A Cure for Aids!!!

Well, not really. :/
But, I'll tell you why I chose that as the heading for this blog. Oh, fair warning, this will definitely be another controversial blog so prepare yourself. So, I was googling myself.........right. I've done absolutely nothing in this world that would afford me to be on google's search engine but a couple of minor programs, but I did it anyway because I was bored. What came up though, was a response I had written to an article in the New York Times about human trafficking in India (that still is a huge problem by the way). I had did it for my Economics class during my senior year of high school. You want to know the relevance between my Economics class and human trafficking in India? There is none. Its just that my teacher for that class was socially conscious, so he integrated projects in the class that entailed social issues that he thought were important for us to explore and think about. I'd probably do the same thing. Anywho, what that response reminded me of was a debate I got into (like I always do) in one of my classes during senior year about how we should deal with AIDS. I caught hell that day in class because I offered a very interesting (meaning controversial) solution that upset most people for reasons that I will explain later.

My solution to rid society of AIDS was this: The government should issue a commission to encourage all people nationwide infected with AIDS and people with potential to be infected with AIDS( extreme irrevocable stage of HIV) to gather at a harbor or port. Then, the government should send all of the AIDS and potential AIDS victims to a designated tropical island in the Caribbean Sea. The island would only be inhabited by these people with no exceptions. They will be surveilled heavily to ensure security and safety. Allow them to live at this designated island for the remainder of their lives or coerce them to stay on the island for the entirety of their lives. Provide them with a lifetime supply of all kinds of food. Treat them medically as necessary and give them all of the modernized technology and other resources that the collective group of people desire. Stipulate the law of the island so that the people do not have to pay taxes or work. There will be no free trade on this island as there would be no currency, however, there will be an equal distribution of resources. (Shades of Communism?) Let them die there. The hope is that AIDS and potential AIDS victims will emigrate to the island because of the lifestyles and freedoms they'll still be able to enjoy. They could lead normal lives, just as they would in the place they were living preceding their move to the island. Now, of course they won't be afforded the liberty of travel which counters my argument that they would be able to lead normal lives just like anyone else on the planet. Although they won't be able to enjoy those freedoms, they would be doing their native countries, and the world at large, and invaluable service by contributing to the cause of ridding our society of a macabre disease.

This proposal definitely has a million loop holes because its just a rough sketch of what the plan might actually be. If I were politically savvy enough, I might be able to meticulously conduct an actual plan of action that would be in-depth and refuted any counter arguments that I think may appear after the discerning of my plan. Though, I highly doubt that I would be able to prove the pundits wrong after they carefully destroy my proposal with ethical and moral suppositions. But, I think you could implement this plan in effort to quell all life-threatening diseases and illnesses. It could potentially be....... a panacea, if you will. I certainly think its better than Eugenics and Compulsory sterilization. But the bottom line is that its still morally and ethically wrong just as those two programs were.

There are tons of moral and ethical questions emanating from my proposal. And that's where I got into a bunch of quarrels with my classmates. They said my plan was heartless and wrong; and I was unconscionable to actually suggest something like this. And, they're probably right. Call me unscrupulous if you want, but I thought and still do think that it was a pretty shrewd idea even though it probably violates every natural, human and inalienable right in the books. Maybe it just needs to be modified a little bit. Oh well....

Parting Thoughts:
I really don't want to be the second coming of the young Spike Lee in the early days of his film making career. He sort of mellowed out as he got older, but he still is speaking out.
I don't want to be a young volatile pretentious filmmaker who becomes galvanized at the inkling of any comment(s) that could/would conjure controversy. <----verbose. :/
That's definitely how Spike was when he was a young film maker, spry and ready to defend his ideas. Though, because of my nature, I don't think I'll be able to elude that kind of controversy. I just hope that my films are my primary form of discourse and my mouth is the last. Sigh....
It's great to be smitten.
It's better when two people smite each other. <----Affinity at its best.
The Sean Bell verdict was disgusting, but totally not surprising. (I might blog about it)

Oh yeah, Do The Right Thing.

Abortion....

So, a few days ago I was in a heated discussion/debate with a few friends on the subject of abortion. I, being pro-choice, was matched up against two pro-life supporters with the aid of another pro-choice endorser. Although they won't say that they're pro-life because of certain provisos which I'll mention later, you could say that they champion most of the arguments and philosophies authored by authoritative figures who are pro-life. I am a staunch pro-choice person and my unequivocal nature of spewing out my ideas was definitely challenged. They definitely brought interesting and thought-provoking ideas. However, I think I was able to persuade them and even prove to them that fundamentally, they themselves were in fact, pro-choice.

Now, the battle for those who are pro-choice is usually one fought against Christian fundamentalists (at least in the government). Before I get into the meat of the discussion around abortion, I want to know what happened to separating church from state. I think its criminal for any religious bipartisan who is an arbiter to inflict their subjective nature based on their religious mores on a constitution that is laden with statutes that promise the American people certain liberties. Although it may seem as though Christianity pervades this country more than any other religion, elected officials must understand and act politically as though no one is adhering to any given religion. Thus, people should be regulated as such. This is why you have so much tension in rural areas of the deep south where activists are advocating for sex education but they're being throttled by local governmental religious partisans who believe that people should not have sex before marriage. By the way, I think thats totally naive. You cannot expect everyone to be abstinent in a country as "free" as this one. Its only right, responsible and necessary to implement sex education in those communities. The people in those areas who are not Christian fundamentalists are becoming enthralled to the pervasive religion. The nerve of these Christian conservatives. I actually think the words Christian Fundamentalism and Liberalism are antonyms of each other. Forgive my digression.

Christian fundamentalists would posit that abortion is murder. They would contend that any egg that has been saturated by a sperm is a human being and thus the termination of that human being's life through the will and intent of the mother or any other person via abortion should be stipulated as murder. Although there is an ongoing discussion about when the fetus actually becomes a human being, I'll still entertain that assertion. First, there aren't any laws that are a part of the constitution that guarantees the right of anything that is a not a human or animal. So, if indeed a consensus arises that says that fetus' are not human beings, technically that fetus does not have the right to life and thus the act of abortion would be permissible because it would not be murder. However, if the fetus is recognized as a human being, I argue that that "human being" does not have the right to body of the mother. Although the "fetus/human being" is dependent upon the mother's body for survival, that does not mean that it has the right to utilize the mother's body. There are no laws that stipulate a human being as the right to another human being's body. If that were the case, someone who was facing potential terminal illness would have the right to another human being's body if that was the necessary procedure needed to continue their existence. Since the "fetus/human being" does not have the right to the mother's body, she is fully within her right to remove it from her womb.

The people that I was having a debate with exclaimed that they had no sympathy for those who irresponsibly create unwanted pregnancies and consequently seek abortions. They even said that they thought having the child was their punishment for being irresponsible. This is where the discussion transforms into a moral/ethical one. Now, I will never view a childbirth as retribution for the parents who conceived an unwanted child. I do understand my adversaries positions, however, I do not endorse their philosophy. I definitely do not think that someone who carelessly conceived a child should be punished by being forced or coerced into having the child. Despite the circumstance, I still support the idea that they should be able to choose whether or not they want to have the child. The area where many pro-life people have gotten in "slippery slopes" is when they mention certain exceptions to abortion. These exceptions often entail circumstances that raped women or women who face potential health risks might incur. Now, its not that the pro-life people are saying they don't have to have the child, but they believe because of the unfortunate and life-threatening circumstances that may face these women, they should have the right to choose if they want to have the child. Isn't that idea fundamentally pro-choice? That's where I think I stumped my opponents.

The suggestion that my opponents did offer was that the law should incorporate certain exceptions to the rule of abortion and certain circumstances would afford people the opportunity to gauge whether or not they want to have a child, such as the example of rape. I really don't think that idea would work. There would be too many ways in which people could engage in some sort of collusion in order to create circumstances to attain amnesty and evade prosecution for abortion. For example, someone could could argue in front of a judge that they have been threatened if they have a child and that they will be killed by someone they cannot identify. It doesn't matter how inane that may seem, I'm pretty confident there will be people who will take their cases (some like the aforementioned example) to court and that would be too much of a burden on the justice system.

Another interesting question that has been raised around abortion is that should the father of the child have the right to choose whether or not the mother should have the child. I say no because if that were allowed, then the man's will of the mother's body would be an extension of those in office who are trying to regulate the bodies of women. I've said this time and time again. I do not think an elected official should be able to regulate the bodies of people. The counter-argument that I've gotten is that the laws that stipulate rape, murder, battery, assault, and manslaughter are all punishable by law, are all laws that regulate the bodies of people. But those are clearly different situations. The topic of abortion is unique because of all the controversial and unanswered questions that surround and it should be treated as such. Worse than religious bipartisanships, I think its a damn shame that the primary officials who are deciding what women can do with their bodies are men. Those boards, houses and courts are completely void of any empathy and a key understanding of the womans body because they lack the essential element to garner that empathy and understanding: Women! The intricacy of women's body is being undervalued and that is extremely unfortunate.

Bottom line is this. There are too many ways that would exist for people to circumvent the law if there were exceptions to abortion. In addition, there are too many unanswered questions that compromise the issue of abortion. Abortion has been debated for decades by some of the most authoritative biologists and philosophers ever to inhabit this planet. I think, in order to quell all of this banter, the government should cease trying to justify the regulation of women's bodies and give them right to exercise their own discretion on whether or not they want to have a child. Period. If abortion is soon abolished or stipulated as murder (which it looks like it might be) there will be a pandemic that will have thousands of women curtailing pregnancies illegally like back in the sixties when Jane was on trial. And if that happens.......(sigh)...... Infant mortality rates will sky rocket. Forced pregnancy is morally wrong. The unprepared should not be forced to prepare themselves.

Aside from all this discussion, abortion has been voted on a lot the past few years. Not actually the act of abortion, but rather the trimester in which you could have one. Gradually, the allowable abortion trimesters have been knocked off one by one over the past decade in the Supreme Court. I believe we are down to the last one. The new supreme court justices that Bush Jr. has appointed (who are probably Christian fundamentalists) are pro-life. The last vote was a 5-4 vote in favor of allowing abortion in the first trimester. If there is one more supreme court justice appointed to the Supreme Court who is pro-life, or if one current supreme court justice is persuaded or coerced (which is not dubious at all), then we may all be in for one hell of a ride.

Parting Thoughts:
I hate finals.
I'm glad school's over.
Did you know nursing, which used to be a menial job reserved for women, is now an occupation whose pay is equivalent to that of a starting professor and is occupied now by more men than women? Crazy.....
There is now the possibility that Duke Ellington may be considered the foremost greatest and heralded musical composer in American history. <-----Incredible.


Oh yeah, If you want to hear my take on abortion musically, check this out. One day, I'll land on the Digable's planet...

Heartbeats........Five Of Them.

Art Form: Cinema
Type/Genre: Drama

The Five Heartbeats is by far my favorite film of all time. I think that this film was constructed beautifully and Robert Townsend's writing and directorial skills seem impeccable considering the product he devised. I also have to pay homage to Keenen Ivory Wayans who participated in the screenwriting of the film. I first saw this movie when I was younger when my grandmother used to watch it all the time. And when I say all the time, I mean all the time. I used to never understand why she would pop that thing in the VCR every morning but I guess now I can. I think The Five Heartbeats is one of the most underrated films to have ever been syndicated by Hollywood. The movie was made in 1991 so I don't really understand why it isn't a fairly common known film amongst the past two generations. I'm not saying its one of those films that should be exceptionally prominent in the minds of the public like the heralded Scarface or The Godfather series. But its definitely one of those films that most people should have seen and probably loved regardless of class, race, etc. There are so many things that I can relate to and appreciate in this film.


The Characters

Choir Boy (Tico Wells): So the origination of my alias on this blog has finally been revealed. Yeah, Tico Well's character served as the muse for my nickname, Choir Boy. Choir Boy will also be the name of my independent of production company once I enter to the realm of cinema: Choir Boy Productions. Though, my connection to the name Choir Boy has little to do with Tico Well's character. I chose the name Choir Boy because I definitely think I'm always preaching to people, trying to spread and encourage thought about different things of the world; the socially conscious thing. That objective has been concretized by the advent of this blog, The Tipping Point, which is basically my personal soap box. Aside from that, there are things I can relate to that are encompassed in Well's character. He's the shy one but the member who has arguable the best voice. The guy whose singing is so high pitched that if he fusilladed his voice, it would become nothing more than a glass shattering cacophony. But he's also the guy who's in the back and never gets the attention of the girl he's been eying for a long time. Choir Boy is like the little brother whose big brothers are the coolest and get all the women why he can only dream to be like them. I was definitely like that in my lifetime (the very little of that I lived so far). I've had friends in high school who I envied because they had girls that I thought should have paid attention to me because I knew I was a better person. But Choir Boy does what he has to do to get them (lying about being the leader of the group). I won't comment on that being applied to my life, but I understand. ;)

Dresser (Terrance Williams): Dresser was just the coolest guy in the group. Those suspenders were off the chain. And his dancing skills were hot although he was shown up by the old man. But more importantly, Dresser was the family man. That part of him comes out in the scene when he finally expresses his frustrations with Duck and Eddie because he's upset about not having money and he learns that his wife is expecting a child. I completely understand. Dresser wasn't about the stardom or fanfare. He just wanted to do what he loved and take care of his family. There's probably been an innumerable amount of times where I've envisaged what kind of family I want to have and how we'll live. The idea of being to efficiently provide love and subsistence for my spouse and children while possibly being immersed in the celebrity world is something that sneaks into my mind quite a lot. Despite the money and fame, Dresser maintained that family was important. I respect that.

Eddie (Michael Wright): Eddie King! ( though he pronounces it, Eddie Kang!) Eddy is the man. The guy is enamored with fame and money. I don't think that becomes a bad thing until you become gluttonous with things that come with stardom; things like women and material wealth. Greed could also become an affliction. Those are definitely the things that conflict Eddie in the film and nearly lead him to his demise before self-destructive behavior is curtailed by his potential wife. But what I can relate to with Eddie was his willingness to be that star. He took the leading singing role because he wanted it most. He wasn't necessarily the best singer, which is debatable, but he was determined that that spot was his. And that's how I feel about coming into the film world as an African American filmmaker. There have definitely been the great writers/directors such as Spike Lee, The Hughes Brothers, Keenon Ivory Wayans and John Singleton and the many unnamed. But I think there is a void right now for the new African American Filmmaker. And I want to be the person to assume that spot. You can call it a dream, but I call it a destiny. That's why I'm so steadfast in my pursuit of getting there.

J.T. (James Thomas): The Ladies Man. Now, J.T. had a huge lust problem. Actually, it was worst than that. He had a severe sexual addiction which definitely can be self-destructive. But hey, hormones are hormones. And they get you sometimes, or most times, but a consistent excercitation of self-control can impede that. What I liked most about J.T. was the love he had for his brother. No matter what, he looked out for him; even in the waged war over Baby Doll between them. He even named one of his sons after his brother. That's beautiful. It just makes me wish I could have that kind of relationship with my [half] brother. Sadly, I don't and its really unfortunate. But if I'm fortunate enough to have two sons, I'm definitely going to raise them to have the kind of love, care, and respect for one another that J.T. had for Duck (and vice versa) in the film. Oh, and "shy brother", I think I'll teach that to them too.

Duck (Robert Townsend): Out of all the main characters, Duck is the one I relate to and admire the most. There's a reason why he's the protagonist of the film and its because everything that happens to the group and those affected by the group is a product of his work and dreams. Duck is the visceral writer/choreographer/poet who seems to come up with the perfect tune, lyric, or step because his creative prowess is so unconscionably innate. It seems like everything he does turns into a complete work of art-his music and choreographed performances- and ultimately it's greatly and profoundly appreciated by the public. Although his artistry affords him more money, women, and resources he could ever dream of, he remains subdued in his own world. He shows character traits of a recluse at times, but when he comes out, he delivers something that will be remembered forever (as far as his art goes). I feel like I'm that person too.....

I think all of these characters possess something that I feel I have. Parts of the timber of each individual person lie somewhere inside of me.

The Story Line
I think this film has the best screenplay I've ever seen. The story encompasses so many pertinent parts of the "rags to riches" story for artists and more specifically Black artists. When the group hears their song on the radio for the first time, the elation was incredible. (I love that scene by the way) I think that's how I'll feel when I'm at Festival De Cannes for the time watching my first feature film being screened. The new lifestyles that succeeds the group's long awaited syndication was really cool. Also, the scene where all five members drive through the street with the same car in different colors was the bomb. And the HUGE house with the big ribbon on its facade that Duck surprises his mom with was hot too. I also really liked the scene when the group was on their first tour, driving, and they were unjustly stopped and embarrassed by the police because they were black. Shortly after, Duck then gets back into the car and sings America the Beautiful. Genius. Those are just a few scenes I like, but the film overall is great.

Oh, and the soundtrack is BANGIN!

You can youtube it if I've compelled you enough to watch it or if I've reminded you of how great it is/was and you want to see it again. One.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJHWfLTaG_0&feature=related

There's No Place Like Home...or is there?

Art Form: Writing
Type/Genre: Book/Manifesto

So, my Womens Studies class -which has profoundly affected my cognition- has just finished reading this book by Linda R. Hirshman entitled Get To Work (A Manifesto For Women Of The World). Hirshman is a radical feminist and writer who has been one of the catalysts of the brewing third wave feminism. She wrote an extremely provocative article called Homeward Bound in the American Prospect in which she denounced the influx of women who were opting to stay at home instead of pursuing careers. Her tone in this book is very inflammatory and I understand her urgency to relay this message to women. This book makes a valiant attempt to encourage women to pursue different goals other than staying home in order to keep them from permeating traditional family roles that allow for women to assume stay-at-home positions; which results in the marginalization of women. However, I do have several gripes with this book and Linda's message.

First, I don't think it is at all progressive for Linda, as a radical feminist herself, to polarize the women within the feminist cohort. Linda thoroughly vilifies all women who choose to stay at home. She posits that the women who make this choice actually believe that staying at home is a position that they should inherit; they do not actually delineate whether they should weigh other options. Basically, Linda postulates that women who stay at home are acting under false pretense. She says that the choice has faded and women are just accepting. While I don't agree with that, I want to say first that condemning stay-at-home moms and making them the pariahs in the eyes of working mothers does not benefit the feminist agenda. This kind of discernment of stay-at-home moms versus working mothers is only divisive. Staying at home is not always bad. I think that if you're comfortable enough to settle yourself at home without the burden of working and pursuing capitalistic goals, then you should do it. Hirshman says that educated women who stay-at-home eradicate their possibility of having any affect on the world because they're always in the house. That's not necessarily true either. Many stay-at-home moms write and also participate in their community. Also, every woman should not be inclined to enter the labor force and neither should every man.

I don't think that women who choose to stay at home assume that role. And I also don't think women who stay at home are doing a disservice to feminists or are hurting the feminist agenda. Calling all women to leave their homes and "get lives" will not solve the inequality of traditional family roles. It is still certainly possible for dual-earning heterosexual couples to fall victim to traditional family roles that could further marginalize women. Hirshman aims her vocation of entering the work force to college women and prospective female students. She urges them to set realistic goals, saying that they shouldn't study art but rather vest their interests in subjects that will afford stable jobs, lucrative income and resources. Hirshman also calls for women to take their jobs seriously for job security (establishing tenure) so that they don't end up in precarious lifestyles. She believes money is the fundamental panacea for traditional family roles that marginalize women because generally, the person with the larger source of income in dual-earning households exercises more clout.

I don't think that works. A woman could be a doctor or a lawyer and still be pressured into assuming traditional family roles such as nurturing children, cooking, cleaning and all the other essentials to prevent an unkempt home. The woman having money or a larger source of income than her spouse won't automatically allow her to place those or other responsibilities on her spouse. My resolution is marital bargaining. I think that if women do not want to be burdened with traditional family roles then they should engage in meaningful negotiations with their spouses so that both parties can resolve to equally distribute responsibilities of the home. I also firmly believe that if the marital bargaining does not work due to the apprehension of the woman's spouse, then she should be fully prepared to divorce or separate from him to alleviate any potential marginalization. A good [husband] will understand that the obligations of and for the home should be fairly split between the two so that neither person feels mistreated.

That's my take. If you're really interested in this, you should pick up the book and check it out. It's a very quick read; 90 pages. I definitely appreciated what Hirshman had to say although I disagreed with her premise.

P.S.:
Did you just..................congratulate me for reading?

P.SS.:
I want my son to think just like Huey when he's age 9.

Nigg(er)(a) and its Nigg(er)(a)s

You know what really grinds my gears? People who used the word nigger. Yup, here I go. I'm going to engage in the same conversation that authentic conscious people have been engaged in for the past several years since the word has pervaded the vocabulary of black people. There is nothing that chafes me more, than someone addressing me as a nigger. First of all, I have a name and second of all, that sh*t is degrading, demeaning, dehumanizing and a racial epithet. I will never be a nigger and it freakin' kills me when people call me and each other that. Now, the most common counter-argument I hear is that the masses of Black people have tailored the word so that it is now appropriated as a term of endearment. Are you effin' kiddin' me? So if I go to my wife or mother and say, Hey nigg(er)(a), I love you. <---That's supposed to be affable? Get the hell out of here. There's nothing cordial about calling someone or being called by the word nigg(er)(a).

Moreover, there's a lot of hypocrisy that stems from that premise. And most of us know what that is. It's that when a white person uses the word nigg(er)(a), it's readily received with tension. First off, that's completely unfair to any non-Black (or should I say anyone who's ancestors were indigenous to the continent of Africa) who thinks it ok to the use the word. That's one of the most asinine double standards I've ever incurred. Plus, the word nigg(er)(a) is palpable all throughout our music. How the hell can you so called, endeared "nigg(er)(a)s", complain when someone of another race uses the word when its all over your music. That word is used ridiculously in mainstream Rap music. If White people, or any other kind of people, hear us call each other nigg(er)(a) and then hear our music call us nigg(er)(a), of course they're going to think it's ok. That's freakin' logic and intuition.

Bottom line, those who use the word readily do not have a sincere appreciation for its history. And what kills me is that people always say, they "know", where the word originated. BS. If you have a complete understanding of the word's origins, why the hell do you say it. And I love when people proscribe to the messages of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (probably the most commercialized African-American hero in American History) and then call themselves and there brethren nigg(er)(a). I bet if Dr. King Jr magically showed up one day in front of them, their discourse would be crippled because they use the damn word so much. And they're not going to say that in front of Dr. King. So many people use the word nigg(er)(a) and profanity regularly because they can't find other words/phrases to express how they actually feel or what they're thinking. That's sad. Pick up a book people! People think articulation is a gift or a talent. And to some degree it just may be. But I bet, if you read something once in a while, you'd be able to express yourself a whole lot better than you used to. But back to my tirade.

This is why I don't accept that argument that the meaning of the word has changed for our generation. Would you use the word nigg(er)(a) in a job interview? How about in a conversation with someone you really admire who's done something that you want to do in life? My inkling is, no, you wouldn't. Why? Because the word nigg(er)(a) is semantically the same as profanity. There are negative connotations associated with the word just like cursing. Shoot, eff that. The word nigg(er)(a) is denoted negatively holistically. And for all you righteous folks out there, indulging in your piety, who think using the word nigg(er)(a) isn't a sin, you need to go repent. Make haste. Hypocrites.

I remember there being articles written in the New York Times about the City of New York pursuing a new Public School legislation that would stipulate students who use the word nigg(er)(a) would be punished or in some way reprimanded. I'm totally partial to that. I think people who use the word nigg(er)(a) should receive some kind of retribution for using it because no matter the context it is used in, it's wrong. Period. But Freedom of Speech just had to be a natural right. I guess that effort is futile now.

I don't think that people use the word because they really believe its a term of endearment. I think there use of the word is a product of the environment that they're groomed in. It's just like the old adage, "You are what you eat". If you think about that cliche abstractly, relating to why people use the word the nigg(er)(a), it makes sense. Just substitute the word, eat, with consume. My example for this assertion is Rap. If you consume music that is laden with the word nigg(er)(a) for long periods of time, pretty soon you'll be using it. Now think about the environment. If everyone is listening to the same music, everyone uses the word, and dialogs between people has the word in it several times over, then people will be become desensitized to what the word actually means. And that's exactly what has happened. In order to start some kind of change, there has to be individuals who don't use the word and socializes with people that do so that somehow, they can see that you can express yourself without using that God awful word. It might help to teach them what it actually means too.

I'm really anticipating Nas' new album. He's supposedly entitling it "Nigger" and I hope he's devising this album constructively so that it purports some of the things wrong with the ignorance that has consumed the masses of Black people. If it just ends up being a ploy for record sales, I'll be extremely disappointed. I hope Nas is sensing the same sense of urgency in our community that I have, especially with our youth, and his concern is manifested in his new album. Listen up:


Parting Thoughts:
You ever notice that every minority in America is viewed as an __________ American. "African American, Hispanic American, Italian American, Asian American". But white people in this country are just Americans. <----BS. White people are not indigenous to this country/continent. They need to understand and accept that.

Oh yeah,
Freshman Year is just about over. I'm one year closer to having to actually do something with my life. :(

I'm one year closer to actually doing what I want in life! :)