A Mother's Promise

I thought I was done blogging for today but then I saw this video about our president, Barack Obama. I became instantly inspired to write more.

Our president comments on memories of his father, mother, grandparents and his country.

"I was shaped more by (my father's) absence than his presence," Pres. Obama said. That is a powerful statement in these days where people claim their lives were ruined by an absent parent. But his mother saw a promise in him...and she made sure to give him the skills needed to fulfill that promise.

Very much like Obama's mom, I despise cruelty. As the mom of a special needs child, bullying will be a part of my son's future, much to my chagrin. I am tasked with finding a way to arm my son with the needed tools to not just deal, but overcome these challenges.

Something else I love about our president is just the way he appears to admire and love his wife. There are photos of beautiful moments when Obama just looks at Michelle and you can see there is a bond. That bond was created on their first date...AWESOME...and it appears to have longevity.

I watched Apollo 13 the other day...that was the date movie I saw with my future husband. Alas, grand blast-offs do not always end in a shining hour. Such an ending is not possible when the core family values are missing.

Obama describes his mom as "the beating heart" of his family. Watching his mom work hard, struggle and survive made an impression on Obama, just as my witnessing my mother struggle made an impression on me. I hope to make such an impression on my son. Some may say an Autistic child can not grasp such concepts but I say never sell a child (special needs or not) short. He understands much more than others may think.

Although my life is going through some very rough times, I know there are inspirational women -- single moms -- who are making a difference for their children. In many cases, the mom is their only hope for stability, love and a bright future. Although a former partner may work hard to wield the child's love as a weapon against that mom, she knows how keep focused on a higher goal. Although everything may seem lost and you are sinking into a dark hole, your child's love can be a bright light in that abyss. Being a single mom is not easy and many times there is no "small stuff" to sweat. All your stuff is huge, dominating and hurtful.

In those times, I'll think about our president's mom. She was a fighter and raised a champion...in spite of her child's father, not because of him.

Let's all go to the movies...and talk culture

Princess and the Frog
The new Disney movie "The Princess and the Frog" topped the box offices this past weekend earning about $25 million. Not bad but not fantastic either, especially for a Disney production. The movie goes back to a Disney tradition and breaks another -- the film is hand-drawn like classic Disney features, but this is also the first time an African American is depicted as the "princess."

I could pick apart the legitimacy of this African American princess but I think I am more happy that Disney finally took this move. I complained about the lack of an African American leading lady in Disney animated features years ago. People who love Disney criticized my critique and pointed to "The Lion King" as an example of "black-themed" story telling. Uh...first, that movie was about lions and other animals, not people. Second, the story is based on African culture, not African American culture. People who don't like Disney said my critique was unimportant...I still wonder if they would have said such things if all Disney films presented people of color and totally ignored white people.

I haven't seen this movie yet but I will see it eventually...movie-going is somewhat difficult as a single parent to a child who would rather play outside than sit in a dark theater watching cartoons. I have heard the lead character is actually creole, not African American. However, I am willing to just go with that...for now.

Another movie that caught my attention is the true story "The Blind Side." This film has been very successful, raking in about $230 million. I have issues with this movie.

The movie tells the story of a "homeless" African American teen who is "adopted" by a white family and becomes very successful with that family's guidance. I have a lot of issues with this story, despite it being true.

My first question to Hollywood is, where are all the uplifting and true stories about African American single moms who raised boys into successful African American men? The assumption with this story is, there are none because to make an African American child a success, you need a white person. As much as I dislike Terrell Owen's showboating attitude on the football field, no one can deny that his is successful...and he was raised by African American women.

When I first saw the trailer for The Blind Side my first thought was, "Were are all the movies about African American success stories where the person was raised by African American families?" There are more stories like that than there are stories about white people stepping in and magically creating a success.

Unfortunately, when these stories are told, whites "fixing" black children, some white people think that is really true and needed. Some white people get this over-blown feeling of superiority and truly believe if they "adopted" a poor black child, that child has a better chance for success in life. The attitude and the implications are all insulting to the African American families out there working for success. These families, who are the majority, not the minority within the race, are not recognized because many whites just do not want to see that black people can create successes without a white person's guidance. Believing a white person's presence in a black person's life automatically creates success is just as racist as believing predominately black neighborhoods are always crime-ridden.

I have no ill-will towards any of the real people depicted in The Blind Side. A true story is a true story. My problem lies with the choices Hollywood regularly makes to ignore the millions of African American families who raise successful children (ESPECIALLY the single moms who do so), in favor of one white family who chose to help one black kid and it turned out well. You will never see the reverse shown where a white family tries to help a black child, fails, and that child learns to be successful with a black family. That happens too but you wouldn't see it on the screen. I may eventually watch The Blind Side but I won't be paying $9 at the theater to do so.

Rogue Palin

Call it morbid curiosity but I've been really watching former veep-candidate Sarah Palin lately...you really can't miss her since she's all over the media these days. Her book, "Going Rogue," and tour have been all over the news and you really can't channel surf without flying past her talking head once, twice, maybe four or five times. The book title comes from descriptions of Palin while on the campaign trail. Apparently, people tried to "reel her in" without success.

Now, it appears the contrived partnership of McCain/Palin is showing its true colors. The two are swapping snips at one another through the media. But no one is saying the obvious.

Aren't you happy that these two aren't running the country right now? That hostility we see now would have come with power for the next four years. I am not saying Obama/Biden are a match made in heaven but at least they keep their quips in house...so far.

Still, Palin's appeal has baffled me ever since she stepped into the political spotlight. While I find her inexperienced and rather annoying, many Republicans love her. I was left to ponder why until a short while ago when I thought of the character "Rogue" from the X-Men comics.

The X-Men, for those who do not know, is a comic about people who develop certain powers. These people are called mutants. Their powers can be strong or weak, some even have mutated forms. Rogue looks human but is one of the most powerful mutants in the series. She has the ability to take other mutants' abilities and use them. She can not physically touch anyone because physical contact initiates the power drain. If she holds you too long, you will die and she has your power permanently. Why does this character remind me of Palin?

In the comics, Rogue is good or bad but always personable. She is a sweet little southern belle. I don't think Rogue has ever hunted moose or read everything, she certainly can't see Russia from her house but I think she is similar to Palin. Somehow, despite being dangerously inexperienced and unprepared, Palin got within spitting distance of the highest VP seat in the country. If she had that seat today, Rogue/Palin would be absorbing this country's strength as we speak. Not because that is her intention, but because she would not be able to stop herself. Her actions with this book and tour of the battle ground states tells me that to promote herself she is willing to damage her one-time running mate and possibly the Republican Party. Despite that despicable act, people still feel she is a lovely, little country girl from Alaska. The comic characters all love Rogue too, until she touches them.

"You don't play around with MRSA!"

I realize the photo is gross but trust me, compared to other cases of MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), these photos are tame.

This staph infection can be deadly if it reaches the blood stream or bone. It looks like any other infected sore but beware, it spreads like wildfire and will eat away your flesh.

This condition is on my mind because my son was diagnosed with a MRSA infection. I was stunned because he (as far as I know) has not been around anyone with such an infection. Yes folks, the bonus or the cherry on the infection sundae is this killer infection is highly contagious and regular antibiotics won't kill it, hence the word "resistant" in its name.

So this post is more a warning than anything to everyone. This infection can begin like a pimple or resemble a spider bite. The warning signs come when you have a fever and the infection is spreading despite care to the site. My mother cleaned and bandaged my son's infection. We thought it was just a spider bite. It was about the size of a pencil eraser. The next day it was the size of a dime and the red ring surrounding the infection was about the size of a quarter. My mom insisted I take him to the urgent care facility.

Ugh...during flu season AND a Friday night, that is an ordeal! We waited for a long while among the coughing, sneezing children but finally got to see a doctor. She down-played the seriousness of the infection but wrote a prescription and specifically said over the counter medication will not work. She asked me to wait for the prescription. When they brought me the prescription, it was the medication, not a slip so then I really understood how serious this is.

The moral is, if you have an infected area of skin that is spreading despite home medical treatment, get thyself to a doctor ASAP. If it is not MRSA, great! If it is MRSA, not only have you just saved your own life, you may have prevented spreading this deadly infection. Even if it does not kill you, it can take away significant portions of your body and I'm sure you would not like that. Cheers!

Health care for all...I support that!

The debate about health care reform in this country has really gone on for way too long. People think this began with Pres. Barack Obama but if you could say it reaches back to the Clinton Administration. This argument may even have begun before Clinton but let's stop with our first 'black' President...Bill Clinton.

In 1993 Pres. Clinton proposed a health care plan and made First Lady Hillary Clinton the chair of the task force. That decision may not have been the wisest choice because the move immediately came under fire. The fire kept getting fanned, the plan got compromised until it finally died and was branded "Hillarycare."

Clinton's plan offered universal health care for all, just as Obama's plan offers a public option. One major difference between the Clinton's' plan and Obama's plan is Obama's may actually get passed in some manner. The real shocker to me is that even after all the bad publicity and scare tactics from the Right, the public has begun supporting the public option idea. After so many screams of socialism, I am very surprised that 57 percent of those polled want a public option.

I completely support a public option for health care for various reasons, many personal. Very soon my living situation will deprive me of health care. I do not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, I have pre-existing conditions which prevent me from purchasing insurance on my own and my 'stature', according to one insurance company, means no insurance.

Our country loves to blame people for their bad predicaments in life. For a country founded by "Christians," this country will label Christian values as socialist when it serves a purpose. The Bible clearly dictates that we show charity to our neighbors. There are several chapters that speak to this subject, yet, when it costs us Americans money we are fast to scream "NO!" What can be more charitable than to make sure a person can see a doctor when needed? What can be more judgmental and uncharitable than to say, "You are fat and deserve to be unhealthy."

I have said it before, people deserve health care. In the long run, better health will increase the longevity of Americans. Our bad health is not simply from eating Big Macs with fries. A huge contributing factor is the fact that many of us must choose to pay the light bill OR see a doctor.

As I stare lack of health coverage straight in the eyes, knowing of my pre-diabetes and high blood pressure (long-term conditions that could lead to death), I am amazed that if this reform is not passed, I will be left to seek help at the "free clinic." People who oppose this reform can choose to delude themselves into thinking this is a good choice for a person with no other options but in America a law-abiding citizen deserves better.

Improve the free clinics, which are typically over crowded, have limited resources and are usually understaffed, or pass the reform WITH a public option that is affordable.

Newspapers...

I knew the day would come when I would officially declare this...I miss writing!

Ever since I was in about 1st grade I knew I wanted to write. I knew I had to write something, sometime, all the time, write, write, write.

At one time I wanted to be a fiction writer but without a garuntee of publication, that dream was shelved and I went in another direction...Journalism. The photo shows newspapers with the same names as papers I worked for...The Sun, The Independent. I didn't work for -those- papers, just papers with the same names.

But newspapers are in a bad way. Many do not read them anymore and people entrenched in the newspaper business laughed at or ignored things that could have saved many papers. When USA Today launched, it was considered trash and was basically the material for many a joke. Now, after 20 years and many capital injections, that paper is surviving better than many others. So many newspapers have filed bankruptcy that any journalism student would be wise to diversify skills.

While I love writing, I am not married to the idea of getting news from a newspaper. This is partly why newspapers are in decline...I'm not the only one who thinks like that and my numbers are growing. Hey, I was a reporter so that really spells bad news.

Service from our only major local paper, The Star, is terrible...which also contributes to why I do not purchase the paper. I've subscribed to the paper about three times and it has never been delivered. I have decided to not subscribe anymore and only purchase issues of interest.

My doubts about the powers that be pulling newspapers out of this downward spiral is why I quit the business and moved on to a completely different field. Still...I do miss meeting people, attending events and most of all...writing. I don't think I drastically changed the world or country but I know I made some people happy to see their names in print. The pancake breakfast princess counts just as much as the President...and she's going to be more appreciative of the press.

I don't see the logic of atheists or fundamentalists

Logic is defined as a system of reasoning according to the American Heritage Dictionary.

Reasoning is defined as the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises, according to Dictionary.com.

Atheists are people who deny or disbelieve the existence of a supreme being or beings, according to Dictionary.com.

The only definition I think should be modified is the definition of Atheist. While my experiences with atheists has been limited, I have never met an atheist who simply disbelieves the existence of a higher power. The ones I have met vehemently deny the existence of a supreme being. Of course, this is their choice but the choice is not as logical, as they tend to claim. What they forget is logic is the beginning of knowledge, not the end...thank you Mr. Spock.

This brings to mind another term, fundamentalist, usually a religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

While atheists profess to have logically reached their viewpoints that there is no God, why do they feel the same urge that fundamentalists have force feed the rest of society their views. In my efforts to better understand atheists, I have found that many chose this path out of resentment towards organized Christian religion. I would encourage anyone to really listen to atheist arguments and most are focused on Christian beliefs. Many atheists do not explain their disbelief so much as throw out subtle or obvious insults designed to create hostility in the believer. Comparing God to the Easter Bunny is just an insult, not an attempt to logically discuss belief and non-belief. Somehow, atheists also forget that there are several faiths that do NOT make promises like Christianity.

Even faiths considered similar to Christianity do not make the same promises. Muslims do not preach that Jesus was the son of God and considers all prophets equal. Judaism does not promise an afterlife to followers and instead teaches that good should be done because it is good.

One favorite argument atheists use is to tell believers they must prove the existence of God because science can not prove a negative. This is incorrect. Science makes claims that things do not exist regularly. I would even agree that scientifically, it may be impossible to prove the existence of God. However, the atheist argument that they do not need to disprove God because such a task is impossible scientifically is flawed logic.

This view into atheist society was prompted years ago when my husband decided he had discovered the ultimate truth...atheism. My move was an attempt to save my marriage and understand him. My viewpoints came from a very personal view. Honestly, I thought I would find a group of very logical people who simply did not believe in God. What I discovered was the flip side of fundamentalism...people who were ruled by emotions, spoiling to insult people unlike themselves, and ready to proclaim their beliefs as the ultimate truth that all should adopt. This observation became more logical when I discovered many vehement atheists were once vehement fundamentalists. The only change was beliefs, the personality of intolerance remained.

Both sides of this issue are unreasonable, illogical and stubborn. Discussing religion with either side is a lesson is massive frustration and should be avoided at all costs.

What American whites fear...

I was cruising YouTube and found an interesting news story about South African today. As I watched the clip, I realized that the reality there is what white Americans really fear. With the fall of Apartheid, South Africa's policy of racial segregation, life in the region has been turned around.

In the early 1980s I first heard about Apartheid. I was in high school and completely stunned by the racial segregation in South Africa. Posted signs saying which racial group could use certain facilities were things I saw from the American south from a time before mine. But the South African signs were not old and were still in use at the time. What was most baffling is that blacks were the majority in South Africa, unlike America where people of color are the minority.

So when I watched that YouTube video, I realized what was being shown is exactly why whites here worked so hard to prevent minorities from having equal rights. There is a real fear that equal rights will eventually give minorites superior rights. If more American whites knew of the fate of white South Africans, I think they would be terrified that Barack Obama is president.

While I don't agree with allowing one group of people to have better or more rights than another, especially based on race, I do think South Africa is a perfect case of karma, or the law of cause and effect. Whites benefitted from the color of their skin while blacks suffered and struggled for years. I wonder if any of the whites who are struggling now ever tried to help the blacks living in the slums under Apartheid. Most likely not. I have observed that human nature tends to favor working to keep what you have (which is clearly seen by American's opposition to Affirmative Action), even at the unfair expense of others. Humans in general seem to lack a sense of compassion for their fellow man when that compassion may cost them something of value.

As I said...the suffering of whites in South African appears to be a case of karma to me. For years they cared nothing for the struggles of blacks. Now blacks have an opportunity to prosper and like the whites before them, they want to keep what they have. I wonder how the whites would feel if the blacks told the whites there to 'go back' to Europe. This is what whites tell blacks here...never mind the whites of South Africa were born there just as the blacks of America were born here.

Who is the young, brown cutie?

I don't follow entertainment news much but I just had to read about the remake of Red Dawn. It was a film released in the 80's about a group of teens who band together to fight terrorists who invade America. The terrorists back then were Cuban and Russian. Interesting how times change. In the new film, the terrorists will be Chinese (hmmm) and Russian...I guess the Russians just can't catch a break in American's eyes. I wonder why they aren't Arabic? That would make more sense but maybe Hollywood doesn't want to stir that pot.

Truth be told, the real reason I discovered this remake is because of the young man standing next to Tom Cruise in the photo. Who is that cute drop of chocolate standing next to one of my favorite drops of vanilla? THAT is Tom Cruise's son! What??? That's what I said.

First thought, he has a black son? Where is the black mom? Did -I- ever have a chance? LOL! Well, one can dream...but seriously, where this child come from?

When Tom divorced Nicole, I often wondered what happened to their children. They adopted two children for whatever reasons. I question possibly fertility problems since Nicole now has a biological child and so does Tom. This boy is one of the children Tom and Nicole adopted.

I have to applaud Tom and Nicole for taking such a step. Not many white people will adopt a black child. I can only hope they took steps to educate him about his unique and special heritage. I do not automatically oppose whites adopting ethnic children, despite the obvious problems that can develop. I just hope they realize the child must learn of his/her heritage to be proud of their ancestry.

On the other hand, I am very offended when I hear some whites commenting that it is a 'step up' for the ethnic child to get white parents. No need to get deep into that trough, the opinion is just an insult.

So, good luck to Connor Cruise in his acting endeavors.

I was raised this way...

While watching "The Tyra Banks Show," wait, don't freak out yet. :) She's actually pretty good sometimes. So, I was watching today and she loves doing these "social experiments." The one she did today took people of various ethnic backgrounds and placed them in a room where they were shown photos or footage. After viewing the item, opinions were given.

There was a white guy who was, and probably still is, incredibly racist. Not sheet-wearing racist, but about a step or two away from that. A woman there was also this way, preferring to say she was "afraid of black people." After viewing a video of a black woman with three children, they both presumed the black woman was on welfare, had three different dads for the children, etc.

Tyra, I was glad to see, spoke up to say there was nothing in that photo that said this woman was on welfare, etc. She was wearing business clothing, had diamonds in her ears, the children were all well dressed and she was nicely manicured...by that, she looked professional. Similar footage of a white woman did not get the same response from these two...their reasoning for only seeing color and a negative stereotype was "that's how I was raised..."

I just thought, what a lame excuse. That lame excuse is what led another woman (a black woman) to eventually break down and cry. She explained that she has a college degree, professional job, has several desirable qualities, yet, men see black skin and write her off. Through all those tears, she said black men want white women, Asian men won't consider her, white men don't want a black woman and the list goes on.

Despite the fact that it appeared she was having a personal pity party, she is right. Many times men of any race -assume- because I am a black woman, I fit the negative stereotype. That is beyond annoying because that attitude deprives a black woman of even the opportunity to shine. No race of people are perfect and no race of people are all bad. It does discourage me that such a negative stereotype is attached to black women in this country. I guess this is why people who write me and say, "I thought you were white..." Don't continue the conversation once they know I am not.

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.

Michael, my first crush!

That absolutely adorable face to the left is the face of my first crush, Michael Jackson. Yes, he really was a handsome child. Those eyes, that slight widow's peak, bright smile, button nose and lovely chocolate brown skin. I think I was about 5 years old when I first heard 'Rockin Robin' by the Jackson 5. I thought it was a cute, bouncy song and I just loved it.

When I saw Michael Jackson, I really just fell for him...I think I was about 8. I did not do as many kids do now and claim his as my husband. I was pretty innocent. I simply wanted to meet him and talk about his songs, what it was like to be in the Jackson 5, singing on stage...typical -innocent- groupie stuff. He was just awesome to me.

Years later when he popped back onto the musical scene with 'Off the Wall', I still had that crush. I still thought he was handsome, adorable and all. He still had the voice I loved. With 'Thriller,' here comes some sacrilege....I never got into the album 'Thriller'. I thought he danced fantastic, his voice was great, I loved the 'rap' by Vincent Price but the video just didn't really 'do it' for me. I recognized the whole event as being major but I was just a watcher and not a participant. I still had a crush on Michael but I had a bigger one on John Taylor of Duran Duran. Michael had been pushed aside by a lanky Brit. :)

As the years went on and Michael transformed himself from that adorable child I crushed on to what I can only describe as a bizarre, pseudo-white woman, that crush pretty much went the way of the Do-Do. I just didn't see the same person anymore.

The strangest thing is, when he died, I was stunned and very, very sad. I do not believe Michael was a drug addict. He may have been but I find it hard to believe a person is a drug addict when that person is in chronic pain. Very much like Larry Flint (publisher of Hustler), if the pain were cured, I do not think Michael would have taken pain meds...but that will never be known. I think there is much more to the story of his death than is being told. We may never know the whole story. But what I do know is I will miss him.

Crime

Unfortunately, the conversation I mentioned earlier with the friend who just doesn't get it about black people continued. He made a comment regarding 'all the black on black crime in Oakland, Ca.' Of course the normal response to that comment is, "How many times have you been to Oakland?"

Well, he has never been to Oakland. I, on the other hand, lived there from the time I was in 4th grade until I was about 19. I think I have a bit more authority to speak on any kind of crime in the city of Oakland, Ca.
While living in that city, our home was not burglarized once. I never saw a drive-by shooting. I never witnessed any strong-arm robberies. I never saw any kinds of crimes, except maybe shoplifting. That is not to say that Oakland is the safest place on Earth. There is crime there.

Unfortunately, I lost friends while living there also. My friend in high school was murdered in her home. I believe I was in the 11th grade. Another family friend was murdered also, her body left beaten so badly that they had to identify her with dental records. Both were horrible crimes that took the lives of women who could have contributed a lot to society.

So there is crime in Oakland, just like any large city. When I think about what this friend said...black on black crime...I wondered if it really mattered to him if the killers of my friends were black or not. My high school friend was a white girl whose house sat independently in an area with no neighbors, one side was a vacant lot, the other, quite a distance away, was a little shop. I'm sure my friend screamed as this person stabbed her but there was no one to hear. The other friend was attacked by a man I believe she knew. The details of each crime are murky after so many years but I would have said then and still say now that I don't care what the race of the murderers were.

I hate the phrase 'black on black' crime because it implies that black people are more likely to commit crimes on people of their own race. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, criminals and crimes tend to follow similar patterns as far as race is concerned. In other words, whites attack whites and blacks attack blacks. Black on black crime is a catch phrase with terrible implications for the black race but it ignores the tremendous numbers of same-race crimes committed by others. I think that phrase never needs to be used again. When whites kill whites no one shouts about white on white crime. I have never heard that phrase being used to describe whites who commit criminal acts.

So, the latest in this conversation chapter is this friend is angry with me to the point that he is lashing out without provocation. If the truth ends our friendship, so be it. I would rather lose a friend an keep my dignity than silently listen to him spouting bigoted statements regarding black people.

Why I'm Blue in Red

When I first moved to Kansas City, I would have to say I was pretty clueless about racism, prejudices, bigots, and the like. Having grown up on the West Coast, I was under the erroneous assumption that most people viewed race as I do.

Basically, I reserve any conclusions about a person until there is a certain amount of evidence to support my conclusion. Still, I realize it's my opinion and that simple fact means it is not a holy dictate from God. But I also believe that if is quacks, has feathers, and a bill...it's probably a duck.
So that brings me to the conversations I have been having with a friend. This friend is a white male, late twenties, grew up in a small town north of Kansas City that had one African American family. His father worked as a security guard and based on arrests made in this job, this man has convinced my friend that black people are dangerous criminals...with the exception of a few.

Now comes the issue, every time this friend moves, he feels the need to share with me his immediate conclusions about apartment hunting. That translates to, he went to see a unit, he saw 'a lot of black people', therefore he won't get the unit. Why on Earth I decided to say something about this point, I don't know but I did.

Basically, I said that is a sign of bigotry...to see blacks or mexicans (he seems to be afraid of them too) and presume they will be racist is racist. He claims he has experienced 'reverse racism'. I pondered that phrase and I think it's silly. Racism is racism no matter who is dishing it out. He said when people speak of racism, they are usually speaking about whites being racist towards blacks. Well, this is when I insulted him. I said his view on racism is as such because he is not from a diverse community. In a diverse community you can never presume racism is white against black. There are just too many races to consider.

However, then I was accused of being closed-minded...well...stubborn I will accept, closed minded, no. What's the difference...well...I accept that he has his views but I disagree with them. I am not on a mission to change him, I explained to him the only way his views will change is if he decides to change them. Right now he is using the excuse of that's how he was raised to justify his prejudiced. Because I can accept that he is prejudiced, I feel that makes me open-minded. I am stubborn because I refuse to agree with him that a mostly black neighborhood is automatically riddled with crime. Most people, poor or rich, just want happy lives and are not criminals.

So, must to his dismay, I did not agree. He is angry but I am not. I realize much clearer now why many of my relatives here do not have white friends. Sooner or later this kind of conversation will arise. My friend thinks I was condescending towards him...maybe I was...but when a person tells you that blacks 'scare him,' or bringing home a black girlfriend is like bringing home a 'new puppy,' I really don't think I was out of line telling him that viewpoint is insulting.

Spock(s)

So, I finally went and saw the new Star Trek film and I can warn anyone who attempts to read this post that I am a Trek-fan so going geek is inevitable. I won't bother with the argument about Trekker vs. Trekkie...I call myself a Trekker and that is the end of the argument for me. I am also pretty thrilled that I was born the same year my favorite show hit the airwaves. But on to more about this new film.

I'm happy it was made. I really enjoyed it for a variety of reasons...some I'll mention, others I'll keep to myself. But what I am very happy about is that the producers who control this money making venture finally stopped phoning it in. They actually demanded something worth that $10 movie price...I only paid $5 because of the time I went but the point still stands. This is a good film and they managed to get away from having to stay faithful to canon. Trek fans will notice the inconsistencies with the long Trek history but it's OK.
Non-Trek fans have no idea what that means and they don't care but it is critically important if you wan the people who kept this show alive to continue pumping it full of critical life support.

Here's a bit spoiler...once the Romulan ship travels into the past, the lives of the Trek crew get changed. I would say it's similar to the episode Mirror/Mirror but in the end things don't get 'fixed'. In this Star Trek, the changes remain and leaves open a door for making episodes that can ignore the Trek Bible. That Bible dictates a lot that was already violated in this film...seeing Romulans, the Orian woman in Starfleet, Enterprise built in Iowa, Kirk born in space and that Spock/Uhura thing.

Now, let's talk about Spock. He is my favorite character and if they had messed him up (as they had in many other outtings of Trek) I would not have liked this film as much. I just LOVE Zachary Quinto as Spock. Not only does he resemble Leonard Nimoy, he has excellent acting talent. On Heroes he plays the villian 'Sylar' and is so cold it's chilling. Quinto has a trumendous opportunity, as do the rest of the cast, to take an iconic character and step outside the original character's footsteps. But I would caution them to step lightly because Paramount seemed determined to kill Trek just a few years ago. But I think the big screen likes this cast, especially Quinto, and I would love to see them on another outting.

College life.....forever?

About a week ago after talking with my estranged and wayward spouse, I had what many alcoholics call "A moment of clarity..." First, a re-cap of the discussion.

He called me because in these recent months for some odd reason when I call him, his phone either does not ring or he magically goes deaf and did not hear it ring. Interesting how selective hearing works...still...during the conversation, he asked me a rather telling question...had I seen the new Star Trek movie yet.

It seems simple, I AM a huge Star Trek fan. I've seen every movie on opening night, with the exception of maybe 2. I have done conventions, I've dressed as characters and I even helped organize and run a convention. I am definitely a fan. The question is ligitimate, normal and what someone would expect from a friend and fellow fan. However, coming from my husband it just annoyed me and I didn't immediately understand why...until...the moment of clarity.

My husband can drop things at a moment's notice and go to the movies. He can go out to dinner either early or late. He can run off to the beach, take bike rides, do whatever he wants. It's right there on the Animal House poster, "We can do anything we want. We're college students!" While my husband would probably never pledge a fraternity, he would fit in with the Animal House crowd, most likely resembling the character 'Flounder.' What I realized in his question was a lot of ignoring the facts that influence my life...primarily the little person I am raising...our son.

None of the characters in Animal House have children, for good reason. They were drinking all the time, partying, letting their grades go into the toilet, being rebellious, and focused on having just a good time. College is great for that...but there comes a time when one hopes another grows up.

I was watching 'Daisy of Love', why, I have no idea, but it features a really dippy blond chick from 'Rock of Love' with her own dating show. Just like how New York got her own show after Flava-Flav dissed her on 'Flavor of Love'...but to the point. A guy trying to date Daisy admitted to her that he was married for 8 years. He was now divorced and partying, earning just enough money to put gas in his boat, get drunk, and party. He said his marriage died because "She grew up and I didn't." I think this is also the issue with my marriage.

My husband is content to sleep on the floor, be a slob and run around without responsibility, despite the fact that he has a child. Our child also has gone through some serious health issues. I have the imperssion that my husband ignores these responsibilites because he rarely asks about our child. He asked me if I've seen the new Trek film but not about any future medical issues for our child. He ignores the fact that for me to go see any movie, our child needs a babysitter. I can't drop and run to do anything...he can, including visiting his girlfriend on his terms. He is oblivious to the responsibilities it takes to raise a child...and is not trying to learn or understand them. I get the real feeling from him that if he could snap his fingers and transport us (me and him and our tattered relationship) back to the days during and right after college, he would. It was a happy time for him.

When I demanded a more grown up relationship, that's when our troubles began. He is happy with stagnation, I am not. I am enjoying the journey of raising my child...hard as it is, it is worth every struggle. My husband is resisting any and everything that isn't initiated by him. Growing up isn't something he wishes to do so he has refused and continues to be that forever college student. That is his choice but I am amazed by people who do this. It benefits them in some way and it is there choice.

Mars, the 7 sisters and Orion's belt

I was walking out of my mother's house the other night, following my sister, when I noticed her looking towards the heavens. She pointed up and commented about a cluster of stars, then asked me if that was Orion's Belt.

I was not sure. I'm still not sure. Since we both like stargazing we watched the twinkling white lights for a bit.

Remembering that Orion's Belt had about 3 stars, she said we probably had found that constalation. I still was not sure, so she asked about the Seven Sisters. I was not sure if I was seeing them or not. There was a time when I instantly recognized the stars in the skies but lately, I have not had reasons to look. It is a habit I realized I lost but I think it may be time to start looking again. There is something powerful and peaceful about looking at the stars and realizing we are not so grand as the universe. Looking at all that space makes me feel small but it also diminishes my problems in life.

As we continued to look, I noticed a twinkle I am certain I've seen before. One of the stars in the sky did not twinkle white, it twinkled red. I realized the red light is most likely the planet Mars. I pointed it out to my sister. She said she had never noticed the red light before but was happy to hear that it was a planet...something she had never seen before.

That knowledge was not knowledge I obtained in my own investigations about the heavens, it came from my husband. It was something we shared...a love for the night sky and stargazing. He would point out Mars to me regularly. He would map the flight of the International Space Station and excitedly take me out into the cold, night air, anxious to see a flash of light streak across the sky. A very TINY streak of light...but in that light was the proof that man had actually placed something in outer space. It is one thing to see a launch or to see a spacecraft on the ground. It is entirely another issue to see a streak that you know was put there by man. I have to say those nights were amazing bonding moments...at least for me.

It was nice to share this with my husband but as with any relationship that is falling apart, he gradually decided to enjoy those moments alone. He gradually cut me out of his moments of fun and enjoyment. This was long before the fighting, long before the hurt feelings and long before he decided the best course of action for himself was to abandon his wife and kid.

I talked to my sister about this, she asked what anyone would ask..."Did you ever ask him why he didn't want to share that with you anymore?" "Oh, only about 1,000 times...he never gave me a clear, satisfactory answer." I have concluded that what someone told me long ago is most likely true, "He just fell out of love..."

The Feast of All Saints

I've seen bits and pieces of this film before and it has always made me want to watch more, but I hesitated. The movie "The Feast of All Saints" plays like it should be a classic novel, maybe it will be one day. It was written by Anne Rice, best known for creating the vampire named Lestat and writing "Interview with the Vampire." I never expected a white woman known for interesting vampire fiction to have such a grasp on the history of the gens de couleur libre. That translates to "the free people of color," a term that is pretty self-explanatory. The twist comes from the location of these free colored people, the good city of New Orleans.

Something many do not know is that because New Orleans was once the property of France, many French cultures still exist there today. New Orleans also had the reputation of being less harsh on slaves because, for whatever reasons, French men had fewer problems with finding beauty in darker women. This was a gift in a way and a curse in others.

These French men were also influenced by other white men in America and although the black women they loved could find themselves "kept," this choice was still basically a one of a whore. The movie explores these relationships between white men, their black mistresses, and the children of these affairs. The twist comes with the women who are still considered black but have skin so fair that many could pass for white. The white men considered it a grand prize to have a black woman who could "pass." Having her would be a better prize than having a white woman...well, at least in secret. No matter how prized she is, she was still black and therefore never respectable enough to be his wife...but his desire for her would make him do whatever he needed to "purchase" her loyalty. If she could not be bought, he may take her anyway...that's the way it worked.

The film explores how while many slaves may not have been beaten to death like in the deep south, they still lost their souls by being forced to do things to survive. The fair black women, given a taste of a good life, could not resort to washing and mending clothing and keep their high standards. Also, many had been living such a life since they were young girls, it was all they knew.

The story told in this movie is touching and annoying. It made me think of my very fair black son. In the film, the fair son was treated fantastic while his fair-skinned sister (born into slavery) was treated as a slave and remained in service until she killed herself. The boy could see the life draining from his sister but had no power to free her. The main thing put forth in this story was, no matter how fair these free people were, they were still people of color...as is my son. The movie strikes a deep cord with me because looking at my skin, I would have been desirable by many white men...not because I could pass, I can not, but the cafe au lait skin was the attraction.

When I hear people say our president is biracial (which is true) but then deny his African American heritage, it makes me angry. A film like this reminds me that white people were willing to remind us all the time that no matter how light we got, we were still black. I feel that continues to apply today, for me, my son and definitely for our President.

Selfish

For those of you who read this blog, you already know of some of my trials and tribulations in regards to ending my marriage. It has not been an easy road and it is not done yet. However, a certain second party in this dissolution suddenly feels the need to end it all. There is a sudden imperative urge to dump the wife (that being me) and bring in the new meat (that being the girlfriend).

Of course there is the claim that the divorce is just needed and it is not so this person can run off into the sunset with the new prize. This is an effort to help me, this is for my benefit, this is his heart finally realizing that avoiding the divorce for years is actually emotionally detrimental and out of the goodness of his heart, now is the perfect time to end the marriage...not about 5 years ago when he left his pregnant wife and constantly said he would return. Not even as recently as a couple years ago when he did move back only to plan another escape and not inform his wife. Now is the perfect time because he fears losing custody of the son he tends to ignore and neglect and losing the girlfriend who, after two years in that role, is tired of waiting for him to marry her.

While it is obvious to be rid of this man as a husband is totally a blessing, his sudden urgency is a moot and annoying point. I have so many other major issues in life: the health of my child, my own personal health, a stressful job, preparing my son for kindergarten...why NOW does he want to throw in divorce/child custody. It's an answer as simple as one word...selfishness.

This tactic of explaining how his act will benefit me is tried, true and very old. I know others have seen people do this but pull aside the curtain and you will reveal the truth...the so-called charitable act is really a selfish move by that other person. He has felt no charity for the past 5 years and now, most likely at the arm-twisting of an impending new spouse, he wants to grant me a "gift" of divorce. He claims this is between just us but the reality of the situation is there is a third interested party that he is trying to distract me from. I am supposed to pretend this woman does not exist, that she is not emotionally invested in trying to land my husband as her's, and I am supposed to ignore the bad effects both of their selfish attitudes have on my son...who I have been raising, alone, for the past several years while he pursues this new wife material.

Selfishness is a peculiar situation. It amazes me how another person can care so little about others and only act to satisfy their own needs...and sometimes even convince themselves that the act is for the benefit of the other person. The best advice I can give anyone is this, do not have a child with a person that you know will only act in his/her own best interest. That selfishness will eventually hurt the child you love and the other person will move on with little or no cares about the pain he/she has inflicted on you or your child.

Classmate

I have no explanation for why a particular former classmate has jumped from my memory into my present thoughts. I could understand such a leap if the classmate was a good friend but this girl was just the opposite. I have no fond memories of this girl at all and when I remember her, I wish I knew her full name so I could try and find her and just let her know how I feel. Of course, she probably does not remember me at all...that's the nature of such matters. She was very mean-spirited towards me and now she probably has no memory of these actions. I will carry those memories forever and I just wish I could let her know that her actions were unnecessary. If she did not like me, she could have just said it and that way I would have known to ignore her pseudo-friendliness.

But being honest and just saying, "I don't like you," is rarely the actions taken by a person who is hostile. What happens is, the person feeling the hostility is left to wonder what he/she has done to bring this hostility out. The other person seems to be, appears to be, a normal, rational human being and besides, "I" have done nothing to make this person made at me. Au contraire...yes you have if you look closer and examine the situation.

This girl who could not stand me (it was so obvious that other classmates asked what had happened between us) had her reasons to not liking me but they stemmed from a place that had nothing to do with me personally. Looking at her background...this girl grew up in a suburb, she is white, lived a very easy life as far as material possessions go and something I think I just realized is, she may have been very cliquey. You know the type...I'm in the clique, you aren't good enough to be in the clique so I'm going to be a bitch to you because I'm better than you. Also, this girl had never been around many black people...that has to factor in because living in the Mid-West, it ALWAYS factors in when speaking about petite, suburban white girls...especially the ones with blue eyes and blond hair.

I still remember the moment when I realized this girl was being evil towards me and I had done nothing to warrant the treatment. We were placed on a group project for college, me and two other suburban girls. THEY decided that we would meet at one of THEIR houses (they lived in the same neighborhood)...I would have to drive WAY out of my way for these meetings. THEY refused to meet on campus. When I went to study, this girl shot down every idea, thought, comment I gave to contribute to our so-called collaboration. So, the deal was, this girl and the other girl arranged the meeting times, place and all the work then planned on just telling me what I could/should do.

At the time, I was just totally put off by the situation. Today, I would have asked my teacher if I could change groups. If that did not work, I would have requested a change within the group. I realize now that this girl was hostile towards me because she is probably a racist. This black person did not know and would not stay in her place. This girl was definitely elitest...coming from the suburbs she felt this 'ghetto chick' was not an equal. On another level, she probably has low self-esteem because in my own way, I am very blunt and out-spoken at times.

The thing I am very proud of about this situation is that I did not quietly take that abuse. I rejected the two girls and studied on my own. I refused to drive to their neighborhoods because I honestly was not certain if my car would consistently make it home. This girl said, "You made it the first time." I replied, "If I don't make it another time, are YOU going to drive me home?" She refused by then attempted to destroy my credibility within our group. She planned a full group meeting, there were about 9 people in the total group, we were just a dysfunctional trio. She called me, did NOT give the whole information that this was a full group meeting and NOT just the dysfunctional trio so I refused to meet. This, of course, put a negative image on me to the group. But when I discovered it was a full group meeting, I made it clear that this girl did NOT tell me the importance of the meeting.

Still, I had the last laugh...I got a great grade on the project.

Thinking now, I think I know why she came to mind...there is a woman I met about a year ago and have kept in contact with. I could not for the life of me remember where I had met this girl. She was in my group on this group project...not the girl I have been speaking of, but a very nice woman who I remember being very nice. I had been trying to remember where I met her and I guess when you dig through old memories to find a good one, the crap pops to the surface as well.