"Buck The Trend"

Devin Joseph Metz

Everybody wants to feel important. We all do. Each and every one of us; but that does not mean that we always want to do something meaningful or constructive in order to attain that feeling. That's what makes a trend so versatile and widespread.

The trend is the perfect outlet for those of us who want to make an impact without actually really having to do anything arduous or unnecessarily involved. The issue with trends nowadays, however is what usually starts off as something small and insignificant quickly becomes something rather ominous and almost omnipresent contingent upon what that trend is.

I know what you're thinking: "Well isn't that what a trend is? Aren't trends supposed to start small and then catch on quickly? Isn't that the point?"

Yes. Yes it is; but just because a trend is treated as such and spreads quickly as such, that doesn't necessarily make it a positive thing.

Now I'm not here to pick on Gangnam Style or those hilarious Harlem Shake videos that we've all seen on YouTube. I'm not even here to pick on Miss Caramel Kitten's twerk videos.

*minimizes browser window*

There are a few "trends" that I am here to expound upon, however.

No doubt most of you reading this post have a Twitter account. Creator Jack Dorsey's baby was quite innovative upon its release back in July 2006 and it continues to this day to be very involved in the lives of we who use social mediums. I'd even venture to say that Twitter had garnered success, exposure, attention and revenue that may even rival if not outright trump that of Facebook. One of the coolest innovations to this particular social networking tool is the use of Twitter Trends. Per its congruence with the overall theme of this posting, the Twitter Trend performed as one would presume it would. This being true, it still captivated and attracted an unfathomable number of followers once tweeters caught on to how it primarily operates.

Twitter Trends are words or phrases that are placed within the tweet itself that serve their purpose better once the tweet is sent rather than while the tweet is being typed. Once sent, the trend is cast forth across Twitter's networking interface in its entirety; connecting all tweets containing the particular word or phrase under it when one clicks on the trend. This makes it a trending topic. From that point, a user can view any and all tweets containing the trending topic. The exception here is users who have their Twitter accounts protected, of course.

Pretty nifty, right?

The Twitter Trend is isolated in a user's tweet using a hash tag (#). The user will start the trend by typing the hash tag first and then following up with the word, words or phrase that will be used as a trending topic. Just a few examples follow for those of us who are not quite as astute:

#CheeseFries

#WinterWonderland

#IMissHerSoMuch

#Lasagna

#MyStripperNameWouldBe

#WeLoveHowYouReadThisWholeTrendingTopic

So on and so forth. You will note that there is no punctuation or separation between the words. This keeps the trending topic intact. Had there been any separation in the words, only the portion attached to the hash tag would be considered a trending topic, of course. You will also note that whole sentences can be used as trending topics.

Trending topics were initially used for teen fan bases who are drawn to their favorite musicians or actors. Trending the person's name would place all content relative to that topic in a search worthy query once a user clicks on it. Trending topics have also been used for marketing, promotion and advertisement, political movements, fashion, food and just about anything else that one can imagine.

That imagination, man. Very dangerous thing there. As it would seem, with every new, positive innovation that surfaces, once can all but guarantee that there are some presumably looking for a way to use said innovation for malicious, unsavory means.

This is most certainly true for the Twitter Trend. Once the entertaining firestorm really caught on among the tweeting masses(those that I like to refer to as the Twitterverse), things got controversial; so controversial that Twitter was forced to take notice once it became a storm of a much denser, more pungent element. I cannot provide an accurate count of just how many trends have been censored by Twitter; but two that definitely have stood out early on are trends that were geared towards the perpetuation of ethnic stereotypes. Users who purported the trend #ThatsAfrican to elaborate on things that people from that region do (or really just anyone considered an African American at all) found that their widely popular yet highly offensive hash tag hook up was no longer available. It couldn't be used in a typed tweet either as one hoping to post the tweet with the aforementioned trend embedded would find that the tweet would fail to send. The same fate swiftly befell the once popular #ThingsDarkiesSay trend. These are just two of what may likely be two thousand malicious trends out there in the Twitterverse.

My main beef with the trend is more of a trifecta of sorts.

First:

I like many of you am tired of seeing every single word become a trend or the overt saturation and usage of that campy Trend/Abbreviation meshing that we use so much. My biggest agitator? I thought you'd never ask:

#OOMF

This little annoyance is the shorthand version of the popular #OneOfMyFollowers Twitter Trend. This trend caught on when the whole concept of "Sub-Tweeting" gained heavy rotation among the Twitter community. In short, a "Sub-Tweeter" can send out a subliminal tweet regarding a user that happens to be following them using the aforementioned trend and that user's entire timeline will see it. I can't accurately express just how loathsome this is for me. Many a subliminal conversing have taken place using this trend be it in the form of wayward flirting or the issuing of verbal threats back and forth. This will call for an elaboration on all of the Internet gangsters out there; so I believe that would be better suited for another time.

Second:

The Twitter Trend like most other new innovations, creations, fads and so forth will have its fair share of biters and copy cats.

Hi Facebook. Yes. I'm talking mainly about you.

To be fair though, Facebook can't claim the entire brunt of the blame here. Many of the hash tag laden posts that we have seen therein are from avid Twitter users that either have not taken into consideration that this is something that was established in Twitter or those who have connected their Twitter accounts to their Facebook Accounts. Even Tumblr has joined in on the party along with other social mediums when it comes to the hash tag operation. It honestly has become a norm of sorts for social networks. What the hash tag has offered as far as the overall purpose of the Twitter Trend is something that other social networks have adopted and augmented in one form or another.

Third:

Staying along the lines of congruence with my angst for overt saturation, I have certain friends of mine who have even gone to the extent of using the hash tag in regular conversing; be it via text or instant messaging platforms. That was actually the sole indicator for me that this has gotten severely out of hand; and I'm not the only one that thinks so...

http://youtu.be/57dzaMaouXA

Just go ahead and copy the above link and paste it into your web browser. All will become clear at that point.

Not all trends are all encompassing like the hash tag trend, though. Some are actually more representative of the plight of a gender; as sexist as that may sound. Remember when this trend started?

This is the immensely obscure Duck Face Trend. I don't think this trend needs much of an explanation at all. It involves females taking photographs where their lips are poked out in a manner that resembles that of a duck's lips. I'm not sure if this is supposed to display cuteness, goofiness or some other trait in the girl that takes the photograph. I just think that it is rather weird and ridiculous to be honest. 

I did a little in depth digging(translation: I hopped on Google) and found out a few things about it.

It apparently is also called the "Myspace Face." I suppose this trend goes back further than my recognition will acknowledge. This trend is also about as old as the mid 2000's; originating in 2005 to be exact. The term "Myspace Face" was added to Urban Dictionary(I know. Really lucrative source of factual knowledge, eh?) on March 13th of the following year per it's description of "pouty eyes and pursed lips" for our female contributors to this trend. It was later dubbed the "Duck Face" per a definition added to the website on September 13th of the same year. The author of this definition simply defined it as a two lipped pout.

I have seen some of my female friends on pretty much all of my social networks participating in this trend including my Twitter followers, Facebook and Instagram friends. I'm not sure exactly what is meant to be garnered from this trend, though. I mean, it isn't necessarily cute per se; and to those who aren't necessarily photogenic(far be it for me to discern those individuals, of course), it just makes the photograph that much more disheartening to have to look at. Still in all, this trend doesn't bother me even 1/4 as much as the hash tag trend does.

#IHateThatTrendMore
#IWillMakeThatKnown
#ImpressiveYouUsedAHashTagForAWholeSentence
#PleaseStopUsingHashTagsInEverySingleThing

Okay, enough of that.

There are much more pressing, embarrassing, rehashed, ever present, consistently scrutinized, utterly deplorable trends that I myself nor most others have really been able to wrap our heads around sensibly, to be honest:

The skinny jeans trend is so very confusing to me; and it hasn't necessarily gotten easier to understand over time as most other confusing things have in my life and times.

I'm a man of utility and progression. I like to have things in place that can aid me in future situations. Simple adjustments here and there, ya know.

When I have to remove my wallet to get out some cash, It shouldn't be an epic struggle for me to do so.

When it's time to go home from the movies or dinner, I shouldn't have to spend an extra three minutes in the parking lot trying to get my car keys out of my pockets.

When I see a short, thick woman with enticing curves, I shouldn't have to..........never mind....

The point is, if there is to be a fashion trend, shouldn't it appeal to the masses as something natural and comfortable? Does it have to look this excruciating? Does it have to look like it intentionally excludes another weight class? Shouldn't it be something all inclusive? I think so; but hey. That's just me.

This trend goes as far back as the 1950s. It was more of a sex symbol fad of sorts back then. Jeans were worn straight and slim by the likes of James Dean and Elvis. The women wore them better in my opinion, though. This is definitely true if you count Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe among some of the high profile celebrities joining in the fad. The rebellious nature of this fad carried well into the 1960s as well and was adopted as a staple in Rock and Roll fashion by the time the musical genre had come around to serve as an alternative to the Disco era. The 1980s saw spandex take a spin on the game alongside those over sized sweatshirts and colorized leg warmers. The 1990s brought back a scale down of sorts with a return of the slim fitting jeans to Rock in the form of mainstream Punk and Goth themes. The time between 2000 and 2003 could easily by dubbed "The Age Of Denim." It was literally everywhere; especially displaying its prevalence on the runways. 2004 and 2005 saw more of a defined mainstream dominance with celebrities the likes of Kate Moss and Angelina Jolie staking claim to this fashion trend.

Fast forward to nowadays and this trend is starting to look a lot less like its traditional predecessors and a lot more like something uncomfortably weird. Rappers are wearing skinny jeans along with thermal shirts, bike chains, tight jackets with zippers that will never come together as one and whatever other crazy ideas that one can throw into an outfit. While Kid Cudi can be seen as moderately mild and acceptable in his attire, What can we say for this well known artist?

This actually serves as a very adequate segue into the most loathsome of all trends ever cultivated. It is grotesque. It is distasteful. It is shameful. It is disrespectful; and it is probably more confusing than any of the other trends discussed thus far.

There are understandably some mixed signals when it comes to the origin of this trend; but it turns out that one of the most popular myths regarding this trend is just that: a myth.

The most common origin story heard about the sagging trend is that it started in prison. While that portion of information is factual, there has been very little evidence outside of a firsthand account from a prisoner or former prisoner here and there that associates sagging with homosexuality. The overall understanding for the most part about this myth is that a person sagging their pants in prison did so for the purpose of having their fellow inmates recognize that they were "available."

Further research reveals, however that if this were the case, our prison system would be a degree harder to manage across the board.

Though the trend originated in prison, it was focused around more realistic means than the aforementioned. Following the rise of inmate murders and suicides involving belts, inmates were provided loose fitting uniforms with no belts to fasten or bound them in response. Prison authorities feared that the inmates could use their belts as weapons to murder other inmates by strangulation or as nooses for suicidal means. Inmates actually had to do without shoestrings for a great deal of time for likely the same reason.

In light of said circumstances, inmates given over sized uniforms were left with no alternative but to have their pants hang below their waist. Over time it became a prevelant style that many of the inmates grew accustomed to; which is why a considerable number of freed prisoners continued to wear their clothing in said fashion.

The 1990s saw a significant spike in this trend thanks solely in part to major rappers sagging their pants on stage and in music videos. Almost over night, the style was adopted by Hip-Hop fans who were inclined to emulate their idols. Once the youth picked up on this trend, it was used in some instances as an engine of rebellion against traditional typecastings where the "good guys" were expected to wear their chosen attire neatly.

Probably more alarming of a theory than the inmate homesexuality claim is how it was consistently associated with crime. It was presumed that criminals used their loose fitting clothing to conceal weapons. Far be it for me to discern how easy or difficult it would be to hide weapons in loose clothing; especially if one concealing a firearm or any other sort of weapon would have to run at some point. Go figure.

There have been efforts to eliminate the trend outright in the form of protests, forums and of course law enforcement. The protests and forums saw little to no momentum in their ambition towards this trend's abolishment due in part to certain individuals claiming that the trend perpetuates their right to self-expression. As far as the authorities are concerned though, there were new laws adopted highlighting public indecency in an effort to stave off the rapid growth of such an infamous trend. There have even been a number of cases involving arrest and prison sentencing for sagging. In fact, a twenty year old was sentenced to three days in prison in April 2012 in Alabama. He was arrested for appearing in court wearing sagging pants.

Ouch.

If this trend serves as an example of anything, it shows how a fashion trend such as sagging can face considerable objection to the point where it can even be deemed an illegal practice severe enough to gain one jail time; which has an inkling of irony since this trend's origins are began awhile ago in the same place where some will eventually find themselves again for the sake of it's purporting.

The trends we adopt indirectly define us. What directly defines us is how we respond to them. Be it an article of clothing worn a certain way. An act displayed in response to what our culture exposes us to or something that is widespread across social networks at a frenzied pace, trends will impact each of us in different ways.

The best we can do for ourselves and each other, however is knowing when to ride the wave and when to buck the trend. As sure as trends will captivate and inspire, there are some that must be used to cultivate the drive essential to change said trends.

Besides, who's cooler than the person willing to stand alone?

 



"Say Word?"

Devin Joseph Metz

I've no doubt that even someone as brilliantly obsessed with deduction as Sherlock Holmes would consider trying to decipher something as ridiculously complicated as ebonics an extremely bothersome task. Ebonics has become a part of American and honestly even international culture nowadays; and everyone feels a certain way about that culture. This includes the government, of course.

Before getting into what the government had to say about Ebonics, it would behoove us to understand exactly what Ebonics is defined as:

Ebonics is a blend of the words "Ebony" and "Phonics." It is originally intended to refer to the language of those who were descendants of enslaved Black Africans particularly in the Caribbeans, West Africa and North America.

The term was first coined in 1973 as such during a discussion between African American Social Psychologist Robert Williams and Linguist Ernie Smith as well as a veritable list of other language scholars and researchers that took place in a conference on "Cognitive and Language Development of a Black Child." The conference was held in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Robert stated that his intentions for the term were to give a name to the language of African Americans that acknowledged the linguistic consequence of the slave trade and avoided the negative connotations of other terms such as "Nonstandard Negro English." He states the following:


"We need to define what we speak. We need to give a clear definition to our language...We know that ebony means black and that phonics refers to speech sounds or the science of sounds. Thus, we are really talking about the science of black speech sounds or language."

Williams wrote a book two years later entitled "Ebonics: The True Language Of Black Folks" where he proficiently used the term throughout; especially in his elaborations therein, of course:


"A two-year-old term created by a group of black scholars, Ebonics may be defined as "the linguistic and paralinguistic features which on a concentric continuum represent the communicative competence of the West African, Caribbean, and United States slave descendants of African origin. It includes the various idioms, patois, argots, idiolects, and social dialects of black people" especially those who have adapted to colonial circumstances. Ebonics derives its form from ebony (black) and phonics (sound, the study of sound) and refers to the study of the language of black people in all its cultural uniqueness.""

Suffice it to say, all that honestly needs to be derived from this portion of the discussion is that Ebonics is a language indicative of the sound and it's general usage by black people.

Since it's birth in 1973 and the minimal exposure it received in 1975 with Robert Williams' publication, the term has remained in obscurity up until 1996. It wasn't even added to the 1989 Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary nor was it adopted by linguists at any point.

I wondered what could've happened some twenty-three years later to bring this term to the forefront of national attention when some have readily anticipated this having taken place in 1973 or 1975. That's when I started reading about the Oakland Ebonics Controversy that took place on December 18th, 1996. For those who have some semblance of memory for what took place therein and those who were not presently aware, maybe this will help things along a bit:

The debate in Oakland was over whether or not Ebonics could be considered so legitimate per it's usage and prevalence at the time that it could be taught as a separate language in classes.The resolution that was passed that particular day mandated that students whose primary dialect was considered that of Ebonics would be privy to instruction in the usage of said dialect; both for the purpose of "maintaining the legitimacy and richness of the language...and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English Language Skills." The resolution also included the proposed increase of salaries of those proficient in both Ebonics and Standard English to the level of those teaching LEP(Limited English Proficiency) as well as the use of public funding to help teachers learn these "skills" themselves.

I placed "skills" in quotations simply because I don't necessarily see where one proficient in both Ebonics and Standard English would be considered "skilled" per se. It's not as if this person is to be considered bilingual as a result of such; so one would  presume that I would be against this resolution and the funding it supported. We'll set my reservations regarding this matter to the side for now.

Needless to say, the resolution received a great deal of media criticism and sparked a hotly discussed debate. The popular response to this debate believed that it is widely perceived that African Americans are biologically predisposed to a particular language through heredity; which led them to agree that proficient users of Ebonics as their primary language should be taught as students by programs federally funded that would be traditionally restricted to bilingual populations. 

There goes that "B" word again....

For the sake of tossing one or two of his shekels into the pond, Reverend Jesse Jackson condemned the resolution outright; stating the following:


"I understand the attempt to reach out to these children, but this is an unacceptable surrender, borderlining on disgrace."

The good reverend's comments were backed by figureheads such as the former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Joe Lieberman.

In a true waffling fashion befitting him, Reverend Jackson of course took an abrupt about face regarding his stance on the resolution altogether; citing his misunderstanding of the manifest of the school district's proposal:

 
"They're not trying to teach Black English as a standard language. They're looking for tools to teach children standard English so they might be competitive."

Yeah okay. 

Due to the controversy and gross misunderstanding of the initial proposed resolution, Oakland's School Board passed an amended resolution on January 15th of the following year. One of the more recognizable changes was the omission of the phrase "Genetically Based;" a term that was no doubt one of the bottles of lighter fluid tossed into the fray in the debate over the initial resolution. The phrase was widely misunderstood(or implied contingent upon your stance on this matter) to mean that African Americans have a biological predisposition to a particular language. It was argued and explained rather that the phrase referred to genetics in the linguistic sense of reason. The phrase was removed and replaced with wording that states African-American language systems "have origins in West and Niger-Congo languages and are not merely dialects of English.

Fine then. 

So what say the Linguists here since that whole "linguistic sense of reason" was so widely misunderstood? I mean, someone has to substantiate why people were wrong for thinking that a teacher would start off his classroom introduction in this manner:

Note the appearance of the teacher in this cartoon. Shirt not tucked into his slacks, clothing rather dingy as evidenced by the brown splotches and flies that orbit him, teeth missing, not cleanly shaven, and only Heaven knows why that band aid is there on his right arm. The creator of this cartoon was clever in the fact that he/she was able to illustrate what no doubt some if not most black people that used Ebonics were viewed as.

What can be thought was likely already pondered.
What was pondered may have already been perceived.
What is perceived may have already been visualized.
What one visualizes may yield a cartoon such as this one.


A number of grouped linguists and other associated organizations have issued statements in their support of the recognition of African American Vernacular English as a legitimate language system.

The Linguistic Society of America stated the following:


"The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African-American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years. Characterizations of Ebonics as 'slang,' 'mutant,' 'lazy,' 'defective,' 'ungrammatical,' or 'broken English' are incorrect and demeaning." "There is evidence from Sweden, the U.S., and other countries that speakers of other varieties can be aided in their learning of the standard variety by pedagogical approaches which recognize the legitimacy of the other varieties of a language. From this perspective, the Oakland School Board's decision to recognize the vernacular of African-American students in teaching them Standard English is linguistically and pedagogically sound."

So the Society argues that this had to be legitimized to protect against a lot of the negative connotations that many have placed on Ebonics per their own perception of it's usage. They also claim that there is a standard variance for this language; a "standard issue" of sorts, I suppose that other countries may benefit from learning. In lieu of their beliefs, I suppose this is a way to "protect the shield" maybe. I would only venture to inquire about who would protect those proficient in the language that place themselves in this characterization; be it knowingly or in ignorance of the occurrence of this? There is no armor for those willing to do harm to themselves. 

Representatives from Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages(TESOL) have issued the following statement regarding the matter: 


"Research and experience have shown that children learn best if teachers respect the home language and use it as a bridge in teaching the language of the school and wider society."

Hm. 

"Home Language" must refer here to whichever language the child is raised under and exposed to rather than simply "what is taught at home;" because we know what arguments that would lead to. I am inclined to agree with this claim to some degree; and not just contingent upon the research and experience that these teachers use to substantiate it. I think that a respect and understanding of the language therein by a teacher for his/her pupils will give the children more comfort with the teacher; which would then make the "bridging" between that child's language and that of the school he/she attends and society they interact with daily a smoother transition instead of a painstakingly awkward undertaking.

Not saying. Just saying.

A linguist from North Carolina State University by the name of Walt Wolfram(how cool is this guy's name? Two animals in one last name cool) made light of what the Oakland Ebonics Controversy exposed in three critical points:

 - The intensity of people's beliefs and opinions about language and language diversity.

- The persistent and widespread level of public misinformation about the issues of language variation and education.

-The need for informed knowledge about language diversity and its role in education and public life.

I couldn't agree more with these three points. In fact, I'm not surprised that these three facts were exposed as a result of this controversy and the debates that ensued; and I'm sure many of you aren't very surprised if at all either.


There is truth to each of those three facts; even to this very day. We all have at one point expressed our opinion about something in a manner one would perceive as obnoxious and abrasive...

Charming, huh? Those who denounce Ebonics for their lack of understanding of how another person speaks or what that other person says is no different than those of us who use the terms "Hick,""White Trash,""Bumpkin,""Nerd,""Coon,""Honkie" or any other offensive term that we racially disparage each other with. 

*For the record, I've never been ashamed of being a nerd. I just take it as one's recognition of my profile.*

For longer than I care to recall, there has been a large gap between races and cultures in modern society when it comes to how we communicate with each other. It doesn't necessarily have to mean that we hold a degree of hatred for each other. A lot of times, the lines are very apparent and defined regarding mannerisms and how we carry ourselves individually and as a culture. As cultures exist, they are bound to differ; and the more of a contrast that presents the more we as black people will find ourselves having to make this request of other races that come in contact with us:

Honestly. 


Stop doing that.


We understand that there are certain things that we say and certain ways that we say it(some of us given our social atmosphere from any given time to the next); but nothing about that hot switch from one's current vernacular to one perceived as more fitting to address or speak to us as black people is considered endearing in any capacity. It is especially embarrassing when we do it to each other; which is why I hate when those of us that more inclined to a vernacular void of slang or any other manner of speaking are ridiculed and made fun of for doing so. Nothing is more disheartening about this issue than observing someone who tries as hard as he/she can to fit in or break the ice with someone else by talking differently around them. It's not hip, cool or anything else that the kids are saying these days. It's just awkward.


Let's try not to confuse things here: There is a difference between Ebonics and Slang. I agree with the Linguistic Society of America when that state that deeming Ebonics as "Broken English" or "Slang" is very demeaning. I'm not ready to agree with their denouncement of those who say that Ebonics are grammatically incorrect, though; and that is simply because I don't believe that would be a realistic way of looking at the language. Just because someone defined it as a language, that does not automatically make it exempt from grammatical criticism.


The usage of terms such as "Yo,""Dat,""Dis" and "Da" indeed constitute as Ebonics; but they replace the base literal terms "Hey" or "Hi,""That,""This" and "The;" so even if they are accepted and pretty much adopted and fully incorporated into modern language, that does not mean that they are the proper terms to use.That also goes for other replacement terms such as using the word "Be" in place of "Are" or "Am." 


You know what I'm talking about, guys:


"I be running." or "I be in there."


The term "Ain't" is the most frequently used of any if not all of these in Ebonics; generally taking the place of "Am Not." The additional tidbit regarding this term is it's frequency in the use of double negatives such as the following:


"I ain't got no clothes to wear."


There's a list somewhere on the internet with a full display of each Ebonics term and it's usage. I'm sure of that much; but the point is that the difference between Ebonics and Slang is that while Slang replaces terms with somewhat similar terms loosely pertaining to the same thing, Ebonics will create a new term that one may at some point have to guess or even decipher the pertinence of given its usage. For example:


Ebonics


"I be murkin those fish sticks."


Slang


"I smashed those fish sticks."


See? Both sentences are expressed to mean this:


"I ate those fish sticks."


Now of course, the terms could also describe the manner in which the food was consumed as well as how quickly this was done or how many were eaten. 

Here's the differential:


The Ebonics form of this sentence uses "be murkin" where the person could've said "am eating" or "was eating." The terms used would not constitute proper grammar at all; given the fact that "be" would not be used in place of "am" or "was" and the Ebonics term "murkin" implied to mean eating would easily be interpreted as something else such as murder or some other form of preparation for the food.


The Slang form of this sentence uses the word "smashed;" which constitutes as a correct term as far as it's place in English is concerned. It's usage, however may be just as misinterpreted as one may presume that you smashed your fish sticks before consumption(or that you're a weirdo that doesn't eat his food at all but finds time to let the world know how much you like to smash food). The term "smashed" isn't a misspelled term or one that was created to express something that could've simply been stated.

What is unique about Ebonics is that it can involve proper terms or improper terms in its expression such as "Be"(properly spelled term) and "Murk"(which is actually a properly spelled term as is but usually ends up misspelled when used in its present tense verb form).

Ah yes, Condescending Wonka. This serves as the perfect segue into my next point:

Hey you.
Not you!
Yeah!
You right there.

You over there using Ebonics and Slang to add an extra bit of edge to your tales of strife and struggle in hopes of authenticating your street credibility.

Stop. 

You're making a fool of yourself and embarrassing whomever you claim to represent with that behavior. If you know that you aren't inclined to that kind of behavior(regardless of whether or not you lived most of your life struggling on the streets), then why are you chopping up terms and using different slang and speaking tones to make us think otherwise? Is there an undisclosed measure of respect that you are looking to exact from us? Is this how you plan to substantiate some unnecessary reputation for appearing intimidating to others? Did you save some time amid all of that acting to recognize a rhetorical question or two? Yes; I said "Rhetorical" instead of "trick" because someone as astute at their inner city musings and hood upbringing is surely smart enough to recognize that term in their vocabulary.

No? Seriously?

Could've fooled me.

And finally to you over there sending those ridiculous text messages, tweets and status updates with abbreviated three and four letter words:

What is wrong with you?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

"Wth" is not "With."
"Wen" is not "When."
"Bck" is not "Back."

Maybe I'm not the forward thinker here when it comes to the new age, revolutionary thinkers that forged the concept of abbreviating words with two syllables or less. Either way, I find this extremely frustrating when I get a text message or see a post that reads like this:

"Wen u gon git dat fo mi."

WHAT IS THAT?!?!?!?!

If you meant "When are you gonna get that for me;" then all I can tell you is to keep waiting. Aside from all of the obvious that is illustrated in this grammatical abortion of a sentence, the three large highlights here are the placement of letters that don't belong in certain words. "Get" and "Git" is one. "Me and Mi" is another; and it is absolutely incredible how often punctuation is cast to the wind here; regardless of the tone or inflection implied by the statement.

No  matter how we feel about Ebonics, what we can't deny is the fact that it is a prevalent and pretty dominant part of modern culture. Although it may have been created exclusively for African Americans, it no doubt has firmly planted it's roots in a variety of cultures in this day and age. Misspellings and misinterpretations abound, I have recently referred to Ebonics as "The Thinking Man's Vernacular."

Why?

You tell me if you can read an entire story written in this language without slowing down to interpret the meaning.

Let me know how that works out for you.

"We're Still Pretending? Okay. Just Checking."

Devin Joseph Metz

Not saying. Just Saying.

With the exception of recent news involving Gay Marriage Rights and the Defense Of Marriage Act, I stand to believe that we as a society(one that includes mass media, especially) tend to place too bright of a lamp on issues involving homosexuality. Don't get me wrong: I am in no way deeming the issues people in our gay and lesbian community have faced for years now with our government insignificant at all; but in my opinion, only a certain percentage of the attention that we give to the LGBT community is for wholesome nobility while a much more substantial percentage of that attention I perceive as disingenuous, honestly. The reasoning behind my belief is simple: Profit. Magazines and tabloids need to be sold, sites need funding, interviews on various networks and talk shows must take place, forums need buzz, etc. This may sound a bit staunch; but I invite you to open your mind and see things from a different vantage.

There is no denying the importance of exposure in media when it comes to spreading awareness; especially when it involves societal issues essential to the promotion of our well being or occurrences deemed critical enough to change us all for better or worse. One that my wife remembers her father telling her about since they are from California is the "White Night Riots" that took place mid May 1979 soon after the verdict for one Dan White in the trial for his assassination of Harvey Milk was released. Milk was the first homosexual elected to public office in California after earning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.His bravery in lieu of him already presuming that he would be killed along with the events that ensued after his presumption was confirmed marked a pivotal time in history for the San Francisco community altogether; especially the Gay community.

Many of the issues we face today regarding the Gay community are along similar lines of interest as that of the late 1970's. They are issues that affect politics, entertainment, livelihood, and other aspects of daily life. One thing that all of these have in common is media exposure; and that exposure isn't always helpful and informative. Most of the time, it isn't really vital in any way to the viewing public if you count out the often undisclosed manifest of television ratings and the considerable profit desired and planned for.

The Long Beach, California born Frank Ocean(his real name is Christopher Breaux) moved with his family to New Orleans, Louisiana when he was five years old. He was raised among an ominous and highly flavorful jazz scene; which may have significantly influenced his endeavors once he began recording his own music.

On July 4th last year, Ocean published an open letter on Tumblr revealing feelings that he had for another man back when he was nineteen years of age; citing that the man was his first true love.In the letter, Frank thanked the man for his influence; which many have vaguely considered meaning that his hit "Thinkin' Bout You" was written in recollection of the experiences he shared with the man in his letter. Ocean stated that he felt like a free man after divulging the details of the letter.

No doubt he knew that there would be media attention for some time; but that time likely should have just been awhile. It wasn't something that he held a press conference for neither was it something that he hoped to hold radio and television show interviews about. It was about his personal freedom and comfort. 

Media doesn't care very much if at all about one's comfort, of course.

Kudos to the Hip-Hop community at large for their positive response to the letter; especially artists the like of Jay-Z, Beyonce, Russell Simmons and others; but it isn't necessarily something so moving and ground breaking among us that it needed to garner the obscene amount of exponential exposure that it did. Be it blogs and other forums, social mediums offering their opinions one way or another, music networks, etc., I am more than sure that Frank was at home with just having the opportunity to clear his mind, heart and soul. No doubt that was his reason for doing so in the first place.

NBA Center Jason Collins was selected eighteenth overall in the 2001 NBA Draft by the New Jersey Nets. He helped the Nets reach the NBA Finals in both 2002 and 2003 before being relegated as an NBA journeyman five years later; being bounced around from roster to roster in a fill-in role for various teams.

Jason was in a relationship for eight years with WNBA Center Carolyn Moos. They were engaged to be married soon; but Collins called off the wedding in 2009.

In an issue of Sports Illustrated released May 6th of this year, Collins wrote the issue's cover story; releasing to the rest of the public what he had initially released to the company's website on April 29th, 2013 when he came out as an openly gay athlete. This made Jason the first active homosexual athlete from one of the four major North American team sports to come out. Collins divulged details at his sole discretion only; admitting that he was not currently in a relationship and revealing that he wears the number 98 on his jersey in honor of Matthew Shepard. Shepard was a 21 year old man that lost his life as the victim of a hate crime on October 12th, 1998.

Reaction to Collins was mostly positive overall as received by the NBA, various sports analysts and even President Obama and the First Lady. If there was any real semblance of opposition, it came mainly in the form of ridiculous internet memes and other barbs sent back and forth by people over various social mediums and forums. ESPN Analyst Chris Broussard stated that he did not believe that it would be possible for Jason to be openly homosexual and be a Christian at the same time. Collins did not agree with his statement, however. He believes that his religious beliefs and stance have no measure of tarnish in light of his lifestyle; and I am inclined to agree.

As with most sports stories involving anything even slightly reminiscent of unnecessary "elasticity," Collins' coming out drew what initially was understandable media attention; but just like Lebron's "Decision" and just about anything involving Tim Tebow, this really was stretched a lot further than it needed to be in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the only sports related story that was drawn out for an extensive amount of time that I actually had no issue with was the Sandusky trial. He deserved every minute of that embarrassment and undesired attention that he received.

And since Tebow was mentioned some two or three sentences prior....

....no doubt you guys have seen this meme floating about:

Perfect example of unnecessary exposure here. Notice the added depth of the subscript bible verse. Also notice the hash tag. Now look up. Now to the left. Now back at this meme. I'm on a blog. *Old Spice Jingle*

What the creator of this meme likely neglected to examine is the fact that as far as Tebow's choice to profess Jesus Christ is concerned, that is exactly what it was:

A Choice. 

As far as one's "choice" or "decision" to be homosexual, I would counter with this little gem that I found thanks to social networking:

Plausible inquiry, right? I think so.

Going back to my overall point earlier in this entry, there is an overabundant amount of exposure when it comes to some of these issues involving homosexuality and the LGBT community altogether at times. A lot of what the media is offering does cover significant ground and has proven informative and beneficial to all of us across the board for the most part; but I still question the motives of many. As with many of these instances that have been discussed some time ago, some who chose cover these stories should be called into question to some degree as well. There is nothing new or exclusive in the practice of feigned concern; especially when the ulterior motive is so glaringly obvious that one wouldn't be able to hide it if everything were pitch black.

As of June 26th of this year, California became the twelfth state and thirteenth United States jurisdiction to allow gay couples to marry. With Rhode Island joining in as well on August 1st, this will no doubt mark significant progression for gay and lesbian communities in those areas. Happiness is their overall manifest after all rather than the attention that it garners, though. I am confident that many in the LGBT community will agree that although the media is effective in helping to uncover some of these issues for the sake of getting the ball rolling on much needed change therein, added attention and often groundless supplementary exposure isn't needed or wanted for that matter by them. All that is desired is a happy, comfortable life lived among all of us in a country based on the concept of an individual and collective freedom that isn't compromised by judgement or the overt highlighting of everyday affairs.

Mass Media is a powerful tool. It is much more powerful than any of us may ever recognize; and that includes those who employ and are employed by the use of it. The power it wields can be used constructively and has been used in such a manner many times over; but what may seem dormant to most is far too obvious to others. Those who know not the importance of well placed latency usually have well hidden manifests; but they never remain concealed for very long. Such is the nature of the agenda; be it shrouded or blatant. 

We practically grew up with all of the Sally Struthers commercials for the Children's Fund along with those Feed The Children commercials; but one thing that I as well as a number of others may have never thought about is how one can afford to spend a generous portion of money and time shooting a commercial for the purpose of asking for financial support for children instead of putting that money directly towards feeding the children in the first place. 

The same can be said definitely for other functions of the media. I know that profit is essential and money must be made. That is common knowledge in our society. What should be more common, however is the sense that one would presume accompanies the actions and decisions made by our media. Instead of the rehashing, recycling, adding of new spins and redundant recounting of issues involving our LGBT communities, a greater and likely much more appreciated feat by the media would be for them to concentrate on using their influence to better serve said community so that the issue of gay rights is less of an issue and more commonplace in today's society. 

Just like so many other issues that get more media attention than actual help from the media, we have to do better individually as well as collectively when it comes to getting more out of our most prominent resources. An asset is only proven as such if it is put to use effectively.There is nothing wrong with making light of any situation. The problem comes about when we don't do enough to make the situation lighter. That has to happen for everyone's sake.

If all we are going to do is feign care at times when there are opportunities to constructively build upon that public display of concern, are we to be offended at all when we are perceived as pretentious? 

Are we really justified for calling those who would prefer honest apathy over practiced affection selfish? 

Is there such a thing as stagnant progression? 

Are we done using our imaginations or should we just continue to make believe?

Not saying. Just saying.