RULE BREAKER

Not too long ago I had a conversation with a good friend about some of the current issues of today. Now I must say although we are very good friends we do have different beliefs and ideals about almost everything. Nevertheless those differences do not effect our genuine friendship for each other. On this particular day we talked about a little of everything including politics, law enforcement and current issues. During the conversation my friend made the statement that she was a "rule follower" and that she teaches her son to follow the rules and he wont have to worry about the consequences that follow with breaking the rules. Now it took a little while for me to really take in what she said but when it did finally set in my inward reaction was "WOW"! So it made me think should we all have that belief, and does that belief work for the good of the world in which we live. Well let's see! The first thing I had to do was ask myself what are rules and why do we have rules. In regards to the conversation with my friend I would define rules simply as principles, regulations and elements of a moral code for guiding choices in human behavior and governing conduct, action and procedure! And with that definition I would say rules are put in place to keep order and safety for all humankind.  BUT(and my friend would say there is no but:) as broad as the definition is for rules depending on the situation the rule is put in place for, it's not that simple defining rules and why we have them. Although I respect and commend my friend for being a "rule follower" it also frightens me! Because most people that submit to rules do so with a commitment to not breaking the rules! To me, that's Frightening! So are rules good, do rules keep us safe, are rules good for the good of society and should all rules be followed no matter what! Let's examine! The Rule said to teach a slave to read would result in a fine, imprisonment and death, BUT Fredrick Douglas and W.E.B Dubois were "rule breakers" and learned to read and graduate from college. The Rule said black people were only allowed to sit in the back of the bus, BUT Rosa Parks was a "rule breaker" and sat down in the front and started a movement which led to the desegregation of buses and all public accommodations. The Rule said black people could not vote and that white women and blacks could not serve on juries, BUT Martin L. King Jr. was a "rule breaker" and led a movement which resulted in the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act that allowed all people to vote and serve on juries Following rules would have resulted in me not getting an education, or being able to use a public library, bus or restroom(of which my taxes pay for) and  following rules would have resulted in us NOT having Barack Obama as President of the United States. So I would say if I were to choose between "rule follower" or "rule breaker" I choose the latter! This is my perspective! Sound Off! Peace & Love!

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

We all know it, have heard, and at some point may have said it! The famous quote by Malcolm X "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!" So what did Malcolm mean in saying this? What caused Malcolm to make such a bold and radical statement? Malcolm saw people, especially black people, hungry, homeless, uneducated, poor, oppressed, depressed and locked out of the so-called American Dream and a nation turning it's back on them! So he said we have to fight back "by any means necessary!" So why am I bringing up Malcolm's famous quote? What is significant about anything Malcolm X would say? Well as I listen to all the political madness going on right now with the GOP Presidential Candidates and the Republicans in Congress it really makes me wonder if they have been listening to Malcolm's famous quote. Now alot of you may say are you serious, really!? Well, yes I am! In the time Malcolm made that statement, it was very radical and against the norm. And if you listen to these GOP candidates and Republicans, alot of the things they are saying are radical and against the norm. But the real question is why are they saying these things? Well they have made it absolutely clear that their #1 goal is defeating President Obama, not creating jobs, not national security, not fixing the economy, not making sure all Americans have affordable health care, but yes they've said it over and over, defeating President Obama! Now if that is their #1 goal they are going to do that "by any means necessary!" Now in no way am I comparing them to our great hero Malcolm X but I do believe they have adopted his famous quote! When you say poor children should become janitors, when you say you don't want to raise taxes but you raise taxes on 160 million Americans, when you vote against job creation for millions of Americans, when you establish unconstitutional voting laws, you are operating "by any means necessary!" So I say as Malcolm said let's fight back "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!" This is my perspective! Sound Off! Peace & Love!

BUT IS IT "MORALLY RIGHT"

With the Presidential Election of 2012 approaching, I having been watching, as most of the nation, all the political rhetoric of the GOP and the re-election of President Obama. However with all the sound bites, blame game, flip flops and media mesh, a question has come to my mind and I hope the minds of most of the nation. Now regardless of whatever God you believe in or whether you believe in God at all, you still can ask yourself this question, IS IT "MORALLY RIGHT"! Morals defined are simply messages or lessons learned from a person, story or event. Now there are definitions based on your personal preferences but with that simple definition I believe anyone can have morals, whether one believes in God or not, or affiliates with a certain religion or not! So why this questions? As I listen daily to all the rhetoric, the question has always been on my mind but this week one particular event happened that really sent a wave through my heart and mind to the morality of not only the presidential candidates but this nation as well. It was the statement made by Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich on the poor children in this country. And I quote "children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it's illegal." Yes people he really said that! And if you are anywhere in the 99% of this nation something has to resonate in your heart and mind about the morality of these candidates and this country. So why do I bring up morals? Well here it is! America and everyone who classifies themselves as American has always claimed to be the highest standard of morality. Whether it be through military relations, economic relations, international relations, or humanitarian relations, America likes to set the standard. Now whether you believe that to be true, lets just assume for now it is. So if America sets the standard for morality, how can an American Presidential Candidate make such a statement about the poor children of this nation? One dynamic that I looked at was how American Society got it's morals. Through my research I found that the majority of Americans get their morals from family, and their faith(religion or whatever God they believe in). And most Americans, more than 70% identify themselves as Christian, including Mr. Gingrich. So for over 70% of Americans it would be "fair and balanced" to say that their morals come from the life of Jesus Christ! Because Christian simply defined means being Christ-Like. Now what did Christ say about the poor? How did Christ treat the poor? What did Christ say to us about how we should treat the poor? Let's see! "And behold, one came to Him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" "Jesus said unto him, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the POOR, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven: and come, follow Me." Matthew 16 Verse 19 and 21 American Standard Version. So to Mr. Gingrich, to all my far right republicans and conservatives, to my "tea partiers" who claim Christianity and I'm going to assume have some since of morality and who believe that President Obama is a socialist who is trying to redistribute wealth just maybe he is trying to exemplify that high moral standard that America claims to be through the greatest example and teacher who ever existed! Maybe the President is trying to be an example of and represent what over 70% of this nation call themselves! So Republican Congress, Far Right Conservatives, Tea Partiers, FOX "fair and balanced" News, when you are questioning policies, and voting on policies, if you are in that 70% who claim to be Christian, ask yourself "IS IT MORALLY RIGHT?!" This is my perspective! Sound Off! Peace & Love!

THE MISEDUCATION OF EDUCATION

Public Education, Private Education, Vouchers!! They're all at the forefront of discussion and media attention! But as I sit and listen to all the discussions of why or why not there should be  or shouldn't be this or that, I feel one crucial and essential component has gotten lost and that is the CHILDREN we are suppose to be educating! Now most would probably say that they(the Children) are the focal point of the discussion but if you listen closely and dig a little deeper it seems to be that economics and politics are the focal point! Now I do know and understand that without money schools could not function but have we gotten so consumed by the economics of education that in the process of figuring out the economics we are not educating our children. Are our children for sale to the "highest bidder!" Are our children "politic pawns" that we use as leverage against our opponents?  Let me stop and say now that I am not a supporter of vouchers but I do believe in a parents and child's right to choose whatever educational avenue that works for them. I believe in public education and do believe it can be fixed and work for all STUDENTS! But this discussion is about what has gotten lost in the process of us trying to figure out whats right or wrong or what works or does not work, and that is the EDUCATING OF ALL OUR CHILDREN! One issue that I hear alot in this debate is the competence of the teacher teaching the student. Should teachers be awarded or fired for the progress of the student? Should teachers be teaching math if their degree is in English?? Should teachers be measured at all on the performance to the student??? This is the one issue I want to discuss in this post because I feel it is at the core of how educating the children has gotten lost! Now let me start by saying I wholeheartedly believe that a teacher, along with a mother and minister, have one of the most important, not to mention hardest jobs in the world! And I don't say that just from a feeling but from experience being a substitute teacher and teacher's aide for over 10ys. So teachers I feel ya! So lets tackle this economics vs. education, public vs. private vs. vouchers issue. On the voucher issue, simply put if government can find money to issue vouchers then they can find money to assist public education! The argument seems to be that the government don't want to put money into a failing school. But I say instead of giving up on the failing school and going across town and building a new school(which in most instances will cost more than investing the money in fixing the failing school) find out WHY that school is failing! We give up too easy on our children and turn to a "quick or easy fix!" Why do we always take the attitude help some instead of help all. All Children can be helped! Now this issue of Competence of the teacher could be one of the whys of a school failing and a crucial why! OK teachers, before you put me on your hit list, think freely and critically and hear me out! On the issue of evaluating and awarding teachers on the performance of the student I believe can be a slippery slope. One reason is because not all children learn the same and a child interest in a certain subject may not be the same as another. But I do believe if a teacher has the passion and creativity all their students will learn no matter the students interest! But teachers lets be real here, some of us have become complacent and lost some of the passion and creativity we started with and have lost the students attention! However to put a yes or no to the question, I would say yes a teacher should be evaluated on their students performance because in reality how will we know if that teacher is effective in educating! Now the merit of that evaluation should be on a collective of all the learning process, not just test scores. Think about it from this perspective teachers, how do you choose a doctor?!(Think on That) On the last issue of what a teacher should be teaching! This is the easiest fix of them all and I truly believe would turn the whole public education system around! If you are a elementary education graduate you should be teaching K-6th grade. If youare a secondary education graduate with a concentration in math, you should be teaching 7th-12th grade math! Teachers do you want a Brain Surgeon doing Heart Surgery on you?!(Think on That) Now the reason I'm sounding off about it like this is because I believe that teachers will be more passionate, creative and competent about what they know well and do best! And whether that student has an interest in math, because of the passion and creativity they see in the TEACHER it will at least hold their attention to pass your class instead of them saying "I don't like math, and that teacher is boring so I'm not going to do anything and probably wont come to class!" This can be and should be done in public education! But we have become complacent with just giving a teacher a job that the educating of the student gets lost in the economics and the politics! So can public education be fixed and work for All Students, Absolutely YES!" But until then, we are experiencing the MISEDUCATION OF EDUCATION! This Is My Perspective! Sound Off! Peace & Love!

WELCOME

Welcome to the ON THE REAL GRIND blog! A New, Fresh and Free Thinking Perspective on Politics, Current Issues, Education, Sports and Race Relations! Thank You for visiting and following this blog! Please feel free to leave comments and start discussions! PEACE & LOVE! "BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD!"

Making of a President

The president of the United States is by far the best known politician both within the United States and around the world. Americans who struggle to recall the name of their representative, senator, or governor almost certainly know the name of the president. Citizens of other countries from Iraq to China, Australia to Russia, are generally familiar with the president's name and photograph and have an opinion on his performance in office. The fame that U.S. presidents enjoy today is appropriate, for the person who holds that office is at the center of both American politics and world affairs. But with all the fame, power and influence the President has a question and conversation came to my mind; “what qualifies someone to be president?” Now I know someone will say just read the Constitution and it will tell you the qualifications to be President of the United States. However with the election of President Barack Obama(the first President of African decent) and hopefully the re-election of President Obama(yes I do support President Obama) it made me think deeper on that question. It also raised another question in my mind, which was, why was President Obama able to gain support in ways that no other candidate of African decent could do. Now I know some would say it was because of the state of the nation, or that it was divine intervention, or that it was because others before him paved the road and all of those may be true and to some degree I can agree with those reasons. However upon closer observation and research I truly believe there is a deeper truth to how Presidents are now chosen. And if a candidate does not meet these extended qualifications, beyond the qualifications of the Constitution, he/she will not likely be elected President. Now having made such a bold statement, let me give some support to my statement. Let me start by asking this, are Presidents born or are Presidents made? Now being a believer in God the Almighty I do believe that everyone is born with a divine destiny for their life but I also believe that a person can be molded and shaped along the way to reach that destiny, including being President of the United States. And that is why I also believe that a Barack Obama can be more received as being President than a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, both of whom I do admire, respect and did support as candidates for President, because of certain standards society sets. In support of my observation of this I researched one simple area, commonalities of all the Presidents of the United States and in my research I found several of all the past Presidents and the current President. According to the US Constitution the qualifications to be President of the United are very simple. He/She must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be thirty-five years old, and have been a permanent resident of the United States for at least fourteen years. But if you look closer you will see that there are some extended qualifications and commonalities that society has placed on being President of the United States. Of the forty-four Presidents,35 went to college, 18 went to Ivy League schools, 26 served in the military, and 25 were lawyers.
Now would it be safe to say if you aspire to be President that you should go to college, preferably an Ivy League, study law and serve in the military. Of the four highest commonalities President Obama had three; he went to college, he went to two Ivy Leagues, Columbia and Harvard and he studied law. In no way am I saying that is the absolute standard for being elected President because there are several African American men who have at least one of these qualifications and some with all of them. However there is another commonality President Obama have with all the past Presidents that no other African American candidate had and that is he was not only a African American man but also a Caucasian man. That is just the reality. And whether or not you agree or disagree, I honestly believe that one commonality made a lot of the nation connect to President Obama in ways that they could not connect with past African American presidential candidates. Now I know a lot of you will argue that the nation got passed race to accept and elect President Obama but I would say it was just the opposite. It was because of his racial makeup that the Caucasians of this nation were able to connect to, accept and elect President Obama. Again these are not absolutes but observations. Now is this to say that a “100%” black man, or black woman, or white woman or any other nationality wont be elected President? NO! But this observation and study does show that certain commonalities make it easier to be elected President of the United States! Peace & Love!