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.