The Literate Wonk

An excerpt from the SONY MichaelJackson.com Website:

Five of Jackson’s solo albums  – “Off the Wall,” “Thriller,” “Bad,” “Dangerous” and “HIStory,”  all with Epic Records, a Sony Music label – are among the top-sellers  of all time. During his extraordinary career, he sold an estimated  750 million records worldwide, released 13 No.1 singles and became  one of a handful of artists to be inducted twice into the Rock  and Roll Hall of Fame. The Guinness Book of World Records recognized  Jackson as the Most Successful Entertainer of All Time and “Thriller”  as the Biggest Selling Album of All Time. Jackson won 13 Grammy  Awards and received the American Music Award’s Artist of the Century  Award.

I first heard of the King of Pop at the age of eight years old during the summer of 1995.  I attended camp in West Harrison, and each age group had to do a song at the end of the season.  “Beat it” by Michael Jackson was selected for our group, which initially had not made a notable impression upon me.  Nevertheless, the first time I heard it I was floored by it.  At that time, I had become a huge fan of classic rock, listening to Aerosmith, The Beatles and anything  else that flowed out of my parent’s car radio.  I could feel his music emanate towards me in a much more different yet ethereal tone that I had ever heard before.  Contemporaneously, the lyrics that forbade violence were equally gripping against the backdrop of the mid-1990s, when grunge rock and gangsta rap, two genres often scrutinized for their proselytization of violence, drug abuse and defiance of authority, were firmly planted as dominant genres.  The whole presentation was visceral. I can recall no more than a week later purchasing his “Thriller” album, my first album purchase ever, on the suggestion of my parents.   As I sit here fourteen years later pondering the musical, historical, and social implications of his death and legacy, my first encounter with his music continues to be the touchstone for my experience with all styles of music.  Jackson was able to engage other artists that varied from rock to hip-hop to rhythm and blues to jazz to dance.

Michael Jackson’s appeal was due in part to his ability to amalgamate music, sampling visceral rhythm and blues sounds that were interspersed with electric rock sounds and punctuated by pop synthesizers.  At the tender age of four years old, he ascended into music after being heard singing around the house by his father who practiced aggressive business tactics and dispensed strict discipline in order to catapult his boys into stardom.  He would join his brothers and, by the age of ten years old, was one of the lead singers of the Jackson 5.  His precocious dancing skills and ability to create intimacy with the camera and audience propelled him into an unrivaled solo career in the modern era.  During the 1980’s, his name became ubiquitous and a staple of the international pop culture at a time when globalization was shaping the method in which information and media rapidly penetrated foreign markets.  He was the equivalent of what another MJ, Michael Jordan, would encapsulate during the 1990’s.  Advertising firms built entire campaigns around his massive appeal, movies were produced that were used as vehicles to exhibit his musical prowess.  Even video games came out based on his “Smooth Criminal” persona, clearly demonstrating no industry was too remote to capitalize on Michael Jackson’s electrifying character.

His dancing radiated candor and was always framed around the lyrics and messages of his songs.  Jackson micro-managed his dancing, maintaining awareness of every joint, limb and spasm that needed to be executed properly in order to convey the desired dance moves.  He moved with the fluidity of an accomplished Broadway performer or Russian ballet virtuoso.  Jackson truly epitomized the triple threat (singing, acting, and dancing), wielding the ability to sing pop, rhythm and blues and rock while dancing in a fashion that reflected his passion, enabling him to almost act out his songs.  He could sing in falsetto during one stanza but immediately infuse the next with an edgy diction, an incredibly uncharacteristic approach to music.  A performance of this magnitude is the standard for most Broadway productions, but his ability to manipulate his body to portray a song ballad was reminiscent of Elvis, a fellow icon who unfortunately faced a similar untimely demise.   Jackson defied the laws of gravity and reminded us repeatedly of the incalculable beauty laden in the human body.  His staccato yet calculated grace broadened the scope of relevant dance and helped usher in hip-hop dancing.  There was such efficacy and meticulous attention paid that he is one of the last artists who could have sold out a stadium by just putting on a dance concert.   His penchant for having the ability to dance and sing exceptionally well during his live performances are a hallmark of his legacy. In stark contrast, many current artists either focus on dancing accompanied by pathetic lip-syncing or strict singing at the expense of limited grooving.  Jackson was always sure to deliver a show comprised of incredulous notes blended with heart-palpatating dance moves that stretched our imaginations.

Similar to Elvis, Jackson was able to transcend labels, genres and, most importantly race.  His audiences were as diverse as his music, which truly brought people of all backgrounds together.  Jackson bridged socio-economic, racial and societal gaps while maintaining his professionalism (for part of his career, at least).  He broke down music stereotypes and standards and furnished his own, pliable musical boundaries.  As previously examined, his lyrics lurched between candid love songs and social causes, deterring youth from violence or racism.  These lyrics were especially innovative since they were packaged in “mainstream” R&B – Pop.  He pioneered the music video, which further advanced his music, appeal and messages to his fans.  Jackson sang about emotions that were either difficult for us to articulate or to emote about.  One of his greatest skills was writing songs that connected in a very human, non-industrial fashion.  Similar to Michael Jordan’s defense or Frank Sinatra’s ability to act, Jackson’s lyrical creativity was often overshadowed by his incomparable style of singing and dancing.  He was able to be socially and politically relevant without marginalizing a particular demographic or coming off as “preachy”, illustrating his sensitivity towards his fans and astute business demeanor.  Songs such as “Man in the Mirror,” “Smooth Criminal,” “We Are the World,” “Black or White,” “Dirty Diana,” “Billy Jean,” and “Beat It,” delved into issues of insecurity, violence, race, altruism, teen pregnancies and promiscuity.  Through some of his darker songs, he led his audience through tales of sin and vice laced with a positive message, or, at the very least, decrying the behavior that was being dissected under his musical lens.  He called attention to issues that few other brazen artists would explore.  His profound predilection for raising social questions helped make an entire generation more socially aware, especially during a time in which AIDS, drugs (especially heroin and cocaine) and other substantive crimes in the United States were rapidly surging in urban areas across the nation.  He outstripped his urban background and abstained from championing racial stereotypes such as singing about sexual conquests with multiple women simultaneously.  In fact, when he sang about love, the focus was bent towards only one female whether it was “Billy Jean” or “Liberian Girl.”  His respect for women against a growing hip-hop culture that encouraged multiple sex parties and other illicit behavior helped maintain the image of African-Americans in music and proved that it was still possible to create popular music devoid of crass lyrics or messages.  Jackson espoused the belief that music could be tasteful and popular yet socially conscious.

Jackson was able to package this into a catchy entertainment medium.  Millions of youth paraded down urban streets and suburban sidewalks parroting his anthems against social vices which in turn made many of his singles top ten hits.  This symbiotic relationship was extremely unique in a music industry increasing dominated by sexual exploitation, drug use and explicit lyrics. Youth gravitated and coalesced around his positive messages, encouraging morals rather than taking a sledge hammer to them as many musical acts did (and continue to do). He wrote about a broad spectrum of topics such as race and his musical genius exuded just as much from his lyrics as his singing and dancing.

Unfortunately, his eccentricities in the 1990’s began to engorge his sterling reputation of the 1980’s.  Between accusations of sexual molestation, bizzare spending habits and countless plastic surgeries, America watched its poster child of the 1980’s depress and sink into an inescapable black hole.  His behavior reflected underlying psychological disturbances that had never manifested during the 1980’s, and many have speculated as to their root cause.  He was pushed into the lime light at a very young age and remained there his entire life.  His life was completely built around the entertainment industry; fame and fortune became the two controlling features of his life.  Arguably, his ego-maniacal habits insulated him from receiving help, as he may have believed that his immense wealth made him impervious to bankruptcy or a falling out with his fans.

Just as there is no category for Elvis or Frank, Michael will stand alone in his own.  Arguably the greatest entertainer of the 20th century who wrote, sang, choreographed, and acted out his own music, he will forever be emblazoned in our minds as a pillar of the music industry.  His music was so versatile that everyone from Dave Matthews Band to Eminem to Bon Jovi all claim influence from his complete presentation.  Today’s performers have, for the most part, become sub-par excuses for entertainment.  It seems as though it has been eroded by formulaic lyrics that demonstrate no originality or ownership by a particular artist.  Platitudes and ready-made phrases have robbed songs of originality and uniqueness.  Topics of getting excessively inebriated, having sexual encounters with countless women, and threatening to beat the hell out of a “hater” have supplemented the void that Michael Jackson used to fill.  Many artists don’t pen their own songs anymore and instead rely on producers and song writers to completely fill that vacuum.  These monotonous songs have become indiscernible chants for unbridled, unrestricted sexual exploration or exploitation at the expense of women.  Jackson was able to create his own songs in his own image; fans could read the lyrics to a song and know instantly that it was the King of Pop.  Michael, despite your oddities, your music and vision was revolutionary.  Your singing complimented your dancing, which in turn upheld your deep lyricism.  It becomes rapidly clear even after a cursory look at your tremendous career, you blended different rhythms of music as well as you blended your audience.  You were able to bring people together more successfully than politicians, leaders or businessmen; this was your most seminal characteristic.  You have left an indelible impression on music and the world; you will be greatly missed.  Thank you, Michael.

Michael Joseph Jackson August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009 2:26 PM.

“I’m looking at that man in the mirror/I’m asking that he’ll change his ways/And no message could be any clearer/If you wanna make the world a better place/Take a look at yourself and make that change”

“Man in the Mirror” – Michael Jackson

I currently tutor four students and will have a 5th for next year. I have tutored for five years come this fall, thanks in part to the National Honors Society requiring community service back in high school. What began as a public service endeavor evolved into a viable business, from which I make incredible money and help students reach their potential. I have been tutoring and working with students from middle school to college for an array of concerns. Based on my breadth of experience, it has become rapidly clear that our educational system has been declining for quite some time.

From an outsider’s perspective, I neither claim to have studied empirical evidence nor possess a great understanding about our educational system. It is an indisputable fact, however, that our national standardized test scores are some of the lowest among industrialized countries here in the year 2009. It becomes more painful when we acknowledge that we have still just crawled into the 21st century. The previous century? Our educational system was lauded as a markedly different system from the rest of the world, encouraging the best and the brightest from all over the world to study as well as serving as the source of jealousy for many others. It seems as though most of the erosion has been sustained at the lower levels of education, as some of our colleges continue to rank among the best in the world despite the aggregate regression of our high schools.

So what happened? Having spoken with several teachers, I can only speculate that what occurred was a confluence of elements. In order to thoughtfully unpack these issues, I should preface my argument by stating that I have great love for the art of teaching. Helping students who are veritable geniuses or slow learners helps society. Our most important resource is unquestionably our human capital, as any economist will tell you. It is, borrowing a metaphor from Karl Marx, the “base” of our “superstructure.” Progress here in America is invariably determined by the intellect possessed by millions of doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, scientists, businessmen, politicians and civil servants among others. While more focus needs to be apportioned to the educational system, I do not argue that “more money is necessary,” as that platitude has been tested and failed repeatedly. Washington, D.C. spends the most per student in the country, but still suffers from educational malaise. Rather, this review contends that internal changes and standards must be rigorously applied without exception.

First, the teacher’s union has become adept as a lobbying entity, arguably one of the strongest in the country. The benefits and compensation accumulated through the union have made a large segment of the educational population lackadaisical. I’ve had students tell me that their teachers have admitted to “not feeling like grading or proctoring tests” and “don’t look for the answers to review packets for the finals” of which I just dealt with. Of course, this is not every teacher and by no means do I mean to extend this failure to every educator . I interpret tenure as a deviation of our political system, in which SOME teachers who become “incumbents” or have invested the necessary amount of years to acquire tenure, become apathetic to the student body. Just as we continue to lambast Congress for its inefficiencies, the same “incumbent” effect has gripped the educational system and made it lethargic. Teachers function more towards their own discretion and defy much classroom decorum. Again, my sister has consistently come home with stories about teachers who share their lives, marriages, and divorces with students. While this conceivably could have went on even fifty years ago, the rate at which this goes on has increased, perhaps due in part to the liberal, open classroom atmosphere in which educators have increasingly worked to become a friend of the students rather than mentor. While friendships between students and teachers should be encourage, they should neither interrupt nor impugn a teacher’s ability to conduct class and grade appropriately.

Second, the type of student today has become a corrosive element against the structure of the classroom. Teachers do not wield the same kind of control or power as they did even twenty five years ago. I can recall my high school AP economics teacher, Mr. Accetta, for talking about how when he went to high school, a teacher threw an unruly student against the wall after he had been acting like an absolute ass. Needless to say, the student stopped immediately after that fiasco. My sister comes home with horrific tales (which she finds utterly amusing) of students yelling and even cursing back at teachers. Tenure compounded by the inability to administer effective discipline without the fear of parental repercussions has rendered teachers inept to deal with today’s students. Materialism in this country is at an all-time high, and the ability to own it has shifted priorities for more students than usual. IPODS, cell phones and, for a growing proportion, luxury cars driven by students serve as instruments by which to poke fun at, castigate or ridicule the educational system. Even during high school, I can recall students making fun of teachers who couldn’t afford some of the gadgets and luxuries they enjoyed; this self-righteousness serving to justify their indifference towards subjects or academic consequences. In addition, it functioned as a subversive comparison in which teachers’ status became determinant on wealth rather than intellectual prowess. For lower-income school systems, the compounded failure of inner-city schools to formulate sufficient educational plans has reached a crescendo. While throwing money at the problem is an immemorial panacea for those school systems, it has made administration reliant on aid from the federal and state governments, while innovation has become stagnant. Our capacity for unbridled materialism has infiltrated and poisoned our educational system. The parents of students today have become tolerant of their children, throwing their hands in the air in dramatic confusion when their children misbehave. They resolve issues by purchasing items or allotting ridiculous benefits to their children such as using the car or receiving a brand new one. Parents who place more emphasis on material wealth and half-hearted discipline rather than on intellectual wealth and enforced discipline bear the burden of watching their children morph into irreconcilable brats who shrug off discipline or structure as transient restraints, knowing they’ll eventually circumnavigate them.

Lastly,  our educational standards have been lowered in order to accomodate more students. It has become taboo to hold back a student, as a maelstrom of teachers and administrations will descend on anyone who considers it as a practical option. This academic “sheep-herding” makes it difficult to catch students who are struggling, making it easier on the high school to pass more students, thus giving the impression that the school system has a high graduation rate. Rather than attack the problem at the root and reinforce strict academic standards, to which our parents were held to, administrators have become soft and sympathized with the down-trodden student. Rather than failing, other words are used. Red ink on tests have become frowned upon in many districts, as corrections have been reduced to unsightly marks that may give students more stress than necessary. Requesting students to do work or read “too much” (is there ever such a thing?) has been paralleled towards a violation of the 8th amendment, namely “cruel and unusual punishment.” When did studying become less preparatory and more of a undesirable burden?

Our return to possessing the educational mantle will come only if we raise standards and allow teachers to regain control of the classroom. First, teacher’s performances must be kept track of and held to some standard. Those who have become disinterested, disillusioned or apathetic with the educational system should not be working in it. Holding teachers to a particular standard, just as in the private sector, will force them to reconsider their approaches to teaching. Secondly, allowing teachers to effectively discipline students and hold them responsible for their behavior and performance is crucial to solidify the educational system. Students cannot be allowed to undermine or manipulate the eduational system towards their benefits. Educators and administration need to cut down on trying to be “friends” with the students, which has often put them in awkward and disadvantaged positions in the past when try to discharge their jobs effecitvely. Schools should be seen as serious business; a theatre in which a student can express himself and work to his or her potential. High school’s main thrust is to PREPARE STUDENTS FOR COLLEGE, TRADE SCHOOL AND/OR WORKING IN THE REAL, COMPETITIVE, EMOTIONLESS REAL WORLD! Competition, failure and struggling are hallmarks not just of the working world, but of life itself. The world does not set standards lower to accomodate more workers; if one does not work to his or her potential or to the satisfaction of the company, that person is fired, although this passiveness has seemed to creep into the private sector, too, where companies are much more willing to document “firings” as “lay-offs” or other, cozy euphemisms. If these children are told they can circumvent rules, structure, academics and discipline, what are we really teaching them? That it is noble to do these things? Or that they’ll be met by the indiffernet sigh of millions of educators and parents. The educational system should not diminish standards for students to reach; instead the educational system should set unmistakeably, concrete standards, subliminally telling all the students to “jump.” The reply of most students should be a resouding “How high?” If this crystalizes, students will assume more of the burden to educate themselves and be responsible for their own futures.

For my first penned review, I figured I would tap into something that I am comfortable talking about; the controversial topic of race relations in the United States. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is being considered as a potential member of the Supreme Court. From its inception after the passage of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court has been responsible for several key decisions including Marbury V. Madison, where it ascertained the right to execute judicial review, and Brown V. Board of Education which was the beginning of the end of racial segregation. These monumental decisions are issued from closed-door discussions and reviews by nine human beings draped in black robes. The amount of power and influence wielded by these select few is nearly incalculable, especially in the wake of persistent criticism that the court has morphed into a “second legislature,” as they have often exercised as a legislative body, passing laws such as Roe V. Wade which many believed impinged on the rights of legislatures and voices of the people. The Supreme Court has flexed its judicial muscle on many occasions, emboldened by the unchecked element in the purported “checks and balances” our country maintains. It has also had a mixed legacy of affirmative action and other matters of races, equivocating on the merits of past cases while legislating for future ones.

If Sonia Sotomayor is approved by Senate, she would become the first Hispanic on the bench and third female, behind O’Connor and Ginsburg, who recently suffered through surgery for pancreatic cancer. As a result, this “vetting” has been diminished as a pure show, as the Democratic Congress has acted as a rubber-stamp for Obama. On the other hand, Republicans have been scrambling to come up with a (take a breathe) unified platform on how to effectively weaken Sotomayor while avoiding alienation of Hispanic constituents.

I am neither a Hispanic nor profess to know the plight of minorities in this country, having little insight as a 3rd generation Italian-American. I have only heard stories passed down through my family about what my ancestors faced in coming to this country. Sotomayor’s membership in the Supreme Court would be a watershed moment for many Hispanics around the world. However, Republicans have been forced to walk one of the narrowest political tightropes in recent memory, as one outlandish or insensitive quote could send them hurling backwards and disintegrate the progress made with Hispanic citizens. They have been mocked by Democrats as racially “out-of-touch.” Still, Democrats continue to campaign for a time in which colors of all races bleed into red, white and blue and where we hold our brothers and sisters in universal patriotism. So why haven’t we moved on pass the race issue? Current Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative African-American, once wrote in an opinion concerning affirmative action that if race was not to be considered an issue, then it shouldn’t be one. Arguably, in order to undermine the importance of race, shouldn’t it be ignored?

Or is it possible to really ignore race? Should it still be a cause for celebration if some subgroup of a race has its first man or woman elected to a political position? Is it an accomplishment because the person is African-American or Hispanic, or is it simply a success story because the individual made it that far, regardless of his or her skin pigment? How prevalent is racism today? These questions continue to brew around corporate water coolers, dialogues by smarmy radio pundits, and through endless blogs written by ideologues with a particular, sometimes subtle agenda. I will be one of the first to concede that racism is one of the uglier parts of the human condition. It has been theorized that it is a defense mechanism genetically passed down from our ancestors that is no longer necessary. Our primal fear of others who do not look like us is no longer useful in civilized society. We are no longer the “noble savages” French philosopher Rousseau referred to in his writings. On the other hand, humans cannot help but notice people who are different colors as a result of being able to see light refract off of skin and interpreting that information into a particular color. We associate certain colors with moods, natural elements, and even judgments about the content of someone’s personality.

Racism has been exploited and capitalized on from both racists and activists, who have rallied minorities energized over fresh evidence of racism. Many are hoodwinked to believe racism is as prevalent as it was 20 or even 10 years ago. It even played a major role in the past election. Obama was accused of playing the race card when he stated that he didn’t look like the other men on the dollar bills and that he didn’t look like the typical president. Even Bill Clinton, once heralded as the first Black President for his fervent support for African Americans, was castigated for belittling Obama’s win in South Carolina during the Democratic Primary, pointing out that Jesse Jackson won the state during his unsuccessful 1984 bid for the Presidency. Unfortunately, it appears as though racism will never be fully eradicated from our society until our pigments blend into one unmistakable color.

Is there inherent racism in grouping a collection of people who look alike? As a potential candidate for law school, I have poured over countless applications asking for my race…should it matter? If so, what do I put down? My choices are often limited to “White/Caucasian,” but, to a degree, am I not a minority? As an Italian-American, I hardly see myself as a “WASP” (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) who have been used as caricatures in order to typify European-American stereotypes. But I am a Caucasian. Luckily, I have the option of not putting it down, which I usually do. My scores and ability should be the sole dictation to my acceptance at a particular institute…right? Justice Clarence Thomas attempted to reconcile this issue in an opinion, citing it as something along the lines of a reverse racism. The more race is litigated and discussed, the more the law suffers from untangled entanglements and superfluous legal obstacles. How is it possible for us to see each other as the same when race has become a factor for nearly every facet of life? There is no way to calculate how much racism there is in the world, only to denote tangible swings or, in the United States, a significant decline.

If racism is a persistent, nefarious element of society, then it is not possible to eradicate it entirely. More practically, it is necessary to deal with it. Perhaps that’s what Sotomayor’s acceptance will mean. It may even alleviate some guilt that has ignited internal conflicts among many whites over how minorities have been treated in the past. Yet, given the trajectory of this country, the new (our) generation appears to be nearly colorblind. This gradual progression is a sign that it will be possible to get past racism. In one opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor set the timetable around 2020 for affirmative action stipulations to become void. Perhaps she possessed the foresight to see this. Or she may have just espoused wishful thinking. Many minorities continue to feel victimized and isolated in a country that has continued to perpetuate the image of the “Melting Pot.” The United States continues to benefit from immigrants and minorities who have given flavor, spice, and vigor to our culture. Without getting into the profile of Sotomayor, which will be gutted and analyzed in the coming weeks by overzealous media, her candidacy has brought up the tired racial platitudes of making progress.

Still, as long as there is evidence of racism in this country, no matter how inconsistent, these matters will continue to rise up. I look forward to the day when parades and celebrations are ended over race, and that we can celebrate the individual for what he or she truly is; another American success story. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated in his most famous speech, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” When will we learn to do that for all races? Or will we be unable to stamp out racism’s ugly head…or is it more like an unsightly bald-spot?
True racial progress will be achieved when it becomes an afterthought in political discourse and daily living. When it will no longer matter that the first German-American has become President or the first Ethiopian-American Jewish female has become the first Secretary of Treasury. These names and titles which are meant to denote differences contribute to the wedges that drive us apart. We are all guilty of embracing these names because we want to be distinguished from others. There are two competing factors here, one for acceptance and one for difference. When will we be comfortable with ourselves enough to strip away brand names and subgroups, and just describe ourselves as Americans, or Albanians or Dominicans? Or, even, just as humans? Or, is it possible to call yourself an Italian-Chinese Jew AND avoid the stereotypes/racism typically attributed to that amalgam of nationalities? Let’s move towards removing them and instead of driving wedges drive love and compassion for each other to cushion us. To move past race and examine the color content of one’s soul. That should be the only color that matters.