Actual insider tips for College

            I've been lounging around, waiting for Institute for Teach For America and happened to pop on the TV to find Rachel Cruze spouting out nonsense concerning college. She's encouraging students to go to state schools that are far cheaper than their Elite peers and makes the argument that this will put these students at little to no disadvantage. That's a huge lie. I wish it weren't a huge lie, but it is. There are advantages and disadvantages to going to an Elite institution. Going to local state schools also has its own advantages as well. Here are a few actual tips to save money for college, that are doable by almost anyone.

1. Check out the Honors program of your State school- 

 Unless your State school is a UVA or UNC, then your state school is probably average in terms of rankings. Yet you hear of so many people getting amazing jobs after college. That my friends is a result of what some people call "Ivy patches". Honor Programs or Colleges within State institutions tend to provide elite level education regardless of the ranking of the school. These degrees are typically respected locally, so don't try to push your luck too much. Furthermore, these programs tend to have amazing networks all around the world, developed by alumni of the program. Needless to say, these students are the ones getting the best job offers from their career centers, while other students are expected to fumble through the job seeking process. 

2. Ranking isn't everything, but it is something-

 There are advantages for going to an elite institution. The first being name recognition. As I went on interviews for Teaching positions, just the mention of University of Michigan had Principals singing my accolades for academic achievement. Am I deserving of this kind of preferential treatment? Probably not. Did it land me jobs? I doubt it, hard work and dedication is still necessary. But it can be the little bit that puts you over an equally qualified candidate. Furthermore, these degrees have a further geographical reach than your local state school. This reach allows you to easily move throughout the country, while having employers respect your degree. Now if you're set on staying in your geographical region, then honestly you should go to the cheapest state school out there. People have an affinity for local universities and will typically put them on par with elite institutions that are out of state. If your university commands respect in the place where you want to work, then that's the only validation you need. 

3. Elite schools have Elite Networks- 

     Elite schools have a plethora of successful alumni, allowing the opportunities offered through the career center to sometimes be life savers and well worth the high tuition. Now that doesn't mean all people who go to Elite Universities are entitled to these offers. Elite institutions have honors programs, just as other institutions do. Furthermore, the bigger your school, the more competition you're going to have to face. So don't think because you went to an "Elite" institution that a job is going to fall right into your lap. You need to work for it. 

4. There is a debt limit that's hard to predict- 

    If you're planning to go into a field like Economics or Business and you are certain you will be pursuing these things for a career, then definitely go to an elite institution. Getting a BBA from the Ross School of Business in comparison to another Business school could be the difference between Wall Street and unemployment. The issue is many elite institutions are expensive and require you to go into a lot of debt. Some will say screw the debt, you'll be making a lot as an investment banker. Yes, that's true, if you become an investment banker. There needs to be a cap on what students take out in loans and I personally think parents need to take a more proactive role in tempering their kid's aspirations. A parent needs to ask themselves, "how determined is my child to go into finance or economics." If you think your child without a doubt is going to do it, then you should encourage them to take the debt out for a school that can give them the connections they need to get the job they want. If you aren't so sure, then maybe you should encourage your child to go to a cheaper University. Lower rankings do not mean there is any difference in the quality of the education. 

5. You go to college for peers, not Professors- 

   If you're serious about school and have worked hard to attend a great University, then your entitlement isn't to an elite institution, it's to an exceptional cadre of colleagues. That's sometimes the issue with lower ranking schools. The education is great and the opportunities are great, but the student body ends up lacking because the standards to be admitted are far lower than that of a higher ranking school. While making friends may not be your top priority, it can be integral to having a good college experience. Keep this in mind

6. I'm serious about going into (blank), should I go to Harvard? 

This is usually the misconception I see many high school students making. They want to go into a specialized field and assume that an elite institution is the best way to get there. This may not be true. It's important that if you are set on a specialized field, then you check which school has the leading experts in that field. You may be surprised. Elite Institutions do not specialize in everything and lower ranking institutions have far better experts in many topics. If your topic is covered by your local institution, then I think you should go to your local institution. I would only be wary of a few things. First, know what topics are actually germane to your field. Many people might think that English departments might have professors who focus  on early adult fiction or mystery novels and so on. However, the vast majority of English Professors focus on time periods and theories. If you love Early modern poetry written by women in the 17th century, then there's a place for your somewhere. If you want to an expert on Harry Potter, then I think you'll be having a tough time searching for a University that would let you pursue that. Furthermore, choosing a school for their specialization is risky because if you decide you don't want to do that particular topic (as many college students do), you might find yourself stuck in a place that doesn't have the expert you're looking for. 

7. How much money should I take out in loans? 

    If you're thinking about going to college the answer would be as little as possible

    If you're in college, you need to be thinking job, job, job, job, I NEED A JOB (unless you're planning to stay in academia, then your job is school)

Using myself as an example, I worked for the working family party my freshman year summer and wasn't thrilled about the work. Then I worked in Housing and while I enjoyed it, I didn't really want to make it a career. Then I tutored and I knew for a fact I liked teaching. I kept working until I found what I liked to do and that needs to be your mentality when you're in college. You need to find what you like to do and somehow make that thing pay your loans off. The average college student is going into loans of 30,000 plus. That is partially a failure of the government and institutions, but I also think this is also because of the inclination of many parents not to pay. 

Note for parents: If you can't afford college for your child, that is completely understandable. Financial aid should be able to help students who have parents who can't pay tuition. However, if you can afford to give money for your child's education, then shame on you if you withhold that money. I personally think if you're making a salary of 60k or above, and your child asks you to chip in 7 to 9k a year for tuition, then you should do it. That's a reasonable price for any parent. If your child flunks out or is not taking education seriously, then

Social Justice isn't Passive Aggressive, Racism and Sexism are

                   A fellow Wolverine posted on a status I had about a Twitter war between Azealia Banks and Iggy. Naturally Banks went in on Iggy's sudden silence in the wake of the Brown and Garner decisions, leaving twitter gems such as "makes me wanna throw a jar of piss at her." Now just to be clear I loved Banks' comments as they were a raw and candid display of frustration with someone who has appropriated black and hip-hop culture without even attending the cultural tenets both cultures hold dear.
            The Wolverine was displeased with what he perceived as a race to the bottom discussion about contentious political issues about race. He specifically pointed out the twitter battles that force people to take sides. His comment got me thinking about what "twitter battles" actually amount to. Twitter battles really only serve as passive aggressive mud slinging. Neither side will admit they are dismissing the other, but we can all read between the two lines of the pound symbol to see the incendiary subtext being made. And at that moment I took a step back and evaluated what I consider to be "my side."
         While I have been critical of the social justice community as of late, I am still a strong advocate for Social Justice and its beliefs. Could it be that "my side" is equally guilty of fueling this passive aggressive propaganda fest, thus inhibiting any meaningful dialogue and progress from being made? And then I thought of the recent "twitter wars" and realized my answer is resounding no. I believe if we examine the Twitter sphere we will find that many "Twitter Wars" are actually digital social justice movements that are direct and candid which are then met with a slew of passive aggressive counter culture responses (i.e. oppressive, typically white,male,hetero dominated point of view).
                 Let's start with the #blacklivesmatter movement. It started in response to actual events that transpired (i.e. the killing of Garner and Brown). There was no underhanded or indirect acknowledgement of the events. In fact the movement adopted the language associated with the two murders. Many tweets had some derivative of "hands up, don't shoot" and "I can't breathe", tying the movement to the specific incidents and to a larger conversation surrounding police and race relations.
             Now let's compare that with #alllivesmatter. #allivesmatter would not in the least bit be racist if it did not have such reactionary inertia behind it. It was created in response to #blacklivesmatter, but instead of being candid of its critical tone, it instead hides behind a facade of universal justice. Most tweets coming from #allivesmatter find an underhanded way to discredit the #blacklivesmatter movement. Even this seemingly harmless tweet which reads "People who can't understand the importance of human rights and justice need to educate themselves instead of run on emotions," is indirectly criticizing the emotional response by many blacks as an irrational response that borders on close minded. Instead of being candid of her criticism of the #blacklivesmatter movement the twitterer decided to shield herself with a blanket statement. #allivesmatter is ironically hyper conscious of #blacklivesmatter, while #blacklivesmatter is mostly focused on current events that are transpiring in the United States.
         We can see the same trend in #allwomen vs the #notallmen tweets. The #notallmen tweets in this case were in the beginning and in response to the horrible Elliot Roger shooting. But did the tweets actually engage with the feminist conversation surrounding the shooting? No, in fact the whole purpose of the hashtag was to distance men from the reality. In both cases the two hashtags move away from the actual events that transpired and instead shield themselves with comments that undercut what actually happened. #allwomen is simply based on actual experiences. Reading the #allwomen tweets immediately make the experiences of women clear. @allwomen isn't undercutting #notallmen or trying to create a subtext for the #notallment tweets. Instead it provides real life testimony of the egregious sexist acts men do towards women.
    So I'm basically done with this two sides nonsense. There aren't two sides to these stories. These stories are multi-faceted issues, but when your values systems differs in a fundamental way it's because you have become deaf to the experiences of the oppressed. The oppressed only speak with tongue in cheek when they must fake smiles to their oppressors. Twitter is a place for open discourse and naturally the oppressed are candid and direct (e.g. throwing a jar of piss on someone). The only people who are not direct are those who are oppressing and are in self denial. So please take your neutrality somewhere else. You're not neutral, you're petty and passive aggressive and I honestly can't deal with that shit.

AAVE Ebonics and the way I speak

I didn't hear of Ebonics or AAVE till I reached college. My black friends from NYC also didn't hear of Ebonics or AAVE till they reached college. I mean we all knew and used the dialect they were referring to. But the actual designation was never necessary. And clearly we used it to different degrees. Furthermore, Spanglish is another dialect that mixed with my vernancular. The point is that my linguistic journey has been a complicated conglomerate. So when I see people policing language as appropriative claiming "if you're not black, you cannot use that language" I eyebrow raise and get frustrated. I did not have a choice in whether I spoke in ebonics. My Mom, Dad, friends and many people around me spoke in it, so I grew up speaking in it. I learned code switching early as my parents always emphasized the proper language for the proper time. And yes there was a stigma around the language as improper, but I still used it because it was natural for me. I never used it in a sarcastic manner, it was just the way I spoke. That's the issue with ebonics and AAVE being enforced as a language only blacks can use. I don't become upset with my black (non-latino) friends who grew up saying chancla because I know it was forced upon them. I grew up in a diverse neighborhood so I've picked up the slang and vernancular of several cultures. Some of that happens to be black. Now of course certain words are clearly "off limits" and there's a clear tone that makes you an appropriating asshole. but before you call someone out who is using ebonics and isn't black, perhaps you should check yourself. I'm not ignorant to the roots of my language. I know the words that came from my Puerto Rican roots. I know the words that I picked up from my black friends growing up. I know the etymology (not perfectly of course, but I have an idea of where what came from).

Is the stigma still there? Yes. It's a stigma not only placed on blacks, but basically all lower class inner city kids ( so basically predominantly black and latino populations, but not only them). My students in class speak to me in ebonics regularly. I always correct them (code switching is an unfortunate reality we live with and it'd be irresponsible of me not to get them prepared for the scrutiny they will face in traditional academia). If you ask me to stop speaking ebonics because I am not black, my answer is simple: no. That's because it's my language. It's what I grew up speaking. I did not choose to speak it, it was forced on me. When ever I strayed from it, I frequently was told I was "talking white." As a writer I'm constantly confused as to how to speak. Do I maintain clean and crisp prose or do I slip into my New York vernancular where I slip into a smattering of ebonics, slang and odd pronunciation of er endings. Point is before you call someone out be sure it's for good reason. 

You want to save all kids, but you can't and you can

                 One thing I've learned as a teacher that runs counter intuitive to what has been taught to me as a TFA member is to reject the notion that all kids can be saved. I am not advocating for someone to give up on students. I am merely suggesting that when you have a classroom plagued with classroom management issues, targeting the students whose behavior can change should be your first priority and you should not feel guilty for doing so. This will mean that for some period of time you let that one student who is a serious behavior issue sleep in class. Or you consistently send that kid out of the room in order to prevent him (it could be a her as well) from setting off your entire class.
             But Raymond, how could you, doesn't that kid deserve an education too? Yes, he does and currently in your dysfunctional classroom he isn't receiving one. Any attempt you make on changing his behavior isn't going to work because students with his behavior issues cannot correct behavior through normal means. If they see other students then they will react and escalate the situation. That's why sometimes you need to let them flounder a bit while you set the classroom culture. Make it so that the students you can control are consistently following your directions and then slowly but surely those students with serious behavior issues will feel the pressure to conform. Also, when you're spending less time dealing with small behavior issues, then you have time to work and negotiate the difficult behavior coming from that student. Eventually that student will be put back on the list of things to do, but don't feel ashamed if you're overwhelmed and you want to change your classroom culture in a practical way.

As a new teacher I know very little, so naturally I just copy what veteran teachers have taught. Here are some good pragmatic management tips

1. The power of ignore- you will have students who crave attention. Don't punish those students, they want the punishment, punish the students that react to them. Eventually that student will stop because their classmates will ignore them completely.

2. Middle school students are self conscious- addressing a kid in front of the class is powerful because it sends a message to the entire class, if you do this I will call you out and you make look like a complete fool. Of course be selective when you do this, but making an example can sometimes be the best thing you could ever do

3. Transitions!- make transitions as short as possible. It's simple.

4. Don't play on a student's terms. Students want to rile you up. They want you to yell. Just don't do it/ Just give them the consequence and move on. 

10 ways you know you attended the University of Michigan and are a true Wolverine! Go blue forever and ever!

1. You attended University of Michigan
2. You paid tuition to the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
3. You took classes at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
4. You lived in the residence halls during the regular school year at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
5. You earned credits at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
6. You received an acceptance letter to attend the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
7. You put a deposit down on the tuition to confirm your attendance at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor
8. You hate Sparty! Just kidding, generalizing people from Michigan like that makes no sense. What I meant to say is you have gone to classes that were held on the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus
9. You owe loans to the University of Michigan Ann Arbor for tuition
10. You have a diploma from the University of Michigan Ann Arbor

I'll put the blame on me

               I have been considering how to write a post about my recent experiences as a teacher in the Bronx. I didn't want to claim any authority as a teacher because I'm still new and I'm still figuring out how things work and how to teach. I feel comfortable in the classroom, but I never feel perfect. Who knows if I'll ever feel perfect. So I can't speak as a teacher, but I can speak as a person watching the difficulties of education from the inside. Too often there are articles and studies published describing inner city schools as "failing" and "dysfunctional". They call them dropout factories and begin the blame game. Blame the teachers first because clearly they did not do their jobs. Blame the principal for not firing them. Blame the unions who prevented the teachers from being fired. Blame the parents who didn't raise their kids properly. And the most sickening blame I see: blame the students for being lazy ingrates who did not take advantage of the social mobility put in front of them. Those casting blame often have very little experience with these areas or have only seen these areas through a 25 cent binocular stand visit. They saw one fight or one disrespectful exchange between a student and teacher and felt content with labeling all the students as failures.
            I was ready for that reality when I walked in. What I didn't expect to find was the reality painted by the media being a farce. Schools aren't always at the verge of failing. Administrations are not always lazy. Teachers are not always ineffective. Parents are excellent caregivers and role models. And my kids are spectacular. Yet some of them will still struggle and possibly fail school. But why Raymond, if everything going so splendidly what is the issue that needs to be fixed! But that's the thing, it's so complicated that I can't give you the golden formula that explains what makes good schools. The narratives I'm about to paint aren't from any specific students of mine, but what one could expect to see in an inner city classroom as an educator.
          You receive a class of 35 students, immediately over the threshold recommended for your classroom. The irony of being a school that's respected in an inner city neighborhood is it often leads to your school becoming overcrowded since every parent wants their kid there. Your students are excellent. They want to please you and will do work in the hopes to succeed and gain your praise. One student in particular has been struggling in your class. You do everything in your power to help them. Extra homework, lunchtime tutoring, positive rewards for good behavior. The only issue is the student came to 6th grade lacking basic multiplication skills. You can't teach multiplication skills in two weeks. They fail their first exam and feel betrayed by you preaching hard work and determination. They don't come to you for extra help anymore. But you have 34 other students to worry about, so as long as that student isn't a behavior issue in the classroom (which they often do become because they feel disengaged by the material), then you can focus your efforts on other students. You have a student who doesn't show up until 2 weeks later. They are doing math at a 3rd grade level and are now 2 weeks behind. They also misbehave in the classroom constantly. You find it easier to send them out of the classroom than to actually teach them. Every time you tell them to leave you feel a bit defeated. A student in your class has family issues at home as a result of lack of income. They may lose their apartment. Unsurprisingly this student has started to act up in your classroom. You're a no nonsense teacher though so you tell the student you're sorry about their situation but that behavior is not acceptable in the classroom. It doesn't work. That student who used to be an A student has now become satisfied with Cs. They also will give you attitude in the class. This is the unfortunate reality. You have a student who has a learning disability. You try to differentiate materials for them, but with so many students it's difficult to do this for every lesson. The student is still struggling and you want to offer them more support, but it does not exist at your school. The student grows more frustrated as success feels more unlikely. They begin to check out in your classes, which they cannot afford to do since their learning disability makes it incredibly difficult to catch up. You have a model student who is going to take the specialized high school exam. They could not afford a prep class and their parents would not buy them a prep book. You want to buy one for them, but your paycheck can barely afford the rent and food. The student fails to gain admittance to any specialized high school. Why didn't they go to the library? The library is too far from their house and they can't stay out late because it's dangerous. You are a teacher. Your kids aren't doing well. Whose fault is it? I guess I'll put the blame on me.
      Rewrite the narrative. Great educators exist everywhere and aren't only teachers. You have a student who struggles and seeks extra help. You do everything in your power: extra homework, lunchtime tutoring, positive rewards. You notice they struggle with multiplication and get your school to purchase an online game that teaches kids multiplication. The student scores a respectable 75 on their exam. They are determined to get an 80 on the next one. You have a student who comes to school two weeks late, who is working on a 3rd grade math level. They misbehave constantly and you find it easier to send them out of the room. But in your first day of teaching you told them you won't be sent out this classroom. You keep to your promise and the kid eventually stops trying to get thrown out. They begin the road of improving in math, but still struggle. You have a student who is starting to act up  because their family may be evicted. You bring this issue to a social worker who finds access to emergency funds that helps struggling families stay in apartments. The student recognizes your role in that process and is now grateful. They become a positive role model in the classroom. You have a student who has a learning disability. You try to differentiate materials, but they still struggle. Your school can't offer you more resources. So you give up lunches and sometime after school to keep this kid on track. They score a 70 on their exam. They appreciate your extra help and are more motivated to work in your classroom. You still can't purchase that specialized high school prep book, but that pushes you to start a specialized high school prep course in your school. The student immediately signs up and gets admitted to Brooklyn Technical High School. But you have other students who you will fail. Students you can't find a fix for. You will eventually be spent and be unable to help your students.
     The story of educating isn't a hopeless one, just a difficult one. Sometimes the resources exist to patchwork success. Other times you watch as a student fails and you can do very little to help. You keep trying. You do what ever works. And when it doesn't work you try something else. Grad school doesn't teach you how to be a teacher. It shows you how not to be one. I have only worked with my kids for two months. I work with real professionals  who have taught their kids for years. Your school is your neighborhood. Your neighborhood is a part of your school. Embrace it. Your school is not an island or an ivory tower. The best schools I find are fixtures that reflect the neighborhood they serve. This post has been a ramble about what I've seen. Of course I didn't use any of my own students experiences because I respect their privacy far too much. So the next time you want to declare outright condemnation of the education system, stop and listen to the teachers, principals, families, students, social workers, bodega owners, para professionals. They hold stories of what is both great and horrible in our schools. Some will tell tales of doom and gloom. Others will speak of immense success happening in our "failing" school system. 

The ward against White Insecurity: why millennial minorities will no longer beg

"I believe that white racial anxiety, not immigration, will be the most significant and potentially dangerous socio-demographic trend of the coming decade...." Los Angeles Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez

        This quote rings true 4 years later. Policies and attitudes concerning diversity in this country have taken a turn from general acceptance to a rapid redefining of what "good" diversity entails and what is now referred to as (fictitious) "reverse racism". Mr. Rodriguez would go on to suggest that institutions of learning abandon programs such as affirmative action in an effort to abate a white backlash. The issue with affirmative action is that institutions of whiteness are inherently threatened by the success of minorities. Whites in power have no intention of ending the oppression of minorities. 
       Now to be perfectly clear I do not believe there is a secret group of white straight men, smoking cigars as they think about how they will maintain this hierarchical racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. system. I think that there is a plethora of white straight men, smoking cigars as they think about how they will maintain their own success. This maintenance requires that policies are written to support them and their endeavors, which only serves to help their high end workers, who tend to be white straight male as well. Certainly they'll have a minority or two in the mix, but there is no way one could claim there is a rainbow ribbon that exists in the upper echelons of power in this country. This isn't conscious racism (most of the time, some of it is), but a society where minorities are consistently exploited. Even rich minorities exist to be tolkenized and held up as an icon of shame for their people, rather than be role models. The point is that privilege exists and the reason it's affecting white people is because they tend to be the ones with the power. Why do they have power? Colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow, we live in the legacy of horrible injustices. 
    If you disagree with the previous paragraph, then I suggest you read some history books and then interrogate the paragraph again. I'd suggest Howard Zinn as a good starting point. If you continue to disagree, then stop reading. You and I won't see eye to eye. In fact,  you are actively my oppressor and I'm through with tolerance for your intolerance. You and I can talk more on the political battlefield. And it is a battlefield. Minorities are wising up to the nonsense we've had perpetrated against us. The generation of minorities that came before us have been largely docile in the sense that they knew progress can only be made in baby steps. Even Martin Luther King, a radical in many of his writings and speeches, understood the rhetorical importance of making his speeches hospitable for the curious appropriating white reader (they were called communist back then). Do you honestly think MLK would sit idly by in a restaurant when he could garner enough votes in an election to win districts in his home state? The time has come for us to take back Malcom X's call for treating the ballot as a bullet. The only difference is the White backlash has begun. The hobbling of the VRA was the first mortal blow done to minority suffrage. The after effect of the Supreme Court's decision essentially resulted in a slew of needless voter id laws (check the percentage of voter fraud in this country) conveniently popping up in the absolved counties from the decision. 
     But it's too late. Too many of us are graduating and we know what's up. Millennial Minorities will no longer be complicit with our own subordination. We will be successful and have money and be well versed so that when Whites do try to bar us from the vote, we will fight politically and legally. Furthermore, when I say whites I think it's understood by all allies that I'm not referring to you. White allies will stand with us, expecting nothing in return. Minorities have no incentive to vote with each other, but we always have an incentive to not vote against each other. The oppression of one of us always results in further oppression for all of us. We end the cycle now. No longer do we bargain for our freedom and success. We will take it. 

Three things that cops should start doing

The NYPD strikes again with yet another embarrassing video that can be found in this article. The video is of a street performer being ejected from the subway by a police officer on grounds that he is now allowed to be there. Now the legality of this isn't as black and white as the article would like you to believe. Yes, musicians are allowed perform in subway platforms, but they are also allowed to be ejected by cops during peak hours or when they are obstructing the platform. The main issue with the video is the cop doesn't mention either of those reasons for ejecting him. The cop instead asserts that the musician is simply not allowed to be there. That is untrue and so naturally the musician resisted ejection and had to be forcibly removed. So how could have this been avoided? Well I have three simple practices cops could start doing that won't impede on any legitimate accept of their job.

1. Understand the rationale of the law-
     The cop in the video probably knew from past experiences that he could eject people from the platform, but did he know why? If he did then the video would have probably went far more smoothly. The officer would have explained his rationale either being a safety concern or an impending peak hours concern and the musician may have responded much better. More importantly the cop would have added the caveat that the musician could return after peak hours, framing his request as a reasonable one as opposed to the video's dictatorial order. Often cops feel like they don't need to give a rationale for the law. Citizens should follow it plain and simple. That kind of attitude is what causes people to get peeved. I'm  a teacher and even with my kids I have to explain why rules in the classroom work the way they do, otherwise my students view them as dictatorial mandates. Adults function the same way. We like to know why we're doing something and often taking an extra second to explain can save cops a whole lot of headache.

2. Keep a neutral tone-
   People get you angry. I get it. Everyday people can be ridiculous and make your life difficult. But guess what causes people to escalate? When you reveal an aggressive or combative tone when it isn't warranted. Even in the video as the cop tries to hear out the musician it is clear that the officers tone is combative. Instead of being neutral the officer reveals his displeasure by interacting with the crowd. The officer's main concern should be with the musician. I would ignore the crowd until after I am done settling the musician's issue. I know it's easier said than done, but it goes a long way. People are going to tense up if they feel you are tense and on edge.

3. Show empathy
  Empathy is a dangerous game as a cop and I am in no way saying cops should take pity on people as often described when cops choose not to give tickets and so on. In fact, having an inconsistent track record causes more crime because people don't take consequences seriously. But just because you're enforcing the law doesn't mean you cannot empathize with the people affected by it. If the cop had empathized with the musician and how this law disrupted the way he lived his life, then the exchange would have went far more smoothly. The cop should stand fast by the law, but does not need to ignore how it negatively impacted the individual, who honestly was doing nothing wrong. How many kids on the street do cops stop and frisk randomly to find nothing except distressed looks and frustration. A little empathy would help cops mend a small iota of the injustice they are imparting (though to be completely honest stop and frisk is a racist and ineffective policy, so it's hard to empathize when you know you're in the wrong).

I don't think these three things will fix the incredibly illegitimate things cops do. This ranges from unfair killings to the civil forfeitures the cops constantly use to steal from citizens. I think these things will help cops who are just trying interact with the vast majority of law abiding citizens. Cops wear many different hats and that hat doesn't always need to be one of the dictator. You can be an enforcer of the law. 

The two college model minorities

                  In college identity became a locus of turmoil and self doubt. I was in a college that held a majority of individuals that were different from my own identity. As a New Yorker I was used to a diversity that had bounds. Groups had locations that were demarcated according to nationality and race, so I always felt as if I had a choice. In the University I had no choice. What was worse is that many other minorities colluded to create a seemingly multi-faceted monolith. People of color they said! Different yet united! And there was a sense of camaraderie to be had. I mean we could always share over how we'd have to roll our eyes over the naivety of our uncultured peers when it came to eating out at our "ethnic" restaurants. But our differences were never pronounced. In college it became more about the monolith than about our own personal growth as a people. As a Puerto Rican on campus I found myself supporting movements like BBUM and UMDivest, feeling at the very least that it was my responsibility to support these movements as a fellow minority in the struggle. But I found it hard to distance myself from these movements in an objective sense. In college I feel minority groups forgot the power dynamics between them. Asian students held a significant majority in my campus and that was often reflected in the leaders I saw in much of the social justice movement. Furthermore, those Latinos who did not ascribe to every social justice tenet in existence was often set out to the side. It seemed that there were two models a minority in college could follow: assimilation into white culture or assimilation into radical social justice and borderline nationalistic pride. I wanted neither.
             If you are Latino at the University of Michigan, open your eyes to the dynamics in the minority and social justice community. Do not ignore the power dynamics that exist. I am not implying that minority groups are intentionally being oppressive of other minority groups. I am stating that the institutional privilege that some minority groups have on campus is often not discussed or accounted for. Yet we are more than willing to rally toward the monolithic term "minority" or "person of color". I am glad I very rarely hear the term person of color nowadays. I see people for their actual struggles and color has not become one universal term of oppression, but a million stories of racism that I can learn from. I do not generalize what I do not know. I can't speak for many, but if you are Latino at the University of Michigan, this post is for you. Take control of your own community. Do not assume solidarity. And do not generalize your experiences. I believe there is a model of solidarity that exists between minority groups at Michigan. It first requires the long overdue discussion of privilege and expectations that exist for certain minority groups on campus.

New Yorker "millenials" unite against the NYPD's policies

                    The tragic death of Eric Garner was unfortunately viewed as horrific, yet typical by many who have grown up in poor neighborhoods in New York City. Minorities have long been the subject of unfair racial targeting and excessive aggression brought about by the hands of the NYPD. These communities have marched in the past and yet change has not come. We marched when Sean Bell was shot, yet change has not come. We are now marching for Eric Garner and still serious changes are not being considered or even vocalized. Mayor de Blasio and police chief Bratton have given conciliatory words, but neither of them have acknowledged that sweeping change needs to occur in the force. And for a second I will forsake everything I believe in to keep an open mind. Crime in New York City is at an all time low. Whether that is a result of the harsh policies brought in the 90s or demographic shifts or other unanticipated externalities (e.g. Freakonimcs famous abortion chapter) is the question nobody wants to answer. But it is the question that needs to be answered. There can no longer be a justification of the needless murder of minorities in the city. We cannot allow racial profiling to become the crux of our police force's tactics. Yet many whites in the city are content with just allowing the status quo to stay the same. Well it's time for meaningful change.
                   This meaningful change needs to come through evaluation of hard facts. For example, look at the NYCLU report on stop and frisk to see the ineffectiveness of an exorbitant amount of stops. Also, why is it that whites are suspected of engaging in crimes such as misdemeanors and drugs at a far lower rate than Latinos and Blacks. To assume that whites in the city are using less or are far more mature than their Black and Latino counterparts seems like a large oversight. The racial bias is clear and many a racist person in the city is ok with this. Most of the voices I hear shouting vehemently in support of the NYPD are white. It doesn't surprise me that this is the case. White people have no reason to fear the NYPD because the tactics being used don't racially target them. But to hastily frame this as a "racist white phenomena" would be premature. I have heard from many Latinos and Blacks themselves that they believe Blacks and Latinos deserve this extra scrutiny. Racism and self hatred is something that is embedded in the city. As I grew up I was taught to hate people like me. I was also taught to differentiate myself from them. There were "ghetto" Puerto Ricans and then there were those like me. What I didn't realize was that when others looked at me, they wouldn't see the difference. And then I realized further that was because there was no difference. We were both Puerto Rican; others thought of us as ghetto. One of us rejected the term, the other didn't bother to comment. Rooted in the city is a sense of knowing. We all think we are culturally competent to the point that we can make sweeping generalizations. And when a minority awkwardly laughs with you as you make a joke that clearly isn't funny, you are deluded into believing that you have gained access to a secret cultural capital that allows you to be racist. But to you it isn't racism. You think it's truth. You're wrong.
                  Racial progress is being made in New York. The new generation of New Yorkers aren't afraid to have serious conversations about race. We aren't afraid to proclaim our ignorance. We don't allow the racial poison that has been given to us by our parents and environment to affect our decisions. Instead we believe in a better New York City. One that doesn't include a police force that is trained to racially profile. This isn't a condemnation of the NYPD. It's an earnest call for reform. Teach cops that minorities are people. Tell them to check themselves when they feel their own racial biases kicking in. And make it clear that when your racial biases lead you to mistreat the people you are supposed to protect, then you will face significant penalties. This is the kind of language we need to see. Bill de Blasio and Bratton's doctrine of mutual understanding is not enough. 

Things they don't tell you about being an RA that you should know going in

I was an RA for two years, my second year serving as a leader for my staff and I can tell you that there's a lot of things they don't tell new RAs or people considering staff. Here are just a few things I think people should know about before joining.

1. You will most likely be put into situations that you have not been prepared for. Furthermore, you can potentially be reprimanded or fired for not following a protocol you weren't explicitly taught. -
       I've seen plenty of situations play out where residents did things that were ridiculous and the protocol for how to deal with it simply wasn't clear. The mantra in most buildings tends to be "when in doubt page up", but if it's a particularly busy night and the supervisor above you isn't responding, then it becomes your responsibility to deal with the situation as you see best. Veteran RAs know better than to let these situations fall on them, so typically they'll play everything on the side of caution. But a new RA, who is eager to make a positive impact on their residents and is committed to keeping their residents safe can easily get themselves involved in an incident that they can't handle. But Raymond what kind of incident would you be describing? There can be medical emergencies where the student refuses to take your advice ( which is always to call the ambulance). Any veteran RA would know to page up and if they did not receive any guidance because leadership is currently not around, then they would just call the ambulance themselves. Remember safety is paramount and choosing not to call could put that resident's life in danger.

2. You may be given unclear or mixed messages about how to enforce rules -
     Let's face it, different boss, different standards. I was fortunate to be in a building that played it by the books, but other buildings certainly were not like that. Also, your training in the beginning concerning rules and regulations could be completely ignored or even discouraged when the regular year came up. Typically this will have no negative bearing on you. If every RA looks the other way over a slightly giddy underage resident coming back at 1:30 am on your round, then you certainly won't be reported (unless your staff hates you). But let's say that giddy resident hurts themselves or has a medical emergency. If you were found to have engaged with that resident without enforcing a zero tolerance policy about drinking that could have possibly prevented injury, then you should expect serious repercussions. Strict rules are frustrating, but they can save you from putting residents' lives in danger and save you from risking your job. People may not like you on your staff, but oh well.

3. You may deal with incredibly difficult experiences (e.g. suicide ideation and sexual assault)
     This point is in no way meant to discourage new RAs. My training covered quite thoroughly how to deal with these scenarios, but no amount of training prepares you for the real thing. If you are committed to the job and truly care for your residents, then this should be something you are willing to take on. Your residents need to know that when you took this job, you are ready if any of them need you in this capacity. This does not mean you need to play the role of psychologist, best friend, and advocate (in fact for your own health and for theirs you shouldn't attempt to be any of those things). It means if your resident ever needs support you offer it and you connect them to the resources they need. Again this isn't meant to be discouraging, but realistic.

4. You may be on a staff that has a history of negative or bad RAs
      I've met horrible RAs. The one hallmark of a horrible RA is they tend to not realize how horrible they are at their job. When a staff has multiple horrible RAs, then you will find yourself fighting to do your job because often they will advocate for the bare minimum to be done at all times. The bare minimum extends to everything. No effort for residents and no effort for staff relations. As a new RA you may not feel comfortable calling out a veteran RA, but if they are honestly not doing their job, then feel free to do so. You can attempt to discuss it with your supervisor. If that doesn't work, then sometimes bringing up issues (don't target specific members, target specific behavior) in staff meetings may also be helpful. Often you'll feel that everyone is complicit with the poor behavior. I found that was not the case. Many RAs want to do a decent job and when they're prevented from accomplishing anything because everyone isn't willing to carry their own weight, then they are more than willing to apply some good old fashion pressure on their less than willing co-workers.

5. You may be on a staff that has bad leadership
   Bad leadership is just as bad as having a negative staff (possibly even worse). I don't have good ways of handling this situation. Often there are avenues to report leadership, but naturally housing protects their leadership positions, especially if your housing department has had difficulty filling out those positions in the past. You can try discussing it with your leadership in  a positive and respectful way, but often you'll find that bad leadership is also stubborn leadership. One way I dealt with bad leadership from other staffs is by simply ignoring their authority. At the point I was well versed in how procedures worked in housing and so I felt comfortable just ignoring the advice and suggestions coming from leadership that I found to be detrimental to my development as an RA. I was fortunate to have awesome leadership as an RA, but I have heard quite the opposite.

6. You may have no leadership whatsoever
People quit. Shit happens and expecting your lead RA to fill that gap is wrong. Lead RAs can only do so much. So when leadership quits, you'll need to make do. If you're new, feel free to go to your lead RA or another veteran RA for help. If you are a veteran RA, you honestly should step up.

7. You may have staff members who are not socially just
     It is typically taboo to call others out for not being socially just (you look like a pretentious asshole), but when a staff member clearly uses a racial slur or makes sexist get back to the kitchen jokes, you are often taken aback with pure disbelief because staff is the last place you would expect to hear that. Report them to leadership.

8. Staff doesn't write up Staff
    The most well known unspoken rule ever to exist is that staff members tend to not write each other up. There are plenty of reasons why. 1. Getting someone fired isn't cool. 2. If they don't get fired now you have someone on staff who hates you. 3. Everyone else on staff is now worried that you will write them up, sowing distrust in the staff. I always felt weird about this rule. As a lead RA it was never an issue because I tried hard to lead by example and most RAs were smart about what ever extra curricular activities they decided to partake in. But when I was a new RA, there were plenty of times when I wondered should residents even be seeing RAs like that. It feels weird. You're gonna feel uncomfortable. It's your choice on how to handle it. If you write up staff, I honestly wouldn't think any different of you. I believe every RA needs to make that choice for themselves.

9. There are moochers on every staff. Telling them to stop early typically saves headaches. If you don't then expect to be frustrated forever
 Self explanatory, if someone has you cover their shifts and don't repay the favor, then stop covering their shifts. Once everyone on staff has decided to ignore them, then they'll get the hint.

10. You residents actually do care and want to get to know you-
       You will hear that most residents don't care. That's absolute bullshit. Most people love talking about themselves. For those who aren't self absorbed, they tend to ask legitimate questions. Make yourself available, commit to getting to know them and maintain friendships.

I loved being an RA. It shaped my view on things and pushed me into the service commitment I am currently doing with Teach For America. Anyone who wants to be an RA, I suggest you do it. I just want you to be prepared for a level of dysfunction that may not seem apparent at first. Some tips

1. Stay positive- Once you give up (on your staff or your residents) they will give on you as well
2. Feel free to cry- staff can be stressful. Sometimes you want to be strong like the rest of them. That's bullshit. We all breakdown. The worst of them (me included) just do it in our rooms, alone, locked up, wishing you could tell someone.
3. Residents-RA is a two way street.
4. Staff can be staff or family, your choice
5. Use your unlimited meal plan while it last.

Rethinking the hot dog stand: Why what you think is NYC isn't

                                "I want a NYC bagel," my friend said when they first got off the plane. I threw them a strange look. A city with delicious cuisine from all around the world and the first thing you want is a bagel, come on. But NYC is apparently "famous" for their bagels. I wish I was given the memo. To me a bagel is a bagel, regardless if you get it from NYC or Bruegger's in Ann Arbor. If someone asked me to to tell them something that is quintessential NYC, the last thing I'd tell them is a bagel. So after we indulged in some high carb goodness at a local deli, the next culinary demand came. I want a Reuben from a Jewish Deli. I was so confused. I know Jewish Delis used to be famous in NYC, but now they are essentially a symbol of what NYC once was. So we went over to Kew Gardens and got him a Reuben. I ordered some Matzo Ball soup, which was delicious. After that we did some touristy crap: Time Square/Rockefeller Center/ South Street Seaport, take your pick. And finally it was time for some din-din (as he put it, while I rolled my eyes). He cleared his voice and then said with a serious demeanor, "I want alcohol." I shrugged and said let's go to the Lower East Side. He agreed and was giddy over the prospect of Boozing it up in the city, but before we could do that we needed some sort of sustenance because we were responsible adults after all. And that's when the final straw came. "Great, I can finally try an iconic NYC hot dog," he said thinking his culinary passport of the city finally had a foundation. "No," I said abruptly. "We will not waste money at a hotdog stand for what typically amounts to an underwhelming experience," I said with a stern look on my face. My friend, bewildered by my distaste for his "iconic" craving proceeded to buy three hot dogs anyways, at the tune of 3 dollars a dog. I walked a block down to a Halal cart and got a platter of Chicken, rice and salad  with a drink for 6 dollars. The rich hue of red over the tzatzki made the platter look more like the beginning of an artist's palette. His hot dog looked like a hotdog with mustard on it.
                         People come to NYC romanticizing a NYC that once was. They want to relive the authentic mom and pop Jewish delis that existed during the first big rush of immigrants. They want to enter a mob owned Pizza shop in Brooklyn, while forgetting to fold their slices and order garlic knots on the side. They want to enter an Irish pub and make believe that the owner is just a regular joe like them and not a rich landlord who has made a fortune serving martinis to wall street workers, while consistently raising the rent on their tenants' properties. NYC lore propagates an unspoken hierarchy of culture. I mean sure if you want you it, you can find it, but I don't see movies glorifying the NYC I know to be home. I don't see the Puerto Rican Day Parade (the largest parade in the city) as a center piece for movies. I don't see the Zagat rating some of the best Jamaican or West Indies food in the city. High class in NYC instead glorifies a city that doesn't exist anymore The remnants are there. I can still get a slice. I can still pass a Synagogue on my way to work. And you best believe soda bread was served to me as a young kid, but these "other" cultures, the ones that aren't glorified and mythologized as quintessential NY are what populated my life. It's time to we stop romanticizing NYC and start treating it for what it is. 

Please go to College

  The new trend nowadays is to frame people who get college degrees as worthless freeloaders who are taking on unnecessary debt and gaining a useless education that could be obtained in a library. People quote that obnoxious Good Will Hunting scene, where Matt Damon goes up to a pretentious Harvard student and reminds him that Matt Damon had a similar education for a much smaller price ( 150 dollars in Library fees). This is supposed to be a hyperbolic statement of course, yet people take it to heart. What people fail to acknowledge is the continuation of the scene where Matt Damon admits his kids will be serving McDonald's to the pretentious gentlemen. So let me make this clear. You are not Matt Damon. You are not a genius. The kind of intelligence exhibited in Good Will Hunting is not typical, it's not even above average, it's incredibly rare. So please stop citing my favorite movie for your own insecurities.
  Now I want you all to stop telling kids to not go to college. It's obnoxious. Are there people who are successful without a college degree? Yes. This isn't a post claiming college is necessary for success. But the overwhelming majority of people need college to be successful. Why? College opens doors. Your college degree makes you more qualified than a random person on the street who decides to apply for your job. In terms of starting your career, college is the boost you need to get the experience you want so you can remain marketable. People often bring up entrepreneurs who easily outclass college graduates. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the gang are all examples of bright young minds who decided to forgo college for experience. Now I want you to give me the list of people who didn't get jobs because they didn't have college degrees. That's a much harder list to construct because no employer would outright admit they rejected someone because they have no college degree, but I'm sure there are plenty of employers who either reject people without degrees or prefer people with degrees.
  Poor students who hear this mantra of "don't go to college" are the ones who are hurt the most by it. Poor students who are academically successful can easily be persuaded to forgo the costs of college. Rich and upper middle class students may whine and groan, but as long as their moms and dads are picking up the tab, they let out a long sigh and say "might as well". Poor students will hear about entrepreneurial work ethic and the overbearing costs of college. They also don't want to put their parents in the awkward position of saying no to their education. So it's easier to just not go.  But that's a mistake. Even for those technically gifted, it can be a challenge landing an interview with Google or Microsoft, when they typically give their internships to college students. There will always be success stories that defy the odds. But everyone cannot be an outlier. Eventually the institutions set in place for proficiency in this country will bring down those who have decided to reject the system. The day companies stop using college degrees as a prerequisite for their careers is the day I will recant everything I said here. But until then, stop telling kids to not go to college. Stop labeling every student who leaves college without a job as a freeloader. The economy is hard, jobs are difficult to find. Finally, please stop it with the "college isn't for everyone" nonsense. I hate it when people say that. It's typically targeted towards poorer students who are "low achievers" in high school. I do agree college isn't for everyone, but with the variety of colleges and classes in this country, college is surely for most people.

List of random job offers where Bachelors is expected
http://jobs.bloomberg.com/job/London-2014-Financial-Product-Sales-and-Analytics-Polish-speaker-Job/43259900/
https://www.google.com/about/careers/search/#!t=jo&jid=21435001&
https://www.google.com/about/careers/search/#!t=jo&jid=33635001&
http://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/students-and-graduates/our-programs/americas-programs/new-analyst-copy.html


And I'm pretty sure the list can go on and on.

Now I don't want this to be post be taken as a Carte blanche for taking on an insurmountable amount of debt for your degree in Classical civilizations. That's a whole different ballgame that requires an expert in personal finances.

Bias:  I am a graduate of the University of Michigan. 

Elliot Rodger's wasn't psychotic, he was acting like a guy and that's the real problem. TW: Rape

      Most articles have called Mr. Rodger's racist beliefs to be irrelevant (they're not, but I won't be discussing them here). Most people have called out his banter as sexist beliefs gone too far ( once something is sexist, it's already gone too far). And finally, mental illness has been used as a criticism shield for what honestly does not seem as irrational as people make it out to be. Many have portrayed his actions as the musings of a psychotic, but if one examines nerd culture and how it has become embedded in mainstream culture, then the sick inspiration for his massacre becomes quite clear.
      Now don't take that as an advocacy for what he did. On the contrary, this is my attempt at being as frank as possible about what many men refuse to admit about Rodger's actions. I have been around plenty of men who would have joked about doing what he said he was going to do in his manifesto. Everyone in the male community seems to be saving face with this dumbfounded game of "who would honestly do this", but at least in many nerd and geek circles, the murdering of women, especially "popular" women is something joked about in closed doors among mostly male audiences. Now the nerd culture aspect of this case has been covered in this article by the daily beast, but one key aspect the author failed to address is how nerd culture has become embedded in main stream culture. You see many people who consider themselves a part of "nerd/geek culture" like to delude themselves into believing people still openly make fun of people over playing video games, being intelligent, and liking comic books. I mean come on nerd iconography is everywhere. Nowadays to be cool, you need to be a bit of a nerd and the qualifying statements people used to give about liking video games and knowing a lot about Star Wars is no longer necessary. Does this mean mainstream culture has adopted all of Nerd Culture? No, there is plenty of Nerd culture that is too anti conformist to be adopted into mainstream culture.
     However, misogyny has always existed and those aspects of nerd culture fit right into this 21st century world, where oppression occurs through forced smiles and institutional barriers. Nerd misogyny is especially adaptive to 21st century misogynists because as it currently exists it is usually done anonymously and can be easily discounted through the "timid nerd"rouse (e.g. the nerd blames his social awkwardness for his social faux pas). We can see it in the tremendous amount of hostility male gamers show towards female gamers. We can see it in many an angry nerd rant one could find on youtube. If people think Elliot Rodger's videos are unique, then I am sad to say that I've seen plenty of videos where men lament over women not liking them and eventually come to the same conclusion Rodger's had (i.e. women must be wrong, since I am entitled to them). This leads to a regular proliferation of rape/violent fantasies. These fantasies are told in the form of a joke or a hypothetical. There is always some sort of misdirection that absolves the men discussing the fantasy of their shame. The fantasy always picks on an illusion of a "popular girl" caste that has been denied to the men and stereotypes these women as "sluts". What is disturbing is how much has changed since when an actual popularity caste system existed, the 1950s (think of the movie Grease). Today a diversity of cliques are given prestige and acknowledgement, especially in college. In short, nerds want to pretend that they have been spited by an immutable caste system that prevents them from dating "popular pretty girls", when such a caste system doesn't exist and even if it did the culture milieu of mainstream culture is in their favor anyways. To make matters worse, many nerds aren't even what we'd consider to be the traditional "nerd". Drop the pocket protector and glasses, many "nerds" are suave, good looking, and socially competent individuals. Yet they'll still cry the victim and use that fake victimization as an excuse to joke about violent acts towards women.
     This post is meant to cut through the bullshit. Many people have called it misogyny, but efforts such as #notallmen like to plant a seed of doubt, which insinuates that most men don't do things like this. Sorry to break it to ya, but as far as I know, many men do think about things like this. And they laugh and constantly joke to their buddies about it. It's not some mystery as to where this stereotypical generalization of sorority houses come from and it's not mystery as to why he believes he's entitled to women. Most men do believe they are entitled to women. That's the problem.  

The Friendzone doesn't exist. You're just both idiots.

 Note: I'm a Cisgender straight male so for the examples which require an individual speaking I'll be writing in my own point of view. For generalizations I'm going to try to write without any mention of gender. If I fuck up, feel free to call me out on it and I'll gladly edit it. Also if you think there's a better way to go about writing this (i.e. the gender scheme I'm using is still oppressive), then please give me suggestions because as a writer this is something I've struggled with for awhile.

         Awhile ago I wrote this post about the friendzone and now a few months later I'm realizing how much of an idiot I was. While some good points about maintaining a healthy friendship and relationship were brought up in my previous piece, the final conclusion that men and women were justified in their furor due to being "wrongly" strung along was patently false. I have a few tips that will keep you from ever being friendzoned or at least from ever being upset over a failed romantic encounter. Most of this stuff is common sense, so there's really no point in reading it. In fact, I'm really just writing it for myself. If you want the only important piece of information scroll down to the bottom of this post.

1. Just fucking tell them how you feel:
 Honestly once you think there's something there, just go out and say it. Now I'm not saying profess your love the first time you meet someone (unless you honestly do feel that way, in which case probably best you do, that way rejection can teach you a real world lesson on how love works). But if you're kind of interested, then flirt a bit. Make your intentions known! A simple "I could see myself dating you" or "you're just the kind of girl for me" or something along those lines will send out the signal that you are probing for some romantic possibilities. If the person is completely opposed  then at least no stringing along occurred. You can move on.

2. Move on if someone says no or doesn't reciprocate in the time frame you want:
If someone says no, unless they gave you some ridiculous condition (like a forbidden love type deal and even then you should probably walk away), then you should just take it as a no and let it go. If you followed tip one this should have occurred relatively early so you shouldn't be too torn. If they're taking their time informing you on how they feel (i.e. playing games) it's time shut that down too. Just leave them, forcing the imperative of choice on them. If they really care and feel for you, then they'll make an effort. If not, then just let it be. Now I'm not telling you to rush the familiarization process. Some people take extended periods of time to get to know someone. You need to give that person the amount of time you feel comfortable giving.

3.  The impetus isn't only on the suitor (technically both people should be coming together, the whole suitor thing is kinda outdated, still there will always be someone who takes the initiative) people being pursued need to make up their minds:

People string people along all the time. People play games all the time. If you follow rule 1 and 2 you won't fall susceptible to this. Take a hint from my man Serani, he knows what I'm talking about. But if you're the one playing games, just stop that shit. If it's a no, then outright say no. And you're not allowed to have your cake and eat it too. I mean if you're going to reject someone, you don't get to tell them you have feelings for them. You either make a clean cut or give it more time. But watch out if you take too much time, they might follow tip two and drop you.

4. Keep an open mind:
Sometimes you meet someone and you're not attracted to them. This is usually enough  for most people to just assume that person has no romantic potential. I disagree. There have been plenty of people I eventually became attracted to overtime. True love at first sight isn't a thing and you finding someone not attractive is just you being shallow. Sorry not everyone can be gorgeous and when you hold people up to standards regardless of how low they are, you're already creating this rigid template for future relationships. Just give it a few days. If their personality and money can't make up for their lack of looks then feel free to tell them a no. Now if they're a jerk, of course feel free to outright say no. Jerks are known to play games and we're not about that here.

So yea that's it. You didn't get friendzoned, she just didn't like you. And the only thing you really need to remember to avoid all of this:

NO GAMES

God doesn't care about the Pledge of Allegiance (or your kid's in-class prayer)

                         People like to complain about how we can't have prayer in school or say God in the pledge of allegiance. When people do this I think they're pretty foolish. These people have decided to pick surface details and elevate them to primary reasons their religious values and the country's values are slowly deteriorating right before their eyes. And I'm sorry that this post reeks of Christian privilege, but the major offenders of this kind of ridiculous whining typically come from a Christian background (most likely because Christians have a hegemony on the media in America). These Christians will stomp their feet on the ground until the world around them somehow conforms to their occult rituals. I'm Catholic so it isn't like I'm guilt free. For a long time the Catholic faith was the biggest offender. A group that expected deference, while being entrenched in scandal and also picking petty fights such as whether the use of condoms should be allowed or if Harry Potter should be seen. It isn't until recently that Pope Francis made me realize how deluded many in the Catholic (and at large the Christian) faith have become. Pope Francis addressed the elephant in the room: income inequality. He called for wealth distribution and combat against poverty. His words didn't sit well with many conservatives, but honestly who cares it's not like he's forcing any of them to give up their money anyways. Oh wait, I can here it now. "But Raymond my parents are ultra rich and they donate all the time!" Really? Do they now? Wasn't it Jesus who told his disciples to leave everything behind and follow him. When he said everything, I think he meant everything. So unless your parents are constantly giving most of their paycheck to the red cross, I don't want to hear it.  We all know they're taking some liberties with the scripture aren't they in regards to the whole living in poverty part? Which is ok because faith is something you work at and strive for. But it means if you're going to let shit like being a selfish, self serving jerk fly, then you also need to be willing to let minor inconveniences like not forcing your religious beliefs on the general public and not making public schools take a religious tone (Catholic, Muslim, Christian, etc. schools exist) work as well.
            So if you want to complain to me about how it's ridiculous your kid doesn't have time to pray in class, then I better not see you walking back to a new Benz because guess what your kid not saying a Hail Mary isn't what's causing the moral degradation of this nation, it's possibly your complicit behavior in a capitalist system which favors the rich and disadvantages the poor. I feel like Jesus would have found the latter far more troubling. Or not. Maybe he's a stickler for prayer. 

How Triggers work (TW: Discusses Triggers,Clowns,Sexual Assault,Poverty, Racism)

         People are using trigger warnings for everything and it's getting so frustrating. It's as if the internal logic of a trigger and how it works has been completely forgotten by the social justice community. So here's three tips for triggers and how they are used and experienced.

1. Trigger warnings exist to prevent people from unintentionally being placed in a negative and emotional space-
Basically trigger warnings exist so that people who have experience with certain topics are protected from unintentionally being forced to discuss them when they don't want to. If a movie is incredibly troubling and sad, it doesn't necessarily need a trigger warning. In fact, it should just be acknowledged for its heavy content. Even if someone puts a Trigger warning for a movie, that doesn't necessarily mean you should not watch it. If you've never had experience with that particular trigger, perhaps it would be good for you to watch it. The point is that Trigger Warnings protect people with prior knowledge of the topic, not everyone indiscriminately.

2. To be Triggered you need some sort of experience with the topic at hand-
        You can't be triggered by nothing. Something within the content itself needs to resonate (or challenge) with your lived experiences causing a stronger than expected emotional response. For example, there was a mock eviction campaign done in my school. The mock eviction was meant to show the horrible mass evictions that occur in Palestine due to illegal Israeli settlements. These mock evictions were spread through the residence halls, leaving many students feeling what they described as "triggered". However, this confused me. You see the University of Michigan has one of the most affluent student populations in the country, leading me to believe that an eviction notice wouldn't be something many of them would have experience with. If anything the notion of someone being kicked out of their home could upset them, sure, but that's not being triggered. Nothing about their lived experiences are being activated or "triggered" to make them have a far stronger emotional response than other people would. One can argue that the mere use of the Israel-Palestine context could have triggered some of these students (i.e. Jewish students feel this is anti Semitic slander), but the point is that the eviction notices themselves were not triggering.
       That being said oppression tends to function in a particular way and I can see how the oppression of one group can look very similar to the oppression of another group. Again prior lived experiences still needs to be activated. So as a Puerto Rican who grew up in New York City, the movie Fruitvale Station resonated with me even though the protagonist was black. Just as stop and frisk targets Blacks, it also targets Latinos as well, making the protagonist's lived experience something I could see happening to me.

3. You can't TW everything-
    At what point do we stop putting Trigger Warnings? If I mention clowns in this post should I put a Trigger Warning for clowns to protect people with coulrophobia (the fear of clowns)? My friend always told me "the world doesn't come with trigger warnings." And while I do think things like Sexual Assault, Poverty, and Racism should sometimes be given a Trigger Warning, I also think that articles whose subject matter are heavy and grizzly from the beginning should just be acknowledged as such and should have no trigger warning attached (i.e. do not watch fruitvale station if you are a minority from the inner city who doesn't want to be thrown into emotional distress). The point is that serious discussions have an implicit trigger warning. Sure certain topics can still affect you in a far more damaging way, but that should be evident from the outset of the article. If it isn't, then a trigger warning may be something to consider.

In closing, Trigger Warnings definitely have a place in blogging and writing, but please think before you hastily tag a Trigger Warning on an article and also please don't use the term triggered lightly.
Also, watch Fruitvale Station! Or don't. Honestly it's your call 

The true issue with Colbert

   So Colbert did this, a tweet that comes up with a blatantly racist institution to support Asian American culture. And the internet along with many Asian Americans went on a storm. However, turns out the tweet was taken out of context and the actual video was this, where he conflates the association made by the Red Skins for the Native American with this fictitious racist Asian American focused organization. Now many a person on the internet have risen up from the intellectual cornucopia to defend Stephen. They claim that the original use was proper and the right blend of satire. However, I believe people are missing the larger point as to why so many Asian Americans are upset.
    Minority voices and images have historically been used for the entertainment of a white populous. The minstrel show wasn't only for African Americans as many Asians, Latinos, Native Americans and many more minorities find themselves caricatured and put on display for a white audience's amusement. Nowadays such blatant racism is called out. In its stead we find a stream of subtle appropriation going on. Minority culture is taken and fetishized, used as an object for the rhetorical purpose of mainly whites. And therein lies the issue with Colbert's bit. As a straight white man, Colbert has many privileges others don't have. Even more specifically Colbert certainly has no true understanding of the plight faced by minorities via the media. Yet he finds that he can use their images and stereotypes as tools at his disposal to provide entertainment that everyone but the group being used (in this case Asians) would enjoy. Now can an Asian American make this joke and do it successfully? Perhaps. I'm unsure if I could speak to that seeing that I am not Asian American, but that's a debate that would happen within their particular community, not out in the public for the media to grab hold on. Simply put, there are some jokes you make with people in your own community and to have someone take part in that discourse as if they were entitled to do would be considered off putting. Also the tweet had Colbert's name on it and was associated with comedy central so he should definitely share blame. None of this it wasn't me "Shaggy" type bullshit. 

Welcome Rich White America

Bienvenidos Rich White America, please feel free to make yourself at home
Kick off your boots and and take a seat at your table, crafted down the street.
Oh you don't know how to read the menu, no worries, English and money accepted.
And we'll fry your brat some chicken fingers too because he doesn't like ethnic food.
And you'll pass favorable judgement on us, smiling wide, proving that we can all get along,
just as long as I know my place and you know your place and we're all in place!
Ahh enjoy my island breeze as my children struggle to go back.
Please speak your Rosetta Stone Spanish as my kids struggle to pick up their native tongue.
But they're Americans! Really? So they have rights? To life, liberty and the pursuit of the next paycheck.
And as for the poet? Oh he's just a whitewashed sell out at a liberal arts college. But the author doesn't      matter

Yo waddup Rich White America, please feel free to make yourself at home.
Slum it up on my trains and whine over the smallest inconvenience.
It's fine, I'll still dance and ask for some much needed money.
Excuse me Ladies and Gentlemen, pardon the interruption. But I'm trying to sleep.
So please stop being sloppy drunk because the midnight shift doesn't have an after party.
And no I won't be taking a taxi. I'll walk after my hour and half commute.
Yet I'll still see you at my, street fairs, cultural events, wearing the Puerto Rican flag during the parade.
Don't worry my best friend is Puerto Rican, you say as you mispronounce his name.

Hello Rich White America, welcome to your campus.
Don't worry we've decorated it with all the necessary ornaments:
Old buildings named after you (if you're a man), A beautiful diag with a grandiose library and plenty of    minorities to make you cultured!
Please enjoy your Americanized versions of our food and talk about that one time you went to a traditional  Chinese (Southern) restaurant with your friend.
Also we have your houses lined up in a row as close to campus as could be.
Don't worry those minorities won't be given a house or if they do it'll be out of sight, therefore out of mind.

He's just an angry minority complaining because he's oppressed!
Yea, this is why he'll never be successful, he just wants a hand out!
Also this is reverse racism, I'm going to demand you take it down!
My family worked hard for the policies and positive biases they received!
Doesn't sound quite as poetic.

Humans of New York annoy me

          Yep, I'm back again for some good old fashion hating. For those of you who don't know, Humans of New York is a Facebook group that aims to tell the stories of New Yorkers "One story at a time". It does this by posting a picture that is presumably the person or people the story is about and then leaves a small caption that explains their "story". Sometimes these captions are long and extensive, explaining a very detailed story for us all to revel in. But often it's not. Instead we are treated to obfuscated nonsense like "It constantly depresses the shit out of me that we have to die", cut to a picture of a man on a bicycle cab sitting down and you too can be a self patronizing asshole who likes to indulge in pseudo meaningful nonsense. My point is simple: that isn't a story. Hell that isn't even productive. Yet people rush over to the post, shower it in likes, while engaging in what could only be described as an emotional circle jerk.
          My true bone to pick with Humans of New York doesn't stem from the people posting. I believe most people who post are trying to vocalize their story any way they can. I feel the readers are the ones who fetishize these posts, consuming them as if they are emotional and insightful porn. Why I feel Humans of New York encourages a shallow consumption of the human experience is because often the stories are syncopated into short blurbs to keep up with the pace of life of the average 21st century college student. The observer doesn't engage with the story because there isn't enough to engage with. When someone says "My stepdad was always demanding that I respect him. Yet he didn't respect me at all," I still know absolutely nothing about his story. That story could be mapped onto anyone with a step dad and while many might be saying "that's the point", I find this lesson in universality to be redundant. It only takes a few "universal points" to prove to me that the human experience can be similar across the board. I thought I was learning this kids story, but clearly I'm not. I don't know anything about his situation with his step father or why his step father shows him no respect. I don't know how this kid is struggling with it and how it has affected him. I don't know what respect manifests as in the mind of this kid. In fact I know absolutely nothing about his story and I gain nothing from this blurb other than the common adage that "to get respect one must earn it (or give it, or something like that)." Yet people keep flocking to these posts, sharing and re-posting. Why? It's because it makes us feel better. These posts aren't about the people posting them, but about us. We want to engage in what we think is a high level of emotional vulnerability without actually dealing with the details that makes the emotional vulnerability so frightening. We want to gain spiritual understanding without even drudging through the difficulties of conceiving life's important questions. We want wisdom without ever understanding the true gravitas of that wisdom as it occurs in the real world. And Humans of New York gives us all of that with no emotional commitment (or reading commitment) required. Even the comments are self serving, often finding a way to insinuate that the commenter had already had that knowledge or experience and this post just confirmed it.
      I want someones story to be juicy. I want the details to run down the sides of my mouth like the juices from a freshly peeled Orange. I expect recoil and difficulty as I sift through scenarios I have never been in. And empathy on my part requires true concentration because I must truly try to put myself in the shoes of another, not merely assume we've been wearing the same footwear.


For your entertainment I made some HONY submissions of my own. I'm not sure if they'll make the cut though.

I used to be afraid to stand up for people. Now that I'm older, I still don't stand up for anyone. 

Follow your dreams and perhaps you can live an average life with an average job, but hey at least you have a college degree. 

Sometimes people ask, what's around your neck. I just ignore them 

As a kid I wanted to be a doctor. Now that I'm an adult, I've decided to be a lawyer instead.

Puerto Rican Politics

         
                      We are the gatekeepers of Latino solidarity. The reason this is the case is because Puerto Ricans are prime prospects for the new Latino model minority. Puerto Ricans by liberty of Puerto Rico's status as a commonwealth, all have American citizenship. This reality is often ignored by political advisers who intend to lump the Latino vote as pro immigration reform and against immigration. It's not that simple, especially for Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans who only have Puerto Rican family truthfully have no bone to pick with immigration reform. It matters little to us. In fact, some Puerto Ricans are staunch opponents of immigration reform (as shown in this article) for the same reason many non-Latino Americans are against immigration reform, it threatens job security. However, when the NY Times begins releasing articles about how immigration reform might affect Republican policy, it becomes clear that there will be places where the Puerto Rican vote will matter. The GOP does not need to win the Latino vote, it needs to win enough of it. In solidarity the Latino block is strong in certain parts of the country, but in areas such as New York and Florida (places where there are high Puerto Rican populations) the Puerto Rican vote (mixed in with a smattering of Cuban votes who have been given asylum) can be enough to turn the tide, allowing Republicans to have their cake and eat it too.
                   We have a choice. We can side with the Republicans against our Latino cousins or we can remain unified in policy demands. This solidarity may cost Puerto Ricans politically in the short run. There are particular policy goals that are salient only to Puerto Ricans, such as the statehood/ national recognition of Puerto Rico. But these goals are far too particular for Puerto Ricans to expect the Latino block to make demands on, hobbled as it is. Long run political outlooks are far more promising. If we can insert ourselves into the bedrock of political influence in the country, then we can begin making good on unilateral goals that help all Latinos, including Puerto Ricans. We will not longer have to ask to be given a seat at the table we made, we will sit in the chairs we brought ourselves. But if we are to falter. If we begin to side with the Republicans in the ballot box, then we will forever be second class citizens, unable to decide our own fates because we have sided with a party that does not recognize us as equals. Do not let Marco Rubio fool you. Instead we need to supersede political alliances. We need to do what is right for Latinos, not what is right for Democrats and Republicans. What is clear is that the Democrats have our interests at a much higher priority than the Republicans. This article from Gallup confirms that there are more Latinos in the Democratic Party than there are in the mostly white Republican Party. We cannot trust any body of politic but ourselves. We can only depend on a Latino block that will not treat us as second class citizens. I cannot force any individual Puerto Rican to make a choice, I only hope that years from now you won't regret placing your children at the mercy of a political machine that doesn't respect them.

Fruitvale Station should win an Oscar, but it won't. And it's because Normative culture cannot properly experience it.

       I can tell you why Fruitvale Station didn't get nominated and it's not because its lacking any artistic depth or cinematic intricacy. The movie is crafted to catapult street culture or inner city culture onto the big screen without diminishing it by giving into the hegemonizing effects of white suburban culture. However its use of what I dub "Street Aeshetics" has prevented it from entering the good graces of Oscar land. Mainstream media is not ready to get rid of its elitist academically driven judgement of society and high art rejects art that has been made with clay and sidewalk pavement (much to the dismay of many dead artist who relied on such materials to get by). Street Aesthetic praises city culture and rages against the notion of "nothingness". It preaches building up your community, not getting out. Or if it does preach about getting out, the voices waiver, embroiled in a struggle between where they are from and a foreign land that is suburbia. This reliance on Street Aesthetic to tell a story is in my opinion a budding art form and as long as inner city kids like me are foolishly given a college education from an Elite institution, soon we will  see a shift in the critical discussion of art. You need a city kid to spot it, but anyone can interpret and analyze a movie through the lens of Street Aesthetics. Street aesthetic is unique in that it serves two purposes.
      The first purpose and the one I consider to be primary is the impetus to emotionally move those from the inner city with its content. It is the Oscar award winning movie (or Pulitzer Prize novel or Game of the Year game) that can be easily understood and more importantly empathized with by those from the inner city. It doesn't cut corners or create a tidy depiction of Oscar Grant. Instead it portrays him through the eyes of his own culture. He is a man of faults, but the weight of those faults that are typically over sensationalized by the mainstream media are instead contextualized by the people around him. This movie is jarring for most non-inner city folk because it forces them to reconsider their stereotypical notions about the black man who is a criminal. To many people black men who do crime are the problem. They plague the black community and make up a large percentage of the black community (or as some people have phrased it to me, are the "loudest" in the black community"). These assumptions make it ok to hold preconceived notions, otherwise known as stereotypes, about black people.
      But Fruitvale Station fights against this stereotypical portrayal. Instead it takes the incarcerated black man and portrays him as the Father, the Son and the animus of the community. He is not perfect, but he is an integral part. One, who is from the inner city, cannot help but relate with Oscar Grant. He is your neighbor or your best friend. He is no different from many people in our lives and even for some of us he is much like ourselves. If you find yourself disagreeing, then you are most likely not from the inner city and therefore cannot easily connect with the cultural content being displayed. For once the cultural capital needed to interpret art is found on the side of a building in graffiti as opposed to the footnotes in a Norton Anthology.
      Does this seemingly foreign cultural complexity make it impossible for non-inner city people to be able to connect to the movie? No. This hurdle is tied to the second purpose of Street Aesthetic. Street Aesthetic is cognizant to the hegemonic forces at work in its medium. Therefore it strives to bridge the gap between those who are being mediated by white suburban hegemonic culture. This bridge often comes in the form of an outsider looking in. For Fruitvale Station the girl at the supermarket, Oscar's mom and the married man are three bridges provided to non city audiences. The girl at the supermarket allows Oscar to show the universality of his humanity. Oscar isn't only a black man who cares about black (Latino/Asian/Minority would probably also fit here) people, but someone who cares about the people around him. Setting him up with ulterior motives such as him trying to get his job back, allows the audience to safely maintain their preconceived suspicion of his character. His mother who is portrayed to raise him well and to be a secure role model in his life, exists to connect to the audience, who is mouthing (inside) with Oscar's mom the chastisement she gives him for his poor life choices. However, her wisdom and reliance on normative institutions ultimately fails her in the end, resulting in the death of her son. Finally, the man who Oscar meets outside the area where his girlfriend is using the bathroom represents the perfect bridge between two individuals. The man portrays himself as a rags to riches story, which required him to also cross the line between right and wrong, thus bringing himself down to the same moral compass of Oscar. The only difference is this man somehow created his own start up. The movie does not explore why the prospect of Oscar doing the same is very small, but instead brushes it off and creates a scene of camaraderie that borderlines unbelievable. The notion of them having this deeply reflective and personal conversation does not seem out of the realm of possibility, but the man handing his business card did seem a tad incredulous for a man who just met Oscar in the hazy euphoria of New Years Eve. Then again perhaps New Years Eve is the only time those shenanigans would take place. Regardless, the man exist to allow non-city audience members to finally relate. They begin thinking, "wow, I misjudged Oscar he is more like me than I thought." This misconception is necessitated by stratification. If you want an audience you need to connect with those with money somehow. I am not saying that those from the inner city cannot possibly understand or empathize with the story of Oscar Grant. I am merely suggesting that movie is cognizant of the cultural gap between it and its audience and it strives to fill that hole with a series of bridges that serve as cultural training wheels.
         The impulse of many reading this is probably to laugh. Many might think that this notion of "street aesthetic" is a fantasy developed by a cultureless and artistically inadequate inner city kid. However, I know that the movie uses powerful imagery that can only be fully understood with knowledge of city culture. The use of the pitbull, a commonly misunderstood dog, slaughtered in the movie creates a powerful foreshadowing of Oscar's death. The pitbull is consistently used for dogfighting in street culture, but it's also used for protection, a first line of defense if you will. The pitbull is the ADT for a poor inner city family. Also, the location by the water and it being referred to as the place by the water mirrors the small pockets and "safe" havens one must find in order to regain sanity in the city. The closeness to water is a common trope, of escaping the suffocating experience of the city.These are only two, I can go on and on about cultural signifiers that the movie uses.
          Street Aesthetic does not ignore race, but race isn't a pre-requisite to engaging with it. What I mean to say is that just because you are black doesn't mean you have the cultural capital to engage with street aesthetic. There are plenty of blacks who will watch Fruitvale Station and be unable to connect with some of the themes in the movie. Just as there will be Latinos who connect far more strongly with the story of Oscar Grant. Does this strip him away from his blackness via a homogenizing "urban" label? No. Ingrained in inner city culture is a necessity to categorize by race and ethnic background. One cannot separate the race or ethnicity from the person because the city constantly reminds you about those identities. I'm unable to speak about this from the black perspective (I am not black), but I know that there are some themes in Fruitvale station that will not be understood by any individual who has not experienced inner city culture. The same is probably true for some of the black experiences portrayed in the film, ones that I cannot fully understand without engaging with black culture (and many experience I'll never fully understand). The point trying to be stressed (and possibly quite poorly) is that Street Aesthetic both affirms ones racially driven experiences, while removing the subordination of a racist society on said experience. It also acknowledges a "melting pot" (and I use that word while wincing) experience one faces in the city where we certainly are forced to deal with a hodge podge of individuals (often time minority). Furthermore, these minorities have strong communities that have stores that carry their own traditions and way of life, making it common for one to experience culture in a more visceral manner as opposed to those who are forced to branch out into a predominantly "this or that" neighborhood, where one culture is the context for all others existing.
     I finish this exposition of "Street Aesthetic" feeling quite unsatisfied. I have so many questions that I haven't yet sorted out. First, I wonder if a movie that does no provide a bridge for a non inner city viewer would still be considered Street Aesthetic. I also foresee a stringing racial critique of my use of blackness in this essay. I can understand how this might be read as a threat to black culture, but I feel many blacks from the inner city who read this will see it more as an accurate interpretation of the dynamics of race and class. Also, when we work with social class more, one will find that the city experience isn't only germane to the poor, making the dynamics of middle and even at times (though rare) upper middle class a problematic element in many of these films. It's hard to watch the scene between the married man and Oscar and not feel a little perturbed by the huge disconnect between the situations of the man and Oscar. I really appreciate anyone who decided to waste their time reading this far into this post. I understand that the musings of an undergraduate commands very little respect. Feel free to insert your own observations. I strongly believe that this is the beginning of a new critical discussion of art. One that serves to undercut the bourgeois theory that most of my peers work from, completely ignorant to how the normative white, upper class assumptions they bring into the world.