"They did it, again!" Eric Garner and the lame NYPD

When I first saw the video of Eric Garner being subdued by NYPD officers using the infamous and banned choke hold, which he later died from, I wasn't shocked that this had happened. The NYPD, after all, aren't known to be without controversy. But it wasn't until I read and article about Spike Lee splicing footage of Eric Garner and a scene from his movie Do The Right Thing , where police used a choke hold to subdue the character Radio Raheem, that I realized why. This scene was based on the 1983 killing of graffiti artist Michael Stewart, who witnesses said was killed after officers administered a choke hold to subdue him. In the movie, while Raheem is being choked and is eventually killed, someone in the crowd says: "They did it again! Just like Michael Stewart!"

Aside from the fact that the tactics used in Eric Garner's arrest were banned in 1993, the reasoning that Eric Garner did not die from the choke hold ranges from ridiculous to insane. There have been reports that the choke hold wasn't an "actual choke hold" because Eric Garner was too tall and too big for the officer to get his elbow across Garner's neck to apply it to where the officer could actually choke him. Really? In the video, you can actually see the officer hanging off of Eric Garner's back. I don't know about you, but if someone shorter than me  has their arm around my neck and hangs from there, I'm pretty sure they're going to choke me in some way.

Other reports mention that Garner had asthma, and that had more to do with his subsequent cardiac arrest and death than a "supposed" choke hold did. One report even went as far to say that Garner's apparent pleas of not being able to breathe could not have been made if someone was choking him. I have to admit, these responses to this incident are, well, fucking amazing. The thought that went into these rebuttals are scholarly at best. I mean, hey, you punch a guy in his face, break his nose and a bone happens to puncture his brain and kills him, you're not responsible for that, are you? Could a defense be that you weren't strong enough to hit someone that hard or that you were too short to actually make that much of an impact? I guess it would depend on who you actually were and who your victim was.

This is what I saw. Eric Garner, a big man indeed, was choked and tackled to the ground by at least 3 or 4 officers. Yes, one officer dragged him to the ground with that choke hold, hanging off of his back. While on the ground, an officer is seen pushing Garner's face into the concrete sidewalk. During the scuffle, while he is being handcuffed, you can hear him repeatedly say: "I can' t breathe!" This is where every officer that was on the scene failed miserably. There is no way to spin this to where every officer there is not accountable, from the one who choke dragged him to the ground, to the one who held his face pressed down into the concrete, to those who watched it all happen. The defense of, "well, he had asthma and he was a large man" doesn't stand at all. To say he died from cardiac arrest and not from the choke hold is stupid.

It has been reported that Eric Garner had earlier been involved in an altercation that he was trying to break up. When police approached him, they confronted him in regards to selling illegal cigarettes. The video picks up conversation that Garner was having with the officers, with him stating that he was constantly harassed by officers on a regular basis. "Every time you see me you want to mess with me. I’m tired of it. It stops today!” he yelled (Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/staten-island-man-dies-puts-choke-hold-article-1.1871486#ixzz38PBJCykD). When Gardner refused to put his hands behind his back after officers repeatedly asked him to, that's when the plain clothes officer jumped him. Some have concluded that if Gardner had just cooperated with officers, then none of this would have happened. As a native New Yorker, who has had a number of run ins with the police there, I understand that cooperating with police officers, as a Black man, is not always the end all be all solution. It was apparent that Garner had his own previous run ins with the NYPD and he felt it was necessary to not put up with it that day. So it would seem to me that the lesser of two evils for Garner that day was to make a stand. As trained officers the way they chose to handle this situation was wrong and would have still been wrong even if Eric Garner not died. The bottom line is, these officers felt like Garner was not yielding to there authority and they felt the need to let Gardner know "who was in charge". In the article link above, it is reported that the officer who choked Garner looked right into the camera that the witness was carrying and said: "This had nothing to do with the fight, this had something to do with something else" and walked away. So it seems that the intentions and motive behind this attack, and yes, that is what this is, were ulterior. Even the EMS workers who responded to the scene didn't seem to act properly.

The sad thing is, once again when discussing the death of a Black man by the hands of someone who didn't look like them or were representing some form of authority, we are only left to speculate why this event happened. The knee jerk reaction is two sided, it's race related and it's not. In New York, there is a common distrust between police officers and the inner city public, made up mostly of minorities. People on the outside looking in attribute this, among young people for the most part, as a result of the hip-hop culture and it's advertised disdain for police. I find that rather insulting, especially when most Black men, at some point in their lives in any major city in this country, has had at least one unpleasant experience with a police officer, based solely on the color of his skin. In New York, the NYPD has a very long history of inappropriate interaction with minorities, with the recent stop and frisk program and the Sean Bell incident in 2006 being the freshest and most high profile incidents in our minds. And there a hundreds, if not thousands of incidents that go unreported. Think about this, we only know about this incident with Eric Garner because someone had enough courage to film it and because Eric Garner was killed. Had he survived, would it have even made the news? How many other incidents happened that day that we know nothing about? How many have happened since?

NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton said that the entire 35,000 member force of police will undergo a retraining in the wake of Garner's death. But Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking at Garner's funeral in Brooklyn, said this, which puts the training of police into perspective and the human decency we all should have in the forefront: "The choke hold is illegal. But even if you lost your training memory, a man in your arm saying ‘I can’t breathe’ … when does your decency kick in? When does your morality kick in?” Training is not in question here, it is the motives of those police officers and their lack of human decency to acknowledge that a man that they had just choked to the ground lay there dying and they didn't care.

I'm through asking "why?" because I already know the answer. I've asked "why?" in this blog so many times but I'm through asking. Rev. Sharpton told those who had gathered at Eric Garner's funeral that "we should not act as though we should be here tonight. This is an occasion that should not have happened." He continued by strongly suggesting what the real problem is and what the solution should be. "Let’s not play games with this one." he said. "You don’t need no training to stop choking a man saying 'I can’t breathe'. You don’t need no cultural orientation to stop choking a man saying 'I can’t breathe'. You need to be prosecuted.” And this is where the problem lies. In so many cases, officers that engage in this type of behavior are hardly ever prosecuted like they would be if the tables had been reversed, or if they had not been officers. The NYPD is notorious for misconduct and cover ups when it comes to cases like this, so their officers act without consideration for whatever consequences may come down. I'm pretty sure that if the officer who choke dragged Garner down to the ground thought he would be held accountable if something bad happened, he may have acted differently. The same goes for the officers that shot Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo. Had it not been for the fact that Abner Louima survived his police brutality ordeal with the NYPD in 1997and was able to testify against those officers, Justin Volpe and Charles Schwarz might be free men today. The senseless brutality that the NYPD is known for breeds a culture of corruption and cover up with no sense of accountability and, seemingly, no sign of slowing up. Under former mayors, most notably Rudolph Guliani, the city feigned to care about the growing distrust between the NYPD and the inner city citizens of New York, but nothing was ever done. Under Mayor Bloomberg, arguably one of the better mayors in recent history on an economic level, police brutality cases weren't as prevalent but misconduct and police harassment still prevailed, especially under the Stop and Frisk program and the Sean Bell killing that happened on his watch. So it would seem that, even under new mayor Bil de Blasio, these kind of incidents are as much a part of the NYPD as their uniform. It's about power and control. The fact that Eric Garner refused to be harassed on that particular day, after he was supposedly breaking up a fight, the fact that he couldn't be controlled by four "trained" officers without a physical altercation, ultimately cost him his life. Sadly, he was not the first and he will not be the last.

But what can we do, the public? What can we do to stop the needless viloent confrontations that happen so often when it comes to police officers and minorities in, not just New York City, but everywhere? It's tough to admit but it seems like there isn't much that can be done. When Trayvon Martin was killed, there were rallies across the country. Why can't that same thing happen again? I'm pretty sure Rev. Al Sharpton has something planned but this should be something that occurs on a national level. Police brutality and harassment exists in every city, usually in low income and urban areas. Even here in Greenville, SC, I've witnessed police unecessarily stops drivers in my own neighborhood for going around speed bumps, just to be surrounded by multiple officers and held for almost an hour, often right in front of my home. I've been pulled over numerous times. surrounded by 3 or 4 or 5 police cruisers, just to be told later that my license plate light was out. I'm not saying by any means that all police officers harass people needlessly, but it occurs too often. I've been questioned about the vehicle I was driving, where I was going or coming from, asked if I was transporting drugs, soliciting prostitutes when I have been in the car with a female, etc.. Too many times instances like these ends up with a unecessary death of either the citizen or officer, due to the response of the individual who feels like he or she is being unduely harassed. I've been eye to eye with an officer who told me that it was the law that I do whatever it is that an officer tells me to do, without any response back. In the South, that is a good 'ol boy mentality that is used to intimidate individuals who don't know the law or their rights. As a people, we need to care more and do more, myself included. This is a problem that affects everyone nationwide and it should be addressed every time we hear about it. As long as it seems that the communities where these events happen and communites nationwide like them have accepted this type of behavior as a by product of living with corrupt police and law enforcement, then it will remain a norm. The people have to unite and stand up for themselves and each other.

Side note: In the days since this incident was first reported, what has permeated the news has been more and more justification for the police's actions and more and more ridiculous posturing by those in the media who have been entrusted to report the news, not their opinion. On Fox News Sunday, there was a segment that said the outrage of those who feel like Eric Garner was needlessly assaulted and killed is prioritizing the criminals rights over the job of law enforcement officers.

Money Over Rings: 'Did 'Melo and the Knicks Make the Right Choice?

LeBron James is going back to the city where it all began for him. Hate it or love it, you have to admit that watching him next season will be more exciting that it would have been to watch him toil away in Miami for another 2 years or so with an aging core of superstars and role players. And while his exit paved the way for Chris Bosh to cash in, it also paved the way for Carmelo Anthony to do the same. It was rumored that 'Melo had narrowed his options down to two teams; the currently "rebuilding" Knicks team he lobbied to get traded out of Denver for, and the team's former 90's nemesis, the Chicago Bulls. As a long time Knicks fan, (and for that period of time in the 90's, a Bulls hater) that was the last team that I wanted to see Anthony go to if he left NY. Why? For one thing, I love Carmelo's game. Whether he had re-signed with the Knicks or not, I would have still been a fan. Secondly, aside from teaming up with Dwight Howard and James Harden in Houston (another 90's Knicks nemesis), Anthony's chances to compete for a championship would have been about the same in Chicago as they would be if he stayed with the Knicks. He'd still be playing in the weak Eastern Conference that still has LeBron James, just like in the 90's, when the Knicks had to contend with Michael Jordan. If 'Melo had gone to Houston, his chances for a crack at a championship would have increased greatly, due to the fact that Houston is primed for a championship run and that they wouldn't see LeBron in the playoffs until the Finals, where James is favored to return but, realistically, not likely to do this year (even though Vegas has his Cav's as 4-1 favorites to). Again, as a fan of Anthony and his game, I'd hate to seem him leave the Knicks just to toil around for another 3-5 years without a legitimate chance to play for a ring.

Does he have a good chance to compete for that elusive championship in New York? As of right now, the truth is no. The Knicks are in flux, Phil Jackson still has to be creative this year in an effort for the team to at least be competitive this upcoming season and the Knicks need at least one other free agent star player that the team can look to pair up with Anthony. That opportunity probably will not come until the 2015-16 season. So at the very least, 'Melo has a lame duck season coming up that, more than likely, won't see him in the NBA Finals. The Knicks have reportedly offered him a max deal with some "wiggle room" on the front end that should allow them some cap space to go after a marquee free agent in 2015 and to retool the current roster a little bit this year (it has been rescently reported that Anthony's contract is for $124 mil over the next 5 years). Jackson has already moved Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton to Dallas for cap relief, acquired point guard Jose Calderon and made good use of their draft picks. So for right now, things seem to be moving in the right direction.

But did 'Melo make the right move? Financially, he definitely did. While he didn't sign for the full max of $129 million, the deal he did sign for was more than any other team could have offered him. Chicago could only offer a first year salary of $17 million, and that would have required some pretty nifty manuevering by Chicago's front office to bring him in. A sign and trade would have also been neccessary, but the Knicks wanted no part of that since it probably would have meant taking on Carlos Boozer's expiring contract and possibly another player with a contract that extends past the 2015 season. Also, the uncertainty surrounding Derrick Rose's return from a second major injury didn't provide enough certainty for Carmelo to take less money to try and chase a championship. The Houston Rockets seemed enticing enough for Anthony but the chances of them making the right moves to be in a position to offer the free agent forward a decent enough contract were slim at best. Plus, they had already seemed to move on to try to aquire the Miami Heat's Chris Bosh, who ultimately re-signed with the team.The Lakers made an aggressive push, offering Anthony a max deal of four years and $96 million. But with an aging and rehabbing Kobe Bryant and the possibility of losing Pau Gasol in free agency (which they evetually did, to Chicago, nonetheless), LA seemed like more of a pipe dream at contention than staying with NY would have been. So 'Melo decided on financial stability and Phil Jackson. His championship options weren't any better anywhere else where it was realistic for him to sign, now or in the immeadiate future.

What about the Knicks? Both Anthony and Phil Jackson both expressed the importance of making sure the Knicks were financially able to be players in free agency during the 2015 offseason. Carmelo first stated back in February that he'd be willing to take less money if that meant that Jackson and the Knicks' historically inept front office would use the resources to structure a competitive team around him. Jackson repeatedly made reference to that over the course of the past few months and that, reportedly, irked Anthony to the point where it became a part of his decision making process on whether or not he should stay in New York. The Knicks were said to have offered 'Melo and his representatives 5 different options with the max 5 year $129 option being one of them. Anthony did end up taking a little less money, so it seems that on the money side, the Knicks are trying to do what they said they wanted to do. On the basketball side, though, there are still more questions. Anthony's game, although increasingly more efficient through last season with him taking up more time at the 4 position, is of the heavy isolation variety. Carmelo is an excellent creator off the dribble, which is a necessary dynamic during critical moments, especially during the post season. He's also been pretty effective in pick and roll situations and very efficient on catch and shoot plays. The knock on him, though, has been whether or not he could thrive in the triangle offense that 1st time head coach Derek Fisher will undoubtedly run, at the behest of Jackson. In some circles it has been said that maybe the best thing for the Knicks would have been to let Carmelo sign with another team, let Fisher get his feet wet coaching a team with low expectations this upcoming season and then shoot for the stars on a big time free agent in 2015. That way, they would free up an enormous amount of cap space and could start from scratch and build a contender from the ground up. The only problem there is the Knicks would not have had an attractive star to lure potential free agents to the Big Apple, sort of the way they used Amar'e Stoudemire when they signed him to an unisured $100 million contract back in 2010. With Anthony locked up for the next 5 years, they have their star and they are banking on him being enough to attract the likes of Kevin Durant and possibly Kevin Love and/ or Rajon Rondo if they are still available (which, as of late, it seems like Love is headed to team up with LeBron in Clelveland).

The truth of the matter is both Carmelo Anthony and the Knicks really only had one option, and that was each other. Carmelo forced his way here and the Knicks represent the best case scenario for him and his legacy. If he's able to win here, he'll be the superstar that ended the Knicks 41 year championship drought and he will forever be remembered and revered for it. The Knicks were the only team that could make any type of guarantee, albiet a monetary one. If he'd taken less money to sign with another team, he may have gone to an instant contender but would have been the scapegoat  if that team didn't at least reach the Finals. In New York, all he had to do is sign the dotted line and then leave the rest up to Phil. If in the end it doesn't work out, all the blame won't fall on him. As far as the Knicks and Phil Jackson goes, they NEEDED Anthony to re-sign. Anytime you have a legendary scorer like 'Melo on your team, you have to go through whatever is needed to keep him. If he bolts, then you go from there. But if you keep him, then you have to give him the team mates needed to make him successful.

The Knicks skirted danger a bit by offering the max to Carmelo and then structuring a semi max deal to where the bulk of the money comes on the back end. While Phil is a first time executive and has already seen that the 'aura' that he carries with him isn't enough to convinvce even the likes of Steve Kerr (??!!!) to buy into what he's selling, he still is Phil Jackson, holder of 11 Championship rings as a coach. He knows talent and he knows winning. In the end, that's probably why Carmelo stayed. He had to give Phil a chance to make him a winner. While in the end, the Knicks may not send Carmelo and Phil down the Canyon of Heroes like New York legends Derek Jeter, Joe Torre, Mark Messier and Mike Richter or the other New York champions that have had their day, they have a chance to take a good shot at it. It is what it is for the Knicks, as it has always been. They have Anthony as their guy on the court and Phil Jackson as their guy in the front office. The choice was simple to stay together and they did. Whatever comes of it, they will be in it together. As long as James Dolan stays out of they way, this should be a fun ride.

LeBron James...back to Cleveland???!!!!

I must begin this blog by saying LeBron James is NOT a SELLOUT!!! I say this because this is the term that has been thrown around by some people who feel exactly the way I felt when I heard the speculation that King James might possibly be considering going back to the team that he scorned, and to the owner and fans that treated him as a runaway slave.

Some sports writers, like Jason Whitlock (who wrote this article http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11199270/whitlock-lebron-james-pride-not-most-important-factor) felt like LeBron shouldn't let pride get in the way of him returning to his hometown, in spite of what Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert wrote about him when he left for the Miami Heat in 2010. Others, like J.A. Adande (who wrote this article http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11194890/how-lebron-james-play-dan-gilbert) felt like James would and should have had a hard time going back to work for the owner who called him "a coward" for leaving an inept franchise who really didn't appreciate what they had in the basketball talent that is LeBron James. As I am not a sports writer, I do not have the access that these men have to that world. But I will say this: they are both right.

But it doesn't matter that one person says LeBron should consider power and progress over pride while another questions why going back to Cleveland is even on LeBron's mind. What matters is that LeBron made this decision because he felt it was best for him and his family. He will, reportedly, take less money than Chris Bosh's 5 years and $118 million (James' contract will be for just 2 years and $42 million but will be re-negotiated after the current collective bargaining agreement expires). He will be coming into a situation that is a little bit better than the situation he left Cleveland for the first time and potentially better than what he was facing if he stayed in Miami. Las Vegas has Cleveland being 4-1 favorites to reach the NBA finals next season. So it is safe to say that when it comes to basketball, Cleveland seems to be in pretty good shape on paper now that they have an older and wiser LeBron James back in a Cavaliers jersey.

LeBron said his reasons for going back to the city he started in and then dissed ('The Decision' led to fans burning his jersey and to Dan Gilbert writer a scathing open letter to James that was recently removed from the Cav's website) were bigger than basketball. He thought about his wife being pregnant with their third child and how it would be to raise his family in his hometown of Akron, OH. He thought about the things he had started in that community before he moved on to Miami. He said that he wanted to be an example to the kids of Northeast Ohio of being able to come from the same streets that he came from and be a success. He wanted to be like other successful individuals who put their money back into the communities from which they came. He said he knew he'd return to Cleveland someday to finish his career. The fact that all this is happening after just four years and two championships in Miami shows just what type of person LeBron is and how much he has matured since he left. Many sportswriters have said that James' decision to leave Cleveland in the first place was because he may not have been ready for or may not have wanted the responsibility of carrying a franchise at such a young age. In his letter announcing his return (http://www.si.com/nba/2014/07/11/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers), LeBron said that he's ready to lead and mentor the youg supporting cast that he will now be playing with. With experiencing what it takes to win a championship, he feels he has something to impart to to his new team mates that he didn't have the opportunity to impart to his Miami counterparts. He said Miami "already knew that feeling" of winning championships and that he wanted to bring that feeling to Cleveland, who hasn't had a major sports championship since the Cleveland Browns won the, pre Super Bowl era, NFL Championship in 1964. So LeBron, after getting his rings, has what he feels is a bigger challenge ahead of him. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with that notion. But I feel like, when it comes to the game of basketball, LeBron may be trying to carve his own niche. Being compared to Micheal Jordan is usually a case of who has more rings. The comparisons don't stop there. Jordan has never lost in the NBA Finals. LeBron has lost twice. Jordan three-peated twice and could have possibly won six or more championships in a row had he not retired for one season and spent the next getting back into championship shape. So while LeBron cannot stack up against Jordan in those areas, he may end up doing something greater than his childhood idol never did. One championship in Cleveland may be the trump card that pushes James past Jordan when it comes individual accomplishments. Maybe it won't. But James' legacy will be set apart, in that along with all his statistical accomplishments, he'll have 'franchise savior' added to his profile. And he would have done so in the place where he grew up.

We tend to place a heavy burden on our professional athletes. In the 90's many fans criticized Micheal Jordan because he avoided speaking out about political and social issues. Jordan felt like it wasn't his place to speak on matters that affected him marginally because of who he was and his financial status. Today's players are more outspoken and their views, positive or negative, are dispensed quickly through social media. James was at the forefront of the labor dispute during the 2011 NBA lockout when owners wanted to limit superstar players ability to align themselves together to chase championships. He joined his teammates in silent protest when they posed for a team photograph wearing hoodies in support of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager who was gunned down by George Zimmerman on his way home from the store. James said he felt obligated to take a stand on that matter because he has two young boys of his own. He spoke out loudly against Donald Sterling when his views were made public, saying that the league had no place for people like Donald Sterling. It was even rumored that he was ready to lead a league wide boycott during this year's playoffs if the league didn't act swiftly enough in handling the case (the rumor was later proven to be just that). So it's easy to see why many of us were shocked when James decided to leave what seemed to be a sure thing in contending for a championship with the Heat for redemption with his hometown Cavs. But as the smoke has cleared and with seeing how James handled what is being dubbed 'The Decision 2.0, I understand a little better why he's going back. Sometimes a person's own goals are bigger than the conduit in which those goals are attained. Sometimes, an individual has to overlook things in order to see the big picture. One of my favorite quotes of all time, from the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." In this case, LeBron James feels like the needs of his family, the fans of the Cavaliers and the youth of the area he grew up in, outweigh any personal needs, feelings or accomplishments that he may have on the court. And that truly is admirable.

While guys like Carmelo Anthony weigh money over championships (and get criticized for it, regardless of the options laid before them, but I will get to that in my very next blog!), LeBron is a global icon with the opportunity to become bigger than the sport that has made him famous. While other athletes have been able to take advantage of playing in college and developing the friendships and bonds that come with that experience, James has had to find different ways to balance out his basketball playing career. He brought his high school team mates along with him, employing them in his LRMR Management company, most notably his agent Rich Paul and his business manager, Maverick Carter. He took his opportunity in Miami and forged lifelong bonds with Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade. He likened that experience to the college life he never had. Now, it seems, is LeBron's time to be, not just the best player in the NBA, but also the role model and mentor he feels like he is now ready to be. With his new sidekicks Kyrie Irving and, for now, fellow #1 draft pick Adrew Wiggins, LeBron is ready to show the NBA and the fans of Cleveland what they didn't get a chance to see the first time around. A more mature, seasoned and most importantly, better equipped LeBron James put the Cavs on his back and carry them to the NBA promised land, with a little bit more help. If he can do that, then when the greats of the game are mentioned, King James will be mentioned separately and alone, distinctly and without reservation, as the best in his own right.

Celebrating Illmatic and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) 20 Years Later

Before I get started, I want everyone to know that this is not going to be a line for line, verse by verse analysis of two of the greatest Hip-Hop Albums of all time. With that being said, it's time to celebrate!!!

Let's be honest here, people. 1993-94 represents the best era of Hip-Hop. ?uestlove, front man of the legendary Roots, said that in 1993, when he heard The Wu-Tang Clan's debut album Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), that it was "the greatest day ever". Many of Hip-Hop's greatest MC's and producers look at Nas' debut Illmatic as the bar for every MC that ever touched a mic after that. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that loves Hip-Hop to disagree with those sentiments of both albums.

If you would've asked be back then, when I was 13 years old, how do I think these albums would be viewed 20 years later, I probably would've said something like "they won't ever get their proper due." Funny thing is, that would not have been based on what I thought about the albums but on how I thought the culture was viewed. To be honest with you, I didn't even realize the impact these albums had on me until I heard Raekwon and Ghostface Killah spit fire with the rest of the Clan on Only Built for Cuban Linx in 1996. On the track 'Verbal Intercourse', Nas lends a hand to his Shaolin Island counterparts, opening up with "Through the lights, cameras and action, glamour glitters and gold/ I unfold the scroll, plant seeds to stampede the globe...". It was then that I realized, Nas was probably the greatest MC of my generation and Wu Tang was the greatest Hip-Hop crew ever. Looking back, I had no idea, then, how these two albums would impact me or the culture I've grown to love.

Simply put, no other debut albums have had the initial impact that these two have had (if I had to pick a second, it would be Kendrick Lamar's debut Good Kid, M.A.A.D City). And I feel like there has not been a better solo debut than Illmatic or group debut than Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), which introduced a gritty, raw and in your face sound that spawned producer RZA's trademark style. It also introduced the world to nine, count them, nine different MC's at the top of their lyrical games. That feat, in and of itself, is remarkable and probably will never be repeated. Illmatic, arguably, is the most influential album in Hip-Hop. Not only did it feature Nas dropping some of the illest verses ever heard then and since, it featured probably the greatest lineup of producers at that time contributing the greatest compilation of beats ever for a debut album. Nas' lyrics left no listener wanting, and the accompanying tracks enhanced those vocals even further. Illmatic was a look into the life of a young Black kid from one of the most notorious housing projects in the United States, let alone Queens, New York. Queensbridge Projects was the backdrop to the canvas that was Illmatic, and the album became sort of a holy grail to enthusiasts of Hip-Hop and those who could relate to what the young man was talking about. Nas delivered this commentary of sorts like he was sitting on a bench on the courtyard, telling us all what real life was like. There was no glamour, no glitz, no 'how fly am I' bravado. Illmatic was, simply, ill.

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), to me, appropriately preceded Illmatic in that it brought a different lyrical approach than what Hip-Hop had been known for up to the point of its release. It encompassed what pretty much every person growing up in the 'hood loved. Above all else, the kung-fu flick overlay the RZA crafted resonated with everyone. The personas that each Clansman embodied resonated with the comic book heroes their listeners grew up cherishing, way before they took on monikers such as Marvel Comics heroes Johnny Blaze a.k.a Ghost Rider and Tony Starks' Iron Man. Hailing from Staten Island, a world of it's own across from the more glamorized island of Manhattan, they tapped into a culture that was theirs and theirs only. That album introduced listeners to a new type of slang, steeped in 5 Percent and Nation of Islam teachings. Many of Wu-Tang's early fans didn't realize that when Raekwon would say "Aye yo, god!" or when Ghostface would say "Yo, sun!" that these were references to the spiritual teaching that they all were influenced by. This wasn't by design, yet it became a trademark of a group who set out from the jump to dominate the landscape of the culture at that time. By the time Nas' released his project, listeners already knew change was on the horizon. Today, Wu-Tang is synonymous with real Hip-Hop with a cult following that rivals that of any other group in music history and has no contemporaries in Hip-Hop. Wu-Tang, apparently, really is forever.

But what makes these two albums great, to me at least, is their timelessness. Put Illmatic up against any and every solo hip hop release since its debut in 1994 and it holds up. Jay Z dropped a classic debut with Reasonable Doubt, but it's heavily influenced by Nas' initial opus (see 'Dead Presidents', for example). Even Nas himself has been unable to duplicate the fanfare and reverence Illmatic spawned, the closest being his 2001 release of Stillmatic, but that was due more to his long awaited response to Jay Z's calling him out and starting one of the more memorable beefs in Hip-Hop history. Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) really has no rival in that its release was a calculated move by the group to introduce nine very different artists at the same time to set each member up for individual success later. As a group, they were a united front that could not be matched and would never be matched. Many individual, already accomplished, MC's tried to imitate what RZA and Wu-Tang did, but it was often a well established artist like Busta Rhymes, Fat Joe or Ludacris trying to use his name to get his crew on. Wu-Tang used their collective name to negotiate deals after the world knew who they were and what each MC could do. Again, no other debut releases have been so instrumental in forming not only the landscape for the culture, but defining it as well. Any MC that is worth anything these days will tell you that Nas and Wu-Tang influenced their music in some way. Wu-Tang also picked up where Naughty by Nature left of as far as marketing and branding with Wu-Wear, paving the way for brands such as Sean John and Rocawear to reach the heights they have attained today. While Wu-Wear never achieved what these brands did as far as notoriety on the business side, RZA consistently kept the Wu-Tang brand relevant and now has seen resurgence in brand recognition due to the groups cult following. 

Both of these albums had an initial impact that some may say wasn't immediately realized. I disagree with that sentiment but I understand that the true worth of anything valuable usually isn't appreciated for what it is right away. For me it wasn't until Hip-Hop music started to take a turn for more diluted 'pop-rap' that I grew to appreciate the quality of these albums and the artists behind them. That era represents to me what early Jazz and Blues represents to music lovers who remember Miles Davis at his peak or Charlie Parker, Muddy Waters, Billie Holiday or Nina Simone, just to name a few of my personal favorites. My father talks about these artists like I talk about Nas and Wu-Tang. They are revered because they represent something that doesn't get lost with time. 20 years later, I still find myself 'chasing the dragon' as it were, looking for something that can make me feel like I did when I heard these Hip-Hop legends  for the first time. Sadly, the only time I feel that is when I'm listening to their albums again and again. Nas' latest release Life is Good brought back some of those old feelings. While Wu-Tang, as solo artists and as a collective, are finding trouble as of late trying to recapture their old glory days on wax, their impact is still felt when they perform at events such as Coachella and The annual Rock the Bells concerts. The Wu-Tang logo is one of the more recognizable images of this generation and this is evident every time I wear one of my Wu t-shirts, buttons or wooden beaded necklaces. When people who typically have never listened to a rap song but recognize the symbol of the greatest rap group ever, there is no denying their place in society, let alone in Hip-Hop culture. So here's to Illmatic and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), 20 years later. Ya'll never sounded so good!!!

Donald Sterling and the Race Issue in Professional Sports

It took me some time to figure out exactly what I wanted to say regarding the Donald Sterling issue that broke last week. A lot has developed since then. Clippers players along with players from around the league actually considered boycotting and not playing their respective playoff basketball games in protest. The woman in the center of this scandal, V. Stiviano, claimed that it was never her intent to hurt Sterling and that it was not her that released the audio tapes containing his comments. Adam Silver, the new NBA commissioner, placed a lifetime ban on Sterling from any association with the team and fined him a reported $2.5 million in an effort to force him to sell the basketball franchise. The NBA recently appointed a league representative to serve as CEO in the interim, much like they did during the time when the New Orleans franchise was up for sale. During that time span, I've talked to a number of people regarding this topic and have heard many different persepectives. The common thread in all the conversations that I had was that everyone pretty much agreed that Donald Sterling no longer has a place in owning an NBA team and that this was a long time coming.

But the interesting thing is a lot of people feel like the issue was blown up in such a way that it was somehow unfair to Sterling. His statements were made in the privacy of his property, were illegally recorded (in the state of California it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge) and V. Stiviano is currently involved in a lawsuit in which Donald Sterling's wife, Rochelle, claims that Stiviano embezzled over $1 million from her husband. It was just recently reported that Sterling has been battling prostate cancer. Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, though critical of Sterling's remarks, said that trying to force the embattled owner to sell over what was his own personal views was a 'slippery slope'. Others relegated the recorded comments as the ramblings of an old man who was expressing his frustrations with his 20 something 'alleged' girlfriend. Jason Whitlock, a Black writer for ESPN.com, criticized the media response and the response of the NBA and the Black community, characterizing the reaction as 'agenda fueled'. Whitlock went on to say that 'the culture of white supremacy created Donald Sterling' and that the comments he made regarding that concept, (saying "I don't want to change the culture because I can't, it's too big") was his lone moment of clarity. He went on to say this:

          "Much of what Sterling said on the tape is a rambling mess that can be interpreted many ways by sophisticated, mature and objective ears. To my ears, he doesn't care that his mistress has black friends. He doesn't care if she has sexual relationships with black men. He's married. They're not in a monogamous relationship. He simply does not want her extracurricular activities, particularly when they might involve black men, flaunted at his basketball games or all over Instagram."

Mr. Whitlock is entitled to his opinion and his "sophisticated, mature and objective ears" as he put it, as is every other person in the world. While I appreciate his viewpoint on the matter, I think it is terribly misguided. According to the transcripts of the recorded conversation, it is very obvious that he did care that Stiviano was associating with Black men. He said, when Stiviano asked whether or not it was right to treat Black as less than white, that "we don't evaluate what's right and wrong. We live in a society. We live in a culture. We live within that culture." He also stated that Stiviano could "sleep with them. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is ... not to bring them to my games." He also expressed his displeasure with her posting pics of herself and other Black players (most notably, Magic Johnson) on social media, such as she did on Instagram. If he didn't care that these people were Black, he wouldn't have made it a point to single them out when expressing his frustrations with her.

Anyone who has heard of Donald Sterling before the news of this incident broke aren't suprised by his views. When David Stern was commissioner, he dealt with a number of incidents with Sterling that usally involved race in some shape, form or fashion. Stern opted not to bring any type of disciplinary action down on the owner, for whatever reason. But in today's NBA, billions of potential dollars from fans and sponsors are at stake. Players like Chris Paul and Blake Griffin have a lot more control over where they can choose to play. The league is made up of roughly 85% Black players, with more Black coaches and team executives than the previous generation. And its superstar athletes, like LeBron James, are more vocal when it comes to social issues than former players like, say, Michael Jordan, was. We saw that when the Trayvon Martin incident happened and we saw it again in reaction to Sterling's comments.

I'll agree with Jason Whitlock on the point that, yes, the media got a hold of this and ran with it. That's what the media does with hot button topics such as this one. Yes, Donald Sterling was set up by Ms. Stiviano and whoever else was involved. But should those facts mitigate a neccessary response from the public and the players and coaches who play, not just for the Clippers, but for every other team in the NBA, NFL, MLB and other professional sports? Certainly not! I feel the reaction was exactly what it should have been. The Clippers' players felt it necessary to stage a silent protest before their road playoff game against the Golden State Warriors by shedding their warm up tops that displayed the Clippers logo. They had discussed boycotting the next game, along with players from the other playoff teams, if the league wasn't swift in their decision to discipline Sterling. Was this action necessary? Was it right? Yes, and yes! Was it an overreaction? Misplaced? No and no! The actions of the league and the players put all the other owners on notice that the players have a lot more control in the NBA than some may admit and that they can shut the league down at any moment. The owners have this ability and we have seen it done many times in the form of lockouts over labor negotiations. Donald Sterling isn't the only owner in the league who feels the way he does about the players who are millionaires due to the amount of money the team owners pay them. Remember Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert's and Cleveland fans response to LeBron James' departure to Miami? It reminded me of a slave master calling out a runaway slave and the fans burning James' jersey in effigy was brought back images of obvious historical reference. These players still work for a living and they have a union to represent them. They have a right to voice their displeasure when they feel like something is wrong and this issue is very wrong. An owner who despises Black people has no business running a business, company or team that is made up primarily of the people he hates. Is hate the right word? Absolutely! If Donald Sterling didn't hate Black people, he wouldn't have made the comments that ended up on tape. He admitted to Adam Silver that is was him on the tape. He told an interviewer that his only regret was that he didn't "pay her off", referring to Stiviano. Sterling has not apologized for his comments because he stands by them. And while he is entitled to his views, privately stated or otherwise, he should be held accountable for them when those comments and views are made public, mainly because if the position he holds, regardless of how hose comments were found out. Kareem Adul Jabbar has said that he hopes those who illegally recorded Sterling goes to jail, while remaing critical of the comments that were made. If those idividuals are held responsible for that, then so be it. But just like any other owner of a franchise, whether it be an NBA team or a McDonalds, there are standards that franchise owners and other inidividuals in similar positions are held to because they are in the public eye. The bottom line is the bottom line; money, billions of dollars worth of it. The NBA has to protect it's brand, if not it's players alone. So Adam Silver not only did the right thing, he did the only thing he could to do. He came down hard on an owner with a history of racial intolerance. It was time

The public reaction was appropriate as well. Imagine if when Rosa Parks made her statement on the bus that day in Montgomery, Alabama, that the following morning no one boycotted, because they didn't want to be viewed as 'agenda driven'? Imagine if the abolitionists like Fredrick Douglas chose not to speak on slavery because he didn't want those who supported his ideals to be viewed as mob ruled. Imagine if slaves felt, as Jason Whitlock wrote of Sterling, that their masters were "victims of white supremacy" and that if they fought against their oppressors that the slave masters would go from villains to martyrs? Imagine that and then imagine us still picking cotton because this is the culture that is to big to be changed. Black Americans have to react right away when faced with these types of issues because if not, we are accepting the actions of those who view us as beneath them. We are accepting those white people in positions of power still having the "slave master" mentality and accepting the slave mentality that some Blacks still have. If it were not for the reaction of Black people when faced with incidents such as this, or with the Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis' trails, or with the outright disrespect and racist feelings our Black president faces as he tries to bring our country back from the economic disaster that George W. Bush left behind, we wouldn't even be having the conversations we've had over the past week regarding Donald Sterling. It wouldn't be news. It would be the norm and we'd only have ourselves to blame for it. Yes, I agree that other topics such as economic equality, voters rights, unemployment, the violence that our Black inner cities are subject to, family values, etc. should be met with the same furor as the topics that the media views as sexy or ratings grabbers. But that doesn't mean that the reaction to issues that involve millionare Black athletes versus billionaire white owners deserve any less attention. In fact, these type of situations reminds us that no matter where a Black person is in society, whether they be rich or poor, President or constituent, millionaire athlete or working class fan, we are still viewed one way and one way only by a large portion of white America. I don't need to spell it out, do I?

Too Sensitive or Too Honest?: Opinions in the Age of Information

Just recently Representative Pat Garofalo (R-Minn.) shared this tweet regarding NBA players and street crime:

"Let's be honest, 70% of teams in NBA could fold tomorrow + nobody would notice a difference w/ possible exception of increase in street crime."

Now there are a few ways one could look at this. The way I first saw it was that Garofalo was saying that street crime would go up if fans of the teams that folded no longer had games to go see. That was in the context of this particular tweet. But as more information became available, I understood how others saw it differently. In defense of his tweet, Garofalo went on to say this:

"I was talking about the NBA’s high arrest rate and that they are the only major pro league in which testing positive for marijuana is not a substance abuse violation. No intent beyond that. The culture among many pro athletes that they are above the law is the problem, not people pointing that problem out."

Facts later revealed, apparently not withstanding for Rep. Garofalo, made his tweet look highly misinformed and ignorant. He later apologized, saying:

"In the last 24 hours, I've had the opportunity to re-learn one of life's lessons: whenever any of us are offering opinions, it is best to refer to people as individuals as opposed to groups. Last night, I publicly commented on the NBA and I sincerely apologized to those who I unfairly categorized. The NBA has many examples of players and owners who are role models for our communities and for our country. Those individuals did not deserve that criticism and I apologize. In addition, it's been brought to my attention that I was mistaken and the NBA policy on drug enforcement is stronger than I previously believed. Again, I offer my sincerest apologies for my comments,"

No harm done, right? Ignorant white lawmaker inadvertently tweets out of his ass, gets fact checked and chin checked, apologizes for being an ignoramus and moves on to making tweets about Sbarro pizza not being qualified to be classified as pizza.

Not so fast.

Maybe 20 years ago this is something that gets brushed under the rug or not even said or mentioned at all. But in today's world of Twitter, facebook, blogging and numerous other ways to let opinions fly through social media, things like this get massive amounts of attention. Famous white celebrity drops the N-bomb? The whole world hears about it seconds after it happens. Someone uses a gay or racial slur? The news networks' bottom screen ticker blasts it out while you watch a report on 'Being Black in America'. Anything anyone says or does becomes instant news if it is sexy enough and we all hear about it, discuss it at work or at the bar or at home. The word 'racist' gets thrown out there and it becomes a hot topic. The question is, are we too sensitive these days or too honest?

The question could be asked, were the comments Pat Garofalo made actually racist? It's hard to argue that they weren't when over 70% of the NBA consists of Black men. When his comments were put into context with actual statistics, his argument was quickly shot down and he acknowledged that he was wrong to state his opinion without knowing the facts. So, his motive behind tweeting what he did had to be racist, right? He obviously hates Black people, right? Pat Garofalo might just be an ignorant idiot who just speaks or tweets whatever he wants without putting much thought to it. And though his comments do have a ring of racism in them, I wouldn't go as far as to label him a racist. I would, however label him stupid, misinformed, ignorant, etc. There is a difference between this situation and, say, the Paula Dean situation. Paula Dean could easily, and correctly, be seen as a racist based upon her language and response to the the question of whether she ever used the word 'nigger' in reference to Black people. So to answer the question of whether or not our society has become too sensitive or too honest I say you can never be too sensitive to even the slightest of hateful or racist remarks.

Why? Consider this.

During the last six years, history has been made with the election and re-election of this country's first Black President. In those six years, we've seen extremely racist views put on display like no other time in our history since the Civil Rights Movement era. Just yesterday I listened as one of my co-workers railed against Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, not commenting on political or policy issues, but on their looks (saying that the first lady reminded him of Chewbacca from 'Star Wars' and referring to the president as Curious George, a fictional monkey). Many pundits criticize Obama's intelligence, forgetting that this man attended two of the nations most respected institutions of education, Columbia University and Harvard Law. There have been insults hurled at the Obama's daughters and rumors of the Obama's excessive use White House resources. Never in history has a president been more scrutinized and maligned and disrespected. People seem to not have a problem holding their tongue when it comes to their feelings about President Obama when just a few years ago, talk against George W. Bush was viewed as 'unpatriotic'. A lot of the comments have been blatantly racist. Some people's true colors have come to light when it comes to how they feel about having a Black person in office, therefore revealing how they feel in general about Black people. And while certain situations can be clearly defined as racist, there are times when some claims of racism seem to be overreaching. The same thing can be said about the views of those who make comments regarding the LGBT community. There are those who hide behind 'religious views' so as to give them the right to say and/ or do whatever it is that they want regarding gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. Again, there are times when blatant bigotry is on display but sometimes the uproar is generated by the media because it's such a hot topic.

It's very noticeable that since Obama has been in office, the amount of instances where racism comes into question by what someone in the public eye says has been on an extreme increase. The views that people have about those in the LGBT community and about immigrants (those critical of immigration reform hide behind American exceptionalism and the integrity of the American worker) have also been on the rise and the 24 hour news cycle that we live under has a lot to do with that. Technology plays a major role as well. Whereas 20 years ago you didn't see instances where a person says or does something and it's immediately on YouTube or facebook, these days everything seems to be available for instant critiquing. Political and social issues now play out in our living rooms through our TV's, computers and smartphones. We have kids who are being bullied over the Internet killing themselves and some adults playing a role in the bullying. Grown men like Jonathan Martin of the Miami Dolphins (recently traded to the San Francisco 49ers) are being victimized by others because of the perception that they are weak or not tough enough, or gay. We watch all of these scenarios play out every single day and we all develop our own opinions of them. You can twist any one of these scenarios to fit an agenda. If you are a proponent of free speech, you'll say certain issues are protected by free speech or the right to bear arms, etc. If you are a minority, an immigrant, if you're gay or feel attacked in any way, you might take the stance that if someone feels offended by something, then it warrants immediate action. The Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis cases drew national attention but were criticized, especially in the Martin case, because there were individuals who thought the topic of race was overplayed or just injected in there to generate a strong reaction. George Zimmerman himself said that President Obama made it part of his political agenda when he spoke publicly regarding the case. There were even some people who thought the Paula Deen incident was overblown, with some individuals who were Black coming to her defense. So the question of whether or not we have either become a too sensitive or too honest really comes down to a matter of perspective. Personally, I feel that you can never be too sensitive when it comes to matters of racism or bigotry of any kind. This gets overshadowed when public figures take sides to further their own political or personal agenda, either for or against. One could say that racism or issues regarding being gay or heterosexual gets inserted into certain discussions unfairly. One could also say the same thing when it comes to recent events regarding women's rights. Some could say that doing so promotes individuals being to sensitive to a cause. I say that if the world is going to be more honest about how they feel about things like race, sexual orientation or a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion or contraception, then it's just fine for those who are affected by these things to be honest about what it really is and how they feel about it. That's not being too sensitive, that's refusing to accept ingnorant views as the new norm. Call me sensitive, but I'd rather make a big deal out of nothing than to suddenly be caught up in ignorance and didn't say or do anything to prevent it.

Spirituality Without Religious Commitment: Is it Possible?

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines spirituality as, in part, a sensitivity or attachment to religious values. It defines spiritual, in part, as being concerned with religious values. So, of course, it would make sense that many would feel that to have some sort of spirituality one would need to be associated with a particular religion or religious organization. And while my intent with this particular post isn't to discredit that notion, I personally feel that one can achieve some sort of spirituality without being directly involved with a religion, religious organization or church.

Let me begin by answering the question I get from most people when I talk about my feelings and experiences when it comes to religion. Yes, I do believe in God. I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I attribute a lot of the values that I have to my upbringing in that particular organization. I've only attended one other church besides going to meetings at the Kingdom Hall and that was on just two occasions. I have no quarrels with the overall message within the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, I just came to the conclusion a few years ago that continuing to be a Jehovah's Witness wasn't for me. As time passed and I studied other religions on a small scale, the question I always asked myself was "Can I be a spiritual person and not be part of any particular religion?" I admit, my struggles with trying to stay within the guidelines of the organization I grew up in had a part to play in me deciding that I was better suited outside of it. But, as of late, I have come to realize that one needs some sort of spirituality, some type spiritual connection to live a prosperous life. By prosperous, I don't mean wealthy. As a person, I am always looking for ways to grow, to become a better person, to love others more, to not be overwhelmed by personal struggles. To be prosperous, or to continue to grow, a person would need some sort of guidelines to live by. Whether these be religious values or personal values, I feel that without some sort of path to follow, a person could never reach his or her full potential and would be limited at best in trying to achieve any personal goals. But how can one find some sort of spirituality without wanting to be affiliated with a religion?

Before I give my answer to this question, let me say that this is my own personal opinion. It works for me and my hope is that it will work for others who find themselves in a similar situation as I find myself. I have found that since I already had a religious structure in place, due to the way my parents raised me, I already had some decent groundwork laid out. Studying about other religions, some in depth and some just on the surface, have proven to be useful to me. One point that I gathered from studying some Five Percent teachings is that the main ingredient to attaining spirituality is to "do the Knowledge" or basically, study. Jehovah's Witnesses, along with pretty much every other religion teach this as well, with the Witnesses stressing that it is important to "read God's Word daily". Just like with anything that requires some sort of learning and understanding, you have to study and do research. Growing up, my mother stressed personal study. There were five different meetings, three days a week, that we attended and the publications that we used during those meetings were integral parts of those meetings. Just like in school, we studied the books so that the information we received at the meetings would sink in, become more understandable and be real to us. Even though I am no longer associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, most of their teachings are still integral in my daily life, some a whole lot more than others.

In my studies, I've come to realize that spirituality starts within. People may disagree with the idea that you don't need to be a part of a church or a religion or religious organization to attain a level of spirituality but I believe that it starts with you first. My older sister has often urged that I try to find some sort of spirituality to stabilize my personal life. As I've grown older, there have been occasions where I despised listening to what someone else told me was right or wrong. I think that is part of the reason why I decided that I would not  return to the Witness organization, along with some others reasons. That may also be the reason why I don't particularly do well with relationships. Some may view this as being haughty, and I can see why they would think that way. But after growing up in the religious household that I did and coming to the realization as an adult that I wasn't on board with the whole religion thing, I had dismissed religion altogether. It wasn't until I found myself trying to succeed in life by my own guidelines and rules that I realized I wasn't going to achieve any of the goals that I had set for  myself on my own. I had to get in tune with who I was on the inside, who I was spiritually. Part of that was understanding that there are bigger things pushing those who have achieved any level of success. Some believe the god that they worship is directing their steps. In the movies, like 'Star Wars', the story speaks of 'the Force' guiding all those who were in tune with it. Modern religion characterizes that as the Holy Spirit, or God's active force, which guides those in tune with it. And while other religions may focus on this in other aspects, the one common thread is that there are forces bigger than us humans that can guide us down a good or destructive path. While conventional thinking simplifies this so that all men can understand the concept better, I personally think it goes a little deeper than that.

Some religious teachings speak of God as being the creator and being a spirit entity in the heavens, watching over us. Others teach that God is within each of us. Still others teach that each individual is God or a god or godlike. The Bible says that God created man "in his image". So in truth, all three of these viewpoints can be said to be correct, depending on one's perception or interpretation. And while movies like 'Star Wars' and 'The Matrix' tend to take the idea of God and his active force or Holy Spirit to extremes, I feel like the concept of all human beings being godlike is fairly accurate. If God created man in his image, that would definitely make man as a species godlike in that there could possibly be a way for humans to do extraordinary things if they could tap into the brains unlimited potential. The scriptures also state that "if you have faith the size of a mustard grain...nothing would be impossible for you." I think there is a literal meaning to that. A common saying is "if you put your mind to it, you can do anything". Basically I interpret that, along with the scriptures, as meaning if you are in tune with your spirit then the possibilities are endless. Success is predicated not only in the belief that something can be achieved but also in one's abilities to achieve. While many put their faith in the thought that God will provide, wouldn't it be just as important to have faith in one's own abilities along with the fact that we can do absolutely anything if we are in tune with ourselves, our spirit?

Recently, I've begun to read The Tao of Wu, a book written by Wu Tang producer the RZA. I've read his first book, The Wu Tang Manual and was really impressed with the way RZA uses his own personal spirituality to mold the way he does things. He combines Buddhist principles along with Islamic and Five Percent teachings and some things he's learned from Christianity to govern the path that he walks.  He also acknowledges his training in kung fu as being a big part of his discipline. The Tao of Wu focuses a lot more on his spirituality than The Wu Tang Manual does, but one thing is clear: he attributes everything that he has been successful in to his spiritual connection. He mentions that knowledge was paramount to his development and that the teachings he learned as a child through the Five Percent Nation gave him a basis for the way he lived his life from the moment it was intrduced to him by his cousin, fellow Wu Tang Clansman the GZA. "Doing the Knowledge" meant studying and the initial studies are not based solely on religion. These basic teachings are the 120 Lessons and learning them gives you knowledge of things such as the distance the Earth is from the sun, the circumference of the Earth and it's diameter, the weight of the earth and the speed of light and sound along with countless other lessons that fill you with knowledge that may not be viewed by others as typical understanding . These were things that kids in the inner city public school system weren't necessarily being taught. So if you were a person who dropped out of school or ended up in jail, these teachings would give you the knowledge that you may not have received otherwise. These teachings, known as Mathematics, dispelled the notion that if you were Black and living in the projects then you were destined to be ignorant and uneducated. Without those principles to guide him on his path, he acknowledges that he'd probably still be in the projects of Staten Island, living only to die.

It has been through reading those books, along with the Bible and picking up bits and pieces of other religions, that I realized spirituality starts with an inner journey first. If that inner journey takes you to a religion or place, so be it. But religion  and church isn't the end all be all that many of us were taught it is. If one believes in a god, whether it be Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad or has the belief that God is just pure energy that exists within us all, it is the journey to find our own spirituality that is most important. A person may not believe in a god but still may have a strong sense of spirituality. There are many roads that can lead a person to finding out who God is to them, but they all do lead to one.It is my personal belief that when God judges all of his creation, it will not be based on what religion one may be or what organization one will be a part of. It will be based strictly on one's works and deeds, on one's heart condition. Of course, all of that can be shaped by religion. But in the end, it's about the knowledge one attains. Solomon knew that knowledge was more valuable than any material possessions and when God asked him what he wanted, he asked for wisdom and knowledge. Since God recognized that he asked for this and not riches and wealth or anything else of a selfish desire, he bestowed upon him the wisdom and knowledge he asked for and the wealth and riches and honor he didn't ask for. Whether or not you believe in the words in the Bible, this example shows how important knowledge is. Think about it; if you have all the money in the world, and you do not have knowledge, what is the money worth to you?

So, is attaining spirituality without a religious commitment possible? I do think so. Once spirituality has been attained, it may lead you to make a commitment to a religion or organization. At the very least, it may lead you to abide by some religious principles. Either way, spirituality in and of itself will allow you to lay down some guidelines that can and will benefit you in the long run.