The issue with people who disagree with Bernie Sanders

           A lot of people have taken issue with Sanders for reasons I plainly view to be invalid and overall idiotic. I'm going to go through those reasons right now ( and at the end I'll talk about legitimate reasons for going against him).

1. Sanders is almost the same as Hillary- This is just untrue. His socialist title is not only for show, but is reflected in his policy suggestions. He is suggesting reforms that have not been suggested in decades. Using anti-trust laws to bust big banks is something that hasn't been suggested in decades. This differs from what many democrats have said on the issue, which often can be reduced to "too big to fail is bad."

2. Sanders is unrealistic- This is a confusing and vacuous phrase, so let me explain all the facets of it
          A. Socialism can't be implemented- false, plenty of modern countries do it besides American just fine
          B. It could never pass Congress- Ok, that argument can easily be applied to most democratic aspirations. Compromises are made. Still doesn't change that the starting point of the negotiation will be closer to a desired outcome than if Clinton was setting it.
         C. Sanders isn't electable- How about you wait and see? If you're right, then your vote for Sanders will mean nothing and Hillary will win regardless. If you aren't right then your electability argument was wrong.
                 C1. Sanders isn't electable in a general election- I would consider this salient if it didn't seem that the Republican party is manning equally ridiculous candidates, making it uncertain if the American public will vote the way they typically do. Anyways if we're going by rules of thumb, after an eight year term, we typically see a switch in the white house anyways, so might as well send a candidate we actually believe in.

3. He hates black people- All candidates hate black people to some degree

 4. He hates minorities- Refer to point 3
Note: I know people are going to point out his tremendous record in civil rights, which I definitely believe in. In no way do I mean he actually harbors some some sort of hatred toward minorities. I just don't fully trust white political leaders in general. But that's not unique to him, so moving along.

5.  He's lying or I don't trust him- And you trust Clinton? I trust Clinton being consistent with her fiscal and international policy, but her domestic policy aside from the work she has done with women's rights has been incredibly inconsistent. The only inconsistency Sanders has is in Gun control. Other than that the dude seems to have been saying the same shit for a long time.

So now that I've gotten the nonsense out of the way, let's talk about why you're really voting the way you are.

1. You're a woman- I think it's perfectly valid for a woman to feel more comfortable in a woman. Solidarity is important and it'd be hypocritical of me to criticize women who have been supporting her under the banner of mutual womanhood.

2. You're wealthy but kind of care about the poor- Sanders isn't looking to treat wealthy people nicely. Clinton will be far more gentle. So if you're rich or you think you will be and the thought of a Republican sounds unpalatable, then Hillary is definitely the best option.

Why I don't like In the Heights and why I don't trust Hamilton

                 As a Puerto Rican who loves Broadway, one might expect me to love Lin-Manuel Miranda. I mean the dude is considered one of the creative geniuses of our time and to boot he is clearly in touch with his Puerto Rican roots. For the first time I got to see someone accept a major award with the Puerto Rican flag in his left pocket as if he were walking through the Puerto Rican Day parade. He's a symbol of Puerto Rican excellence and in that I do have some respect for him. But his art does very little for me.
            I saw In the heights before it hit Broadway. Naturally Lin-Manuel gave back to the community by giving free performances for high school students in NYC. I guess my school administration must have felt that the minority students in our school would appreciate the performance. And to be fair, In the Heights is electric. The music was reminiscent of walking through a Latino neighborhood (Dominican or Puerto Rican in this case) just to hear someone blaring Hector Lavoe out into the streets, the old viejitos briskly dancing salsa with invisible partners or lounging in the humid sun while playing dominoes. Or perhaps you could hear the urban side? Freestyle rap that punctuated an entire generation of young Latino teens who were having kids that they were trying to get out of the projects. The point is that In the Heights definitely came from a place of legitimacy. But the story felt torn between pandering to its mostly white audience and staying true to its roots. Leaving the performance I was left with one burning question: Is that really a representation of Puerto Rican culture (read this as Latino culture in NYC, though again mainly Dominican and Puerto Rican?). I'm a Nuyorican through and through, but I felt that instead of writing a Broadway for me, Lin-Manuel wrote a Broadway for people who know about me. He wrote a Broadway for that white friend I beg to go to the parade with me because I'm tired of going with my family. He wrote a Broadway for the girl that asks me to speak in Spanish just so she can be entertained for a brief second. He wrote a Broadway for the people gentrifying Harlem and Bushwick. Ironically enough Usnavi's bodega is being put out of business right now by the people he wrote his Broadway for.
       The story of In the Heights doesn't unearth deep complexities or hard truths of being a poor Latino in New York City. The tropes are all tropes we've heard before. The smart Latina who couldn't cut it when she made it to an elite University. Her isolation is hardly felt as she finds herself falling right back with her old flame for the sake of a love interest being preserved. The fixation on the lottery, while completely in line of what actually happens in the city, just serves hastily as a dues ex machina for the inevitable dilemma of what is home? The question of what is home is difficult for a Latino to answer not purely because of geography, but because of situations we are placed in where we are unable to be our complete selves. I'm talking about being called loud when we feel we're at normal volume or the difficulty of admitting you actually like some "white people music," as if its slow rhythms and campy lyrics somehow erase the conga drum beats and the scratch of the Guiro you grew up with. I'm talking saying the Hail Mary in Spanish at a whisper because you wanted to sleep in later and we all know the Spanish mass is always the earliest. The dilemma of the urban American Latino is not whether he can wear chanclas all year round, but instead whether he should call them chanclas or flip-flops.
       And that's missing from "In The Heights." Instead everything seems to tie together so nicely. And while I have heard of amazing stories coming from the projects, most of them have been demarcated by tragedy. Tragedy that many of the people from the projects are completely numb to. Sure people grieve, but when you have an 8 to 9 the next day, your grief has a schedule. In the Heights has its bright moments. The song blackout, which serves as a metaphor for the powerlessness of minorities really musters up a unique New York urban aesthetic that can't quite be matched. But then it squanders it. The antithesis of that message is one of getting by in your own way. I just feel like there is more to that. The grit people gain from powerlessness makes them powerful. By making his ending picture perfect, Lin Manuel denies his show that grit. Instead it feels soft.
    Hamilton at first sounded horrible to me. I thought Lin-Manuel had finally decided to sell out by taking urban hip-hop aesthetic and hastily pasting it onto a familiar white face, making it palatable for white viewers (and frankly the educated). What seems to be suggested by many critics is Alexander Hamilton is actually a reappropriation of history, reclaiming Hamilton who did not have 100% white ancestry as a founding father that represented the immigrant spirit. And part of me wants to go along with it, until I stop and say why does it have be a white man though? Why? Why not do a Broadway on Toussaint Louverture, the founder of Haiti who led a slave rebellion to free Haiti? Or perhaps a famous person of color in American history. I just don't understand why we need to again draw from a history that is not germane to us? Yet again I find myself thinking Hamilton wasn't made for me. It sounds like my culture. It looks like my culture. But underneath it all, it isn't.
    Minorities should criticize other minorities' work. The lens through which this is done I've dubbed as "street aesthetic" or "urban aesthetic", which speaks to a particular intersection of socio-economic status, geography and ethnicity. I feel that Lin-Manuel Miranda is making his mark the only way a minority easily can. By pandering just enough to a normative white liberal audience, while holding onto shreds of his identity through aesthetic choices. I can't criticize him heavily for that, but I also have the right to not sing its praises. We deserve deep and profound art created by people within our community. But we all know what happens when people do that. Just ask Beyonce about how white people felt about art that spoke to themes and notions only important to blacks. Let's just say I doubt Beyonce is going to be earning any genius awards for Formation. 

Sorry my dude nobody cares about your thirst. (unedited written super late, so I apologize)

       Yea I might hurt some dudes feelings with this, but I honestly don't care.
              Let me make it clear. Your attitude towards a girl when she rejects you is not justified. I don't care if it's been years since you've had sex. I don't care if you really thought she liked you. I don't care if you thought you were better. If any of those things were true, you wouldn't care about her. I know this for fact. I get rejected all the time. Shit, with the advent of online dating I get a rejection at least once a week. That's a total of about 4 to 5 rejections a month. I'm becoming a pro at handling rejection. From the outright I don't like you to the perpetual stalling technique where the girl constantly implies that they don't like you, but refuses to outright say it. I've deal with it all. And at first I was an ass. Yep, you heard me. I was that guy who was bitter and salty as fuck. A bonafide fuckboy, who constantly made excuses and was quick to talk about the girl in a negative fashion. "She's just into ghetto guys." "She's a shallow rich white girl." If any of these things sound like things you've said before, then you too are a salty ass who couldn't accept that the girl didn't like you. But there's this backlash from men (and sometimes women) about how we need to stop being so hard on men. I mean they have feelings too!

Get that weak shit out of here.
Real talk, you can be upset over rejection, but you're not allowed to be a dick. If you developed a meaningful friendship with the girl and end it because you wanted to have her romantically, you're a dick. If you led a girl to believe you truly cared about her future and now you're bailing because she doesn't want to be romantic with you, you're a dick. If you think your sexual frustration and natural "animal instinct" justifies passive aggressive tendencies, then you're also a dick.

I had a dude today justify men and their saltiness with Maslow's hierarchy. First, this use of pseudoscience in order to justify sexist behavior is not unprecedented.  Men do this stupid shit all the time. But Raymond, the hierarchy says sex is a need that comes far before, who the fuck cares? Even if we ignored the fact that Maslow's hierarchy has been disproven or viewed as outdated in countless studies for countless scenarios, the fact of the matter is a girl saying no to you isn't an assault on your ability to get off. I just don't understand how people think this shit is justified? Oh man if I don't get off I'm going to get blue balls! Sounds like a personal problem, better get your laptop up my dude. I don't know I just find it ridiculous that people make excuses for dudes who are bitter as fuck. My new recommendation for salty dudes ( including myself) is consult your right hand (or left hand if you're left handed).

But she was flirty! I'm going to call her... Stop! Consult your right hand.
We talked for so long and she said we would go on a date, but she kept cancelling. Stop! Consult your right hand.
She just likes frat boys. I don't care if I'm a nerd, I'm going to show her by posting... Stop! Consult your right hand.

And when you're done doing that admit that you're a piece of shit. It shouldn't take sexual relief to realize you have no right to act like a dick because a girl wouldn't get with you.

I can't say I'm perfect. I'm not. But I've gotten way better. Here are some appropriate ways to respond to rejection .

Antecedent: Girl says she's not interested in Ok cupid!
Response: Move on to the next girl

Antecedent: Girl says she's going to go on a date with you, but cancels and cites lack of interest for cancelling.
Response: Express how it makes you feel (in a cordial manner, for example: Wow, that sucks, I'm disappointed) and then stop talking.

Antecedent: Girl goes on date with you, but is not interested in second date.
Response: Thank her for the date and wish her luck.

Being honest solves most of this shit. Read my first friendzone post if you want to know about honesty and avoiding games. But real talk, I'm tired of this explaining for men. Women have no obligation to date and if you're the type of dude who likes every girl friend you have that is kind of annoying. I suggest you stop. It not only annoys the women in your life (it works both ways too be fair), but it also cheapens you. Your affection shouldn't be aimlessly tossed around. It should be something that needs to be earned. 

Fake minority ( unfinished)

I'm  a fucking imposter waiting in your corner store bodega

The repeated lingo makes people think I'm frontin 

shit, sometimes I have to do a double take when I look at the mirror 

I bump to two-pac after my phantom of the opera album finishes 

Hardcore motherfucker, I don't even use tweezers when taking out a splinter 

Ya'll talk about Drakes new album release, 

I talk about the next chapter of one piece being released

Manga mother fucker, I ain't into that cartoonish shit. 

I'm so fake I feel uncomfortable when people call me the n-word. 

Still when shit pops off, I'll be the first one to square up

I wash dudes like I do dishes, 

begin all hyped and shit and then give up once I get to a stain I can't handle

I knew people who were in gangs. 

When I say knew, I'm talking a friend of a friend, that's only two degrees of separation. 

I still buy honey buns with my sandwich at work, reliving my middle school diet in my 20s. 

But it's not snails, it's escargot. And I traded Hershey for Nutella. 

I give dab all awkward and shit. Not knowing where to put my other arm, turning the entire ordeal into a "we're just friends hug" 

I'm as white as the driven snow. That's Langston so it makes it hood. 

Still every single day I find myself switching within my code switch. 

Constantly oscillating how hood I need to be. Because when I'm with my white friends I'm docile

and when I'm with my friends from the ave I'm savage. 

I guess I'm just fake. But if I chose to do me, like people always tell me to do 

I'd get outrages reactions like that time my friend was shocked when I told him I was jumped in middle school.

Or how about the time my friend told me I was too white to chill in Jamaica even though I'm full Puerto Rican. 

I don't speak Spanish, another strike against me. 

And even when people like the same shit as me they don't trust my earnestness. 

What you know about Salvador Dali? 

When could you have been exposed to getting light? 

I lean on the side of improper. 

However I find it easier to pretend to be educated than to pretend to be hood. 

I don't like platanos or what ever cultural dish you expect me to like.
I love mayo in my sandwiches.
I love hot sauce on my pizza.
And if I'm having a movie night you know I'm either watching Ferris Bueller's or Friday.
I'm a nerd but I have to keep that shit quiet.
Sometimes I'll drop references in my speech, test the waters before I start geeking out.
You might say that's just all nerds though.
But minorities get it worse because when we're outed as a nerd, we're stripped of our other identity.

Democrats don't need solidarity in the primaries

                              Before I get into why a certain defense of Hillary Clinton is wrong, let me address the idiots out there first. You implying that Hillary is stupid, the devil, incapable, etc. is counter productive and sexist. There are plenty of you out there so the fact that Clinton supporters are up in arms is not surprising or unwarranted. In fact, you are the primary reason that meaningful discussion over the differences between the two candidates can never happen. Congratulations jerks. But now let's move on to what this post is about.
                              The internet has launched its counterattack against the recent wave of criticism against Hillary and some of it is poignant. However, one old, overused defense is being utilized as a proverbial white flag between the two camps. The "Republicans are the enemy" defense is an example of a scare tactic. The notion that we should not heavily criticize either candidate because both of them differ significantly with the Republican party is not valid. Our current political spectrum may make us see the world like this:

Conservatives<----R--------------------------------------------------------------H---S-->Liberals

But we can easily view Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on a different political spectrum that allows us to see how truly far apart these two are:

Socialism <------S-------------------------------------H---------------------------------------------> Capitalism

Since we're not viewing Sanders and Hillary in the context of the outlandish conservative beliefs held by Republicans, we can see that Hillary and Sanders actually differ quite a bit. Enough to think that Hillary Clinton would be detrimental to society as a president. I wouldn't go that far as I feel if you have an issue with Hillary, then you need to have an issue with Obama ( and some people did). But I certainly believe that there's a significant difference between the two. So stop it with the solidarity talk. Of course ad hominems and other low blows shouldn't take place, but harshly criticizing the Hillary campaign for their flaws and differences is exactly what should be done. Sanders supporters have nothing to apologize for and owe nothing to the Democratic party in  the way of solidarity.

Why I'm reluctantly supporting Bernie Sanders

                 Anyone who has talked politics with me knows I am not an avid Bernie Sanders fan. He seems like yet another white male candidate who is trying to be down with the cause a little too much, while backing out whenever it's time to discuss real shit. Of course people cry about how he can't be too outrageous, lest he waste his political capital on minorities rather than usher in his new socialist agenda! Still Bernie is promising to do things I frankly think would be revolutionary. I honestly believe he will go after big banking in a way Hillary and the rest of the career politicians won't. In my mind, Bernie Sanders is a means to an end. Minorities need the dismantlement of the capitalist system in order to make any true progress and Bernie is preaching that. Hillary Clinton isn't a bad candidate by any means, but she does have some glaring flaws that make me unwilling to vote for her, regardless of it being a primary or a general election. Her war hawk attitude, which has been on display during her extensive career as a senator, really concerns someone like me who had to watch his father go to war for no particular reason. She's also far too tied up in Wall Street to make any meaningful change. At best she'll be Barack Obama 2.0. I'm not saying I'd pick a Republican over her, but if Bernie were to run independently, I'd seriously consider voting for him. Gone are the days of logical voter behavior. The political science major in me wants to point out in a snarky manner that our individual votes "don't matter", so we should all just stay home. But votes mean more than just electoral outcomes. They're a method to express our own political identity and in some way allows us to interact with our fellow countrymen and women. It's out duty to vote not because we're selfish, but because we want our input accounted for. That sounds like sappy nonsense, but it lets me sleep at night. So the verdict is in with me. Bernie is my guy and honestly I think all blacks and latinos should vote Bernie. He is the only candidate seriously considering dismantling the capitalist system that's oppressing us. He isn't the best advocate, but he is a far better advocate than Hillary. We don't need special considerations. We need structural change that removes the institutional bias that oppresses us. Removing our nepotism ridden capitalist system (the irony of capitalism is it's supposed to remove nepotism, but meh we know that's not happening) will be the first step to that.

Side note: I've seen some passionate outrage from liberals who believe Hillary is being mistreated by other liberals because she's a woman. I think there may be some truth in that. However, the notion that all criticism towards Hillary is unwarranted is equally ridiculous. The recent spread of Bernie vs Hillary meme, when done properly, highlights how Hillary's responses come off as calculated and superficial, while Bernie has legitimate opinions on the topic. Unfortunately that very meme has be co-opted as a way to make Hilary seem uninformed, a notion that's absolutely ridiculous. Let's not forget Hillary is probably the most experienced and knowledgeable candidate running.

Other side note: I honestly don't think Bernie Sanders' success is contingent on him winning the presidency. I believe his message of socialism and changing basic unfair tenets of American society need to permeate through the house of representatives and the senate. I'm not talking about liberals. Liberals are the ilk of Hillary and co. I'm talking socialist who believe the collective needs to be taken care of at the expense of the individual from time to time. Yep, I'm a bleeding commie. 

Special Education Teachers can do their jobs, they're just not able to

              I remember the first time a veteran teacher told me a student will never get it. I didn't understand what that meant. As a Special Education teacher I thought my job was to help the kids who didn't get it eventually get it. It never crossed my mind that there could be a class of students who were hopeless. But as the year went on and my low kids stood low, I felt for a second maybe the veteran teachers were right. Maybe these kids were actually hopeless and could not possibly learn the content at the current level we were at. I mean I had a student who could hardly divide, let alone determine ratios. Perhaps I was just a new teacher in way over their head. Now that it's my second year I realize I was completely wrong.
             As a requirement for my graduate school program, I tutored a 7th grader twice a week for a total of 2 hours. The student I chose happened to be one of my "hopeless" students from last year. At first I was uneasy choosing her as my focus student, remembering the behavior outburst and her lack of meaningful progress fresh from the year before. Furthermore, our focus subject, math, was something she was seemingly abysmal at since she presented the inability to divide even simple one digit dividends and divisors. What could I possibly accomplish with her? Then in a matter of two months she proceeded to become proficient at long division solving problems with dividends of up to 3 to 4 digits with divisors up to 2 digits. In two months I became a teacher for the first time and she "got it."
            One might chalk this up to the individual attention she received, but I can confidently say that aside from the first few sessions, the rest of her progress was purely auto-pilot. Through comprehensive assessment and observation, I was able to determine the conceptual breakdown in her math. From there I implemented a series of strategies to help her become proficient at division. Once she became adept at utilizing the strategies on her own it was smooth sailing. Dividing became second nature for her and she was successful weeks after being taught how to do it. I can confidently say my student can divide, a skill that's invaluable in math and life. I achieved in a matter of 10 to 12 hours, what I could not achieve in an entire year. That is ridiculous.
            Special Education teachers in an ICT setting are often given far more than the state mandated percentage of special education students. Classes can sometimes be comprised of a 50/50 split of general education to special education students, making it impossible for a special education teacher to develop the strategies needed to help special education students access content appropriate to them. Furthermore, the push to mainstream students have led special education reformers to champion ICT classrooms. In schools like mine which have no other alternative settings, students who cannot handle ICT classrooms are thrown in them anyways. These students are at times worse than their overcrowding counterparts as they require constant attention that a special education teacher in an ICT classroom cannot give. If a student is 3 to four years behind in content, ICT is definitely an option for them. But a student at a 1st or 2nd grade reading level, exhibiting a specified reading disability should not be in an ICT classroom without some form of supplement. Yet those are the kind of students in our classrooms and those students cannot succeed in the setting. The result is a Sophie's choice dilemma where a special educator either abandons this particular student, often resulting in that student acting out in protest to this abandonment, or shirking their responsibilities to her other students in exchange for this student.
           The solution to this problem will never come from the department of education itself. The institutions around the country are concerned with their bottom line and view special education as a problem to be dealt with instead of an essential component of their mission. The solution must come from informed parents and informed special education litigators. At every IEP meeting there should be a special education advocate. Special Education advocates are people who are well versed in the rights and protections afforded to parents, who are going through the IEP process. They will come to meetings and be able to challenge the often stonewalled nature of the IEP team. Schools and school psychiatrists are typically on the same team when it comes to recommending services. Since they need special education students they will often collude to make it seem their course of action is the only course of action that should be taken. If some of my parents were just a little more informed, they would be able to hold me and in turn my administration more accountable. Of course the blame isn't with my school, but with the administration that straps schools tight for resources when it comes to special education. They will continue tossing IEP student after IEP student to a school, regardless of whether that school can service them or not. Administrations are taught to deal and that's exactly what they do. If I leave teaching, I will definitely find some way to get involved in advocating for parents because this process needs to stop. I want to find a solution that makes schools and parents happy.