Monday, January 18, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
A Very Old Story
It is on the record.
Your God asked you plainly;
with the contempt of man you lied..
From the dirt your brother's blood
confirmed all that you denied.
Away you flew on the palest of steed
that one of four would ride.
Darkness was light and love's light you cursed;
it's mandates defied.
You build dark cities
and then a world
and powered them with pride.
On the corner stone of all you've built,
that stands crumbling from inside,
You have written
"there is no worth on heaven or earth
unless someone's brother has died".
- Keith Hardeman 01/13/10
Your God asked you plainly;
with the contempt of man you lied..
From the dirt your brother's blood
confirmed all that you denied.
Away you flew on the palest of steed
that one of four would ride.
Darkness was light and love's light you cursed;
it's mandates defied.
You build dark cities
and then a world
and powered them with pride.
On the corner stone of all you've built,
that stands crumbling from inside,
You have written
"there is no worth on heaven or earth
unless someone's brother has died".
- Keith Hardeman 01/13/10
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Promises, Rromises
Oh yes. Make no mistake about it. This is America. Not the America you thought it was. This is the America it was meant to be. You want your America back? Sorry we got rid of that one. This America was founded on blood and chains and smoke and grit and tears and sweat and steel and death and a promise; a promise for something better. She made us a promise. This America made a promise to her girls who were touched and made to stand behind, to her blacks who were kidnapped, tortured and treated like animals. She whispered to those who were terrified to be themselves and love freely”your time is near” .Ahhh... yes…exploiters beware…..hump and gyrate and convulse with every last ounce of your vile selfishness. You will not be resuscitated. This America said that we will have our voice. We… (No matter our race, gender, sexual preference, religion, weight, height or sense of humor) are America. That is what was promised. That is what is due. That time is near. You made your money like immoral gangsters and pimps. You had your bathroom rendezvous. You ran your guns and drugs and trafficked in human suffering. You projected your filth on the underclass. You raped the people. You had your fun...No? The bill is long pass due! Time to pay up! We will wrest your gangrened hands from the control and break your feeble fingers before you can press the button. THIS IS THE REAL AMERICA AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!! Can you hear the chains? Can you smell the smoke. Can you hear the women crying? Can you see the armless children grinding bones to make your meat? That is the evidence against you. We all have bared witness. WE THE PEOPLE......you know the rest!!!!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Open Letter to Eugene Robinson Regarding His Many Assumptions About Tiger
Let me preface this message by saying I have no dog in this controversy what so ever. I am neither a golf fan nor a Tiger fan although I can appreciate what it takes to be both. I have the same feeling about you as a journalist. I must say that I am only aware of you because of your appearances on “Count Down ". You are a Pulitzer Prize Winner; yes? Here's my real question: Was it your intention to reveal your own feelings about miscegenation.
The crux of your piece focuses on the type of women that tiger has chosen to cheat on his wife with. I guess in today's environment of tabloid journalism this topic is a can't miss. I am always leery when a sentence begins with "No offense to anyone who actually .....". Those words usually scream "get ready to be offended!" Mr. Robinson the rest of your article reaffirmed my expectations..
"Here's my real question, though: What's with the whole Barbie thing?"
This piece is an attempt to convict Tiger Wood of self-loathing by identifying and characterizing his various tryst partners. The development of the Barbie stereotype seems to be the lynch pin that holds the self-loathing theory together. Mr. Robinson, your invocation of and subsequent projection of the Barbie image on to the women involved in this article serves more to devalue women then it does to indict Tiger. You have in essence said that these particular women are soulless, plastic, toys. You have not distinguished Tiger’s wife from this group; so like you, I most make assumptions. In your attempt to reduce Tiger to a Freudian character you have actually revealed something about how you perceive certain women as devoid of worth because....?
"This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story -- and one of the most disappointing He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn't variety but some kind of validation.'
The most disappointing thing to you, Mr. Robinson, is not that he hurt his wife, not that many of his fans may feel some sort of deflation for their fallen idol, not that once again a great sports figure has been all to human, the greatest disappointment in your eyes, Mr. Robinson, is the type of women he broke his marital vows with.
"I'm making a big assumption here that the attraction for Woods was mostly physical, but there's no evidence thus far that he had a lot of time for deep conversation. If adultery is really about the power and satisfaction of conquest, Woods's self-esteem was apparently only boosted by bedding the kind of woman he thought other men lusted after -- the "Playmate of the Month" type that Hugh Hefner turned into the American gold standard."
This assumption that you make about tiger could be made about many sex addicts. Serial infidelity is deep seated and is probably best left to ones own introspection, trained therapy, and a spouse’s willingness to forgive...or not. Mr. Robinson your psycho- analysis of Tiger could be applied to any man who is promiscuous inside or out side of a relationship. You make an assertion about Tiger's motivation as apparently being based on what he thought other men thought....huh?! Do they give out crystal balls with those Pulitzer? You assume much sir. No where in this "article" have you evidenced this for being the reason he was having sex with what he perceived as sexy women.
"But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes -- some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an "official" standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive. "
You go on to admonish Wood for not cheating on his wife with a variety of women. Is this article a message to all the unofficial beauties that you are interested? It seems as though you are saying "damn man there is a whole slue of poon you could have been tapping. Damn you must hate yourself or something?” I could be wrong Mr. Robinson but it seems that you are envious of Tiger's ability to have the "official". Why does this one man's alleged preference rate the analysis of an acclaimed Journalist such as you? You have distilled the complex issues of power, miscegenation, sexual addiction, hero worship and unconventional rearing into the notion that Tiger doesn't like himself because he has sex with pretty white girls. Following your reasoning Mr. Robinson Tiger would have shown more love for himself if he would have bedded a variety of beauties. My question is would he have shown even greater self esteem if his variety were to include men as well?
Self righteousness and indignation may pass for evidenced reason in the world of brevity and concession which are op-ed and cable news spots but let me assure you they are not. Rest assured Mr. Robinson the Pulitzer people will probably not be contacting you regarding this piece. That is of course it can not be used to revoke the one you have already won. You do a disservice to the discussion of race relations in America by dancing around your feelings of miscegenation and men of power..
Oh yes.. Mr. Robinson you and I and many others know that you are saying Tiger is color struck. My final question is: What’s it to you?
The crux of your piece focuses on the type of women that tiger has chosen to cheat on his wife with. I guess in today's environment of tabloid journalism this topic is a can't miss. I am always leery when a sentence begins with "No offense to anyone who actually .....". Those words usually scream "get ready to be offended!" Mr. Robinson the rest of your article reaffirmed my expectations..
"Here's my real question, though: What's with the whole Barbie thing?"
This piece is an attempt to convict Tiger Wood of self-loathing by identifying and characterizing his various tryst partners. The development of the Barbie stereotype seems to be the lynch pin that holds the self-loathing theory together. Mr. Robinson, your invocation of and subsequent projection of the Barbie image on to the women involved in this article serves more to devalue women then it does to indict Tiger. You have in essence said that these particular women are soulless, plastic, toys. You have not distinguished Tiger’s wife from this group; so like you, I most make assumptions. In your attempt to reduce Tiger to a Freudian character you have actually revealed something about how you perceive certain women as devoid of worth because....?
"This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story -- and one of the most disappointing He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn't variety but some kind of validation.'
The most disappointing thing to you, Mr. Robinson, is not that he hurt his wife, not that many of his fans may feel some sort of deflation for their fallen idol, not that once again a great sports figure has been all to human, the greatest disappointment in your eyes, Mr. Robinson, is the type of women he broke his marital vows with.
"I'm making a big assumption here that the attraction for Woods was mostly physical, but there's no evidence thus far that he had a lot of time for deep conversation. If adultery is really about the power and satisfaction of conquest, Woods's self-esteem was apparently only boosted by bedding the kind of woman he thought other men lusted after -- the "Playmate of the Month" type that Hugh Hefner turned into the American gold standard."
This assumption that you make about tiger could be made about many sex addicts. Serial infidelity is deep seated and is probably best left to ones own introspection, trained therapy, and a spouse’s willingness to forgive...or not. Mr. Robinson your psycho- analysis of Tiger could be applied to any man who is promiscuous inside or out side of a relationship. You make an assertion about Tiger's motivation as apparently being based on what he thought other men thought....huh?! Do they give out crystal balls with those Pulitzer? You assume much sir. No where in this "article" have you evidenced this for being the reason he was having sex with what he perceived as sexy women.
"But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes -- some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an "official" standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive. "
You go on to admonish Wood for not cheating on his wife with a variety of women. Is this article a message to all the unofficial beauties that you are interested? It seems as though you are saying "damn man there is a whole slue of poon you could have been tapping. Damn you must hate yourself or something?” I could be wrong Mr. Robinson but it seems that you are envious of Tiger's ability to have the "official". Why does this one man's alleged preference rate the analysis of an acclaimed Journalist such as you? You have distilled the complex issues of power, miscegenation, sexual addiction, hero worship and unconventional rearing into the notion that Tiger doesn't like himself because he has sex with pretty white girls. Following your reasoning Mr. Robinson Tiger would have shown more love for himself if he would have bedded a variety of beauties. My question is would he have shown even greater self esteem if his variety were to include men as well?
Self righteousness and indignation may pass for evidenced reason in the world of brevity and concession which are op-ed and cable news spots but let me assure you they are not. Rest assured Mr. Robinson the Pulitzer people will probably not be contacting you regarding this piece. That is of course it can not be used to revoke the one you have already won. You do a disservice to the discussion of race relations in America by dancing around your feelings of miscegenation and men of power..
Oh yes.. Mr. Robinson you and I and many others know that you are saying Tiger is color struck. My final question is: What’s it to you?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Power, Infidelity and Out Groups
The survival of a species is dependent primarily on the ability to reproduce itself consistently over time. The probability of propagation for the human species is increased by association and cooperation. Functioning as a collective provides protection, industry and innovation essential to species survival. The family unit is the basic building block for such associations. There are social structures common to all tribes. The family is one such social structure. The look of this association (the family unit) varies from society to society but its purpose is universal.
The vast majority of the social structures that exist in western civilization have been sculpted by biblical dictates. The enunciation of human purpose can be found in the verbiage”be fruitful and multiply”. The design of the basic unit of family has been attributed to divine intention. The order of creation is also important to role and function within the unit. Man was created as a companion to God and woman was created as a helpmate to man. Man was first and woman was an after though. This is a recurring theme in the three major desert religions.
The Bible is pregnant with passages of mans divine right to rule. It is also equally clear in the expected servility of women. These ascribed roles still define formal and informal interactions between men and women in the western hemisphere. These descriptions imply privilege and acquiescence respectively. The roles of men and women are constrained by these beliefs in all social structures. The examination of thought that underpins the expression of social structure is essential in examining the morality in which people operate with in those structures. There appears to be a universal pattern of male dominance in human relationships that was initially established by superior strength. Religious and legislative text has instituted this uneven relationship in the social structures of religion and government.
Now that we have established the biological imperative, and the cultural expression of the family unit we can now explore deviation in terms of propagation outside of this unit. The ultimate aim of this inquiry is to examine power in the social structures of marriage and government as expressed sexually. The impact sexual expression of power has on minority groups such as people of color, women, and children.
The vast majority of the social structures that exist in western civilization have been sculpted by biblical dictates. The enunciation of human purpose can be found in the verbiage”be fruitful and multiply”. The design of the basic unit of family has been attributed to divine intention. The order of creation is also important to role and function within the unit. Man was created as a companion to God and woman was created as a helpmate to man. Man was first and woman was an after though. This is a recurring theme in the three major desert religions.
The Bible is pregnant with passages of mans divine right to rule. It is also equally clear in the expected servility of women. These ascribed roles still define formal and informal interactions between men and women in the western hemisphere. These descriptions imply privilege and acquiescence respectively. The roles of men and women are constrained by these beliefs in all social structures. The examination of thought that underpins the expression of social structure is essential in examining the morality in which people operate with in those structures. There appears to be a universal pattern of male dominance in human relationships that was initially established by superior strength. Religious and legislative text has instituted this uneven relationship in the social structures of religion and government.
Now that we have established the biological imperative, and the cultural expression of the family unit we can now explore deviation in terms of propagation outside of this unit. The ultimate aim of this inquiry is to examine power in the social structures of marriage and government as expressed sexually. The impact sexual expression of power has on minority groups such as people of color, women, and children.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
