Snitching–Not An Option for Cam’ron

Rapper Cam’ron has said some pretty ignorant things in his day, but needless to say his most recent round of ignorance isn’t anything new at all, considering the fact that what he revealed to Anderson Cooper on this week’s edition of 60 Minutes is apparently how many of today’s mainstream rappers feel about snitching. In Cooper’s 60 Minutes report on how hip-hop culture’s “street code of ethics” undermines the law enforcement’s ability to solve murders across the country, Cam’ron said he couldn’t think of any situation where he’d resort to snitching because it would hurt his record sales and violate his “code of ethics.” Cooper’s report airs Sunday, April 22 at 7 p.m.

In the interview, Cooper asks Cam’ron what he would do if he knew a serial killer lived next door to him. Would he notify authorities? Not a chance. “I wouldn’t call and tell anybody on him — but I’d probably move. But I’m not going to call and be like, ‘The serial killer’s in 4E,’ ” Cam’ron said. So in this hypothetical situation, instead of preventing murders, Cam’ron would move away. Unfortunately, this is a far better option for him than snitching.

Like so many other rappers in the game, snitching hurts their street credibility, which in turn, negatively affects record sales. Many rappers, like Cam’ron will refrain from helping law enforcement solve crimes, even if the crime was committed against them.

Nearly two years ago, Cam’ron was shot and hospitalized during a failed carjacking attempt outside H2O nightclub. According to an MTV News report, Cam’ron was leaving the nightclub in his blue Lamborghini when an unspecified number of men pulled up to his vechicle and demanded that he give up his car. Cam’ron refused to comply and was shot as a result.

Since the shooting, Cam’ron has been adamant about not cooperating with law enforcement. For Cam’ron, his reasoning is quite simple. “Because … it would definitely hurt my business, and the way I was raised, I just don’t do that,” Cam’ron said.

The fact that a rappers’ “street credibility” and album sales are more important than the loss of life–even their own, is disappointing, but really not that all surprising. In that case, I hope Cam’s clan, (his Dipset crew of Jim Jones, Juelz Santana, & Co.) are aware that street honor shall prevail if one of them (God forbid) catches a bullet. There will be no “eye for an eye,” if it means getting police involved, that’s for sure. But, I’m sure the members of Dipset and most of the other rappers in the game who hold this “street credibility” above everything else wouldn’t have it any other way.

Read more at CBSnews.com

Tune into 60 Minutes on CBS at 7 p.m. Sunday, April 22, 2007 to watch Cooper’s interview with Cam’ron.

Filed under: Culture & Commentary , 60 Minutes, anderson cooper, Cam'ron, Commentary, Culture, hip hop, Music, rappers, snitching

18-Month Lapse In Judgment At V-Tech

Coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre has dominated the news since the tragedy struck Monday morning. Aside from describing the tragedy as one of the deadliest school shootings in American history, many media outlets are describing it as a lapse in judgment on the part of Virginia Tech University–who waited two hours after the first two students were shot and killed in a dormitory to notify students.

By that time, Cho Seung Hui had already mailed dozens of disturbing photographs of himself and a profanity-laced tirade on videotape airing out his grievances about “rich kids,” religion, and how he was going to make people pay to NBC News. “When the time came, I did it. I had to,” he professes in the video. And he did. Worst of all, by that time Cho had already began walking into classrooms in Norris Hall shooting students and professors. By the time the bloodbath ended with Hui’s suicide, he had killed 32 people.

Yes, waiting two hours to notify students of the violence that had already ensued on campus may not have been a good move. But, how was Virginia Tech supposed to know that the person who shot and killed two students, in what they believed was an isolated domestic violence dispute would venture off to Norris Hall and kill 30 more people. Plus, the authorities said they had no reason to believe the suspect was still on school grounds. Most killers, culprits of any kind, usually flee the scene. Some have expressed that notifying students before clearly assessing the situation may have lead to even more chaos, although I don’t know what could have been more chaotic than what unfolded at Virginia Tech.

But, you know what, I’m not going to fault Virginia Tech for what many media outlets are describing as a momentary lapse in judgement–at least not for how they handled the events of April 16. Virginia Tech may be at fault for the way they neglected to take a second glance at Cho Seung Hui in the 18 months prior to the deadly shootings.

As more information surfaces about Cho Seung Hui and the events leading up to the shootings, it becomes clear that he was a student that shouldn’t have remained at Virginia Tech University.

According to an ABC news report, in December 2005 a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others.” This came after Cho was accused of stalking at least two female classmates. Presenting “an imminent danger” to oneself or others is the criteria that makes it possible for a person to be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care. Cho was temporarily sent to a psychiatric hospital on a court order as a result of his evaluation. He was later released.

The stalking accusations by his two female classmates were also a known fact to the university, although in the end the two women decided not to press charges. In separate incidents, campus police said two women said Cho harrassed them in person, via instant messenger, and telephone. Police interviewed Cho, and referred the case to the university’s internal disciplinary board. It is not known what actions, if any, were taken afterwards.

If the women accused Cho of stalking them, then one can assume that their reasoning for not pressing charges probably stemmed from being intimidated by Cho. This is where the university should have taken control of the situation. They could have expelled him, or at least placed him on temporary probabtion.

Around this same time, one of Cho’s suitmates notified the police that he was suicidal after he made several statements saying he wanted to kill himself. In a CNN interview with two of Cho’s suitmates, one of which was the one who notified police of his suicide plans, the two men said Cho was reclusive, quiet, and often behaved erraticly. Many times he would refer to himself as “Question Mark,” in conversation, they said. He would go on bike rides late at night and they said that he had stalked three different women on campus. Even after all of this, Cho still wasn’t on the university’s radar. Virginia Tech neglected to take a second look at a student who clearly had behavioral problems.

Unfortunately, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. An english major at Virginia Tech, Cho was enrolled in several creative writing courses. His disruptive behavior along with his extremely violent, profane, and grotesque writings even got him kicked out of famous poet and distinguished professor, Nikki Giovanni’s class. Giovanni told CNN that she told her supervisor that either Cho had to go, or she would. She described him several times as a “mean” student who “intimidated” her and his fellow classmates on a weekly basis. Giovanni also revealed that she often saw him taking pictures of female students with his camera phone during classes. According to her, he created a very tense and disturbing class environment, leaving many students afraid to comment on his frequently macabre writings. In one of his morbid plays, “Richard McBeef,” a teenage boy accuses his stepfather of molesting him and killing his father. At the end of the play, the teenager tries to choke his stepfather with a half-eaten cereal bar and the stepfather retaliates by striking the teenager with “a deadly blow.” In his other play, “Mr. Brownstone,” three students show morbid contempt for their high school teacher, who they accuse of molesting them.

Lucinda Roy, the former chairwoman of the English Department, whom began instructing Cho one-on-one once he was kicked out of Giovanni’s class, told CNN she was deeply disturbed by his writings. So disturbed that she went to the police and counselors “and everywhere else, and they would say, but there’s nothing explicit here. He’s not actually saying he’s going to kill someone.”

From reading Cho’s plays, which one of his classmates released to AOL News, it is obvious that Cho was deeply disturbed and all of the violent images and venomous dialoge had menacing undertones. But, police and the university administration did not see it as a threat, because it just wasn’t explicit enough. In his writings, he never said he was going to kill anyone. Their assessment of Cho made sense in this light because fiction, no matter how disturbing, is not real and cannot necessarily be construed as Cho’s way of telling Virginia Tech that he was about to invest in a murderous spree.

Regardless, Cho’s intimidating behavior in class, stalking accusations, hospitalization, and suicide threats should have been enough for administrators at Virginia Tech to take notice. Instead they turned a blind eye to professors and students–all who seemed to be under the same impression that something just wasn’t right with Cho. Unfortunately, 32 innocent people had to pay the price.

Filed under: Culture & Commentary , Cho Seung Hui, college shooting, column, Commentary, Culture, news, tragedy, Virginia Tech

Audrey File Totes Keep You Organized & Trendy

Organizing your office life never looked trendier. The creators of russell+hazel introduce Audrey, a stylish, yet professional collection of file totes that easily take you from day to night.

Durable and roomy, these totes can hold anything–from paperwork to stationery, to pretty much anything your heart desires to slip into its filing grooves. Inspired by classic design with remnants of “contemporary couture,” Audrey totes are convenient to use and easy on the eyes, of course.

Equipped with eight tabbed pockets, the totes are available in matte white or glossy black with a choice of four kinds of leather handles.

Price: $48

Source: http://www.fashiontrendsetter.com/content/style_notes/Audrey-File-Totes.html

See more of Audrey at http://russellandhazel.com/audrey/

Filed under: Fashion & Style , audrey totes, Fashion & Style, fashion bags, handbags, russell and hazel, trend-setting

Mainstream Hip Hop Lost Its Flavor

“I don’t rhyme for the sake of riddlin,’” Public Enemy said in “Don’t Believe The Hype,” from their 1988 hit album It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, implying that real hip hop isn’t just about spitting rhymes that flow. A message should drive the lyrics. Almost 20 years later, this philosophy has changed.

Today’s mainstream hip-hop music is like an unruly child whose mother wants to disown him for embarrassing the family name. This may seem harsh and a tad bit hypocritical coming from a hip-hop lover. As I mature, I realize how conflicted I am about the mainstream hip-hop music I am still coddling. Just so we’re on the same page, mainstream hip-hop music is the most popular hip hop music that’s selling big from the inner-city to suburbia. Mainstream hip-hop music has become so popular that even the prestigious Academy Awards decided to cash in, when it gave an Oscar for Best Original Song to rap/crunk group Three 6 Mafia for, “It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp.” See what I mean?

Mainstream hip-hop music is disappointing for many reasons. Yet, millions, myself included, are still listening. Why do we still listen? Who is responsible for the current state of mainstream hip-hop music? The hip-hop artists who breathe life into the music, or the old white men in three-piece suits who sign their checks and market and distribute the music to the media–who in turn tell the naïve public this mainstream hip-hop is truly representative of black culture—which unfortunately somehow turns into the music representing all African Americans.

Let’s look at mainstream hip hop music. I don’t know how many times I’ve said, “That song is horrible lyrically, but the beat is hot!” I listen because the beats, rhythm, production, and arrangements are infectious. So infectious that sometimes I forget what the artist is actually spitting.

From boasting about who’s got more street credibility based on the amount of bullets earned, to never deviating from rapping about anything other than material possessions (a.k.a. money, diamonds, grills, rims, etc.), hustling, “bitches,” pimping, and “hoes,” it is clear that hip-hop’s original message of political and social commentary is dead. The kind of hip-hop music that is marketed, sold, and distributed in America is making a mockery of what was once a powerful and pioneering art form because of its political and social message, which helped revolutionize African Americans.

All you have to do is turn on the radio or consult BET or MTV to get my drift. The current state of hip-hop is a mockery because it is no longer diverse in its lyricism (everyone is saying the same thing, but using a different beat) and it perpetuates stereotypes that black people have been trying to get rid of for ages. Intellectual worth is lost and ignorance prevails in mainstream hip-hop music’s current state. Sadly without the black community, this music tells white America that this is how non-white people behave.

Hip hop has went from the socially and politically conscious pioneers like Public Enemy, Run DMC, and KRS-One to one-note minstrel wonders like 50-Cent, Camron, and Lil’ Jon.

I’ll admit there are still some socially conscious hip hop artists out there like Common, The Roots, and Talib Kweli, to only name a few. But, they are not in the mainstream selling millions. They aren’t endorsing Pepsi (Ludacris) or showing the public in more ways than one what hip hop wasn’t born in this world to be—a mockery of something that was once profound.

Filed under: Culture & Commentary , Commentary, Culture, mainstream hip hop, Music, Rap Music

What the ‘Hook-Up’ Culture Really Says About Women

We won’t remember each other’s names when the morning comes, but the night’s still young…so let’s hook up! Author and Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist, Laura Sessions Stepp’s new book, Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both, unlocks a trend among young women, especially college-aged women to forgo dating and step into the hook-up culture—willingly. “No strings attached,” “friends with benefits,” “jump offs,” and “casual relationships,” are other familiar terms that describe this sexual phenomenon that everyone seems to be revisiting since Stepp’s new release. “Hook-ups” themselves are nothing new. How many of today’s women perceive them as a source of empowerment is what’s new.

The “free love” era of the 1960s and 1970s were full of “hook-ups.” During this period, a sexual revolution occurred in America, shaped heavily by the emerging feminist movement, which redefined female sexuality. In the 1950s before the sexual revolution transpired, women were strongly encouraged to return to the domestic setting. A large majority of American women had left the home during World War II to assume positions in the workforce, replacing their spouses who were drafted into the war. Contrary to popular belief, women entering the workforce during World War II had little to do with an emerging feminist movement. This movement into the workforce was merely part of the war effort campaign and was designed as a temporary fix to alleviate the financial burden placed on families in wartime. During the war, women had no choice but to become the sole breadwinners of the home because their husbands were absent. When America’s soldiers returned home after World War II ended in 1945, they reclaimed their masculinity by taking back their positions in the workforce from their wives. American media helped reinforce gender roles. For example, in 1956, Life magazine published interviews with five male psychiatrists who claimed that female ambition was the root of mental illness in wives, emotional upsets in husbands, and homosexuality in boys. Thus, the need for women to return to the domestic sphere became popular.

With the emergence of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which advocated for education, economic independence, social and political rights, and the legalization of abortion for women, a sexual revolution among women also surfaced. This growing educational, economic, social, and political independence among women ultimately began encouraging sexual independence as well. The message was simple. In order for women to gain full equality, they needed to uphold the same sexual standards as men. Thus, women began to redefine their sexual behavior, which from the beginning of time was socially constructed to exalt repression. Whereas the media had helped reinforce gender roles in the 1950s, in the 1960s and 1970s the media began embracing gender equality in that it began promoting female sexuality. Female sexuality was most encouraged in literature. Sex and the Single Girl is a best-selling book penned by Helen Gurley Brown in 1962. The book took up arms against the sexual double standard that required women to practice chastity, while permitting men to engage in sex. Books like this one reinforced women to challenge societal perceptions of female sexuality. This encouragement of female sexuality along with the growing notion during this time of sex as a pleasure principle, rather a procreation principle became the breeding ground for “hook-ups” early on.

However, in the 1980s the sexual revolution became an evanescent moment in time when AIDS emerged. Once people realized that AIDS wasn’t just a homosexual disease, as it was perceived earlier, people began taking more precautions when having sex. Essentially, both heterosexual men and women began limiting their indulgence of “free love” and multiple sexual partners. Once again, the media played an integral role in reinforcing society’s perception of sexual behavior. The threat of AIDS was covered in mainstream publications like Newsweek and Time, reinforcing the need for Americans to rethink their sexual behavior.

Well into the 21^st century, the sexual revolution has made a comeback, most notably with the “hook-up” culture among young adults. What exactly constitutes a “hook-up? The term “hook-up” is loosely defined. It ranges from kissing, fondling, and oral sex to anal sex or intercourse. A “hook-up” can be one night only or ongoing sexual encounters with an expiration date of days, weeks, or even months. Partners can be friends, acquaintances—strangers, even. Whatever the case may be, there is one thing that rings true in the “hook-up” culture, and that is no commitment, no feelings, no boyfriend/girlfriend mumbo jumbo.

Since the beginning of time, women have been revered as bearers of purity and discernment. In the Middle Ages, a woman who wasn’t a virgin might as well have been a prostitute, because in the eyes of society that’s what she was. If a woman was impure, she was damaged goods. Although this sentiment has changed in modern times, this perception of female purity still exists today. Most American men and women have acknowledged that sexual intimacy can be as serious as people want it to be or as recreational and noncommittal as they wish. Regardless of men and women’s shared viewpoints on sexual intimacy, there has always been a divide between the way men and women are sexually defined. Recreational sexual activity for women comes with a “whore” label, whereas the “player” label comes with men’s sexual behavior. Traditionally men have embraced promiscuity, without scrutiny, whereas women have always been criticized for promiscuity. The stigma attached to women for promiscuous behavior has traditionally left them on the sidelines of the “hook- up” playing field. And whenever they’ve been active players, they’ve never been in control of the game. That is why in the past, “hooking up” was usually something young men had to con young women into doing. Those women who accepted their terms were usually deemed “easy” or insecure.

Today most college females that embrace “hook-ups” aren’t considered easy at all. According to Stepp, they tend to be ambitious, intelligent, and confident. Many of them just prefer casual relationships to dating because they want to focus on themselves, their education, and sometimes even their careers. This sentiment may stem from a stronger focus on female independence, which was apparent during the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s as well.

In 2000, Dr. Elizabeth Paul of The College of New Jersey, conducted psychological research on the “hook-up” trend among college students. Her research culminated in an extensive published report based on the surveys of about 500 students from 2002 to 2004. Paul said three-quarters of those surveyed had “hook-ups;” and about half of those had sexual intercourse. Less than a quarter of those “hook-ups” turned into a relationship, she explained. It takes two to tango in the “hook up” culture, which means that in the past few years women have been just as interested in hooking up as men have. An independent lifestyle contingent on personal fulfillment instead of fulfillment from the opposite sex may be the reason why so many young women are embracing “hook- ups.”

In Stepp’s 2003 Washington Post article, “Modern Flirting,” she interviewed Ronda Rich, a marketing consultant who wrote a book titled, What Southern Women Know (That Every Woman Should). “It’s hard to separate career and life independence from romantic independence,” Rich said. “I have friends who excel in their jobs and have money, friends and family, but they struggle with dating…” Rich’s observations demonstrate that for many female college students, dating and long-term serious relationships are distractions because they require too much effort to maintain and can be emotionally draining. Hook-ups, because they are void of commitment and can end when either party says the word, offer flexibility and enable both partners to feel less vulnerable, whereas in a romantic, more serious relationship the emotional attachment would probably make both partners more vulnerable.

The reasons aforementioned are reasons why both young males and females prefer “hook-ups” to dating. However, it seems that the main reason why more young women are embracing “hook-ups” is about way more than focusing on their more important priorities. Embracing this “typical” masculine accepted sexual behavior is empowering for women. In our patriarchal society, women are often sexually commodified by men. Women being just as gung-ho about “hooking up” with men kills this commodification. Thus, if young women engage in “no-strings attached” sexual behavior on their own terms, they are doing exactly what men have been doing for ages, except this time, women aren’t being punished for it. Rather the women are perceived as the “players,” competing in what society regards as solely a man’s game. In the “hook- up” culture, young women are just as in control as the young men are. Or are they, says, Stepp?

In her book, Stepp claims that while women think this feminist way of looking at sex is empowering, they still lack power. This is where maintaining the “hook up” culture becomes troublesome because Stepp says that while it is particularly difficult for men and women to have sex without feelings, it is inherently more difficult for women. The intimacy of sexual behavior, no matter how unserious females make it, still makes it hard for them to separate their feelings from sex, she explains in her book. The problem with this conceptualization is that Stepp reinforces traditional gender roles which characterize females as overemotional and men as emotionless. This backward way of looking at men and women is essentially what the “hook up” culture from the female perspective aims to cripple. Stepp’s argument assumes that all women are emotional. They must be lying to themselves when they say with conviction that they can handle “no-strings” attached sex, she implies. In contrast, her argument states that men are in control at all times, regardless of whether or not a woman initiates the “hook-up.” Men are apparently predisposed to separating sex from feelings, Stepp suggests. This sentiment is not credible. Although there may be plenty of young men who are truly comfortable with “hook-ups,” there are just as many who cannot handle that type of relationship. The reason why many of us assume that most men are comfortable with “hook-ups” is because like women are socially constructed to appear emotionally fragile when it comes to sex, men are also socially engineered to withdraw emotion from sex.

Stepp also explains that “hook-ups” are damaging because they

leave women unable to handle serious committed relationships in the

future, which means marriage is headed for trouble. Yet, even without

the prevalence of the “hook-up” culture, the marriage rate has always

taken a dive every year. I will acknowledge the fact that women

embracing and initiating “hook ups” solely as a source of

empowerment is a new phenomenon. I’ll also agree with Stepp and

say that it can hinder the formation of healthy committed

relationships down the road. This is possible because engaging in

“no-strings attached” sexual behavior doesn’t teach men and women

how to express their emotions in committed relationships where an

emotional attachment and some vulnerability is necessary for a

relationship to progress. Because they’ve avoided sex with feelings in

the past, they’re more likely to continue avoiding it, having grown

accustomed to it by now. I won’t knock anyone male or female for

“hooking up.” What people do with their bodies is their own

prerogative. My problem however is how men are always left out of

the equation when people discuss this trend. Relationships require

two to tango. Aren’t men contributing to the demolishment of serious

relationships if they too, are embracing “hook-ups?” Why should

women be the only culprits for causing the breakdown of future

serious long-term relationships because they want to “hook-up?”

Stepp seems to be looking at this trend as a women’s problem, which

proves as usual that the double standard is alive and well. So what

does the “hook-up” culture truly say about women? Maybe the real

way to approach analyzing this trend is to rethink our double standard

way of thinking.

Filed under: Culture & Commentary , Commentary, Culture, Dating, Hook-Ups, Relationships, Sex, Women

Winehouse premieres ‘Back to Black’ video

It’s not like Amy Winehouse needs a hot video to make up for her “Back to Black” album. Her album debuted at number 7 on the Billboard Top 200 charts, the best debut for a Brit in the U.S. But, I did expect more from Winehouse, especially considering that this track is one of the best on the album. This video is mediocre at best, but I’m sure hard-core Amy fans probably care as less as she does.

Filed under: Music , Amy Winehouse, Back to Black, Music, music video