The Death of the hero and idolization of heroes: how post-modern cynicism has made us disenchanted with the hero narrative (or madly in love with aphorism)

Heroes are great, but I'll take a blaster every time - Abed

           Don't you remember a time where cartoons were simple? There was a bad guy and a good guy and everyone knew exactly who to root for. When the resurgence of super hero movies came along, it seemed the 2000s would be filled with tales of dashing good guys saving the day from people who were clearly understood as the bad guys. No ambiguity or an "everyone has their own demons" revelation. Just bad guy messes things up. Good guy fixes it. Then Dark Knight came out and suddenly a new standard was set. Instead of good guys, good; bad guys, bad; everyone must have some sort of jaded past or tragedy worked into their stories. Lo and behold we're in 2017 and we still see attempts at making Peter Parker into an angst driven teen, who happens to be Spiderman. And these movies sell. People don't believe in the honest to goodness truth anymore. We need grit. We need subterfuge. The cake is a lie!
        But this cynicism has a price. When moral ambiguity is the status quo it becomes impossible to determine what is good and what is bad. Our children constantly search for the vestiges of morality and are instead given a philosophical questionnaire. While I do not suggest we encourage blind adherence to tropes of good and evil, we need to know what it feels like to be good and what it feels like to be evil. Comics, movies and other media allowed us to play out that feeling, but now everything has a catch. This pervasive skepticism has transformed our generation into a tepid group, who permanently has their eyebrows raised in disbelief. Our eyes remain narrow as we read and our lips perpetually bitten as we search for the detail that is awry. If we cannot find it, then we make it. Suddenly, the background becomes bleak and the foreground, a cardboard superstructure, waiting to be toppled. Everything is subversion in the age of cynicism. Even this very blog post must be met with healthy criticism about its over generalizing nature.
      Skepticism is a constant state of peril. Very few can remain in a state of skepticism in perpetuity. We eventually crack. The logical gravitas weighs down on us, forcing us to take dogmatic sides in the hopes to compensate for the time we spent in philosophical limbo. People like me are masochistic; we torture ourselves with skepticism. You can find us wearing tin-foil hats as we look for flaws like a never ending game of Where's Waldo. Except Waldo's dead. We look for mere rumors of his presence by taking every striped like design as his specter. But skepticism is a death in a sense. It is the death of truth. Objective truth to be specific. We lose objectivity in the age of skepticism. In its place is a never ending torture wheel that spins aimlessly, while we nit pick whether to call it a wheel or an ellipse.
    After we have cracked, we become primal beasts who feast upon the ideological drippings of madmen. They spew nonsense across the web.We consume it in the hopes to regain the feeling in our hands, which have fallen asleep in the lull of skepticism. The pins and needles are welcomed because they remind us that we are objectively alive. No brain in a vat nonsense here, just a tinge of pain which comes like a large din that eventually dies into a constant low pitch hum. We get used to being tortured. The torture of ignorance is preferential to that of uncertainty. Constantly having to assess your options is as if you were sitting down to order food every second of your life. The ferociousness of the skeptical vortex is deafened by your safe space. Conservative safe spaces come with guns to make you feel even safer.
    I have chosen a different path. I scribble drawings of stick figures with capes. They fly across the loose leaf pages, fighting all the skepticism in my life. My job, my future career, my love life; these things are no match for the heroic efforts of my rudimentary drawings. And I always know who the good guy is. The bad guy is but a blur because that would require skepticism. I stare at the page for a bit, hoping he'll break out of the margins and save me. When he arrives, he begins to speak, but I erase his mouth. Lest he speak something to be interpreted. I smile. My superhero has arrived in grey scale. 

You're right, the ACA made premiums rise and you're an asshole

                        What I'm about to say is 90% fact. It can be falsified and if you find me compelling data saying otherwise, I'll consider changing my position. I doubt it because what I'm about to say shouldn't controversial, but for some reason many conservatives live in a fantasy world. So for my friends who are conservative, please read this and if you disagree, then find the evidence that proves me wrong (hint: it probably doesn't exist.

1. The Affordable Care Act led to a rise in premiums because people with pre-existing conditions were forced onto plans. I mean this is just insurance 101. The way insurance works is you have a pool of people, some high risk, some low risk and the low risk people essentially subsidize the cost of the high risk people. In the case of healthcare, most young people pay for older folk who are in a system. However before the ACA many plans would straight up deny people with pre-existing conditions that would prove to be too costly. The ACA forced companies to do the right thing and accept those people. Naturally since there were more high risk people, the low risk people had to pay more. Ta da! Higher premiums.  So unless your solution includes letting people with cancer die because they have cancer (which makes you an asshole), there is no way around the rise in premiums seen... unless


A. We remove standards in the ACA. So the ACA created a benchmark for the type of care a medical plan must cover. Disaster plans, which made a lot of sense for young people, were essentially banned by the ACA. There are two ways of looking at this. One could argue that this is creating some sort of market inefficiency, proven by the hordes of people who choose to take the penalty in taxes, than shell out money for healthcare plans. Another could argue that if plans don't provide these services, the cost is going to eventually be shifted to hospitals when some of these delusional young people do come down with sickness. If the young person's plan doesn't cover basic doctor visits, the ER and other essential resources could be misappropriated to those who could have been treated earlier and cheaper. Republicans have an argument here...kinda

B. The magic of the invisible hand... HA HA. Ok come on. Since this is something I don't know, I'll consider it the 10 percent of things I don't know. (But it can be falsified.) My guess is that insurance companies, like every other company in this country will collude to ensure that price gouging doesn't occur. Meaning no scheme of opening up state borders for purchasing insurance is going to magically lower prices. This is the crux of the conservatives plans. They truly believes the free market will allow for more favorable outcomes.


          Side bar: Notice how when dealing with healthcare, good outcomes are not determined by true valuation, but instead by filling a need. Healthcare is a necessity, regardless if you think it should be a privilege or not. It's impossible for us to lead healthy lives without it. The cost of keeping someone alive will eventually hit the tax payer. Either in the form of an amoxicillin prescription or an IV drip strapped to someone in an a 1,000 dollar per day hospital bed. I don't know about you, I'll pay for their antibiotics. The point is whether the price is "good" or "not" for essential treatment doesn't matter if you need it to survive. Hospitals will do what it takes to keep people alive and if you don't have the money to pay the taxpayer pays for it. If I'm gonna foot the bill, might as well make it as cheap as possible.

There are so many things I could say about the ACA, but I'll stop here.

Recap. Premiums went up due to a mass of high risk people being added to insurance companies, while requirements made it so that many low risk people have decided to forgo insurance. Unless you are deluded and believe the invisible market is going to lead to competition and lower costs, the only logical course of action is to keep many of the provisions that exist in the ACA. 

A few thoughts on Fidel

        Fidel Castro was a dictator who used intimidation and other terror techniques to get his way. There is no doubt that he committed some heinous crimes as any dictator would. To be honest, we rarely find in history that someone who wields absolute power leaves the office untainted. Comparing him to any President would be unfair. The President has two political bodies that exists to keep him from doing anything too tyrannical (and yet we still find horrible instances of Presidential overreach). Castro had no such check, given the haphazard nature of his ascension.
         But make no mistake: Castro was a symptom of the problem, not the root cause of distress in Cuba. What many of the Cubans who were exiled tend to leave out was how they were essentially benefiting from an incredibly stratified society. Certainly some Cubans were removed out of political malice in a way that is unacceptable, but there were many who left because the vast wealth they accumulated on the backs of an abused working class was going to be confiscated. As these revolutions tend to go, the rich don't fare well. While such violence is morally reprehensible, so is starvation and constant exhaustion. What I mean to say is the middle class and rich folk, who like to condemn Castro have no right. The notion that Cubans in the states depict an accurate depiction of him is false. These are those who did not thrive in his regime. It would be like asking the Japanese in the United States after internment what their thoughts were on the U.S. as an agent of moral good.
       As for Castro's socialist rhetoric, one must wonder what would have happened if the the United States hadn't thoroughly crippled its economy? People who claim Cuba is a failed socialist project have very little proof. Citing instances of poverty in Cuba is meaningless given that the United States essentially spent the past 40 to 50 years maintaining that poverty. Cuba's medical advances have been well documented and the fact that college is completely free to Cubans is also to be congratulated. The quality of these institutions is dubious, but the mere sentiment cannot be scoffed at by people from a country that essentially enslaves their citizens in perpetual debt when it comes to these very institutions.
    Castro is a controversial figure. I find that the one sided American propaganda given about him is not an accurate depiction. Even more interesting, is the question of whether America's embargo and international influence actually strengthened his hold in Cuba. What if America had simply allowed him to be, while also taking every opportunity to let Cuban citizens into the United States? We've seen instances of people using the money and influence they gain abroad to help affect change in their home country. That could have easily been the case in Cuba. And instead focusing on  a half caricature of the United States as a capitalist beast that intended to put a puppet government in Cuba; the Cubans may have focused on the deficiencies of their own leader. My point is that people are acting mighty new about Castro and Cuba. I know some of my friends have deep and bitter histories concerning this subject, but I wonder if their families were on the right side of history.
      As I think of being on the right side of history, I realize how economic stratification is often the true cause for political strife. Socialism addresses some of these issues, but even in socialist government we find inequality. Capitalism in its purest form actually addresses these issues as well. This is a completely rudimentary assessment of these sort of issues, but I feel socialism works best in a small localized government. Cuba was the perfect place for socialism. For huge conglomerates like Russia, China and the U.S., capitalism works best. 

Luke Cage's ending ruins the entire show

                  The first episode of Luke Cage had little to no action and I liked it that way. The exposition was rich with Harlem history as if Luke and Pops were speaking against a pervasive gang culture that still holds true in Black and Hispanic NYC today. As the show progresses, Luke becomes a symbol of African American excellence. One scene in particular stands out. When Cage is staring out at the Crispus Attucks complex, he lectures the young African American boy about the history of the N-word and the pride that comes with being a black man. These are subject matters I know very little about and don't feel equipped to discuss, but damn it's powerful. And just like that, in episode two,  I was committed to watching the show. I expected it to follow in the steps of Fruitvale Station by talking about inner city culture and conflict, while also appeasing a white voyeuristic audience. But it seems the latter part (and I believe to its detriment) of that demographic won out because the ending of the show exists merely to remind you its a marvel comic. The flurry of deaths and deep rooted corruption with an oversaturation of backstory and potential love interests muddle the amazing race/inner city work Luke Cage does/could do.
             

 On top of that, all that extra shit is god awful. Wildcard characters like Diamondback, who would have been served better by a slow drawn out reveal, are arbitrarily thrust into the action, completely making all former adversaries sort of meaningless. Luke's relationship with the wise Latina doctor, whose existence serves as a connecting thread for the extended Marvel universe, actually takes away from the Luke Cage universe. She could have been introduced at the end with all the other nonsense. We didn't need alien guns or any of that stuff in the middle of season 1. All we needed was The Wire-esque gang banging operations that are thwarted through a combination of the efforts of Luke and Misty. The symbolic power of an African American vigilante character, finally being able to put his differences aside when approached by a cop who is actually germane to the neighborhood she serves would provide an alternate template and narrative for the current hostilities we see today. Instead we get some weird ass vendetta that I didn't completely understand or bother to care about. There's still nuggets of a good show in the second and third act of Luke Cage. The back story concerning Cottonmouth and the blind rage over sexual assault were incredibly powerful (I felt the sexual assault mention was completely mishandled). Yet the moment the random lackey comes in and begins to steer Cottonmouth's cousin as if she had not been an established politician for years seemed unbelievable and frankly a bit unsettling. The house of cards built in the first act is destroyed far too quickly with little to no mourning period. The message is "all that stuff about race and culture that was just to cover our bases cause we're touching a minority super hero," now it's time to get to the real stuff. And I mean let's face it, the original source material, while progressive for its time, was still created by three white comic geeks who were far more wrapped up in universe building, than any facet of minority issues. 

How Teach for America perpetuates huge problems in education that no one actually talks about

                      The same thing seems to be said in education policy. We need to listen to teachers more. We need to work with schools to get better results. The paradigm has shifted from nationwide mandates to a more grassroots approach. And on paper Teach For America seems to engender this sort of thinking. In fact, the only way Teach for America comes anywhere near their mission statement is through this unspoken belief that if we send smart and successful kids into the education system, they will come out of it as potential stakeholders who will have a stronger grasp on the pulse of education later in life.
                    Too bad the reality is that these students go in as ignorant outsiders and leave as slightly less ignorant outsiders. Now to be fair, there are plenty of stellar recruits. For example, Teach For America has pushed to send people back to their old stomping grounds and the results are excellent. I've met amazing corp members (typically minorities), who go back to teach and were able to formulate sustainable solutions to problems that their schools faced. I also met clueless well intending corp members from big name West Coast schools, who hung out in NYC for two years and immediately jumped ship to Law school/Public Policy/ etc. with the belief that they were now qualified to fix the problems they saw.
            What I hate more than the grad schoolers are the friends I see creating start ups. It's amazing to me that many of them feel they've experienced enough teaching in two years to adequately give expertise to other schools. They create consulting firms, websites, technology, bullshit programs they have no proof of impact for and take advantage of the poorest school districts or at the very least siphon funds from the ultra wealthy. And if any of them can create a big enough following, Teach for America will parade them on their Facebook page. It's hard to be critical of a program who's attempting to help kids, but when they're doing it poorly and receiving funding from schools, then the highest level of scrutiny is warranted.
          Teach for America has always churned out a sea of ignorant reformers, they just usually took the road most traveled. Assistant Principals and Principals are saturated with Teach for America Alum who happened to be in the right place at the right time. News flash, failing schools have tons of overturn and while traditional teachers work hard to become good at teaching, the overachiever attitude that is so heavily recruited by TFA makes for the perfect candidate on paper to take administrative roles. The issue is a good administrator one does not make from looking like a good administrator. Yes, it's excellent to say you have a Harvard grad as your assistant principal, but I'd much rather have an incredibly experienced teacher who could actually provide solutions to the staff they'll have to oversee. Michelle Rhee is kind of the poster child for this. Her ineptitude has been chronicled extensively in Washington D.C. Fortunately, the media and I have no doubt, Teach For America, were on her side the entire way, creating a false image of success. However, data doesn't lie and the nature of her reform was not widely accepted at all. Yet we praise her as a fellow sister in the struggle for the Teach for America mission.
     I just don't buy it anymore. Every friend I see make a new company or become an assistant principal/department head in their school makes me cringe. I am not even able to hold a candle to the amazing teachers and administrators at my school. The thought that I could go to another school and implement their incredibly high standards is arrogant and foolish. It doesn't surprise me that the narrative we see with Teach for America people in education is often one short lived. "Reformers" rush in with lofty goals and inexperience to create a false illusion of strong culture and results. Then they hastily ditch the project before the house of cards begins tumbling down on the communities who desperately believed in their shelter. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course, many. But we don't need Teach for America to facilitate exceptions.
       I've noticed that my blogs end in this negative fashion and people have often accused me of not providing solutions. But the truth is I have no desire to provide a solution to Teach for America. I find the corp to be part of the problem. I think the people working in the corp should consider leaving. I've met so many amazing minority educators working to support Teach for America. Why? Coalesce and try to get funding. Then hire me. I'll give you my solutions to the problem then.

Note: The real reason so many minorities work for places we don't full believe in is cause we're broke. It's hard out there for us. I feel that, so please don't take the ending of my blogpost as me getting at you.
          

You can't be an "intellectual" professional and be woke

         At my Alma Mater, a political organization decided to ask the incredibly biased question of whether the Black Live's Matter movement was good for race relations. The question itself sounds eerily similar to the criticisms levied by a tacit white population against the civil rights movement of the 1960s. However, the fact that neo-liberals are incredibly dense isn't news to me. What shocked me is when a well known social justice activist from my campus, who happened to be the co-founder of the organization, gave a defense of the organization's query. He argues that the mere act of questioning is not in itself harmful to the cause, but instead allows for frank discussion to be had. And part of me wanted to agree with him. As a former collegiate debater, I felt that the sparring matches of logic and evidence often provided a hidden truth talked about afterwards. Debaters, surprisingly enough, agree on quite a bit and the discussions that happened outside of the debate round were often the most illuminating discussions I had ever had the pleasure to listen/take part in. But even I knew that this was wrong.
          The decision for the Michigan Political Union to have a panel without a single representative from the movement was ignorant and disingenuous. Hearty debate occurs when both sides can be aptly represented. Furthermore, the question invites the sort of skepticism bred in the media concerning the movement. The general opinion of America is the movement essentially amounts to a bunch of pissed off black people who need to get over it. And that's putting American opinion mildly. Minority issues, by their very nature, are often misrepresented by organizations that cater to a "general audience." General often can be coded as white, wealthy, and male. The Michigan Political Union should have anticipated that the movement would take their query as a personal attack and instead of attempting to shut the movement out of the discussion, allow them to play an integral part. But it didn't. And in its mind it kept its puritanical approach to debate, when in actuality it reinforced institutional bias that often discredits minority voices simply because they are unpopular and grossly under researched.
        After looking at what I considered to be a gross injustice occurring at the political union, I was even more shocked to see this former activist defend them. As I said before, the debater in me believed in the therapeutic process of debate, but the minority in me knew too well that certain topics needed to be handled with care. The fact that this former activist had little to no criticism for his organization confirmed something I always secretly felt while living in the bubble of elite academia. I am a poser. He is a poser too. If you're living in a posh apartment in Bushwick, occasionally ordering chop cheeses, while also patronizing a wine and cheese bar right next to the bodega, then you're a poser too. Even as minorities, when we become disconnected from the struggles the majority of minorities face, then we begin to value bourgeois principles such as "intellectualism" over our own people. We don't realize that the intellectualism we have been fed subtly subverts our very existence, becoming in a way a new chain by which we are bound.
       I am guilty of this. My writing is often pretentious. I am blessed to work five days a week in a low income neighborhood so all my students and their families humble me and educate me. To all my friends working in Washington, Microsoft or what ever shining corporate tower on a hill, remember you are ignorant. So please save your deification of intellectualism for people like you because the poor do not have time for it. They know truths you are very much ignorant about. 

If you think the election is a situation of Lesser of Two evils, you're an idiot

                    I feel like this has been said a million times, so I won't belabor it.

1. If you think Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both awful choices, you're probably a complete idiot.
         One is at worst, a mediocre choice. The other is completely awful.

2. If you think this because you supported Bernie Sanders, then you're just full of bullshit.

        Stop pretending you know or care about politics. You're probably as committed as the fools who supported Kony 2012.


That is all