Writer's block tried to take your boy out.
Leave it to an article that elicits a reaction out of you to get the creative juices flowing. But before I get into the story in question, a little background is necessary. I studied Sociology in college and to say I love the field would be an understatement. It's the lens through which my worldview is comprised of. Matching my curiosity with this worldview leads to questions. And questions being answered gets you a Par 4 post. The 'accelerant': https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals My initial reaction: A bit ambivalent. Wanting to find the net positive yet overwhelmingly skeptical of the research into this in the first place. The questions my Sociology-based brain conjures up: So even if there were to be a gene or even identifiable genes for 'same-sex behavior' then what? Simply, what would the study of sexual orientation and its "root" be useful for? What good would this information do? Society has seemed to always have an issue with homosexuality. The 21st century, by and large, has introduced T,Q, I, A to the ring to perform this same fight scene the previous letters acted out over the course of time. Knowing what I know of humans, research into sexual orientation is not born from the same cradle as pathology. The questions raised in response to this study on 'same sex behavior' is valid because society's relationship with the LGBTQ community cannot be ignored in the why of the study. It is certainly plausible that a motive could be the idea that homosexuality is a disease and research here does fall into pathology. Or at least that's how my brain processed the piece. It read as a reach, with the findings feeling rather statistically insignificant despite the "large" sample size. Due to the question posed inquiring about a singular incident of 'same sex behavior', the parallel could only be made to someone having a penchant for new experiences. Even the connection to male baldness and an unique olfactory system appeared to be a case of correlation not implying causation. While the author was very forthright about the lack of substance with the study--pointing out its flaws and arthritic grip--the question of why this research even exists still lingered. Insert CRISPR. CRISPR represents both the best and worst of society, as the video accurately illustrates. One on hand, yes, society should explore any path that may lead to a cure for cancer or HIV. The genetic modification of food and animals have also been major benefits as bananas are a top five fruit (this is not up for debate) and dogs are "man's best friend". One of the first major feats of genetic engineering was the creation of insulin as medication for diabetics. Genetic modification has not only saved lives, it has also created them--providing hope and a family for those battling infertility. Whereas this process has previously been expensive and time-consuming, CRISPR is a frugal, faster and more accessible engineering tool. It would be asinine to picture the possibilities of CRISPR without mentioning human tendency to take a mile after being given an inch. A realistic conversation about CRISPR and who would have access to this privilege tells you all you need to know. If a family could remove the hypothetical 'DNA code for cancer' in their soon to be born child, why would they stop there? If this is truly Build-A-Kid, surely any rational family would opt for all the fixings. So where is the line? While CRISPR is snipping away at all these undesirable traits and characteristics, we can't be foolish enough to think 'same sex behaviors' isn't on that list. Right now, in August 2019, conversion therapy is "only banned for minors in 18 states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C., while adults can legally be offered the service in all states and jurisdictions." I receive flak for my somewhat reluctance to dive headfirst into the inevitable Technological Revolution. I would say it's more from understanding human greed than it is Orwell's classic 1984. While science is a beautiful, amazing entity we mustn't forget the individuals behind it can oftentimes interject the wrong letters into what is a seamless, natural code. To learn more about CRISPR, visit: https://www.npr.org/tags/419142387/crispr
Why is the sky blue? Why is the ocean salty? How does a bird fly?
These are questions every young kid should have. This curiosity hopefully is encouraged, particularly in the internet age. As one matures, curiosity should continue as well especially once introduced to critical thinking. While not all information is available, research begins from just asking a question and can typically snowball from there. When I first heard about Brooklyn rapper, Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter, partnering with the NFL my first question was 'why'? Why was Jay-Z interested in working with the NFL and why was the NFL interested in working with Jay-Z? I had these questions coming off what seemed like support for the embattled former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick --the player at the center of the anthem protests in the NFL. Also very aware of Jay-Z and how the artist has carried himself, especially pertaining to social justice issues, this partnership appeared to be off-brand to say the least. Those questions I had led to research that I sought to answer in Moral Victories Is For Minor League Coaches. Many within the culture ecosystem have chimed in with opinions on the matter on social media and through various platforms; some critical like myself --and the writers I attributed in my article-- others in defense. Anyone that knows me can speak to my penchant for debate and especially given the time it took to craft an article I certainly looked forward to having a discussion on this topic. I'm a fan of the musical artist that is Jay-Z, I'd love nothing more than to have my opinion changed. But, even as of typing this post, I have yet to come across someone in defense of Jay-Z that seems informed. What I've heard is blind optimism and staying far away from a conversation that dares to even acknowledge the fairness in questioning the motives behind such a partnership. Every 'debate' ended the same way: me answering a question of theirs that in their eyes seem to absolve the rapper of any wrongdoing in inking the deal, me asking questions I had and researched and then radio silence --soon followed by "let's wait and see". A few people immediately came to mind when mulling over similar cases where we as a culture and a society may have also taken this approach: Bill Cosby, R. Kelly and Donald Trump. All feature varying levels of consequence for our naiveté but have allowed each man to continue business as usual despite the presence of damning evidence. Let's start with America's Dad: Jay-Z is a decorated artist, where a number of fans can relate to the 'Hard Knock Life' as well but few have ever amassed the influence of Bill Cosby. To gain the title of America's dad, as a man of color, is a legendary feat and the nation shared in being unable to come to terms with the accusations against the actor and comedian. This is someone that has done wonders for America as a whole, not just the African-American community, holding many honorary degrees as a show of deference and homage. Then we saw the domino effect happen after one brave soul went against the grain, against the hypnotic spell Cosby had on the country. To venture a little closer to home, we learned about another blind spot we had for singer/songwriter R.Kelly. Ironically, Kelly and Jay-Z have history --working together on 2002's The Best of Both Worlds. Caught in the middle of this pair was --Roc-A-Fella Records co-founder Damon Dash-- who was acutely aware of Kelly's budding reputation through Dash's romantic relationship with, now deceased, singer Aaliyah. Kelly's annulled marriage to Aaliyah served as the beginning of Lifetime's documentary Surviving R. Kelly. The six-episode exposé did provide new information on allegations of sexual misconduct and manipulation of young women by the I Believe I Can Fly singer. Yet, a majority of the series was dedicated to pointing out just how shielded Kelly was from being held accountable even after his six year trial from 2002 to 2008 brought his accusations to light. After Kelly's acquittal and welcome back into good graces, it would take nearly ten years for true accountability to land at the his doorstep. This issue would play out on the national stage as then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump tested the lines of inappropriate behavior throughout his campaign. A 2005 recording between the real estate magnate and a former Access Hollywood host unearthed the vulgar phrase "grab 'em by the p***y". In a previous era where decorum was appreciated, this would have been the death knell for a Presidential hopeful's chances at taking up residence at the White House. It appears Trump knew this all along and the public was late to the party with this decree nine months before the release of the recording:
.
All four of these men have two things in common: they have massive levels of influence and they are human. Despite the former, we should never forget the latter. We should never forget these people are prone to mistakes. Criticism does not strip away their magic or take away from their strengths, accomplishments or accolades. It reinforces they are human. Society could use a crash course on what it is to hold someone with fame accountable. We appear to have a tendency to skip to ring the Cancel Culture bell --naturally --prompting fans to be defensive of their favorite rapper, actor, singer or politician. But what are the consequences of enabling someone? And is it possible we can take our fandom too far by withholding criticism and accountability? Jay-Z's deal with the NFL will not result in the same level of terror we've seen from the aforementioned celebrities. But the unconditional attachment shown to Carter proves we have not learned any lessons from the dangers of putting our idols on pedestals.
Discourse in this country doesn't seem to work very well. So what better way to start than with a few laughs and a sobering truth. Also anyway I can continue to prove that (good) comedians are some of the smartest people we have in society is a win in my book.
To set the stage, here's Jim Jefferies: Patriotism is defined as "love for or devotion to one's country". The President campaigned using the mantra, Make America Great Again. This phrasing -- regardless of how it falls apart once dissected -- is something that should appeal to all Americans. Everyone, across the globe, wants their country to be 'great'. In The Real Fanatic, I made a comparison between sports fans and Democrats/Republicans. In spite of differences in political affiliation, everyone should be a 'fan' -- in theory -- of their country. Part of being a fan is accepting when your team, your country in this instance, simply isn't a playoff caliber team. Such criticism is understood as love and affection when it's done in relation to a sports franchise but isn't viewed this way when applied to something that truly matters in the grand scheme -- i.e. the state of your country? "In the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who "kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location" (Krouse and Richardson, 2015)." Adding El Paso to World Atlas' list of The Deadliest Mass Shootings in History, America now accounts for 10 of the top 25 deadliest mass shootings of all-time. Of the 12 deadliest shootings on American soil, six have occurred in the past four years: San Bernardino (2015), Pulse (2016), Sutherland Springs (2017), Vegas (2017), Parkland (2018) and now El Paso. The incident Jim Jefferies refers to in Bare is the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania. Australia's response to this incident has resulted in only one mass murder since its automatic and semi-automatic gun ban. While Australia and America are not perfect 'apples to apples' comparisons of each other, the point is clear: make a firm, decisive decision and results will show. In Protect and Serve I linked to NPR's Gun Show episode. The WYNC production chronicled how the NRA, which began as an organization seeking to train draft-eligible Americans in marksmanship, turned into the 'don't-take-our-guns', lobbying and campaign-funding entity we know today. Yet the irony is that what remains true to this day is the initial need Huey Newton and Bobby Seale saw to carry guns in their neighborhoods in the first place: policing the police. Whether it is a police officer, a mass murderer or simply one person committing a homicide; what is abundantly clear is that too many bad apples have spoiled the bunch as it relates to trusting Americans to own guns responsibly. America's response to Sandy Hook should have been the same as Australia's response to Tasmania. Of the 27 deaths, 20 were six or seven-year-old first-graders who would have been starting the eighth grade this upcoming September. While smaller scale measures were enacted post-Sandy Hook, as a nation there should have been a stronger response. This could have done after Parkland as well, yet the changes we attempt to make are simply putting Band-Aids over gaping wounds. Rather it appears as if we are waiting for the next tragedy to happen on our doorstep to speak up about enacting change. In the meantime, we'll keep justifying the need for guns in our society and the dangerous 'us vs them' rhetoric spewed by Trump and his followers. We'll keep shouting Make America Great Again although Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Parkland and now El Paso all occurred during this president's tenure. As a fan of a quite dysfunctional sports team, let me help you out: America is pitiful. It is a country that lauds its freedoms, democracy and top-tier status but blatantly ignore what it has become today. Better yet, here is someone who can deliver that point a lot better than I can: |
Details
Ty FosterQuestion everything. WQHC Archives
June 2020
Categories |