Modern fairy tales

From the title of this blog connected with the photo, people may erroneously presume I am about to slam the Christian religion. Well, there is some truth to that, but it will not be a slam of belief in God. Deity belief is a personal decision and I can slam or praise it but ultimately it's a personal decision if made in reflection of personal experiences can not be swayed by the rantings of a stranger in a blog.

My real focus is on how fairy tales of the past were more direct and honest than the manipulations of Christian leaders today.

As mentioned in Rapunzel, originally those stories were designed to give a moral and sometimes religious message, usually Christian-based in theology. A great example is Cinderella. Read the original story that describes the "ugly" step-sisters as "beautiful and fair of face, but vile and black of heart". The sisters were considered ugly because of their hearts, not their physical appearance. Blame Disney and other re-tellers for the changes. The story begins with her mother insisting Cinderella keep her faith and remain pious. Cinderella's father is a rich man and does not die...he is needed later in the story to provide permission for Cinderella to marry. There is no explanation for why this man allows his new wife to mistreat his biological daughter. Cinderella does have little bird friends, but they only help/respond to her because she cries and prays three times daily at her mother's grave. Her tears at that grave help a tree to grow, which brings the birds. It is the birds who give her the dress for the ball, not a fairy Godmother. Over the years, God is removed from the story.

Originally, God provided her with these blessings to make her life better. The birds were just the method to provide the blessings...interesting. Stories about God sending birds as messengers is older than fairy tales. Even in the Bible, Noah receives an olive twig from a dove. Something totally removed from Cinderella stories today is how those same birds who blessed Cinderella punished the step-sisters by pecking out their eyes. Basically, the birds made them physically ugly to reflect their hearts.

I have always had a fascination with how stories change over time. When in high school, I went on a fad diet and dramatically lost weight. My friends knew I was dieting but one day another person came and asked if I was OK. Turns out my fad diet had turned into a hunger strike to protest some political agenda.

But, moving right along, fairy tales have not completely changed. While Disney mutates the stories to remove God, Christian leaders mutate the stories to remove reality. If you take that same story of Cinderella and view it from a certain Christian theology, Cinderella was humble, pious and most importantly, a virgin at marriage. Some Christians promote virginity over everything and somehow, remaining a virgin is taught to be the key to marital success. Being a virgin into marriage becomes a fixation for certain Christians. What they ignore is hammering virginity into these young people's hearts also results in a terror about intimacy. No one can be told to avoid sex at all costs and then magically it is fantastic and beautiful once you marry. These teachings aren't just comments, it is more on a level of brain-washing, spoken from my personal experiences with people raised with these messages. When I comment on this, I am amazed at how many people really want to believe remaining a virgin until marriage is a good way to secure a marriage...right! I would bet most people teaching that message did not follow those instructions AND of course they were taught. The hypocrisy of, "You should remain a virgin until marriage, I didn't because I didn't know any better" is such a load of bovine feces.

Original fairy tales rarely promote virginity as a key ingredient to love and marriage, probably because there was no way to know for sure is a woman was a virgin or not...unless you locked her in a tower at 12. Even then, the first man Rapunzel met, she slept with him. That sexual act did not remove her from living happily ever after. Some Christians today would have you believe sex is the first step towards total damnation...unless you are married. The problem is, who cares if you are a virgin if you drink like a fish, smoke like a train, have poor impulse control, hang out with people you call "sinners," all the while judging them. Virginity is not some magical white-wash.

I think old fairy tales had a better view of sex than some of today's theology. However, both ignore the true fact that relationships take work. Any relationship takes maintenance, whether it be husband/wife, parent/child, even friendships take work. I am amazed that some people believe falling in love is the hardest part of finding a life mate. That is being willfully naive, in my humble opinion. Some may say my opinion is the result of my failed marriage but I say divorced people probably know a bit more about how to keep a marriage together than people may believe. I love fairy tales but I also know they are just stories designed to have happy endings. Reality is always harder. The gap between life as imagined and life in reality can be huge.

Love fairytales

Disney has a new film out based on the fairytale "Rapunzel." This was one of my favorite stories as a child, probably because being a black girl the thought of having long, luxurious blond hair is just as much a fairytale as the whole story, but I digress.

The basics of the original story is a girl is shut inside a tower and prevented from experiencing the world. A man still finds her and falls in love at first sight.

This is the short version of the morality tale teaching that you can't stop your daughter from growing up. The part of the story people do NOT discuss is that the prince in the original Rapunzel finds her, seduces her, and impregnates her in that tower. The witch feeling betrayed by her "daughter" chops off Rapunzel's hair and casts her into a wasteland. The prince comes to visit his "wife," is injured by the witch and left to wander the forest. While wandering, the prince finds Rapunzel and her tears heal him...then the happily ever after action happens...with their twins. The implication is they were meant to be together.

Today, these stories get what many call "the Disney treatment." The girl is a princess, she is taken by the witch and put in a tower. She still finds a man (he is NOT a prince but a thief with a good heart), falls in love, etc., etc., etc...but this time she sings about it all, fights with a frying pan and has a cute little chameleon as a companion. Oh yes, the witch dies, as all witches do in Disney stories but not always in the original tales.

My problem with "happily ever after..." is that does not exist. Girls are fed this line of crap in various ways and many believe it, even if they won't admit that fact. We want a man to see us, fall madly in love, never even notice other women and be completely devoted to us. The woman being completely devoted to the guy is usually implied. But the whole life-long love commitment without problems is a total fantasy. You can love someone forever but all relationships have problems. A fairytale says fall totally in love with another person and relationship problems evaporate. People believe this fantasy but I think girls suck it up more than men.

The impressive thing about the original Rapunzel is that the prince didn't waste time consummating his "marriage" to Rapunzel. She was also pretty young and isolation must have made her gullible. The witch locks her up at 12 and a few years later she is being nailed by the prince. Disney makes her 18 but I doubt she was that old in the original. Also interesting is marriage was based on the fact the prince has sex with Rapunzel, not a church ceremony. We know he had sex with her because he is the only man she has ever met and when he finds her, she has twins. The tale is also a male fantasy because he knows without a doubt that those children are his and he is the only man this woman has ever had.

So as I watched this movie, I realized it is very much a "chick cartoon." The flowers, the pretty songs, the big green eyes, the guy totally changing his life for the girl...uh...right! At least the original didn't preach that load of crap. I do understand why this movie is a hit but I just don't agree with the fantasy romance shown. However, people who love this usually don't want to see the reality of love, marriage and relationships...then it would be called a drama, not a fairytale.

Poverty does NOT equal stupidity!

Being poor sucks! There, it's said, it's true, it's sad but it is never deserved. I often ponder how and why Americans believe people who are poor contribute to their own poverty. Let me start at the beginning.

I have never been rich but I have been rather comfortable. Divorce took care of that. Prior to being comfortable, I grew up in poverty...yes...food stamps, welfare, projects, all of that...shopping trips to the Goodwill. I have been there. I witnessed my mother working hard to pull us up and out. Education was always stressed in my household. I witnessed my mother working to earn a college diploma and I now have two. But, education is a way to do better, it is not a promise of personal riches.

Like the man in the photo, I have a long work history. I am willing to believe this man has a good work history too. When I got the job I have now, I was in a training class seated between two men -- one has a PhD in education, the other is a member of MENSA. I have 2 B.A. degrees and a long work history as a journalist and experience in the dot-com industry. When dot-coms went belly-up, companies closed, good, educated workers became unemployed. People lost their homes. People had to receive social services. Suddenly needing help does not take away a person's education and appearances do not tell you how much intelligence an unemployed person has. This history is why I was so powerfully insulted during my experiences at the unemployment office.

From the beginning...I have a job but it is seasonal. While laid off, I receive unemployment benefits. To receive these benefits, I have to jump through the proper hoops, which includes a monthly visit to the unemployment office to job hunt...as if job hunting on my home computer isn't sufficient. The trip to their "career center" is made even more moot by the fact that there is no software in place to prove I have applied for any positions. They can only determine if I signed in or not on one of their terminals. By this logic, I could send a friend to the office with my information but that's a different rant.

When I arrived at the unemployment office at 8:15 am, I was informed I had to jump through some new hoops -- assessment tests to measure my skills before I could do a job search. So, I am ushered to a seat and told to wait, the tests would begin in a classroom in about 10 minutes. Twenty-five minutes later I am taken to the classroom with another man...a class of two of us, both with questions about why we had to jump this hoop. The man questioned why did he have to job hunt since he was disabled. I questioned if food stamps and unemployment were somehow connected. In previous years, I have qualified for both with more than double the income I have now. This year, I do not qualify for food stamps. The teacher, and I use the term VERY loosely, decided this was her opportunity to get on a "soap box" about her perception of poor people's behavior.

This woman, who never gave her name, decided to explain to us how we had to do this, do that, or would be denied because so many people have been on food stamps or unemployment for years, doing nothing. Because of "those people," we will probably be denied. She went on to say the state has no money so people who got benefits already are being kicked off so that others who need it can get help. She continued to prattle on about how "those people" sat around just "expecting" the money to come. Then she took a political turn and said things would get worse because "those people" don't vote.

I am proud to say that I only stepped a toe on my soap box. I told her I did not care about all those other people, which I'm certain she took incorrectly. The point I continued to make is, food stamps is a federal program and states can change eligibility requirements to disallow or allow people to qualify. Guess which path Missouri took. Unlike Hawaii and many other states, Missouri has done nothing to help the increasing numbers of people hit with unemployment or poverty.

Unemployment payments are provided in part by the former employer and through insurance the worker has paid. The "teacher's" comments about the state being broke do not apply to either program, at least not in the manner she implied. This woman was working for a position that the disabled man and the fat black woman were too ignorant to know these facts. Then I began talking. She ignored my comments and continued with her rants...speaking while I spoke so I knew she was not listening to me. This is a pet-peeve of mine. If you have no intentions of listening to anything I say, just say that, don't talk louder and louder to drown my voice. She added to the rant by announcing that "those people" also don't vote, which is why this country will see more problems.

This teacher's comments seemed to work on the disabled man. He quietly commented to me that he "felt sorry" for our instructor. The same instructor who was now instructing us using her own brand of sign language while she spoke to another person on her cell phone. After turning my internal editor on high to prevent myself from saying, "Feel sorry??? Why? She has a job and she's not doing it well!" I instead chose silence, turned my seat and did the assessment tests. I was not told what these tests assessed or how they would be used. I only know they were hoops I needed to jump through to get an unemployment check...reminding you again I have a job, I'm simply in non-pay status until January.

My major point is, jumping through a hoop should not include listening to a judgmental lecture with the theme of "sucks to be you if you are unemployed."

So...who do I complain to...besides the whole world on my blog? I am searching for a way but as with most social agencies, trying to make any complaint -- legitimate or not -- is next to impossible. Why do social workers seem to be the least social of all people?

The many faces of racism

I love this photo! It tells a simple truth that racism can look obviously scary or just like a bad joke.

Most people know what the man on the right is representing. The Ku Klux Klan has been around for a while and they openly espouse hatred. The KKK claims to be an organization supporting "white rights, not hatred" but the organizations history is contradictory to that statement.

The man with the monkey with the Obama name is more subtle and, unfortunately, more popular. He is as much a racist at the man in white but he has a slicker way of showing this. People of color in America today need to beware of this man much more than the man in the white sheets.

Growing up in California I experienced racism but not as much as one may think. I experienced it enough to recognize the signs...kind of like recognizing a gas leak or sewer gas. When I experienced racism, I was always surprised but it never failed to stick with me. What I find insulting today is if I were to confront both men in the photo, the one in the hood would admit to his beliefs while the one with the monkey would simply say it was just a joke and I "misunderstood" his point.

Growing up, I have also noticed one group in particular that has a tendency towards subtle racism...and no, it's not white men but white women. This group tends to automatically presume a sense of superiority and their tactic for expressing is more in line with monkey man than Mr. Hoodie. It is a path of condescending speech and the presumption that the person being spoken to is powerless. These women (note, not all white women do this, only the racist ones) cover their racism with fake smiles and dictates that they are "taking the higher ground" in various arguments. It was white women who erroneously believe they are NOT a minority group helped by affirmative action who helped pass Prop 209 in California. This initiative demolished Affirmative Action in that state. White women stupidly reveled in this accomplishment under the claim that no one needs a "hand out."

I say cheering for the devestation of Affirmative Action is stupid because it makes no sense to knock yourself down then cheer for the opportunity to struggle back up. Our country was built on racism and it still exists in many subtle ways...especially in the media. Americans have issues with a black man romancing a white woman, and vice-versa. Americans thinks it's an improvement for a black child to be raised by whites but it's a horrible tragedy for a white child to be in the custody of a non-white family. This is all racism...subtle though it may be. I could go on but I will stop here.

Clark Kent...unemployed?

Reading Yahoo news yesterday I got a confirmation of what I suspected years ago...the career path chosen by superhero Clark Kent and myself is disappearing. Just in case people don't know what Mr. Kent did for a living (besides saving Lois Lane), he was a newspaper reporter...and a very good one. But being good at news reporting is moot. Good or bad those jobs are going the way of the do-do...extinct.

People will always need and want the news but consolidation/mergers of news agencies is killing competition and jobs are going with them. The days of cities with two or more major newspapers are pretty much gone. Most cities have one paper, if that, these days. There are the smaller alternative papers but even those have consolidated while continuing to give the public the impression that they are small, local and fighting "the man." "The Pitch" fits this description. When I visited The Pitch website I got KC news, events and everything local. When I clicked "work for The Pitch," I got the true deal that The Pitch exists nationwide via Village Voice Media.

While I love writing and always will, I was never naive enough to believe the downturn in newspapers would suddenly change. One problem with papers is the fact that many editors absolutely refuse and reject the notion of change...even though they write and read about it daily. Maybe it's a case of "that's them, not us..." syndrome but it is "us" and it has been "us" for decades. Editors also turned a blind eye to the impact of online media, a major factor reducing the need for full-time reporters on staff.

So what is a reporter to do? Freelance work still exists but as one freelancer once told me, "You really have to hustle your butt to make a living as a freelancer." Essentially, you are an independent contractor, self-employed and subject to all the annoyances that come with that state of being. The real terror is the fact that the number of people wanting to write doesn't seem to be decreasing but the jobs available are.

The advice is to get a writing degree but also a speciality ...politics, technical, etc. Meanwhile, they neglect to mention the efforts a new writer must make to convince established writers that he/she can write. This is no small task and doesn't even account for the natural prejudices anyone entering a career path faces.

I love writing and always have. I left this career path because of reasons listed above and because caring for my son is much more important than continuing to write for a news agency. I found myself working more than 50 hours per week, duties increasing (in addition to writing, I also had to lay out a section of the paper, take my own photos and provide customer service to readers), low pay (about $23k per year), and demands for more work steadily increasing. I can't believe I was the only reporter in the country experiencing these changes. I quit and found a position with set hours, set work, better pay and more room for advancement. I don't write in my new position but it does allow me time to blog.

Blogging can be a way for a young writer to get something out even though he/she isn't being paid. The situation could be worse. As a seasoned reporter, I would not advise a new writer to depend on landing a job and earning enough to pay personal expenses. Better to be realistic, acknowledge the changes in the industry and do what is needed to survive even if it means not taking the news reporter career path.

A strong woman

I was talking to a friend tonight about my recent life changes. He described me as "a strong woman." A bit more probing and he admitted to me that he has another female friend who in a similar situation as mine, did not do what I have done. To clear up the vagueness, simply put, her husband was not doing as a husband should but she was too afraid to divorce him. He wasn't beating her so that fear was not there. She was terrified of caring for herself and her children without him.

I immediately understood why the woman would be afraid. Statistically, after divorce women are more likely to have a fall in living standards while the ex-husband has a rise. This statistic is exaggerated but is still true.

Raising a child as a single mom also has an effect. Many men immediately disregard single moms as dating material because of whatever stereotypes they believe. There is also the belief that single moms are so profoundly lonely that they are, how shall we say, an "easy lay." This is also a myth but myth or not, women don't like being perceived in this way.

Being called "strong" is a strange thing because on one side, it's a compliment. On the other side, men are intimidated by a woman who can care for herself. I have to wonder why some men feel a woman who can care for herself is terrifying. A woman who can care for herself but chooses to have you in her life should be a good thing...right? If so, why do so many men run in terror when they meet a woman who isn't desperately waiting for rescue?

Not trying to be a victim here but my life experience has shown me that if I wait for rescue, I will not be saved. Years of marriage to a selfish person has taught me this fact and I continue to be educated. I tell myself he is who he is and it is best I seek to rescue myself. I think it's unfortunate that quality is seen as a "minus" rather than a "plus" in our society.

Hypocrisy

I like President Obama! This statement has nothing to do with hypocrisy because at no time did I ever claim to not like him. He is not perfect. He has made mistakes (all presidents do). He is being tested and seems to continue to shine.

Thinking about our economy's very slow growth, it is understandable why many Americans will quickly forget that Obama is trying to manage the mess left behind by their beloved (and eventually very unpopular) former Pres. Bush.

So where does hypocrisy fit into this?

Some days I just think of Obama and get filled with pride. YES! A black man is president! That fact still amazes me. He won legitimately. He is an American citizen and even if he were Muslim...who cares! This country is for people of all religions. That fact seems to bug some Americans.

If Obama were Muslim, why should it matter? Why should it matter that he is African American? The fact that this country took this long to elect a black man speaks to the racism here. The fact that a woman of any race has never been president speaks to another issue...but I digress. Obama isn't just the first black man to hold this seat of power and leadership, he is the first non-white of any race to be elected president. What I find hypocritical are the excuses I heard some white people making to justify to themselves that they should vote for this man.

One person I know explained quite clearly that Obama has a white mom, therefore he is biracial, not black. By that logic almost every black person in American can trace their ancestry and find either Irish, Scottish, Native American and a few other races in their backgrounds. Many whites, if they had the guts to look, may find a black person in their family history.

The white-washing of Obama was an insult at the time. I am scared to predict that his problems with the economy will be partly blamed on his inability to handle the job simply because of his race. That is how this country thinks. That is how this country works. A white person is given many more passes of screw ups. A minority person (especially a black male) is written off as less intelligent no matter how difficult the problem tackled.

The worst thing is...if Obama is perceived to be a failure, many whites will think less of all black people. If he is a success, then Obama is "one of the good ones." Ultimately, the best benefit minorities and blacks specifically get from Obama's administration is the pride in knowing he is doing his best and he won that seat fair and square.

Pres. Bush can't say that about his first election.

Just call me "Kurt"

I have been a writer (or wannabe writer) for a long time. I've had years of experience as a newspaper reporter and I just generally love writing. I have never thought I may write like any one famous, but apparently I do.

According to the web site, I Write Like, I write like Kurt Vonnegut. Who is that? Well, I would hope people already know. Mr. Vonnegut is known for the novel, "Slaughterhouse Five," among others. Here is a description of him and his writing (in general)....American author noted for his pessimistic and satirical novels. Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s best known work is SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE (1969), which was based on his experiences in Dresden, Germany, where he was a prisoner-of-war at the destruction of the town in 1945. Vonnegut used fantasy and science fiction to examine the horrors and absurdities of 20th century civilization. His constant concern about the effects of technology on humanity led some critics to consider him a science fiction writer, but the author himself rejected this label.

I have to admit, I'm a bit thrilled that this unscientific program linked me with Kurt Vonnegut. I'm sure some hate his writing but I have to say, I didn't expect his name to pop up in connection with me in any way.

Reading a few quotes from Kurt, I have to say we have similar attitudes about a few things...

One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.

Kurt Vonnegut, "Cold Turkey", In These Times, May 10, 2004

As disturbing as it is, I did watch a special on television where a person committed suicide with the help of a doctor. I also vividly remember an episode of COPS where a burglar was shot dead in someone's home...for whatever reasons, the man (barely breathing) was filmed slowly dying why the police conducted the investigation.

At the same time...the next quote is one I very much like and agree with...

A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved.

Kurt Vonnegut, Sirens of Titan

This is a very long way to say I'm glad to be considered a writer of the caliber of Kurt Vonnegut. I loved "Welcome to the Monkey House." It was a short-lived show on Showtime hosted by Vonnegut himself featuring many of his short stories.

Dinner with the Prez...not

I got an invitation from Sen. Claire McCaskill inviting me to a dinner with Pres. Obama. While I'm thrilled with the invite I have to say this...when you are invited somewhere, shouldn't it be free? That's the tradition on all levels of our society...until you reach a certain level. I'm not there yet but I do appreciate the invite.

Checking out the prices to spend an evening with our leader, well, it's just a little bit out of my budget.

Senator Claire McCaskill

Invites you to join

President Barack Obama

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Presidential Dinner - 6:15 PM

or

Grassroots Reception - 6:30 PM

Renaissance Grand Hotel

800 Washington Avenue

St. Louis, Missouri

RSVP Required

www.ClaireOnline.com/potusevent

Paid for by Show Me State Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee authorized by Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc and McCaskill for Missouri 2012.

Independence in America is a joke

I watched "man-on-the-street" interviews with voters in Massachusetts today only to confirm in my mind that being "Independent" in America sucks.

Most of the voters interviewed proudly proclaimed they are Independent voters...meaning what? An Independent voter supposedly votes for candidates or issues, not political parties. The people interviewed in Mass. proudly proclaimed their Independence but in the midst of their pride they all marched to the polls and made a mistake.

Somewhere in recent history proclaimed political party loyalty became bad behavior. To say I am a proud Democrat or Republican became the sign of a closed mind. What it really proclaims is a commitment to the ideals of either party, Republican or Democrat. I think this lack of party loyalty is part of the greater issue of being politically correct, as ironic as that may sound. Basically, to say I am voting for the Democrat, even though I may disagree with the person has become bad taste...same goes for choosing the Republican. What passes as good political sense is proclaiming you are Independent and voting for the "person." (Why is person in quotes? Because in politics you NEVER vote for the person. While YOU vote for the person, trust me, that person is loyal to his/her party)

Now we have this situation in Mass. where a Republican candidate is poised to destroy Health Care Reform...all because certain Independent voters decided to vote for the person and not the party. I say these people refuse to see the bigger picture being their votes can destroy something this country has needed for years.

A friend said to me recently, "People opposed to health care reform all have insurance and it's probably better than anything the government will offer...but they want me to oppose the public option."

I am angry at the people of Mass. They had an opportunity to try and help less fortunate Americans with today's vote. I will admit that Ms. Coakley did not run the best campaign but sometimes you have to see past the particular candidate and vote for the party. Yes, I wrote that and I regularly say it out loud. I firmly believe this because that candidate who proclaimed to be Independent but just part of this or that particular party...when a tough or close issue comes along, that candidate will tow the party line every time.

Mr. Brown has already made the deals with his party to be negative on health care reform. He already will stand with his party on this issue and I'm certain he will give great reasons for why. Since I am in favor of reform, I feel this move is tragic for myself and others like me...hard-working Americans who need affordable health care. Not everyone without health insurance is unemployed and lazy. I am truly sad that the voters of Mass. did not see fit to continue Sen. Kennedy's wish of health care for all.

However, it is time to look past this loss/blow and carry on. We have to take those lemons and make lemonade. While Mr. Brown has health care, and a damned good plan too, I hope our leaders can find a way around this defeat.

Help for Haiti, remebering Katrina, still on an Avatar rant...

I've been watching the events of the earthquake in Haiti this week and I must say the images are disturbing and sad. I really feel for these people and I am profoundly happy that people are reaching out to help this nation.

As a black American, I always worry that devastation to a mostly black country will be ignored by the people of America. In general, I worry that Americans will turn a blind eye to any poor nation in need. We are a fickle bunch in that way.

When the tsunami hit Indonesia, Americans dug deep to help. I hope that America continues to exist. There are times when Americans take an attitude that we should not or don't need to help. I think this is because many Americans forget how wealthy we are compared to other nations.

We enjoy small things like clean water, electricity, a functioning government and in most cases, Hurricane Katrina aside, quick help when we are in danger from a natural disaster. Specifically, my worries about Haiti stem from the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina. I still remember a man hold up a one month old baby, shouting to the world that they had no food or clean water. I remember a man crying over his dead mother, still sitting in her wheelchair. He was forced to leave her sitting in the chair like garbage. There was an interview with a man describing his neighbor's body, bloated from flood waters, still lying on the sidewalk. The man had been dead for days.

Katrina was a sad story of America's failure to help the needy. These were locals, Americans, people who needed help and I was stunned at how many times I heard people saying they should have evacuated before the storm. These people obviously had never visited the 9th Ward and seen the unbelievable poverty. I visited this neighborhood years before the storm. I grew up poor and I was stunned at the urban decay in that area. I hope such scenes are never repeated.

On a lighter, but still serious note, I still have a bit of a rant about the racism in "Avatar." I am still angry that a few believe the film is simply about a white man saving native savages. That ignores the fact that the natives are actually more civilized than the humans. This also ignores the fact that the scientists are curious about this new world and even one of the military persons turns sides. The film is hardly about one white man saving a bunch of ignorant savages.

There are some very important elements that are ignored. In "Dances With Wolves," which Avatar is compared to, John Dunbar never fully joins the natives. He gets close, accepts the name given him, he does a buffalo hunt, helps find the buffalo, but he never joins the tribe. In the end, he takes his wife and leaves. The excuse is the soldiers will never stop hunting him, but he knew the soldiers would never stop coming anyway so why chose a life of solitude?

John Dunbar never truly went "native" as he is accused. Sully in Avatar does more than go native. He not only accepts the new culture and way of life, he gets immersed in their faith also. In the end, he actually chooses to leave his human existence behind and become a true member of the tribe. He has his wife and is ready to be a regular member of the tribe. To me, this is not a character who swooped in to save natives and either leave them behind or lead them like they were mindless children. Sully had redeem himself...that was the message I got.

Avatar? Racist? Valid, with circumstances.

I read today that a rather vocal minority is calling the movie "Avatar" racist. I did see this film, I did read the article, I did come to a conclusion. The film can be viewed as racist, but with mitigating circumstances. Aren't there always mitigating circumstances to racism?

I'll warn you now that there may be spoilers from this point on so don't read if you don't want to know them.

Basically, the article accusing the film of racism says the story is old. The general story is a white man comes and saves the natives. This is an old story and it has been told before. If Avatar stopped there, I would agree the movie is racist but it goes further.

In the film, a white Marine who is paralyzed, is linked to an alien body...an alien body that just happens to be about 9 feet tall, blue with a tail and rather cute. He meets a female alien who is rather disgusted with his ignorance about the planet, nature, and life in general. Humans in the film are there to mine a rather expensive ore and they are willing to plow over any blue aliens to do so.

I just read that the Vatican is also slamming this film for it's "worship" of nature. Well, that's another issue...in the film, the aliens find life force in everything and can physically link to that force. We may talk to trees but in Avatar, the trees can talk back. Everything living on the planet Pandora has visible life force and can physically link to each other. Maybe if trees on Earth could fight back, we wouldn't be so quick to chop them all down...but I digress...

The racism is clear, humans are there to rape the land and are willing to kill. The aliens, very reminiscent of American Indians, have bows and arrows to fight against bullets. The main character first is set on following orders by winning the aliens' trust (which he does) then betraying them by giving the Marines the best way to destroy their home, a huge tree sitting on top of ore they want, (he does that too). But during the course of the film, he changes, falls in love, learns to respect life and switches sides. Of course, the aliens now see him as a traitor and he has to win back their trust. This is where people say the film is racist...once again a white man has to save the unwashed aliens. People are also annoyed that aliens were played by actors of minority races and the Marines were played by whites. I guess critics forgot about Latina Michelle Rodriguez...anyway...

On the surface that appears racist. Why does a white man have to save natives? In one way it is done to boost the image of white superiority in this country. Some whites do feel superior to brown people and need things to remind them of this from time to time.

Another reason is because many times whites will refuse to go see a film with lead characters who are not white. That is a more subtle form of racism. The story of the film "Couples Retreat" and it's racism was not widely reported, probably because the movie did not make a billion dollars. With Couples Retreat, several couples take a retreat (surprise), but one of the couples is black. Advertisements in America showed all the couples, however in Europe, the black couple was magically removed. Check out the posters here. The explanation was because international markets are racists...how interesting that they ignore the racism right here in America.

Some whites would never accept a black, Latino, Asian or anyone who is not white as the lead in Avatar. What is truly sad is Zoe Saldana, who is arguably black/Latina, refuses to identify as black (another story entirely), but has played black women in films before. However, in Star Trek she played Uhura but was made up to look more Latina than black. In Avatar, she is blue...why is it that our country has a hard time seeing a black woman with a white man? Ultimately, I think the message that a man of a minority race could not have played the lead role AND this movie still make a billion dollars is the most racist thing about the movie, along with the fact that America doesn't want to see a black woman in a positive, non-ghetto, intelligent and yes, BEAUTIFUL role as an attractive woman.

While the story of a white man saving natives is old and a bit annoying, an older truth that blacks and other minorities aren't as interesting or believable in positive roles (at least to some white people) is a sadder more racist truth. This movie is brilliant to watch. The story is absorbing and the film making is magnificent. I was amazed that this film was made by the same man who made that festering pile of diarehea called "Titanic," also a billion dollar movie that never would have made that much money if Leonardo were anything but white.

The bottom line is films are made to make money and hopefully entertain too. If you want to see an experimental film, I suggest you scope out the art houses. I think Avatar does well with its limitations imposed by a racist society. This movie had to make money and to ensure that, it had to have a white lead. That is a sad, ugly truth to American society. BTW, I loved the movie despite the obvious.

20 below, Riddick/Vin and Obama

First, I hate snow. I don't care how pretty people think the white, fluffy rain is, it's cold, wet, messy and can ruin any drive in an instant. The beyond frigid cold that has come to the Mid-West has left me isolated in a few spots and cherishing my California dreams...but moving right along...the wind chill is 20 below zero. That's cold enough to kill and kill quickly. But the frigid temps didn't stop the typical Kansas City stupidity.

I heard on the morning news that a snow plow driver was shot last night around 2:35 a.m. while taking a break. This happened near my home so it is rather unsettling to know this nut-bar may live near me.

Keeping in mind that a blizzard (I ain't kidding either) hit the city Christmas day and the snow has not let up since. It snowed today too...the weather has been brutal. Killing or trying to kill people trying to remove the snow is just about one of the worst things I have ever heard. My co-workers speculated that this may have been a gang initiation.

With that knowledge that a KC fool is running about with a gun, I nestled in with my son and watched a couple movies I own but never watched, "Pitch Black," and "The Chronicles of Riddick." I've heard reasonably good reviews about Pitch Black, nothing but slams on Riddick. Both movies star Vin Diesel as Riddick, a reluctant hero...which brings me to our president.

Pres. Obama's popularity rating is falling. That is normal but it also brings to mind the numbers of people who reluctantly voted for him just to oust Bush. They knew he couldn't take office and immediately turn around the country...yet these are the same people who will quickly withdraw their support for our president. A full year is about to pass, that is not much time in the world of politics, but people want perfection. This is not a surprise to any American minority, especially black people.

I noticed long ago that as a black female, I could not do just as good as my white counterparts, I had to be better...not just better, clearly superior. Being just as good means I am sub-par. A mediocre white person will never admit that mediocrity in the face of an equally mediocre minority. That would be saying we are equal.

I have heard a lot of talk about how everyone is "just the same" when a black person speaks on racism. Whites will quickly dismiss the charge and proclaim that they do not see color, everyone is just the same. In a way, that statement is true. In another way, it is completely wrong.

We are all human, yes, but different races do have subtle differences. Certain races are more likely to get particular diseases. Some races tend to be taller or shorter but these differences do not translate to some races naturally having higher intelligence. I have never believed that and never will. I've met too many stupid people of all races to believe any one race has naturally superior intelligence.

However, whites in America have culture to fall on to support this belief. So many whites will look at that story about the snow plow driver, see that a black man committed the crime and conclude that blacks are "more violent than whites." The stupidity of one black person is enough to confirm to that white person that blacks are naturally inferior. When a story of a white person doing something stupid or horrible is reported, the same white person who made the snap judgment about blacks somehow concludes that the white person is the aberration and never the "norm."

Obama, in my view, is the reluctant hero to many young people of all races. I think he wants and believes he can do a good job. He actually has to be better than good, he needs to be Clinton-like in his excellence, Bill, not Hillary. The only way we will know how well Obama does is to watch, wait and support his efforts.