Truth of the matter, Limitation of choices.

It's been a while since I've written anything, so forgive me if this post is a little off point.

This article that was posted nearly two weeks ago sparked my interest for a few reasons.

For one, it seems to be a pretty blatant case of discrimination. One older gentleman (Caucasian) wearing nothing more than panties, high heel stilettos and black stockings was allowed to board an U.S. Air commercial filght. While a young man (African American) was booted from a U.S. Air filght six days later and then arrested for sagging his pajanma pants.

The second reason it sparked my interest is because it speaks to our values an American society. What one values dictates how he or she thinks thus determining how they will behave. For instance, one might say if the young man had different values, he would not have been arrested in the first place.

The final issue that attracted me to this story was perception. How we perceive what happens to us dictates how were going respond now and basically until we die. Although, for many individuals there is a huge difference between what we percieve happened and what actually did occur. There are times people percieve an insult when one did not actually happen.

In the mind of a twenty-year old man, I could see how this would be upsetting. You paid for your flight, showed up on time and were simply trying to get on the plane to go to a certain destination.

Many of the folk in blogosphere support the young man and state this is a racial issue. If nothing else, to many folk it definetly seems like a double standard.

Yet, since I'm assuming these were two different flight crews, maybe the flight crew that asked the young man to pull up his pants would have not allowed the older man to board either. We cannot really know unless these were the exact same flight crews.

Yet there is one question that I can't get out of mind, was it worth it?

The young man seems to have an interest an improving his life or he would not be in college, at least that is the assumption I'm going to make. With that said, how does getting arrested for sagging fit in with the goal of improving ones life?

I mean to get arrested, have a possible pending court case and the prospect of losing your college football scholarship, all because you would not pull up your pants?

Maybe the real question is should anybody be defending the young man at all? Is sagging, which seems to have orginated in prison culture, then transferred to hip-hop culture, something we really want to defend?

This case underscores two issues that we in the African American community must confront: our values and perception of issues.

Whether to allow someone to sag or not does not strike me as some form of injustice. Asking somebody to ride at the back of bus for a reason outside of his/her control or having Jim Crow laws are injustices. Wearing your pants at waist level is called decency and is value we should want all are children to aspire to.

If a child of mine commited a crime with another guy but my kid was the only one that got arrested, I'd be upset about the double standard.

But, I'd be more upset that my child committed a crime at all. If he/she had not committed the crime in the first place, he/she would not have to worry about any double standard.

The young man stated he was "embarrassed" by the whole ordeal. I'm sure he felt singled out and percieved that this had to do with something "other" than his panjama pants. The young man's response was to speak out/refuse to pull up his pants and resist arrest.

One value that is important in the African American culture (and any other culture that has dealt with mass oppression in some part of their history) is to speak out or rebel. If you think about it, if African Americans had never spoke out or rebeled, slavery probably would have lasted longer. With that said, for some African Americans (Human beings in general) it seems our perception might be a little skewed on when injustice is actually occuring.

In this case, had the young man thought in his mind that there are many people in society that find looking at a man's boxers kind of disgusting, he would have pulled up his pants, end of story. It's obvious the young took this situation to mean something else.

For some young men, sagging may be their expression of freedom. Freedom from the demands of others to act or live in a certain way. The one question young men that sag may want to ask themselves (or ourselves for that matter) is whether the freedom to rebel is actually freedom, or it's opposite? Isn't it really just a limitation of choices, the person must do the opposite of what is expected? Maybe as they (or we) become more aware , they (or we) can make a choice that represents real freedom, the freedom not to rebel but to do what they (or we) truly choose.

For this young man, it would have been pulling up his pants and boarding a plane back to New Mexico, so he can graduate from college and lead a productive life.

The Coming Storm/The Leaders

Judging from current polling data, in November 2010 Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate as well. It seems that there will be a big Republican victory, thus seriously challenging President Barrack Obama's ability to put forth his administration's agenda during the rest of his first term in office. Tea Baggers/Fox News/Republican leadership have been effective in depicting the President as an anti American/socialist who's trying to take their country away from them.

Two of the Republicans main arguments have been the federal government should be limited in size and spending must be undertaken responsibly. These are not unreasonable requests and should civilly be debated among our elected officials to come to a reasonable compromise.

Yet, Republican leaders/Fox News/Tea Baggers have not stopped there. They have held up the Federal Government as if it's the enemy. Fear mongering techniques have been used to combat all of President Obama's initiatives from health care to wall street reform.

In fact, President Obama has been the target for much of the hysteria. Whether it be the President's place of a birth or his religion, the card of Mr. Obama being "different" from "Real Americans" has been played by Republican leaders/Tea Baggers/Fox News to the tilt.

Leaders such as Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc have shown little regard or respect for President Obama. These leaders continue to defend certain falsehoods about the President even while knowing them to be untrue.

One wonders how individuals who consider themselves stalwarts of "Family/Christian" values can make up such fabrications. Isn't lying breaking one of the basic tenets of Christianity? I mean, I didn't major in theology or go to seminary school but didn't Christ call us to love our enemies?

In a previous post, I discussed the followers of this Authoritarian right wing movement. Now, I will write about their leaders. Just as in that initial post, most of what I write is based off the book Conservatives without Conscience, written by John W. Dean who quotes much of the work done by psychologist and researcher Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba. Bob Altemeyer researched and coined "right wing authoritarian" term. Although, Mr Altemeyer did not have scale or criteria for the men and women who lead RWA's. That's where researchers Felicia Pratto of the University of Connecticut and Jim Sidanius of the University of California, Los Angeles, who developed social dominance theory, and social dominance orientation scale come in. An individual who scores high a social dominance orientation scale, would be described as having personality that is sadistic and inhumane towards others.

Research results show social dominators believe equality is a pipe dream for suckers. Individuals who score high on the social dominance orientation scale tend to agree with the following statements, "Do you enjoy having the power to hurt people when they anger or disappoint you?" "If you have power in a situation you should use it however you have to, to get your way," and "I will do my best to destroy anyone who deliberately blocks my plans and goals." Needless to say, these social dominators seem to have no moral compass. Here are some additional statements dominators tend to agree with, "There really is no such thing as right and wrong; it all boils down to what you can get away with," and "basically, people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for your own benefit." They disagree with statements like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and never do anything unfair to someone else," and "since so many members of minority groups end up in our jails, we should take strong steps to make sure prejudice plays no role in their treatment by the legal system."

I'm sure that none of you will be surprised that authoritarian dominators are attracted to "status-inequality-enforcing occupations," like prosecuting attorney or a job in law enforcement, and that they are "over represented in positions of political power."

Quite frankly, these leaders seem to be narcissistic and just flat out inhumane. It might appear that I'm making a partisan attack against the right but these dominators describe themselves as "intimidating, unsympathetic, untrusting, untrustworthy, vengeful, manipulative, and amoral." These individuals know exactly what they're doing and don't care whom they hurt in the process.

What's more disturbing are the individuals who test high on both the Dominator (leader) scale and the RWA (follower) scale. These individuals are referred to by Mr. Altemeyer as "Double Highs." It may seem strange for an individual to score high on both scales, since it obviously would be a contradiction. Yet, Double Highs don't answer questions on the RWA scale as followers, they are making the assumption people are following them. To put it plainly, dominators answer questions as if people are doing they're bidding. Dominators always picture themselves in a world where they have control.

Double Highs tend to be Christian Fundamentalists but don't go to church for the love of Christ. They go to church for selfish motives. Mr. Altemeyer's research shows that Double highs agree with statements like, "The best reason for belonging to a church is to project a good image and have contact with some of the important people in your community." Double Highs attend church more than most folks and think of themselves as holier than thou but they have no problem lying, cheating or bullying. As the aforementioned statement suggests, Double Highs are amoral and thus church has know effect on their behavior. It does not bother their conscience because they don't have one to begin with.

Double Highs show their narrow mindedness by agreeing with the following statements "If it were possible, I'd rather have a job where I worked with people with the same religious views I have rather than with people with different views"; "all people may be entitled to their own religious beliefs, but I don't want to associate with people whose views are quite different from my own"; and "non-Christian religions have a lot of weird beliefs and pagan ways that Christians should avoid having any contact with."

While social dominators generally don't subscribe to a grand scheme or philosophy, Double Highs do. Mr. Altemeyer ran a simulation game called "Global Change" with fifty-five university students, whom all tested high for RWA and seven of whom tested high for Social Dominance (Double High) as well. During these two — session simulations, the Double Highs took control and disastrous results ensued. They made themselves wealthy unethically, participated in nuclear blackmail, destroyed the ozone layer and allowed billions of people to die of starvation.

Now I know it was just a game, but would you want these individuals leading your schools, military or better yet, your country? Double Highs are dangerous not only due to their selfish and narcissistic personalities but also because they lead people (RWA's) who are submissive, gullible and do not think for themselves. Mr. Altemeyer compares "Double Highs" to Hitler and to those who are "most likely to mobilize and lead extremist right wing movements in the United States."

Not to beat up on the right or anything but I'll be damned if this does not sound like their leaders. Sarah Palin continues to promote falsehoods like this, knowing full well it's incorrect. Yet, we are told by Palin's followers that she is the embodiment of christian virtue.

Or take an individual such as Newt Gingrich, who publicly promotes "Family/Christian" values but even close associates concede the man is amoral.

There are going to be some difficult days ahead but we as intelligent Americans must press forward demanding truth over fiction. We have a choice not to succumb to the nonsense and consistently present the facts the way they are. If we choose to remain silent now, then I fear our country will start to head down a bumpy and dangerous road.

Disgusting/ Selective Focus

By now, we all must be familiar with Shirley Sherrod and her extraordinary story. What this woman has endured over the last seventy-two hours due to the manipulative behaviors of Andrew Breitbart and Fox News is amazing.

Shirley Sherrod's life is a testament to thinking outside box and using one's experiences to make them more compassionate and not bitter. Shirley Sherrod could have been hateful and angry but she made a different choice. This woman upheld the golden rule "due unto others as one would want done to themselves."

The same cannot be said about Andrew Breitbart and Fox News.

I know what many of you are thinking, "What about the NAACP and the White House?" "What about their contribution to this mess?"

I agree that the NAACP and Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack did not do due diligence and acted in a defensive manner. I'm still stunned the NAACP condemned this woman for what she said on that 45 second edited clip that was posted on Andrew Breitbart's blog. Considering that they had the original recording due to the speech being done at their banquet! It's disturbing that no one in that organization thought to look at the tape in it's entirety before making a statement! Hell, nobody from the NAACP even contacted Shirley Sherrod before condemning her.

Yet, I also understand that hindsight is 20/20. It's easy for me to be critical now but under pressure most of us respond in a manner that we usually would not. I'm not giving them a pass, I'm just acknowledging that Benjamin Jealous/Tom Vilsack are human beings and mistakes can occur.

But then again, this is why organizations usually have a policy and procedure handbook that list exactly what should happen in certain situations.

Although, the true tyrants of this story are Andrew Breitbart and Fox news. If they had not tried to manipulate the public into believing Shirley Sherrod was a racist, none of this would have occurred.

It's obvious these tyrants suffer from perverted thinking/selective focus. Selective focus means you pick and choose certain parts of an event or situation and focus only on those parts. What you focus on may be something good or bad. If some facts don't support what you already believe, you block them out. You try to control the focus so you can justify your behavior.

To watch Andrew Breitbart and Fox news reminds me of trying to hold a conservation with an individual who is severely mentally ill and not taking their medications. There is no coherent rational thought to their logic.

Andrew Breitbart continues to claim the NAACP is racist and the crowd that Shirley Sherrod was speaking to were also "cheering" racist rhetoric. If you watch the video, you see this is a distortion made up in the sick mind of Breitbart. There was no cheering or applause, it was just another lie made up by a man who needs anti psychotic medication.

Bill O' Reilly's weak attempt at an apology last night only continues to prove that Fox news is not actual "news" at all. O' Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and everyone else at Fox news who was involved with this deception owe Shirley Sherrod a real apology. They can't use the excuse of blaming Breitbart for his lie because they should have checked their source. In journalism 101, I'm sure checking your source for accuracy is mentioned.

But then again, when has Fox news ever really been concerned about telling the truth.

What is the lesson learned from this matter? I think it's simple, truth is paramount. We should no longer side with people due to their political leanings, race, gender or sexual orientation. The only thing that matters about a person is the content of their character, "their truth."

Listening to Shirley Sherrod defend herself the last couple days, only a bigot could come away not being impressed by her. Shirley Sherrod is a counter to every stereotype thrown at black american women today. A brilliant example of "truth" personified.

What we see from Andrew Bretibart and Fox news is something all together different. Either due to mental health issues, fear, narcissism or combination of them all, we see individuals who seem incapable of "truth."

I guess the question becomes what "truth" will Americans listen to? The Shirley Sherrod's of the world or the Andrew Breitbart's/Fox news types?

Forgive me for not being too optimistic.

The Followers: Right -Wing Authoritarian/Tea bag movement.

When I've watched some of the tea bagger rallies or listened to their leaders interviews, it's been hard for me to take them seriously. The hypocrisy and self righteousness of their behavior/statements is so easy to see, that I've sometimes wondered if they're joking. Yet, with each tea bagger victory in Republican primaries, I've come to realize their movement is not a joke. What concerns me is the direction a movement like the tea party will take this country. My belief is it not will not be pleasant for everyone who is non-white male or female.

It isn't to say that tea baggers don't have legitimate concerns. The national debt is at a record high. The prospect that this debt will passed on to future generations is an issue that should be debated.

As far as taxes are concerned, I'm sure none of us wants to pay more of them.

Although, this is where the hypocrisy of the tea party becomes obvious. I don't recall the tea party demanding less government spending under G. W. Bush's administration. Bush began fighting two wars an Afghanistan and Iraq, continued with the bush tax cuts for the wealthy but did not decrease spending and deregulated the banks/wall street. Basically, set the table for much of the chaos that has occurred over the last two years.

In fact, I don't remember the existence of the tea party during G. W. presidency. This is due to the fact that much of the tea party probably supported Bush. In fact, they've only seemed to come out of the woodworks since the election of President Barrack Obama.

Their dislike of President Obama and his policies has sometimes been unreasonable. It's one thing to oppose government activities that interfere with the market, it's quite another to call the man a socialist or compare him to Adolf Hitler.

Most rational individuals would agree that President Obama is doing nothing on the scale compared to an Authoritarian leader such as Hitler.

If anything, it's more likely Tea Baggers would elect and follow a man comparable to Hitler. What makes me say this is not a partisan attack on the right, it's a scientific fact with empirical data to back it up.

In the book Conservatives Without Conscience, author John W. Dean quotes much of the work done by social psychologist and researcher Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba. Over the last thirty years, Mr. Altemeyer has researched and written books on the findings from his studies. He has coined the term "right wing authoritarians" for followers of authoritarian leaders.

Now I don't want to confuse anyone, but there is a bit of a difference between the way I'm using the word "Authoritarian" and the way a political scientist would. A political scientist would use the word "Authoritarian" to describe a form of government, while I'm using it to describe a personality. You can have an "Authoritarian" school teacher or pastor or whatever. Although, it's the belief of Mr. Altemeyer that the more "Authoritarian" personalities that exist an American politics, can move our country towards an "Authoritarian" form of government.

To get back to Mr. Altemeyer's findings, there are three main attributes that an individual must score high on in RWA(Right-Wing Authoritarian) scale to be considered Right-Wing Authoritarians. They are as follows: especially submissive to established authority, as showing "general aggressiveness" toward others when such behavior "is perceived to be sanctioned" by established authorities and as highly compliant with "social conventions" endorsed by society and established authorities.

Submissive to Authority means they accept without question the statements and actions of their leaders. These just can't be any leaders though, RWA's believe in good presidents and bad presidents or good judges and bad judges. Their decision to submit is dependent on whether certain leaders views are compatible with their own. If they are, RWA's will not question their leader what so ever.

Aggressive support of Authority means a willingness to support their leaders and even partake in aggressive acts to a sanctioned group. This could mean physical, social, financial or psychological harm brought towards certain enemies (think torture in the G. W. Bush administration). Mr. Altemeyer research states RWA's are able to do this due to being fearful and completely self righteous, which frees their aggressive impulses.

Conventionality simply means RWA's accept and follow tradition absolutely. They tend to be religious fundamentalist with no flexibility on issues. There is no gray area or in between for them, just right and wrong. They believe in the traditional family structure with the man being the bread winner and the woman as the "subservient homemaker" wife. Again these are not negative characteristics, but data from research of accepted views held by RWA's.

Here's a few more attributes:

• They travel in tight circles of like minded people.
• They're thinking is more likely based on what authorities have told them rather than on their own critical judgment, which results in the beliefs being filled with inconsistencies.
• They harbor numerous double standards and hypocrisies.
• They are hostile toward so many minorities they seem to be equal — opportunity bigots, yet they are generally unaware of their prejudices.
• They see the world as a dangerous place, with society teetering on the brink of self-destruction from evil and violence, and when their fear conflates with their self-righteousness, they appoint themselves guardians of public morality, or God's Designated Hitters.
• They think of themselves as far more moral and upstanding than others-a self-deception aided by their religiosity (many are "born again") and their ability to "evaporate guilt" (such as by going to confession).

Not to bash the tea baggers, but these characteristics seem to define them perfectly. They are able to rally against President Obama's government spending policies but were non existent during G. W. Bush era's spending policies. They are able to be christian fundamentalists and at the same time call for the assassination of world leaders (Pat Robertson), even thought the ten commandments states "thou shalt not kill." They wave signs calling President Obama a socialist, marxist, nazi and witch-doctor, yet seem to be unaware of the bigotry of their statements.

RWA's are dangerous due to their uncompromising and absolute views. In a democracy, were allowed to have different opinions, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is guaranteed to all Americans. It seems the RWA's or tea baggers want to restrict freedoms for only a certain group of people. Tea Party candidate Rand Paul's statements about the civil rights act of 1964 only confirms this viewpoint.

We must be vigilant in these difficult times. Ignoring groups will not make them go away, on the contrary they will more than likely continue to grow. It's only through continued promotion of truth that some of these RWA's blinders may be knocked off. If we do nothing, I'm fearful of what form our government may take in the coming years.

What you think about the material presented in this post? Is it fair or unfair to the Tea Baggers?

Myth of Manhood: Chapter Five, Final Chapter, No need for a Big Ego!

From time to time, I enjoy watching the NBA. I grew up watching basketball and still love catching an entertaining game on TV every now and then.

Over the last fifteen years there has been an influx of foreign born players in the NBA. One of the more obvious observations that even a novice sports fan could make is that, foreign born players tend to be more fundamentally sound than their American counterparts. The foreigners are generally better in a few major ways: they usually can dribble and shoot with either hand, they also can shoot pretty well from the three point and free throw lines. This discrepancy in fundamental skill level is even more pronounced in the "Big Men." American big men are taught to play close to the rim with their back toward the basket. They generally have one or two offensive moves that they rely upon. The foreign born bigs (especially the Europeans) have the ability to shoot from longer range. They also have all the aforementioned abilities of foreign players, while American bigs for most part do not. This has led to the American men's basketball team losing some key games an international competition in the last ten years (Think 2002 and 2006 world championship teams or 2004 olympic games Athens, Greece). Although, the American men's basketball team won the gold medal in the 2008 olympic games in China. Even in that game though, they were pushed to the limit by Spain.

Well, I wrote all of that with this being the point, the improvement of foreign basketball players is something American coaches and NBA executives have been aware of for years. Yet, American basketball players have not shifted towards a higher fundamental skill level over the last fifteen years. It does not seem like American coaches have started to emphasize more of this "European team" style of play.

The question then becomes, what would make a person refuse to do something that would actually improve their performance and make them more competitive? In this instance, I think ego gets in the way of common sense.

Many of us men have difficulty conceding when we've done something wrong. It's easier to criticize whatever external force that is bring about the conflict. Take for instance, your boss critiques work that you recently completed and you just blow it off. "The boss is a**hole" is what you tell yourself, never thinking that maybe they were correct in their analysis of your work. Or maybe your significant other asks for more help around the house and your response is, "I do enough already, you do it." Even though most researchers in domestic issues would tell you that women generally do the majority of the work around the house.

It's not to say that believing in your ability is a bad thing. Gaining confidence from past success is a healthy way human's progress and try new activities.

I'm also not saying there are not tyrannical bosses out there. There's plenty of supervisors who think they know everything and behave like a jacka%%. When your boss accuses you of doing something wrong, when they're the one who trained you to do it that particular way, it's completely justified to dismiss them as jacka$$$$.

Yet, when an individual claims never to be wrong and refuses any feedback to the contrary, then there is a serious problem. Common sense should dictate that none us knows everything. Therefore, at some point in our lives, whether it be personal or professional, we will be wrong about something. Except for the egomaniacs, of course. Egomaniacs' never get anything wrong because they only see things from their narrow perspective. It's all about them, their wants, needs and desires, to hell with anyone else.

How could one go through life never considering their wrong but by discarding anything that doesn't go along with what they already believe. They fail to consider just because you've worked on something or believed in a cause for a long time, doesn't necessarily mean it's correct!

In one key way, being an egomaniac or depressed individual are similar: they both refuse to allow feedback from others into their mind. A very depressed individual only sees the glum in their particular circumstance, not all the other possibilities or meanings of a certain life event. In that same vain, egomaniacs don't allow other information in as well, their too smart or too good to be wrong.

The choice for all of us is simply, we can be humble in the face of failure or simply deny its existence. If one chooses the latter, just like the 2004 American men's basketball team, you won't becoming home with the gold. There's an old saying, one has a right to their own opinion but not their own facts. Face facts now ladies and gentleman, before it's too late!

Myth of Manhood: Chapter Four, Name dropping is unecessary

As a young kid I wanted a "starter" jacket. These jackets were popular back in the late eighties and early nineties. The jackets featured NFL teams and were high status symbols with the youth. If I remember correctly, they were priced in the $100 — $150 range. I remember kids were getting killed for these jackets back in the day, which is really insane when one gives serious thought to this subject.

Well, I eventually got one of those jackets. Looking back on it now, the person who bought me that jacket wasted their money. I say that because as I remember it, the jacket did not keep me particularly warm. I'd had better insulated jackets over the years and I'm willing to bet their price was below $150. But my young impressionable mind was displaying an American value that our culture permeates: materialism.

There are situations when buying a name brand merchandise makes sense. When the product is associated with quality, you pay more because it's going to last longer. Thus, saving you money in the long term.

Yet, our culture promotes the idea of buying items not for quality but to symbolize prestige. Individuals in our culture purchase jewelry, name brand clothes and cars to show people that they're affluent. The only problem is the majority of the time they're not affluent, just fronting like they are.

In fact many people go into debt trying to show they're wealthy! This "name dropping" is related to "Prices others have paid." These myths fuel one another and are similar to a domino effect. Many of us are busy looking at our neighbor's, co-workers, relatives and trying to keep up/compete with them. We want they have because we're just as important as them or maybe even better than them. If they can have it, why can't I?

The answer to the question is simply, because we usually can't afford it. Although, this does not stop people from either spending their hard earned cash, borrowing money they don't have or putting their life at risk for items (cars, clothes etc) that quickly depreciate in value.

I remember watching a comedian joke about mid-to late 90's rappers. He stated these rappers were bad PR for black men. They had the nice cars, pretty girls but were still unhappy in their videos. This astute observation made by the jokester sheds light on what statistics show us about materialistic people: they are generally unhappy. On average, materialistic people tend to be more depressed than regular folk in the population. They usually drink too much and use illicit substances. Even for folk who just yearn to have more money suffer worse mental health.

The reason is it's hard to stay in front for long when it comes to materialism. Think of how fast trends change in this society. Now imagine how much it would cost to always have the new hot item. The only way an individual can keep up is to be extremely wealthy. Statistics show the majority of Americans are no where near extremely wealthy.

For many black men who believe in the ideal of materialism, it is believed vacant esteem is the cause. Dr. Joy Degruy Leary, author of Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome defines vacant esteem as: "the state of believing oneself to have little or no worth, exacerbated by the group and societal pronouncement of inferiority." Dr. Leary went on to say, "People who believe themselves to have little worth, little power, little self efficacy, will often do whatever they can do to don the trappings of power, even if it means acting out the demeaning roles society considers appropriate for them."

Whether the case be vacant esteem, narcissism or whatever, we as group of men must take in honest look in the mirror. We need to ask and answer the difficult questions: Are we builders or destroyers? Do we make our communities stronger or weaker? Can we be counted on to do as we say? Are people better off for knowing us or not? The answers to these questions are better indicators of value or self worth than material possessions.

People can change. African Americans fight for equality since our arrival in North America is proof of our ability to change circumstances through will and perseverance. The catch is the agent of change always resides within each individual.

The question for us men is do we want to change or continue "name-dropping" till we die? Our survival as a group of men may be determined by our answer.

Myth of Manhood: Chapter Three, Letting go of Anger and letting other emotions in

For many of us men, showing our emotions is a no — no. This is the way many of us were socialized as children. For men to show any emotion is generally a sign of weakness. Although, there is one exception to this rule and that would be the emotion called anger. Society tends to allow men to express anger openly. Instead of admitting to being fearful, hurt, lonely or embarrassed and feeling those emotions, many men allow themselves to become angry. Many psychologist theorize that this is why most violence in society is perpetrated by men. Some men become physical or violent when feeling these emotions because they believe this is their best available option. I think we all can agree that this can become dangerous if men believe violence is they're only alternative.

Now, I'm not saying every man in society falls into this category. There are plenty of men who are comfortable in their own skin and have no problem expressing themselves appropriately.

Nor am I saying that there's never a good time to be angry. Allowing ourselves to be angry when it's justified is a very human thing. I think Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman or Malcolm X all exhibited that justified anger. When our rights as human beings are being ignored, I think any one of us would blow our stacks and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yet, there are other times where anger is unjustified and counter productive. I've talked to men who have admitted to becoming so angry that they didn't care what happened to them next. Usually, they were feeling another emotion, such as being hurt or embarrassed but those feelings quickly manifested themselves into anger. Our IQ drops when were angry, so we're no longer thinking rationale. This fact can lead to behaving in a manner that many will regret at a later time and date.

When I think back to last year, no one exemplified this topic more than Chris Brown. Although, none of us know exactly all the events that led to his attack on Rihanna, we can all agree Mr. Brown over reacted. When Rihanna did her interview on ABC, she mentioned there was nothing in Chris Brown's eyes during the attack. Mr. Brown was so enraged he didn't care anymore what happened next. My question is why? What would make him that angry?

Truth's theory for this situation is simple, Chris Brown got caught. Rihanna stated Brown received a text message from an ex-girlfriend. Rihanna questioned him about it and would not let it go. Mr. Brown was either embarrassed, guilty, hurt or all of the above for getting caught cheating. He probably also felt a woman should not question him in that manner. He's a man and sleeping with as many women as possible is his birthright.

Chris Brown's reaction brought about disastrous consequences for himself. His story is a cautionary tale of what happens when we don't confront the myths of manhood: self destruction.

The reality is we men must confront what we learned growing up about manhood. If some of what we learned is helpful and doesn't infringe on another human beings natural rights, than we should keep it. If what we learned is maladaptive and harmful to ourselves or others, than we must let it go.

We must divorce ourselves from the notion of being emotionless robots. We do feel fear and hurt, confronting these feelings is healthier than masking them.

We must admit that sleeping with as many women as possible doesn't make you more of a man. Their have been plenty of serial killers, child molesters, rapists and other disgusting folk who were good at getting laid. Needless to say, this does not compensate for all the hell they caused peoples lives. Bottom line, there are some real f**kers out there who are good in bed but terrible men. There are better values for us men to focus on than this myth.

We also must be willing to seek equality in our personal and professional relationships. Trying to dominant and be controlling all the time has got to be an exhausting task. Accepting women as our equals and sharing control instead of always trying to be in control will lead to beneficial relationships. Relationships that benefit both parties equally and not disproportionately affecting one person or the other. Basically, do unto others as one would want done to themselves.

We must learn to communicate appropriately with peers and our significant others. To shut down and display no interpersonal skills is going to be counter productive to any relationship. Many men complain women want a man to be "strong" and "tough." Therefore, they have to keep a 24/7 facade of invincibility.

I don't doubt that there are some women who believe in this ideal of men. But, I also know all women do not share this belief. There are too many divorces in this country due to women complaining their husbands don't talk/share their feelings with them. To make a long story short, this is what dating is for. You find out whether your values match with the person your with. If a woman demands you be a 24/7 superhero and you're not, than it's probably a good idea to cut your losses and bounce. It will save you from the drama in the long run.

This is a little off topic, but I remember sometime ago being in counseling session with a former pimp. While discussing a similar topic, he sarcastically quipped "how should we treat women?" Part of me wanted to tell this individual "you should not even open up your mouth." "Your ideology is part of the reason most Black children don't grow up with both parents in the same household." "Your way has brought about nothing but destruction." "Besides, with your prison record, your in no position to have an opinion on being a productive man."

Thankfully, I controlled my anger and simply rolled with resistance.

Ultimately, as men we have similar choices. We can give into anger and fall in line with what society says about how men should behave. Or we can roll with resistance and forge a healthier more balanced value set of manhood. For the sake of the next generation of black boys, I hope we choose the latter.