he would comply without reservation. However, if it was just my idea, then that deserves querying or negating or disregarding. Somehow, we have distinguished between a thing (which may be an idea or a material object) that is current and widely accepted and utilized, and an individual experience, which may not be considered valid. We have seen this throughout the ages as we broaden our categories for things.

 The outsider becomes insider when having a thing. Over the last couple of generations we have more frequently employed  a thing called disorders. So, if a person seems to learn in a way that does not conform to traditional (or current) constructs, we look for patterns that we categorize as a disorder. This has been useful in broadening our understanding of differences and meeting differing needs, but the unintended consequence is in pathologizing differences. It’s as though it must be a thing  in order to validate an experience. 

 The same is true for physical issues. It seems as though every physical experience must be categorized as a thing –especially one that needs intervention. Normal aging is pathologized. Somehow, calling unpleasant experiences and conditions diseases, normalizes them and us, or exempts us from certain expectations. 

If there is not a new category established, then often personal experiences are considered subjective and psychological problems–not a thing,unless it is a categorized psychological disorder or mental illness. When it’s not a thing, a person is disregarded or not taken seriously. Better to have a named disorder or disease in order to be taken seriously. 

On the other hand, although it has taken so very long, we have made tremendous shifts in thinking about civil rights for once peripheral groups who were discriminated against. Civil rights is a thing. It is about inclusion and accessibility and acceptability. In fact, diversity allows us to stop pathologizing.  It broadens our concepts. It’s not merely a thing in terms of something that is current, but a broader, more inclusive society that allows for ranges of abilities and possibilities and accessibility.  Whatever the next big thing is, it will require shifts.

 Whether we are compelled to shift our habits from technological things or from physical or emotional things, we can also consider how we respond to things. When do we validate? When do we ignore? When do we challenge? When do we restructure? When do we let go? It’s a thing when it’s current. The thing is, it’s most important to remember the things that make a difference–not whether or not it’s a thing.

 

 

Blurred Vision

In a world where we use our pocket sized phones to take instant pictures, it’s easy to assume there is no need to learn about apertures or even focusing. Just notice something that grabs your attention and click. Attention grabbing seems to be the force that propels us, keeping us flitting from one distraction to another. It used to be that grabbing one’s attention meant that someone’s  curiosity and interest could be stirred and then engaged and focused. Grabbing one’s attention was a prelude to a deeper encounter. More and more, it seems like grabbing attention is an end in itself. No need to focus much any more. Something else will grab our attention in an instant.

Of course, attention grabbers have always been around, but our capacity to focus and sustain attention seems to be diminishing, as more and more of us seem to be constantly distracted. Like a person who struggles with sustaining attention in several domains– most notably in academic and other executive type pursuits as well as social ones, but may be “hyper-focused” in highly specialized activities–our culture seems to be struggling, even disabled, by our current disorder. This attention grabbing and emphasis on distraction is being played out most cynically in Congress. The focus on governing has been lost to attention grabbing. We need to refocus.

I have often suggested in my comments on culture, education, and policies, that we can think differently and be more creative in all those domains. As a culture, we are losing focus on what matters because we have blurred vision. Many on the right and the left have 20/20 hindsight. They refer to earlier times when their visions produced focused agenda that had clear (positive) results (while the other side clearly had negative results). Now, in a divided country, it’s as though there is either a right eye or a left eye, and to use both might cause us to become cross eyed and more visually impaired, rather than binocular. Binocular vision gives us depth perception–the ability to see in three dimensions. Just as we need to adjust our eyes to different light conditions, we need to adjust our eyes to the conditions that darken our lives today and that cause us to lose focus . Crafting lenses that allow us to see more clearly close up as well as in the distance must be usable for both eyes. (Some of us like progressive lenses, but at least bi-focals are in order!) Some would say that the right and the left each have clear vision, but the eyes don’t function together and thus leave us impaired.

Blurred vision is cloudy. It is unfocused and can lead to confusion and potential danger. Corrective vision allows us to refocus and yes, to see better. We have been myopic, and allowed our attention to be grabbed continuously as we have lost focus on policies that enhance our lives and improve our culture (and education). We need to correct our vision in both eyes,not merely try to weaken the other. We need greater perspective and depth to enhance our vision and sharpen it. Attention grabbing won’t go away, but we can strengthen our ability to focus on what is central and necessary, rather than on what is peripheral. Perhaps, in order to correct our blurred vision and see more clearly, we will have to get a new prescription. It’s important to have regular examinations. I think some of the prescriptions we’ve tried are past their expiration dates.

Jeopardy

Long before Steve Jobs was the voiceover for those “Think Different” ads for Apple computers, Jeopardy! took the concept of game shows in a different direction by requiring contestants to think of the question for the answer that was provided. The answers are clues to the questions that need to be asked. The money is awarded for the questions, not the answers. Maybe there’s a lesson here.

On day 2 of the 2013 Government Shutdown, (or as some would prefer to spin it, Government Slim Down), many of us do feel a sense of being in jeopardy. Even those of us who may not feel an immediate threat by this government shutdown, are dismayed by the ridiculousness and incompetence that has lead to yet another crisis, this one self-inflicted. Many of us hesitate to refer to “our” representatives, as we do not feel represented in Congress.  I know a single mother of two who is furloughed now. NO income for her or her kids, while Congresspeople still get paid. I guess that’s why some spin this latest drama as a slim down, not a shut down, as only some “non-essential” services are shut down. Well, the workers are essential. Just ask them if their work matters to providing for themselves and their families. I can’t say that this is a matter of right and left. It is a matter of right and wrong. Congress’ job is writing and passing laws. If one’s ideology is based on opposing government, then don’t work for the government (which is of the people, by the people and for the people). The ideological purity and reckless behavior is small-minded and adolescent. It may provide a rush of energy, which may feel invigorating and create a sense of possibility to them, but it’s shortsighted, immature, ignorant, and at this point, idiotic. It puts individuals, families, communities, and our nation and culture in jeopardy.

This 2013 Government Shutdown is the most recent in a seemingly continuous crumbling of what was once a thriving culture built upon a strong infrastructure. We have been splintering politically for some time, and the vitriol has been corrosive. Many have bemoaned the disintegration of our political system and likened that to the disintegration of our roads, bridges, levees, and education system. We (they) keep kicking the can down the road. Well, the road has potholes, and needs to be fixed and maintained. Existing from crisis to crisis keeps us from tending to basic needs and puts our nation’s future in jeopardy.

…Which brings me back to thinking different(ly) and to Jeopardy!……..Thinking one has the answer(s), may occasionally (and temporarily) provide solutions. But, smugness and absolutism are at best short-term satisfactions, and ultimately close the door to possibility and progress . Questions, on the other hand, are openings. They invite creativity and innovation, and using facts and applied knowledge rather than ideologies, invite possibilities for growth and betterment. We need to create a culture of inquiry rather than one of purity and jeopardy. We need to seek questions.

Now, of course we need short term solutions as well as long term ones, but our attachment to righteousness keeps us from continuous inquiry. I don’t mean continuous inquiry in the sense of seeing problems that aren’t there, or by creating media opportunities with senate inquiries. These are fixed ideologies masquerading as inquiries. Inquiring, as a habit of mind, means showing an interest in learning new things–not merely reinforcing beliefs. As a culture, we have shifted away from inquiry over the last generation. We have seen this play out in the political realm and the social fallout has been undeniable. Our culture has reflected the political fractures and anti-intellectual stances. Science became a matter of belief or faith,as opposed to factual knowledge and truth. Not understanding evolution gave way to not believing in evolution. What does this say about our education system? Politics, education, culture….they are all connected and in jeopardy. But, cultural shifts can make a difference, and a shift toward a culture of inquiry could open possibilities toward a healthier political system and education system.

While accountability and standardization are understandable goals in education (and elsewhere), we must acknowledge when focusing on the answers has had unintended consequences. The cost of our education system and culture of education, has been corrosive to our kids, and to our culture at large. Going forward, maybe we need to think in questions more than in answers. Creating a culture of inquiry–of learning new things, can start in our schools from the earliest years all the way through. There is a terrific piece on this very issue by  educator Thom Markham. http://www.teachthought.com/learning/a-culture-of-inquiry-through-a-forward-leaning-curriculum/

Our current state of dysfunctional government, politics, journalism, media, education, culture…….may put us in jeopardy for a better tomorrow, but I’ll bet everything on creating a culture of inquiry. We have the tools for researching and delving that make learning so different from any other time in history. We have unprecedented access to information, so the time is perfect for a cultural shift toward one of inquiry. This would be thinking different. We’re in jeopardy when we are stuck with answers without figuring out  the questions.  Winning would require questions, not shutting down and staying stuck.

The Strike Zone

Friday, August 30, 2013:  Two months shy of The World Series, and two days shy of Labor Day, I woke up feeling as though we are in the strike zone.

 

This week, fast food workers across the country staged a strike demanding a $15.00/hour wage and the right to form a union. Numerous cities have been affected by this strike, and the media–national news coverage and social media, have been effective in covering the story as well as fueling the movement.  What is a living wage? This strike is striking our national conscience.

 

Another event this week also struck our national conscience when we commemorated the 50th anniversary of The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. There was much that was striking about marking that historical moment (with another historical moment). I was utterly dumbstruck that what I had assumed was an apolitical, unifying moment had only Democrats speaking. Were Republicans on strike? The absence of Republican speakers was absolutely striking.

 

Then there was (is) the matter of Syria. Chemical weapons. Horrifying images. Where do we stand? Should we strike? If so, how should we strike? Then what? Is the U.S. merely striking a pose, or striking while the iron’s hot? President Obama usually tries to strike a balance. This time, though, the thought of more military engagement in the Middle East seems to have struck a chord on the left and the right. There is tremendous fear that we will strike out, and that we will suffer unintended consequences from our strike.

 

“Power is not revealed by striking hard or often, but by striking true.”

Honore de Balzac

 

How does that strike you?

 

 

Making Change

What do cashiers have to do with The March on Washington? It’s probably not what you think.

As a child, I was regularly asked to walk to the neighborhood market a few blocks away to get some groceries for my mother. The grocers knew my family, along with many others in the neighborhood. Still, my mother taught me to always check the receipt (and give it to her), and she taught me how to make change. If the items totaled $17.45 and I gave the grocer (or cashier) $20.00, I had to know how much change I should get back.

As a young child, mental math (as we used to call it) was not my forte. In early elementary school we were taught math facts. We were drilled with flash cards. It was basic memorization of addition and subtraction, and then, multiplication tables, soon to be followed by short division flash cards. As one who never had a flair for remembering numbers or dates, or memorization at all, this mental math approach was arduous and mostly problematic for me. Yes, I did force myself to learn elemental math facts, but I was utterly turned off and avoided whatever I could. At least I did learn the basics. I learned that I had to subtract: $20.00-$17.45= $2.55.

But subtracting in my head (especially when I was quite young) was likely to lead to careless errors. So, my mother taught me how to make change. Essentially, she was teaching me that I could add instead of subtract. I remember struggling with the concept because I didn’t get that I was merely doing addition instead of subtraction. It just seemed like a magic trick that it all added up. Then, when I got the concept of counting back change from the total to the amount I gave, it was no longer like a magic trick–just magic in the way that something perfect seems magical.

Flash forward several years, and cash registers become calculators. Cashiers no longer  need to do anything but make sure that if the cash register says $2.55 change,  they can count the correct bills and coins. They do not have to figure out the change. For a generation now, cashiers have not had to do any math beyond counting what they are told to provide. On the occasions when I do make cash purchases, I am always dumbfounded that cashiers don’t (and often can’t) make change. They can’t figure the difference. There’s no human agency in making change; no critical thinking. I suppose it doesn’t matter all that much if cash registers are more efficient calculators than the people who use them, but I wonder about this ability (or lack thereof) to make change.

For me, the process of making change resonated more than merely knowing the numbers. That has always been true for me. It struck me this week as we have been commemorating the 50th anniversary of The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom,  that while August 28, 1963 marks the historic date, the processes of change inform how we make change. Noting the differences from where we started to where we are now is not sufficient if we are to be the ones who make change. We must understand the processes of change–of additions, subtractions, multiplications and divisions, and miscalculations.

The March on Washington 50 years ago was historic for many reasons. Of course, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream ” speech was pivotal, and remarkable, and truly one of the greatest pieces of oration in our history; but the peaceful participation by so many was equally historic and inspiring. Everyone who rallied at the mall in Washington was participating in making change, and inspired so many others to become agents of change. It is easy to just take the change that others make. It is easy to allow changes to be dictated by technology. It is more important, though, to be able to make change.

Assisted Living Facility

Living independently is a particularly American ideal. Individualism emphasizes the value of self-reliance and independence. The concept of independence as individualism has progressed toward libertarianism with increasing zeal in more recent years. As a culture, we have developed the attitude that dependence, or needing assistance, is negative. Not only have we as a culture historically looked down upon those needing assistance, but we have also looked down upon care givers. Those who care for others are often regarded as unskilled, perhaps  less intelligent and/or  less educated, or without leadership abilities. They are often considered beneath the “real” workers and leaders. Historically, women have been the care givers, and when women did work outside the home (perhaps before marriage, until feminism kicked in), the jobs were usually seen as extensions of care giving–teaching, secretarial work, nursing. These were so-called “pink collar” jobs, as were other jobs that recruited women, including stewardesses, hostesses, and waitresses. When women began to have greater access to any careers, and some brave men ventured into what was known as “pink collar” jobs, some job titles changed to reflect more gender neutrality.  Stewardesses became flight attendants. Waiters and waitresses are now referred to as servers. Secretaries, usually responsible for correspondence, morphed into administrative assistants. Although secretaries were mostly female pre-feminism, the title “administrative assistant” signified a broadening of the administrative tasks and responsibilities (including project management and other administrative tasks beyond correspondence), but also signified a break from the pre-feminist association with (female) secretaries.

Now, as we forge ahead attempting to balance demands of the workplace with the demands of a home life, and we continue to expand our notions of gender and identities, we continue to wrestle with our cultural notions of independence. We still tend to equate maturity with independence– not with care giving. We still tend to equate ability with independence– not with sharing. A facility for assisted living refers to a place for those whose abilities may be diminished, and support services are available as needed without 24 hour care. We think of assisted living facilities as places designed to provide freedom and dignity for those in need of support for activities of daily living. What about our own internal facilities for assisted living–our own capacities to support one another?

We tend to not only devalue care givers and others in supportive roles, but we have even ascribed blame to them in relation to those who have suffered from addictions and behavior problems. The care givers are blamed as the co-dependents and/or the enablers. That is not to say that negative symbiotic relationships don’t exist. Of course they do,and often when dealing with destructive behaviors and relationships, we must be aware of the potential for co-dependency and enabling. But assisting living, is productive. Some people have a greater capacity for assisting and supporting than others, but like any capacity, we can learn and practice and develop. We can even elevate ourselves and others. Nurture may be part of nature, but it is also honed. We can develop our capacities to assist others, but we must also develop our awareness of the specialness of that capacity.

Living requires assistance and assistants. We delude ourselves into thinking that we are most dignified when we are independent. We are most dignified, when we give of ourselves to others and use our efforts to support others to be their best. We can develop our assisted living facility. This moves us and our culture forward.

Two Thousand and Thirteen

A couple of weeks ago, I caught the AFI Life Achievement Award 2013: A Tribute to Mel Brooks. It was a warm and funny salute to the master of mishugas, Mel Brooks. It’s fitting to throw in a few yiddishisms when mentioning Mel Brooks, as he knew how to tickle a funny bone with his gravelly voice and “old world” syntax, which in many ways, “normalized” or assimilated ethnic and linguistic differences. One of the beautiful aspects of our evolving American society is inclusion. While many lament the loss of the “good old days”, I am grateful that we have a richer and more vibrant  American culture as we include so many previously discrete, self-identifying ethnic symbols, foods, music, and words, and share in globalization and becoming more cosmopolitan. In this day and age, Maureen Dowd and Mel Brooks can both use the word mishugas (craziness). There’s plenty of craziness to go around!

Watching the film clips from those Mel Brooks movies, and listening to so many colleagues, young and old, with whom Mr. Brooks worked and inspired, it was impossible not to notice the societal changes (and thus, comedic changes) over many years.  Even in today’s world, Mel Brooks’ brand of humor still tickled. I’m not sure if I was reveling in the comedy or the nostalgia. Perhaps both.

This morning, for no apparent reason, (although maybe my Mel Brooks nostalgia was lingering unconsciously), I recalled a favorite album I had as a kid, 2000 and Thirteen. It was a sequel to the hilarious 2000 Year Old Man–a sketch (and album) with Carl Reiner as an interviewer, asking the 2000 year old man (Mel Brooks) what life was like back in the day. Way back in the day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRWF86lPvA0&list=PLf9dnbdesgTvxR4-t-N_ChGUso58B0o3K

(Although the link says The 2000 Year Old Man, it is in fact from the album 2000 and Thirteen.)

How different we are in 2013. We have expanded our concepts of gender and marriage, (along with other cultural concepts) and although the movement toward inclusion is still met with fears of loss and misunderstanding, which often manifest in cruelty, we are nonetheless forging ahead in a world that would not have been recognizable when 2000 and Thirteen was released (1973). We still struggle with education and employment; with balancing work and home; with affordable health care; with violence, and other political, economic, and societal challenges, but many of these issues are human issues–not race or ethnic, male or female, gay or straight. Many of the cultural constructs of gender (and sexuality) that were the stuff of comedy in the middle of the last century, have evolved. We have a much more ethnically diverse society now in 2013, and we have a more global approach to living. It is a beginning, even in 2013. We continue to bump into old patterns and close mindedness mixed with fear and hate.  And, we must figure out how to manage when there are those who seek destruction. We’ve come a long way, but we’re still learning and evolving in 2013.

But then there’s Mel Brooks. His mocking of Hitler and Frankenstein and all movie genres as they included monsters or evil doers, was his revenge. Comedy was his weapon. That is not to say that he (or we) should not take threats or acts of evil seriously. We must. But being able to mock evil (monsters and destructive ideas) weakens the hold that evil has on us. From Jonathan Swift to Stephen Colbert, satire is more than humorous defense. It awakens us and reminds us of our values and of structures of power. We may laugh, but we may then get to work on humanity.

During the AFI tribute to Mel Brooks, Cloris Leachman, who was not only funny and graceful, gave Brooks what I thought was the ultimate compliment. She called him a mensch. In Yiddish, a mensch ( literally, human being) means “a person of integrity and honor.” I would add that “honor” is not at the expense of anyone else. That’s really what it’s all about. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, economic situation, title, education, ability, etc……just be a mensch! Forty years have elapsed between 2000 and Thirteen and 2013. We’ve made plenty of progress in many domains, but there is tremendous room for creating a society of mensches, regardless of one’s origins.

Summer Camp

July 2013 is winding down, but summer camp is still in session. Detroit officially declared bankruptcy, the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history thus far, and there has been significantly more media attention on Britain’s royal baby, Boy George, and on Carlos Danger, aka Anthony Weiner. The hype over the royal baby has been almost comical, as it has no bearing on anything in the near future. As for tragi-comedy….the over exposure  of Anthony Weiner (yes, that’s right) is beyond absurd. Have we had enough of this camp?

There is so little discussion of issues of importance, whether they relate to the future of Detroit and other cities, or the other candidates in the New York City races (besides Spitzer and Weiner and their overly public so-called private lives). How many people know about the political experiences and stances of the other candidates? Municipal government has become increasingly more important as urban population growth continues to rise. While the decline of Detroit has been known for some time, the actual effects on public services and foreclosed buildings, among other issues plaguing the city, have recently been illuminated in light of the declaration of bankruptcy. These are important matters for all of us– for Detroit and for metropolitan areas across the country.

Unbridled ambition, tangled sexcapades, attempted redemption….this is the stuff of the arts, not politics. That doesn’t mean that we ignore ridiculous behavior of politicians or other potential leaders. We know the stories and the arguments. We’ve lived through this too many times in real life, much less in literature, theater, opera, symphonies, ballets, poetry, art…. The most unsavory part of these stories isn’t the sins that were committed or mistakes made, but the attention seeking that keeps the rest of us from getting beyond the drama (or cartoon) that has become what we refer to as news.

This summer camp has not been a refuge from school and parents. This sort of camp has been great for comedians, and I’ve enjoyed the late night fodder. If only it were just the stuff of the arts or entertainment. It’s been over the top, at the expense of seriously considering policies and actions that could actually improve lives. There are endeavors that we can take in our communities that elevate us, and that contribute to positive discourse and impact others in positive ways. Everyday actions that inspire and support deserve more attention than the distractions from important matters and those who seek the attention of gawkers. After summer camp, it’s back to school.

Stereo Types

The not-guilty verdict in the Zimmerman case may have punctuated this trial, but it opened up conversations about the legal system, Stand Your Ground Laws, and prejudice. President Obama’s remarks last week on why the not-guilty verdict had caused such pain for so many, were  an authentic and powerful acknowledgement of the everyday humiliations endured by black males– youths and adults.  He spoke about the experiences of black men (and teens) being followed while shopping in a department store; hearing the click of car doors locking as they stopped nearby; and watching as women clutch their purses tighter if they are close by or sharing an elevator. Many black parents have lamented that they have had to teach their children that being black in America includes the many indignities of being followed or singled out–just in case.  Mr. Obama was most powerful when he said, “When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son,” he continued,”Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, thirty-five years ago.”  Some people quickly distorted his words and cried race-baiting, as though mentioning (or even acknowledging) race (which was denied during the trial) is so taboo and so distorting, that all it does is provoke. (And who might it provoke????)

In so many ways our culture has evolved and become more inclusive, but scars and serious problems remain. The word “prejudice” doesn’t get thrown around as much as it did when I was young. After the seventies, as identity politics became more solidified, the word “prejudice” was an insufficient term for discrimination based upon race. We don’t hear the word “chauvinism” very much any more either. In the seventies, a chauvinist was usually a sexist male. The original meaning of chauvinism, however, is exaggerated patriotism. It later became used as a synonym for sexism. Today we see many chauvinists who embody the bellicosity of the original and later usages of chauvinism. They also tend to call others racists or race-baiters, as though any mention of race now is meant to reopen old wounds, while ignoring the mention of race (or any other means of discrimination) is somehow more evolved. We tend to treat racism, sexism, homophobia, and chauvinism as overt attitudes of bigotry. Even without chauvinism, we discriminate. “Discrimination” has become a term used to define unjust treatment of different categories of people. Discriminating also (and originally) means distinguishing characteristics among categories.  It is clear from so many events and stories, none less than the shooting of Trayvon Martin, that prejudice, in the most general sense, is ever-present. Because humans discriminate (not necessarily negatively), humans pre-judge (not necessarily negatively). Still, we constantly discriminate and pre-judge positively and negatively based on appearances.

From the moment that Trayvon Martin was shot, I was surprised that people equated the Hoodie with dangerous black males. To me, the Hoodie is part of the youth dress code. I suppose that regardless of race, any kid in a Hoodie (with the hood up) can arouse suspicions. Except if it’s raining. Then the hood has a utilitarian purpose, not a cultural reference. Suggesting that the way Trayvon Martin was dressed aroused suspicion is like blaming the girl or woman for wearing short shorts or a low cut top as though she “had it coming”.  The truth is, as parents and teachers, we must explain the categories that get distorted. For many, this is a sad commentary.  I agree that it is sad that as a culture we judge, and too often mis-judge, based on appearances. We must also acknowledge that in addition to prejudices, there have always been aggressors who use excuses for their behavior.  As parents and teachers, we must teach our children about the messages that clothes send, intended or unintended, that speech and physical presence shape perceptions in all ways. We must remind ourselves of our own categories and assumptions.  There will always be people who will have distorted perceptions, and we may be able to enlighten some, but many will just not get it. Because prejudice must always be examined, we must make our children aware that prejudice exists and that some may act on those prejudices.

I have read several articles in the past week that have noted that women have refused to say hello or respond when approached by a black man, as evidence of a still enforced stereotype of the “scary black man”. I have been thinking about the fact that women, often judged more on appearance than men are, often perceive threat by men regardless of race.   While the history of racism is undeniable, the lack of understanding of women’s experiences (regardless of race) from the dawn of time,  also needs to be reinforced. While not all men have threatened women, women have always been threatened by men. When women are called rude or prejudiced because they choose to be responsible for not sending any potentially confusing messages, men(regardless of race) need to understand women’s historical experience as well.

With a culture that glorifies violence, and gun laws that have not only not diminished violence, but include numerous tragedies beyond Trayvon Martin’s death, we must continue the conversations about our history and culture; about positive and negative discrimination, and about how we can reduce violence and bigotry. Neither hoodies nor short shorts are the problem. How we interpret is the problem. When we stereotype, we have an oversimplified (and distorted) image of a person. Hoodies and short shorts are stereo types.

Live and Let Die

When you were young and your heart was an open book 

You used to say live and let live 

(You know you did, you know you did you know you did) 

But if this ever changing world in which we live in 

Makes you give in and cry 

Say live and let die 

What was originally the theme song to the  James Bond movie “Live and Let Die” in 1973  has more recently become not only a subculture in American society, but law in several states.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html

Under the Stand Your Ground law, a person who feels threatened has no obligation to retreat.

(Live and let die) 

Live and let die 

(Live and let die) 

Until recent years, the duty to retreat helped  define what “reasonable” threat meant. Stand Your Ground was seen as an extension of The Castle Doctrine, which allowed people who are threatened in their own homes to stand their ground in their own homes and defend themselves without having to flee their homes. Thus, with Stand Your Ground laws, the concept applied to one’s home has been extended, as long as one is engaged in legal activity.

What does it matter to ya 

When you got a job to do 

You gotta do it well 

You gotta give the other fellow hell 

But standing one’s ground, which of course has it’s place in certain contexts, has become a distorted cultural attitude across the country, as much as an atrocious law leading to the tragic death of an unarmed teen, Trayvon Martin, in the Zimmerman case.  We have stopped considering unintended consequences of behavior, speech, politics and laws.

You used to say live and let live 

(You know you did, you know you did you know you did) 

But if this ever changing world in which we live in 

Makes you give in and cry.

When did we become a culture of “Live and Let Die” ?

Sir Paul McCartney:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2hKzZss5Y