Test Prep and Prestige: How I learned to stop worrying and love teaching

                           I wake up at 5:30 in the morning every single day to begin my commute to my school. As a guy I'm blessed with the ability to do a 15 minute turn around and find myself on my way to the train station at 5:50. On a good day the trains run smoothly and I find myself a seat. On a bad day I spit out onto the tracks, my saliva representative of the fatigue of another work day, quietly dreading the eventual behavior disruption that will come on my triple period block with one of my classes. And then when I arrive they're perfect. I mean perfect in the sense that you could make a freedom writers movie using them, of course for that production to be complete you would need a teacher. I remember when I became a teacher, I tried to be a teacher. And it didn't work. So then I tried to be myself. From that point on my kids saw me as their teacher. Often the nerdiness comes through at times where I'm nervous or insecure. I find that your kids will strip you down and let you know when something is wrong. Your insecurities are keys on a piano for them to play. Better get used to hearing the tune. Eventually in your first year you'll find yourself drinking a little too much. Smoking a little too much. Curled up in a ball, crying in the shower with your clothes on, a little too much. And you'll hate it. At that moment no amount of mantra or motto will save you from the existential dread that can only be described as society induced disappointment. People can call you superman, but after a kid tells you to suck their dick, you begin to wonder why you even decided to become a teacher instead of taking that tech writer job in Wisconsin. I'm sure my manager there wouldn't have told me to suck his dick, well...probably. But you learn that forgiveness isn't a virtue, it's a paradigm that you're constantly stuck in. They're just kids isn't enough to forgive. Often times you have to murder pillows and bookcases in order to forgive yourself for taking it. Pictures taped up on your wall do little to comfort you after being berated. Your kids are not monsters, but the struggle will turn them into it. Test Prep means nothing when all you wanted was prestige. A flashy little badge to wear that says "I made it through Teach For America." Often times I find myself folding my students' notes a few times more when I snatch them from their hands. I want to bury their words in an infinitesimal dimension and each fold separates their words from me. Ahh you miserable fool. Why teach if you hate it. But I don't hate it. I love it. There are so many amazing moments where you get to see light bulbs and shattered fluorescent glass. I hope you have a hammer for glass ceilings male teacher because your female students will astound you. I spoke Spanish through my kids and through me they speak English. Our accents are embarrassing, but our rhetoric is eloquent. I can speak Vietnamese too. In fact every modicum of my voice has been crafted by their presence. To see me write is to see me teach. Performance or not, you choose the person you leave behind at the end of the mini-lesson. I used to think that teaching was about lecturing. I tried to lecture. It didn't work. I tried to talk to my kids. Now I am teaching.
         Being an adult is a farce taken to its extreme. No one is an adult until the title has been thrust upon them. Unfortunately teachers are forced to be adults. 22 and 23 year olds who were overgrown children in college attempt to be adults when they enter their classrooms for the first time. We can't afford rent or even a bed frame, but we'll still wear a button down with a tie and khakis to prove that we've moved on from our days of torn jeans and a University of Michigan hoodie. Four months in the hoodie will be donned weekly. You keep the khakis because you want to keep up the illusion of being professional. Your gelled hair will become dry and your pristine tie tossed aside. Such niceties are for show anyways. And teaching isn't a show. It's the show. You're the main attraction till the next body comes in.
       Sometimes I show my students my scars because they will judge me honestly. The irony of their honesty is that it's compassionate. I never understood how they could stand with me in solidarity against my plight. Then one day they showed me their scars and I cringed. My kids noticed my taken aback posture and begin to retreat. Often they'll nonchalantly talk about how they have no bed frame in their house. I guess we can bond over our own impoverished state, except for that fact that I've chosen this life. They are simply victims of fate. To err is to be human, but to be unjustly positioned in life is to be capitalist. I once had a student ask me what was he supposed to do at a funeral? His friend had died due to petty nonsense and he had to miss the long awaited school trip to attend the service. I had never been at a funeral, except for one. But it was for someone I hardly knew with feelings I could hardly understand. Adults are supposed to know the answers to these questions. At that moment I was the adult in his life. I failed. That night I went to a bar and pretended to drink myself into sorrow. Except I didn't go to a bar, I stood in and completed a grad school paper. And I didn't drink myself into sorrow, I stood up all night playing league of legends, raging at an unsuspecting player who did something that was not all too important.
       So why teach? Honestly there is no reason. Teachers are paid too little. The situations we are placed in are rigged. Success comes bundled in large portions of failure. This isn't a half empty- half full situation. It's a perhaps you could get one more drop from the cup situation. My kids are brimming with intelligence that has not been tapped till they got to me. I do not know why. I try to recount how I became intelligent and begin to wonder, am I even intelligent? Does the capacity to think and expound on one's thinking justify the label of intelligence. Meh, I could certainly beat my kids at my middle school self. And that's the issue. I don't remember a teacher specifically teaching me to be smart. I don't remember a teacher telling me I'm the best. I remember everyone around me expecting it. I sit in my chair one day, waiting for one of my kids to come up to me and say, "Mr. Arroyo how much smarter are the kids in Queens." I don't know what answer I'd give. Knowing myself I'd be honest. A lot smarter. They're harder workers. They truly engross themselves in the material and therefore by the time they get to high school and college they'll have developed the skills necessary to do higher level work. It's an uphill battle from here kid. At that point the kid would have ignored me and probably went back to what ever they were doing.
       I have a student who wants to be a lawyer. Dealing with her is night and day. When I saw her I incorrectly stereotyped her as the loud angry black girl. I now know that is a part of who she is. In my class, for the most part, she is a studious and inquisitive student, who is soft spoken when working through material. I understand her in ways she does not realize. I too, enjoy being quiet and studious, but often feel pressured to be loud and boisterous. Hell, I love being loud and boisterous. I do not need to choose. Both states are part of my personality repertoire. When she wrote in ebonics for her first persuasive essay, I did not cringe. I merely told her the truth. I completely understand your work, but the world outside of here will deem it unacceptable. You want to be a lawyer yes? She nods. Then you need to talk the way lawyers talk. And that has unfortunately been dictated by a predominantly white educated society. Talk ebonics to me. Talk however you'd like. But when we're doing academic writing, we both must hide our roots, cloaking them in clever diction and unnecessarily obtuse grammatical schemes. She still struggles with elements of reading comprehension. She will need to work harder to be a lawyer. I should push her harder.
      But that's the catch-22 of a teacher. If you go home feeling your job has been done, then you are incompetent. Of course, do not stress yourself out, but do not accept a 54% passing rate. Do not accept a 55% passing rate. Hell, do not accept a 99% passing rate. These percentages are nothing. Your kids are the ones at stake. I gladly give up my dreams to my kids, knowing that the minutia of my mind may very well be the only thing I have left to give. The rest of it is occupied by lesson plans, observations, grad school, parental expectations and being a 23 year old. I guess adulthood is the trick of losing yourself. That's how you wake up 50 and unhappy. Eventually your true self comes surging back, expecting a vacation and life achievements, when in fact you've been setting yourself up for the point that you could be happy.
     Do not read this as an indictment of teaching. I am just a writer who writes with the lines heavily shaded in. I have always been one to point out the disgustingly ugly, so that way when you get into the profession, the beauty is a nice surprise. I have finally stopped caring about grad school. I have finally stopped caring about dating. I have finally stopped caring about being an adult and test prep and prestige. Instead I care about my kids learning. And once I stopped worrying, I realized I love teaching. 

Why Bloomberg's own logic doesn't hold up about safe spaces

            I've had pretty good friends disagree with me on the function of safe spaces, but I often find myself shocked at how people evaluate these spaces. At the very core of it, people who disagree with safe spaces often do so not for any legitimate first amendment reasoning or intellectual progressiveness, but because they don't actually believe the people who need the safe spaces have a legitimate claim to them. In the process of explaining these safe spaces, I'm going to provide yet another reason for why Michael Bloomberg is an ass, which honestly is just a bonus for me as a New Yorker.
              Safe Spaces are a reaction to the normal vitriol minorities face from the outside world via microagressions.  Imagine if anywhere you go on campus you can come across beliefs that are antithetical to your own. More than that, these beliefs often make you feel less than. Beliefs such as: you just got into this school because of affirmative action. Or perhaps "black parties are shut down because black students are wilder than white students" My personal favorite is when someone who isn't black uses the N-word and justifies the use by claiming they hear black people use it all the time. Even past this petty shit, you'll have Donald Trump rallies that will openly call for the deportation of american citizens. You'll have history classes that constantly affirm white narratives, leaving you with specially designated minority classes (or if your white professor is progressive, he'll try really hard to choose one book from a woman or minority, but only one!). All of this reflects the normative experience for a minority. It's taxing. It's frustrating. If you do not believe that it's taxing and frustrating, then you now have your reason for why you think safe spaces should not exist: minorities are crybabies. Don't give me the nonsense about how they prevent learning other viewpoints. Minorities do not have a choice on whether they learn differing viewpoints. Differing viewpoints are shoved down our throats. Normative assumptions about us are shoved down our throats. Microaggressions are shoved down our throats. And unless I intend to just not be a student, I'm going to have to deal with them. So why can't I have a place where I know once in awhile I do not have to deal with them?
           People like Bloomberg argue that giving you this safe space prevents you from learning how to deal with these so called microagressions. I disagree. I believe giving you a safe space empowers you not to accept them. And that's the real issue. People like Bloomberg believe that it's a certain reality that minorities of all kind will have to deal with this shit in the workplace, so might as well get used to it now. But why? Why can't I instead say, ya know I can't keep you from acting like an ass in everyday interactions, but this space or time right here I'm going to ensure you can't plague me with your negative comments. Why must minorities be taught it is ok for people to insult their very person nonchalantly and more so accept those beliefs. The notion that Bloomberg is in favor of radical change is false because any attempt to do so (look at the Yale incident as a perfect example of this) is typically met with ardent backlash. Instead people want minorities to accept the jokes, accept the criticism and give a fake smile afterwards. But minorities have decided to say fuck that shit. So we have our safe spaces, where we don't need to hear about this nonsense and if we do want to discuss it. we are able to discuss it without feeling like our candid feelings will upset some sort of balance in the universe.
        So let's be honest. You don't actually believe safe spaces are holding back intellectual progress. You just think minorities need to stop being crybabies. Well I'm glad you're able to tell me and every other minority how to feel. Opinion duly noted. Good bye. 

The Social Justice Community and Minority Movements are not one in the same

                                   This has been a topic I've thought about a good deal. First,I feel I have a unique vantage point when it comes to these two distinct communities. Growing up I was very much a part of the "anti-political correctness crowd" to the point that I considered myself Republican, while conveniently ignoring how they stood in opposition to the morals I hold near and dear to my heart (to be fair to myself, I preferred moderate Republicans, Ted Cruz and his ilk always seemed outlandish to me). Then I went to college and they filled me with their liberal nonsense, turning me into a no good hippie. My hair was long. My sentences overly complicated. And I started using lingo like intersectionality and white people. Now that I am close to two years of separation from college, I've mellowed out to a more moderate position that still leans heavily towards my liberal roots. One thing remained constant during that entire period of ideological shift. I was Puerto Rican. More importantly I was aware of the larger struggle minorities had been facing for centuries and while college amplified my disgust with institutional biases, the gut wrenching feeling of playing a "fixed game" was always there. So one could say I was always part of the minority struggle and I don't mean to incorrectly coalesce all minority struggles, but for the sake of how they depart from the social justice community, I think there's some uniformity to be had. As someone entering a community with allegiance to another, the demarcation between one community and another becomes crystal clear. That being said, I think my main argument is that the social justice movement/community and the minority communities/movements are not one in the same nor are they never mutually exclusive. People often think the social justice community falls in file rank with minority communities, but that is sometimes not true. Furthermore, there are radical aspects to some minority movements that make them mutually exclusive with the social justice community. But for me to even begin to explain these points of tension, let me unpack some of my perceived notions of the social justice community.
                     The social justice community is born out of an overwhelming acknowledgement of the institutional biases minorities of all kinds face in society. Simply put, a bunch of academics decided to do research on typically ignored groups of people and realized, "wow these people are actually treated in a pretty negative manner in a whole host of ways." Once that realization was widely accepted, people took it to as an ideological lens, where one asked "how is the world I live in centered or favored on privileged identities." Unsurprisingly people realized quite a lot of what seemed to be "normal" actually subtly affirmed agent identities, while demeaning minorities. Once you come to the realization that you are in the wrong, then you must decide to what degree do you actually care? Some people shrugged their shoulders and said," tough luck," while others felt something needed to be done about it. While those who actually cared about their transgressions tried to find a way to "fix" the negative environment they were propagating, it became apparent that these issues were not simple, but complex. So academics, writers, and intelligent people alike came together to try to unpack these negative instances, how they occurred, and what would be a suitable substitute to them. It's from this ongoing inquiry that the heart of the social justice community can be found. The oft "complicated lingo" is portrayed as such simply because it requires someone to abandon what they are already comfortable with. The very pushback given to this vis-a-vis "political correctness" is the very qualifier for the language policing to begin with. Also, language policing is a bit extreme. Often the social justice community encourages dialogue and mutual understanding. When that's not possible, the response is not one of censorship, but instead of refusal to acknowledge. Why should I give credence to your awful language when I have a suitable alternative you refuse to use? I will reject your use of language and stand by the targeted identity.
             The irony in all of this is that the one party that seems to have very little say is the minority themselves. Of course the inquiry process theoretically should be rooted in minority thought and literature. But a scarcity of minority academics and thought leaders and a mutually exclusive element every true minority struggle has with the institution makes it difficult to take suggestions from the social justice community as gospel. When you have your gay friend shouting faggot or your hispanic friend using the word spic freely, you begin to wonder if all the effort put into precise language is actually a huge farce (it of course isn't for various reasons, the example is just used to serve as the distinction between social justice on a college campus versus how it can play outside the ideal environment). Even I cringe at my students calling the only white student in my class "whiteboy." I always admonish them, but I understand that the term is less of racial prejudice (they honestly love the kid) and more of a candid reaction to an identity they rarely see in person.
      We have a community whose mission is to promote a positive environment for minorities of all kind. The flaw with the community is that some minorities honestly don't give a shit. I guess that's not true. Oppression in some way, shape or form is cared about in the community, but talk about using the word latino versus hispanic falls on deaf ears when rent is due and all you have to eat is rice and eggs. I guess the point is that often what is important to the social justice community and what is important to the minority community is not always the same, nor should it be. There are somethings that can only be achieved amongst people within the particular minority group. These cultural shifts and changes within the identity should not be shaped by people outside the community and therefore excludes a chunk of the social justice community. Now one might say that this exclusion does not imply that the community is mutually exclusive. One can tacitly support minority self determination from afar. But what happens when minority self determination comes at another groups detriment? The assumption that women being paid more won't be at the detriment to men is nonsense (in a monetary sense). I guess what I'm displaying here is an inherent distrust of the social justice community's focus on what appears to be surface level (language, which honestly does matter, but when stacked up to the Benjamin, falls a little flat) versus the true factors that oppress minorities (money, power, etc.) What if instead of needing outside assistance, a minority group had the influence to change their own fate? Then would the need for a social justice community even be there?
       Another departure is the dubious assumption that minorities are all down with the cause. I may be for latino empowerment and still make black people jokes on my break at work. While, one can argue that repercussions similar to the ones faced by whites should await minorities when they engage in this kind of behavior, one cannot deny that they should be able to choose to engage in this behavior. Just as agent identities carelessly oppressed minorities, sometimes in explicit ways, but also sometimes accidentally (e.g. building brownfields in poor minority communities), minorities should not be expected to act in a manner that will be cognizant of the struggles of anyone else but their own. This bleeds into another discussion of capitalism and our government. Can we truly have a fair society, when the premise of our society is that coalitions should face off against each other. Of course cooperation might typically be the best course of action, but for when attrition is most acceptable, our very way of living affirms such behavior. You cannot expect minority movements to be selfless, their very existence is engulfed in the self. From this comes the often ignored or criticized aspects of minority movements. The formations that caused a stir in white america. Or perhaps the disruption of Bernie Sander's speech, which had many minorities calling for blood, willing to sacrifice one of their own for a white male candidate. Even in the struggle itself we see different factions vying for power. You can act latino, but not too latino, unless you got it that way, then you go Jenny from the block. On the other end you have Latinos who are proud, but want the entire community to be educated and well read, often passing the same racist judgement that had been placed on them when they first stepped into a predominantly white university.
       The social justice community serves a refuge for those in the minority community who haven't picked a side. It's either social justice or dungeons and dragons. Nerd communities have begrudgingly accepted minorities, often in an effort to create a more hierarchical structure for the pinnacle of nerd existence: the white male.  But inherent in the social justice community's reactionary nature is a disconnect from a minority movement. Some things only black people can deal with. Some things only Latinos can deal with. Some things only women can deal with. And so on. Of course intersectionality makes this all complicated, but that's the point. The entire process is too complicated for one to pinpoint a particular fission. It's more like there are hundreds of breaking points and within those breaking points are even more breaking points. To throw your hands in the air and give up navigating them is an unnecessarily defeatist attitude, but to imply navigating them is an easy process is equally foolish. Often when I try to wrap my head around it, I find myself wanting to listen to more people. My own social justice philosophy (a mentor of mine called it a "journey") is developed through the experiences of other people. Often listening to them and relating to them informs what I believe to matter. I find that to be a more candid representation of the community, then an uninformed adherence to a lexicon.  

Pretentious sayings that assholes always misuse or abuse

                    There is nothing I hate more than when I'm having a hearty debate about a topic and someone resorts to an old adage to back up their point. Often they hastily throw in the old adage in a desperate attempt to readjust the debate so that it seems they are holding an impenetrable bastion of intellectual high ground. These adages aren't bad per se. They are just often misused or abused to the point that any meaningful discussion comes to a halt once they rear their cliched heads.


1. There is no such thing as a free lunch:
         I just had to sit through an education lecture where the professor harped on about this principle over and over like an automatic telephone operator. "But Bernie will tax corporations to account for the..." There is no such thing as a free lunch. "Studies show that consumer tax could..." There is no such thing as a free lunch. "God is literally going to come down and give us the secret to cold fusion" There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course there is always a drawback of some sort and the law of matter exists and yada yada, but if it doesn't directly or indirectly affect me in a meaningful way, then what does this matter. The same idiots harping about free lunches, neglect minimum wage studies that show raising the minimum wage often worked in favor of the economic health in many localities. Who's eating lunch now? The only time it's appropriate to talk about lunches and whether they are free is when someone invites you to a needless event that will most likely be boring and pointless or when someone is actually neglecting the negative externalities of a problem. Otherwise, no lunch for you!


2. Correlation does not mean Causation
       Sure. This is true. But often what many people mean when they use this is more along the lines of: "Since Correlation does not mean causation, I will completely ignore any statistical data you bring to this. There could not possibly be any predictive capability tied to your data. Your information is practically useless." This is the adage of choice for the uninformed, but incredibly willing to debate. Instead of encouraging more exploration, they like to dismiss information without examining what the information might actually bring to light. I once argued with a kid who claimed that a positive correlation between tuition prices and money given to universities overtime did not mean universities received more money over time. I looked at him quizzically because that's exactly what that means. The frustrating part is that the kid believed he was right because his 10th grade chemistry teacher stupidly taught him correlation does not mean causation, but apparently failed to teach him how to interpret graphs.



3. Survival of the fittest
       God these are some of the people I dislike the most. Often the most privileged and obtuse individuals are the ones spouting off this pseudo Darwinian nonsense. I often hope all the errant shrapnel from drive by shootings that are fated to hit someone, finds their way into the skulls of these fools. The ironic part is these are often the people who cry foul at every step and turn in life where things are not going their way. This is the guy who argues with his Professor about the grading policy because he felt his paper was graded "too harshly." These are the people who try to pressure Professors into dropping assignments of the syllabus in the first lecture. The kid in class who would whine and complain about sportsmanship whenever another team uses less than savory methods to get ahead, especially when the complainer himself had just unsuccessfully used those methods.



4. But it's just a theory
     Tagging along with our evolution theme is the ridiculous notion that because something is theoretical it should be completely discounted. The favorite use of this old adage is when someone insists that there is some sort of scientific debate surrounding the theory of evolution. This theory is widely accepted to be true in some way shape or form in the scientific community. You know what theory isn't widely accepted? Creationism.
(note: all "it's just a theory" users should test the theory of gravity, preferably at tall heights, using their own bodies for test subjects)

5. That's just the way the world works (the world isn't fair)
     We've all been guilty of saying this, but what's frustrating is when some smug asshole purses his lips for a sly smile and blurts this saying as if he placed a verbal royal flush into the conversation. Fuck you. The world doesn't have to work any particular way and being too lazy to change it isn't a good excuse for why the world is fucked up. Instead what should be insisted upon is the world being changed in such a manner that we don't accept stupid bullshit.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm just so angry thinking about these five I'll stop here. 

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.