I treated the symptoms and not the source. I meant to. I was gonna strip Pookie down to the skivvies and start over clean. Something always came up. All Pookie wanted was a little maintenance, a new graphics card or a bit more power in the supply. Ah, well.I read somewhere that love songs are a form of brainwashing. I think the person meant that there is a form of social indoctrination that happens with women learning about loving the one and guys learning how to be smooth and putting on the moves.
You hope that things turn out as good as they seem to in a love song. You hope the person sitting next to you in the car is feeling the same way. A lot of us got carried away with a love song that whispered us forward when we should have said "Whoa." Then again, there is that tune that pops up and it makes things a little easier to communicate; non-verbally that is.
I think some love songs are more than their lyrics. Now you can't really interpret "Baby Come To Me" but so many ways but I don't want to stand in the way of a good song.
This is Regina Bell making her case:
What if the love in the song isn't a person but a hope.
A wish.
A desire to be more creative? Maybe it it a cry to the beyond to be held auctorial in love. Secured that somebody, somewhere is holding your in an embrace.
A song come on and holds you until the fade out and you feel better. So to all the creatives out there who are doing National Novel Writing Month, Naitonal Blog Posting Month and (In)National Videblogging Posing Month be kind to yourself and each other. Crank up a tune and go with the flow.
No judgement, no worries It’s all good even when it is crap. It is the effort. That is it. The goodness comes later.
It happens. An story idea I thought was important and I did the work on is superceded by a Force Divine that is yelping at me at a high rate of speed, “You gotta do this, not that.”
And I say “I can’t, looky I really worked on this…” and the Force Divine says, “Save it for next week, kid. We got business here.” And I say “Yeah, but…” and I am lost before I pronounced the “t” in but. So this is free form and we’ll see where it takes us.
I was at lunch with a 20ish year old person and a 40ish person. We were talking about movies. The young lady said that she had never seen Casablanca or The Godfather. Never heard of them. The 40 year old asked, “Ok, you’ve seen the movie, “Taxi Driver, right?”
“Oh yeah, with Jimmy Fallon and Queen Latifah right?”
Uhm, No. Seriously no. Internally I’m going “This is not right, she is supposed to know. Casablanca is a movie she has got to know.”
That poor kid. We tried to force fed her our lists of the five mandatory movies she must see. We could only agree on three of them, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind and Citizen Kane. I think she also should see What Dreams May Come. That is a hard sell to people who see Robin Williams and think it is going to be a laugh riot. It is a deep, luscious movie.
Ok, the Force Divine says I’m getting off track.
After lunch and back at the Salt Mine I thought about it. "Why should she see Casablanca? What does that film offer an adult in 2008? And what is it that we were trying to communicate to her about seeing the movie?"
I think what we old fogies where trying to do, unconsciously, was to transmit the feelings and the various cultural lessons that a film can give a person. That film was jammed packed with romantic love, lust, honor, scum bags and second chances.
Culture is the shared values and beliefs of a group of people. Not just the day to day grunt living but what we aspire to and hope to become. Movies, music and dance are cultural transmission devices. The ancestors had the Griot tell stories and family histories around a fire. Cave painters want us to know how that horse looked thousands of years ago. Madame Butterfly is breaking your heart because she fell for the wrong man.
One of the definitions of culture, is all the knowledge and values shared by a society. Another is the acculturation or the behavior patterns that might help or inspire a person during rough times.
I’m going to continue to use Casablanca as an example but you might have one or two films that taught your something. So if Casablanca doesn’t do it for you then by all means pick your flick. Here is a look at the trailer of the movie.
What I Learned From Rick, Ilsa and Victor
It was not the intent of Warner Brothers Pictures to convey idealized American cultural values. The intent was to entertain and make money. Despite their best efforts the movie serves a higher purpose. Casablanca transmits (to me) the following values:
And please forgive me for being American centric. I know that many cultures and citizens from around the world have the same or similar values. It was an international cast and I can mangle La Marseillaise with the best of them.
Each One Teach One
So here is the sneaky culture secret that is not a secret. All of us are teachers. All of us transmit and exchange culture values. When two different cultures meet there is an exchange; sometimes for the good and sometimes it can be challenging. But all of use intentionally or not absorb a certain set of values from dominant cultural clues, pop culture and our own community cultures.
We take what we need and kick out those parts that don’t fit. Movies, radio and television are current mass media transmission devices. We now add bloggers and social media to the mix.
Back to the Future
Our young lunch companion was texting as she walk with us to the restaurant. She was also having a conversation with us, in fragments but she kept up. There also was contact with her immediate community and it wasn’t us. I do give her credit that she stopped texting as we ate and talked.
Being willing to learn new things is a positive cultural value. And the first step is to admit you haven’t known about X. New York Magazine has an article on “What Is Your Cultural Secret Shame” where others speak softly about not reading To Kill A Mocking Bird or seeing ET.
Another part of cultural transmission is admitting when you recognize that you have grown and changed and that you are the better for it. Mary Beth at Supafine has a lovely passage in her post:
Life is a ripple, or a wave, or a ribbon. Time bears you forward into different circumstances, doing different work that affects the larger society or culture as a whole. Arranging words on a newspaper page is one such service to your community. Teaching the children of that community about manners and love and respect and compassion is another.
Over at Crooked House Stephany Aulenback is asking for help on finding classic and beautifully illustrated fairy and folk tales for her son. So once again what we hold dear and important is now being collected to be given to the next generation.
Mindy Kltasky over at Read Till You Drop never develop a taste for comics/comic books and graphic novels. She asked her blogging community what she could do to learn and appreciate them. One of her readers stepped up and shared what he found valuable.
Crayl from Beyond Black and White just hit the letter Z on Thankful Tuesday. On her list are some cultural touch point that I do know; the original PBS show called Zoom, and those I don’t know like Zingers.
As for the Force Divine we have worked out our differences. Next time I’ll just go ahead and do it and save us both a headache. In the meantime, I would love to know what book, song or movie that you feel had a cultural impact on yourself or the people around you.
This post originally appeared on BlogHer where I am a Contributing Editor.
It happens when you take artists and performer for granted. You forget that these folks are not flashes in the pan. They have a body of work and they evolve and develop their craft. Janet Jackson is certainly in that group.
The year was 1989 and the video is Rhythm Nation.
The memory of the week happened while I was on the bus. The bus was late. It was packed. The seats up front are for senior citizens. There was this middle aged woman sitting in one of those seats, lets call her Bertha who was with her friend chatting.
An older woman was standing who had trouble doing so. One older gentleman asked the middle aged woman to get up so the older woman could sit down.
Bertha looked at him like he was dirt. She looked at him, ignored him and kept talking with her friend.
Now let me back up here. I have seen people from Thugnation get up and offer a seat to an older person. Winos find a way to do it. It is a custom that people actually perform on L.A. buses. So for a person not to do it will draw the kind of attention you do not want. Back to our story.
Another rider not so politely suggested that she get up and let the lady sit. An older man siting next to Bertha got up and helped the original woman to his seat.
It was if somebody had lit a match and a verbal explosion of anger was being hurled at Bertha. Bertha did not care. Bertha announced that it didn't have anything to do with her and did not care if the woman had a seat or not.
At this point we had a multi-lingual cuss out; Farsi, Spanish, Tagalog and Armenian. There was some English too but it was more reportorial communication to the folks sitting in the middle and the back of the bus what was happening in the front of the bus.
Bertha's friend, who had a hell of a lot more good sense than Bertha, seem to understand that you do not piss off a bus load of tired people on a Friday afternoon. They were out numbered about 65 to 2.
Bertha's friend is trying to pull her to the exit. Bertha is busy giving the finger and dropping F-Bombs in two languages. She is jamming her finger up and down to show precisely the extent of her lack of civility.
That was not the thing to do cuz that caused the middle section of the bus to start chanting "get the F - off the bus." The bus driver is telling her get off the bus. Bertha is half up with her knee on the seat so she can make sure she is visible to all those that didn’t see her give the finger before.
Bertha's friend has now got a body lock on Bertha and is pulling her out the front door. Defiant to the last, Bertha shares heart felt parting shots at what the whole bus can do with themselves.
Folks were still angry but they settled down as they watched Bertha still giving the finger outside of the bus. The original woman who needed at seat? Totally oblivious to the commotion. She sat quiet in her own world.
It is taking longer to type the story than the length of time that it happened. So I guess the lesson of the week is that courtesy is not just a social nicety. It can literally prevent wars.
To the extent possible, err on the side of courtesy and, if you ride L.A. Metro buses, let the little old ladies have a seat.
My word, what a week! People are already trying to find that long lost cousin that lives, works or passes through D.C on the way to Virginia. Really. Half of you will not make it past Delaware. I-95 will become the world largest parking lot.
This is one time that you might want to just stay home and dress up in front of the TV. This week’s selection on the Freakout is not really surprising. No matter your party one nation came out to vote. The thought alone is humbling.
I present the radio version with video enhancements of that seminal track beamed down September 1978 and embedded in psycho-functional consciousness, One Nation Under A Grove:
I can see it now. I will be 80 years old trying to escape again from the old folks home. One of the health care workers sensing another insurrection flips this on the auditory amplification communication link. All of a sudden half of the home is dancing with their canes, walkers and popping wheelies to this song. Sure they loose a few but it frees up a couple of beds and reduces the need for medication.
One Nation Under A Grove was one of the last dance records that included everybody. It was the beat, the lyrics and it certainly established a sense of community. The full length version was long. You had to have endurance to boogie to sides one and two. It was not a dance song for floor wimps. That was cool cuz if you couldn’t dance you could sing it.
The song re-surfaces itself every few years. The lower level rappers sampled it to shreds. There have been quality remixes but the original is the gold standard. I also have to mention that there were fabulous musicians like Maceo Parker, who also worked with James Brown, Junie Morrison from the Ohio Players and a bunch more folks that participated.
And then there was and is George Clinton. Not gonna speak too much about him because I'd need two and half blog posts to do him justice. He is one complicated man and I can’t in good faith write about him in brief.
So take it easy from detoxing from the election of a lifetime. But you could check out Change.gov to see what is in the works concerning the future that we all are gonna have to pitch in to save.
Once upon a time I was a Deputy County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles. Part of my job was to issue marriage licenses. I think that was the best part of the job. There were specific tasks I had to perform, questions to ask and I watched as the couple swear or affirm what they said was the truth.
Sometimes I looked at a couple and thought “For the love of humanity dude, run, do not marry this chick!” or maybe “Hell, they don’t need a license, they are already married in their hearts.”
I did have one lady who I think was working on marriage number 14. I like persistence but at some point you got to give it a rest. There was such a range of people. All with hope and expectations of what they thought marriage was or will do for them. One person loving the other more. Immigration marriages. Impulsive marriages. Love beyond measure so strong it was an honor to prepare the license for them.
Many people seem to conjure a culturally supported mythical image of what an American marriage looks like. I grew up on this particular version (in re-runs, I’m not that old.) of what a typical married household looked like when I was growing up.
This is the opening from The Donna Reed Show.
Definitions of Marriage
I’m going to start old school and open up my paper bound Webster new Explorer Desk Encyclopedia:
Legally and social sanctioned union between, usually, a man and one or more women that accords status to their offspring and is regulated by laws and customs that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners.(Page 759)
The online marriage'>Merrian-Webster dictionary has a slightly different meaning:
(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
And to be fair let’s put up a gender neutral definition from Cultural Anthropology, The Human Challenge:
A non-ethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children and between them and their in-laws. (Page 208)
Not matching up to your definition? Yeah, I know. All I have been hearing for the past couple of weeks is one man, one woman. If I had know that I had options that I could marry more than one man at a time I might have been more open to the concept of matrimony. Go figure. Ignorance is definitely not bliss.
There is no one definition of marriage. It is dependent on the culture, the society and the needs of the community. Some of those needs are of commerce and business. In fact that was the driving factors in early marriages. Love did not necessarily have anything to do with it.
In Ye Olden Days…
If people really want a traditional marriage you might have to start looking at your biological brother or sister in a new way. 2,000 years ago it was important for farm families to hold on to whatever resources they had. It was easier to marry within the family, the immediate family to maintain control over property.
There is an extensive historical article that goes in depth at the History of Marriage by the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology. In this passage is an explanation of how Greek and Roman marriages were designed. A Greek or Roman man could be married and still play both sides of the street:
A father arranged the most advantageous marriage for his son and then had a contract signed before witnesses. Shortly thereafter a wedding celebration was held and the young couple (who might never have met before) was escorted to bed. All marriages were monogamous. As a rule, the bridegroom was in his thirties and the bride was a teenager. In addition to this disparity in ages there also existed an inequality in education and political rights. Women were considered inferior to men and remained confined to the home. Their main function as wives was to produce children and to manage the household while their husbands tended to public affairs. For their erotic needs, men often turned to prostitutes and concubines. As Demosthenes, the orator, explained it: "We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring." Many men also cultivated intense emotional and sexual relationships with male adolescents (paiderastia).
In a 2005 Psychology Today there is a brief article on what some ancient marriages were like. For example:
Stephanie Coontz in a2007 article in the New York Times explains how the Catholic church recognized non-church marriages:
In 1215, the church decreed that a licit marriage must take place in church. But people who married illicitly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.
Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.
I’ve only touched on a very brief look of monogamy type marriages. There certainly other kinds such as polygamy marriages that help to sustain cultures across the globe and endogamy, marriage within a certain group of individuals inside of a set community.
Contemporary Thoughts
We questions its history of sexism and its emphasis on reproduction. We wonder why the state should even be involved in people's relationships in the first place, outside of the logistics of next-of-kin and that sort of thing. We believe in the importance of the ceremony, but question the relevance of insurance premiums or tax breaks. That being said, the reality is that we live in a culture where marriage - in that form - IS a part of our society. And if you, like us, are concerned with the values of marriage in this culture, than you should be very concerned about barring queer access to it.
Because queers can update this custom and infuse it with gender equality that will free men, women, and the rest of us from all of our historical attachments.
Misty at Saintless.com is wondering if government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Should there be a legal definition? And at Philosophy Sucks ask the lyrical question, why not split the difference?:
So I say we should formally distinguish these two aspects. Let marriage be a religious institution and let civil unions be a secular institution. Let the church govern marriage and define it as between one man and one woman. And let the state govern civil unions and define it as they want; a loving commitment to partnership and family between two persons. That way religious people would get marriages and secular people would get civil unions.
My point in sharing this information with you is that it is not true that there has been only one form of marriage sanctioned for X number of years. Humans are too diverse with different social and cultural needs. Marriage adapts to what the society requires. It is not a finite condition. It is an evolutionary one.
More Resources:
Talking History interviewed Stephanie Coontz author of Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. This is an audio mp3 presentation.
Over at Garbled Noise is a review of the book "Uncommon Arrangements by Kate Roiphe on how of some literary famous in London conducted their lives around the constrictions of matrimony.
Susan Squire author I Don’t A Contrarian History of Marriage gives an interview on the Leonard Lopate show on WNYC
This post originally appeared on BlogHer where I am a Contributing Editor.
Over the past few weeks I have seen a exponential growth in the number of flat out stupid people. Stupid as in “lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity.” Maybe they have always been around and I was off doing something else. I’m am not exempt. I have done stupid things. But I learned and didn’t do the same stupid thing again and again.
And it is not just that they are stupid people but there are proud of it and wave it as a badge of honor. And collectively as a group they try to make you feel bad because you are not stupid like them. Yo, education is not a dirty word!
So, where does this leave the rest of us? Tired. Exhausted. Baseball bat mad.
Fortunately I do not have a baseball bat. I do not look good in orange jail jumpers. I’ve never worn any but I can tell from a distance the outfit just doesn’t work for me. What does work for me is to find voices of reason, of patience and those guiding lights that can help show the way to help make less stupid people.
Let’s begin with Ms. Hardnett:
The population grows every day and we have to keep in mind that we have not perfected the institution of education. There still are many drop-outs, standardized test failures, and unprepared graduates. But we must also remember that we cannot stop trying. My aim is to be a part of those who really try to make things better rather than sitting around waiting for others to do it. I hope to bring a spirit of optimism and excitement to my classroom. Having seen my best teachers do that, I know that plays a key role in effective teaching.
So from her I guess no matter how daunting the task of revising American education we have to keep trying to make it better, find a way to communicate skills necessary for students who will live in the future.
Elona Hartjes at Teachers At Risk writes about how she makes her classrooms student centered:
My philosophy of education? It is and always has been student centric. Of course the world has changed much since I started teaching, and my teaching philosophy has reflected this. It is definitely grounded in the 21st century. I’ve made it a point to be a life long learner and be on the cutting edge of new developments in education so that I can be the best teacher possible for my students and their parents. Being the best teacher possible also means collaborating with my colleagues and sharing what I have learned and learning from them.
Maybe we need to take a look at constantly using 19th century techniques to educate 21st century people. Perhaps we make people stupid because we use old tools and rules that don’t necessarily apply to their lives as they currently live it. The video is from Kansas State University entitled “A Vision of Student’s Today
Principle Jessica Hunzenger echoes many of the sentiments reflected in the video:
I believe education has become the basis for survival in a rapidly changing information technology society and global economy. The technological transformation that has occurred in the last twenty years has crept in quietly like a thief in the night. We have moved from a labor intensive, mechanized industrial age where success was defined by rote and assembly-line skills to an information technology age requiring analytical and critical thinking skills. Yet, for the most part we educate, deliver curriculum and pedagogy in the same manner we did 100 years ago, while in fact our very survival as a society, and as a world power, is hinged on the quality of our education system. Therefore, all members of society should share a sense of urgency for transformation.
So there is some consensus that teaching the old way may not work very well. If we want this country to survive we need to engage in a revision of how we teach and what is being taught versus learned. If only it was that easy.
Nickey at Teach! gives an overview of the various Philosophies of Education that focus on student centered learning:
PROGRESSIVISM : A 'progressive' school focuses on the concerns of their students. A teacher who follows a progressive teaching style encourages students to formulate questions, and to do the research to discover the answer. Small groups are norm in the progressive classroom as well. Students are encouraged to work together to find answers.
SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTIONISM : This teaching style encourages teachers to focus on the wants and demands of modern society. Students focus on social issues and formulate answers and plans to implement social change. Teachers who follow this style create lessons to inform and stir students about issues in their society. Long term social projects (food drives, adopting poor families) are usually focused on for the better part of the year.
EXISTENTIALISM : This teaching style asserts that the purpose of education is to help children find the meaning and direction in their lives. Existentialists believe that adults should not direct meaningful learning for children. Teachers focus more on students understanding and appreciating themselves. These teachers also believe that teaching cannot occur until after a student feels confident enough in themselves to learn.
Me, I’m digging that Progressivism vibe. Sound like the way to go but I am biased about the topic. It matches how I tend to learn things. But one style of education may not fit all students. It will take some time to bring other folks around. It will happen. Keep the faith.
This post originally appeared on BlogHer where I am a contributing editor.
It is important to know that there are two sets of votes today. The popular vote for a candidate and, in reality, the electoral vote. I hope this post is a waste of time and there is a clear winner in the election. If it is a tight race however then understanding how this electoral process works will be very important. Fancy isn’t quiet sure on the details of the process so let’s clear it up for those that have questions.
A Brief History Lesson:
According to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Electoral College process was created as a compromise by the Founding Fathers between those that wanted to have just a popular vote and those who wanted Congress to elect the President.
Americans go to the polls and cast a ballot for President and Vice President. Generally, the candidate who gets the most votes in a state wins that state’s popular vote. What we as voters are actually doing is voting for the Electors who will actually cast the deciding vote on who becomes President. There are 538 electoral votes and 270 electoral votes are needed to determine who will be President. If neither candidate has enough votes then the House of Representative selects the next President.
The population of a state determines how many electoral votes a candidate will get. Jan at The Prytz Family has a map that shows the number of electoral votes each state has assigned to them. This is why candidates focus on those states with the largest number of elector votes or the one they need to ensure that they will be elected. Some states are in the bag for a candidate due to political leaning but others states have to be courted. Over at MartinZoo a home schooling mom help teach her child about the electoral votes in each state using coins.
Who Get’s To Be An Elector?
It is a little easier to say who can’t be an Elector. You cannot be a Senator, a Representative or hold a federal political office. Electors are general chosen by the political parties during political conventions, state officials or have a connected with the candidate. but there are no real requirements for the job.
When you vote for a candidate you are also voting for an elector. Some state show the Electors on the ballot, some do not. You vote for them just the same.
So The Elector Has To Vote According to the Popular Vote in a State?
No. They do not. There are states that mandate that the Elector has to vote for the winner in the state’s election but that is not legally binding.
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
It is unlikely that a party selected Elector is going to go against the will of his or her political party. But it could happen and there would be nothing to stop them from doing so.
Does My Vote Count?
Journalism student Jessica Simeone wonders about is it worth it? Alice from the Trouble of Being Alice has vivid memories of the 2000 election where Al Gore won the popular vote but the electors (by way of the Supreme Court) gave the election to George W. Bush. I don’t agree with everything Alice wrote but there is a huge chunk of people who do and it is a valid concern.
Faye Anderson at Anderson At Large speak about the anxiety of African American votes feel about the election.
Sara at Busy Nothings:
I've been wondering, too, whether my vote really does count. It's been a while since my last American Government class, and I'd forgotten how the election process works. So I started to give into the mentality that no, I can't change the direction of the vote. Thinking that way made me feel like a bad citizen—especially as a woman. Afterall, women in the early 1900s worked hard to gain suffrage.
The short answer is yes, your vote counts. It always has. Now I have very strong feeling about that vote being usurped, dinged and manipulated. That will not change anytime soon no matter who is elected.
I vote because it is my civic duty. My historic obligation to those that fought so hard to ensure that I had the right to even decide to vote or not vote. There are issues that require my response. Voting is one of the ways to respond.
For More Information:
