Summit over beer

I haven't watched the issues between Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, who is black, and police Sergeant James Crowley, who is white, very closely. However, one would have to be purposely avoiding this topic to have not heard about it at all.

The run down is, Prof. Gates returned home from a trip abroad only to discover what we all fear when we arrive home from a trip. He could not enter his home. Gates, like many, was forced to break into his own home prompting an observant neighbor to call the police. Sgt. Crowley arrived and eventually arrested Gates for "disorderly conduct."

Pres. Obama comes into the mix because he said the police "acted stupidly." This was fuel to the smoldering racial fire that never gets extinguished in this country. The embers stay hot because instead of putting them out, people step around them hoping the next generation will handle that task. It never happens.

In an effort to calm racial tensions, Gates of course said this was racial profiling, Pres. Obama invited both men to the White House to discuss the matter over beer. Vice Pres. Biden also sat down for the talk.

I watched the coverage of what is now called "the beer summit" on BBC America's World News. The corespondent made some valid points. 1) Why was there more talk about what beer would be drank instead of racial tensions? 2) Why are Americans blind to their own racism? 3) What is the real purpose of this 'summit?' Check out the report here.

The British point of view of American issues is fascinating to me. They seem to see us when we refuse to look in the mirror. Comments that blacks are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement are usually ignored in the States. People here really think blacks are more likely to commit crimes, no matter what their economic status is. The British report is also less rushed and filled with much more valid information.

The video was not the whole report. The reporter went on to interview a black scholar who commented that this summit was held not to discuss race. He said the event was designed to cease talk over this neighborhood squabble and beef up talk about Obama's health care agenda. This is no surprise since the talks on race relations in this country never end and yeild little results for any politician. However, passing a revamped health plan would be a massive achievement.

Someone asked me if conversations on race would be held when my child is an adult. My answer is, "The conversation has never stopped but remains shallow. Until trust and respect on both sides of the table exists, we will never resolve America's race issues." Maybe I should book a one-way flight to Britian. They have race issues also but not hardly as bad as we do.

Obama's health plan

I missed President Obama's speech on his health care reform plan. I am very happy that we now have a president who understands new media and I am listening to that same speech right now over the Internet. From what I am hearing, I am very disappointed with the news report I about his speech this morning on KMBC 9 News.

Michael Mahoney, the KMBC 9 reporter, was tasked with "fact checking" the speech. I think he slanted his facts towards the negative. The report presented three quotes from Obama. Mahoney evaluated each quote and determined one to be wrong, another is "sort of" correct and the final is correct...with some twists to make you question the correct statement.

This report is very slanted. Mahoney begins the report with the wrong fact. The Obama quote was that the health plan will not add to the deficit. Mahoney quotes the Congressional Budget Office, which said the deficit will rise about $230 billion from 2010 to 2019.

Mahoney ignores other quotes from the President, including the fact that health care has increased steadily for years. Premiums are paid but sometimes insurance may refuse to cover claims. Mahoney ignores the fact that this health plan will insure you even if you get so sick that your insurance company drops you. Also, no insurance company can deny coverage because of a pre-existing health problem. That one is significant for me personally.

Obama points out that he will strive to pay for health reform by reallocating funds that are wasted on insurance company subsidies...about $100 billion. Mahoney makes no mention of this comment and probably did not check that comment.

Another point in the news report said Obama's claim that the government will stay out of health insurance decisions. Mahoney said that is sort of true. In some cases people may have to change insurance. I would figure since this is a country of millions, there are bound to be instances where people will need to change insurance whether or not this plan is approved.

The one truthful fact, according to Mahoney, is that health insurance will not be taxed. Obama clearly said he opposed this. However, Mahoney tagged onto this fact that taxing health insurance was in the plan, it has been removed, but it may return. The comment that it may return puts a negative spin on what is supposed to be a positive point. Overall, I think this report is slanted towards the negative.

I do not know if Mahoney has a political preference but I do know that the reporter needs to work on his impartial reporting. Every fact he checked is either negative or slanted towards the negative. He made no mention that premiums have doubled over the last 10 years, about three times as fast as wages. Employers are putting more costs on employees or dropping insurance all together. Americans spend about $6,000 more than other countries and people in the other countries are more healthy. Mahoney made no mention of these points.

Obama said this plan is not for him. He and Congress have great health care. This is a plan for those who are struggling with health care. The money that can fund this plan is being wasted. The real issue comes down to, how much do we trust Congress and our President to follow through on this plan? I trust President Obama. I need good health care for myself and my son...we both have pre-existing conditions that can lead to serious health issues, even death.

Bush did nothing to help with our improved health. I am logging my support for the President and I hope others will also. This needs to pass.

If it was a Pit Bull...

When I was a kid, I loved watching "The Little Rascals," the original, not the remakes. The show is never shown now, most likely because it was dated when I watched...dated, but still fun and entertaining. The kids were regularly seen with their dog, "Petey." At the time, I did not know the dog was an American Pit Bull Terrier -- a breed that has a very undesirable reputation today.

While watching the news this morning, I saw a report about a dog that snatched a newborn boy from his crib, almost killing the child. The four-day-old baby was listed in critical condition with two collapsed lungs, a skull fracture, broken ribs and various cuts and bruises. The family pet is a Native American Indian Dog named "Dakota," similar to the dog in the first picture.

As I watched the news report about this dog, I realized that if this had been a Pit Bull Terrier, the story would have been much less forgiving. First, the father said this was NOT an attack...the dog was trying to play with what it thought was a doll. The dog was also known for stealing loaves of bread from the kitchen. This dog's size was also mentioned but I feel that is a moot point. I read a story about a toy dog that killed a newborn so any dog is capable of hurting or killing a child. But why is it an accident when another breed kills or injures a child and it is a vicious animal when a Pit Bull kills or injures?

Statistically, Pit Bull dogs are NOT more likely to kill or bite people. Dogs more likely to kill or bite are intact male dogs of ANY breed. Pit Bull dogs have a horrible reputation for being dangerous but statistically, a child is more likely to be killed by a parent or caregiver than by a Pit Bull dog.

I think people are more influenced by news reports than by statistics. When a Pit Bull dog attacks, photos of similar animals baring their teeth are shown. This dog that almost killed the baby was featured in photos with children appearing to be a loving family dog. The owner's comments that the dog was not aggressive were not countered by some expert. I am not an expert but I know enough that a dog who will steal food is likely to steal anything. To the dog, the baby was something to claim. Stealing bread may have been a funny or annoying habit, but to a dog it was a way to show dominance.

Blame should not be thrown at the parents...they were baby-proofing the home when this incident happened. One pre-caution that could have been taken was to close the baby room door to prevent the dog from entering, knowing her habit of stealing. However, I do not believe for an instant that a dog that kills or injures a baby thought the child was a toy. Dogs have better senses than we do. A dog knows the taste of blood. I believe a docile dog will kill a baby to prevent having a rival in the future. The baby is an intruder into the pack...the dog thinks it is performing a good service by ridding the pack of this intruder. It may sound stupid, but these dogs are motivated by instinct, not logic. The best thing for new parents is to take action to introduce the baby to the dog. Never rely on your dog (or cat's) good nature regarding a baby.

Jon and Kate disintagrate

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines the word "disintegrate" as to break or decompose into constituent elements, parts, or small particles. This would be the opposite of the word, "integrate," meaning to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole.

Jon and Kate Gosselin were integrated into a union when they married. They are definitely disintegrating now. Less than a month after announcing their separation on their hit reality TV show "Jon and Kate plus 8," Jon is off on vacation with a new girlfriend.

I never watched their show. I had nothing for or against the show, I only heard rumors. The rumors were that Kate was controlling. She is anal. She is bossy. She is everything but a good mother. She is money hungry and neglects her children. Even if all that were true, how horrible is it for her children to see dad running around with a girlfriend?

The pair have 8 children, sextuplets and a set of twins. Unfortunately, the twins are old enough to understand that daddy just dumped mommy. Even with all her flaws that may or may not exist, Kate deserves better respect.

I watched some psychologists discussing this situation. They all agreed that this is a terrible situation for all the children. They even offered an explanation for Jon's behavior. One said many times men become passive in a relationship, especially marriage. The husband will 'go along' with whatever the wife desires until he has ignored his own needs so long that he feels justified in juvenile, selfish behavior. He essentially 'finds his voice'. But once found, he leaves the union, usually angry and blaming the wife for his own passive behavior.

Jon probably did just that. On the show he never looked happy. This was something he just went along with until finally, his unhappiness blew up. Do I feel sorry for Jon? Not at all. He chose to keep quiet, he chose to do the show, he also chose to run around with a 22 year old girlfriend while his wife (yes, she is still his wife) cares for the 8 children he helped create. Some may say I am biased here.

My marriage was very much like this, sans the reality TV show spotlight. My husband was very passive in our lives. Unfortunately for me, the negotiations I thought we had were just me saying isn't this a good idea and him nodding blindly 'yes' to whatever I wanted. I think men who do this need to grow up, find their voices...or better yet, never lose them...and say what they want/need. Blaming the wife for their short-comings is completely unfair. If one person in a relationship is passive, the other has to take charge. If both are passive, nothing gets done. Kate most likely took charge because Jon was waiting for her to do so. That's how it happened in my household. Waiting for the husband's opinion on a subject or for him to take action (and he never does) is frustrating. Also, non-action is a controlling move. If you are waiting for another to do something and they procrastinate on purpose, it delays you. One could find themselves in a position of begging for results while the other enjoys the manipulative power. This is a dysfunctional relationship.

Jon and Kate's relationship may have started fine, but it has ended in dysfunction. I do not blame Kate (or myself) for a husband's -choice- to become passive. What I do blame Jon for is his total lack of respect for his wife and disregard of his children's feelings. I'm certain his desire to hook up could have been kept in check long enough to finalize a divorce first. He is setting a horrible example for his children but he is also a pathetic excuse for selfish behavior to other men who have done the same as him or similar.

Whites only

The issue of racism has been on my mind a lot lately and I think I have come to a conclusion...discussing racism with some white people is a futile endeavour.

Usually I would say "some people" and never limit such a comment to one race. I also want to say this does not apply to all white people...just certain types. The type I am referring to are white people who are actually racist, prejudiced or bigots but refuse to admit their short-comings. These people usually say things like, "I'm not a racist. I have plenty of black friends." Uh, right...the best reply to that comment is how much time do you spend with that "friend" socially? But I digress...

Here is what I have experienced. Racism exists in all races of people. Anyone can be a racist, I do not agree a person needs power to be racist. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. The reason I say discussing racism with some whites is futile is based on my experiences. I have discussed racism with people of various races. What I noticed about minorities and this subject is they will at least listen. Their views may not change but they will at least acknowledge your points. Many whites will acknowledge points too but those are not the whites I am talking about.

My experiences in speaking with some whites clearly show they racist, yet they refuse to admit or accept this personal flaw. For example, a "friend" commented about a fear he has of being around groups of black people. He said that they (blacks) are more likely to commit crimes. He based his belief on local media reports, his father's experiences as a security guard and various opinions from other family members. After talking on this subject for the better part of an hour, I realized that no amount of talk, statistics or reasoning would sway his opinion. Upon more thought, I realized his fear or avoidance of blacks in groups is deeper than just a fear of violence.

Looking at history, whites enjoyed segregation from other races. According to my friend, not wanting to be the only "white guy" in a group of blacks is not racist...he just does not like feeling uncomfortable. However, when I said blacks deal with this discomfort every day because we are members of a minority race in America, he said then I should understand his feelings. He totally missed my point in that blacks deal with the discomfort, they do not accept it as a justification for personal segregation.

The most revealing comment this person made is when he said, "Name a mostly white neighborhood that is high in crime?" That comment alone says whites are superior to blacks. It says blacks in groups are criminals and I will avoid them. It also says whites in groups are good, law-abiding citizens and are justified in wanting to keep their neighborhoods white. The saddest part of this conversation is he never slowed down to realize his comments are racist. He was so fixated on making me agree that he did not realize he was asking me to agree to a self-hating statement. This attitude is also a throw-back to racists whites treatment of blacks...agree with me or else. The problem today is the "or else" has no teeth. There was a time when whites would force blacks to agree with degrading statements or face beatings, burnings or lynchings.

There is much more that can be said about racists whites who masquerade as open-minded, non-racists but that would take all day. The saddest thing about my "friend" is that he can not see his own racism, yet shares the racist views of his family with me regularly. But if I say, "That's racist..." he vehemently defends the person or comment. Ultimately, when pushed on an issue of racism, he stops straddling the fence and jumps down on the racist side. He will never change unless he decides he needs to change. I doubt that will ever happen. He is happy in his small, racist world justifying his views of superiority. Despite the fact that I am older and have more worldly experience, my views, opinions and even government statistics I present are worthless in his eyes. I believe they are worthless because of my skin color and not my data.

New Trek, old problem

I am absolutely a Star Trek fan and one of the main reasons for that is Lt. Uhura. As an African American girl growing up in the 1970s there were few positive role models in the media. I noticed at a very young age that blacks in movies died first. The film did not have to be a horror movie either. The black character was doomed no matter the genre. So as a child when I saw a black woman on television, I waited for her to die on the show. She didn't. In fact, no black character ever died on the original Star Trek series. They were all intelligent professionals. Some were crazy or unbalanced in some way but all were intelligent and treated as equals. This is what made me watch the show...positive images of people who looked like me.

Flash forward to the new Star Trek film. I think it is one of the best Trek movies made with one glaring exception...Uhura. While Uhura in the original show drew me in, the new Uhura annoys and repels me. The reason is simple. Why does the new Uhura have a long, flowing ponytail, almost no body curves and lighter skin? In short, why does she look more white than the original Uhura? The other characters have good resemblance to the original characters. Why is it that the only major black character in Star Trek watered down by making her look more European than African, which is what she is supposed to be, not African American, but African. But the problem is deeper than that.

While nothing can be done about the fascination Hollywood has for stick thin women with no curves, if you look at the photos above it was clearly possible to make the new Uhura appear more African. With a simple hair style and make-up change, Zoe Saldana suddenly looks like Uhura. But that is not the image you see in the film. I can understand updating the hair style but a long flowing ponytail screams white, not African. Her make-up also appears to lighten her skin tone. The two images speak volumes for what the filmmakers could have had versus what they did have.

For years Hollywood has done this. People with darker skin and stronger African features get fewer roles. People who look biracial but can pass as black get roles that could go to darker people. With the success of Star Trek (mostly because of the good writing and not because Uhura is suddenly doing a Michael Jackson and turning white), the producers will resist changing Uhura's look. Nevermind Uhura's look changed in almost every Trek film made with the original cast.

I have mentioned my annoyance with this trend to some ethnicity-free friends. That's what another friend calls white people. The response I usually get is total non-concern or questions about why it upsets me. Well, I have always struggled with a response to that reaction. What do you say when something that upsets you is of no concern to another? It is a serious issues but they see it as you being 'overly sensitive'. Well, I think I have the response, and it is based on biological facts. I will just ask how would they feel if James T. Kirk walked on to the bridge of the Enterprise with a permanent tan and kinky hair? If it is OK to make Africans look more European, should it not be OK to make whites look more ethnic?

There are several multi-racial actors who can pass for either an ethnic or white character. I think this is a good thing but the problem I see is when a black character is watered down. There is no logical reason for Uhura to look less African. If the original character was a success, why water her down now?

Gene Roddenberry made Star Trek to show the world that skin color, ethnicity, country of origin no longer mattered. The cast was specifically created to show we all had matured. Checkov was Russian, but worked well with the Americans. Uhura was African, but that did not stop Kirk from having an attraction to her...that's in the new film also. Spock is multi-species, Vulcan and human. He could be said to represent many of the emotions biracial people have today. Scotty is from Scotland, Sulu was originally meant to represent Asia in general...hence the name. He is Japanese, born in San Francisco, but his name is from a body of water, not a specific Japanese province. McCoy represented the southern states of America, yet was not a dumb country bumpkin, nor was he a racist. Roddenberry had a great vision of what humans could become and it is just sad that Hollywood has lost sight of that in regards to the way Uhura was presented in the new movie. I hope in the sequel, we know there will be one...this movie made too much money...they will remember Uhura is black. Of course, they may have watered her down because she has several intimate scene with Spock. For whatever reasons, people are less offended watching a light-skinned black person kiss a white person than if a dark-skinned black person were laying the lip-lock...but that's a subject for a whole different blog post.