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.

Historic!

It's official, said and done! Barack Hussein Obama is now in charge of the United States of America. What an amazing, historic and inspirational moment in my life. As amazed and proud as I am, I can not imagine the feelings of those African Americans who lived through so much hardship.

My mom has said many times she never thought she would live long enough to see this day. I never pondered it that closely. I saw the images of the Civil Rights Movement on newsreels, in history books and in films re-creating those times. My mother lived through that era. She saw the images on the news. Growing up in a tiny town in Arkansas, she knew her place and did not dare challenge the status quo. African Americans were expected to be in certain places at certain times, meaning, she had better not be in a white section of town after nightfall. She better not talk to a white person unless he/she spoke to her first. She had to pick their cotton beginning from the wee hours of the morning and going on until nightfall. Picking cotton is back-breaking work and I freely admit I feel blessed to have never had this task.

Now, for the next four years, when an announcer says, "Here is a message from OUR president." A black man will take the podium. That knowledge makes me feel...finally...like I am really a part of this nation. There is a man in charge who has felt that sting of racism personally. He has seen the poor treatment of people of color but also the rejection of the poor. He has worked to help eradicate poverty and encourages us all to pull ourselves up. Not like Ronald Reagan when he said pull yourself up then cut programs to help. I believe Barack Obama will give us the methods to pull ourselves from the trenches.

The cheers, the support, the tears all say something positive...we believe in the hope and change Barack Obama has promised. Getting that support is half the battle. If the people want Congress to support our new president, we have the power to create change with our president.

As I watched Obama, I also marveled at the diversity on the stage. There were faces of all colors and some religions other than Christian. This was clearly seen during the musical number. Yo Yo Ma performed on cello, Anthony McGill on clarinet, Gabriela Montero on piano and Itzhak Perlman on violin. Ma is Chinese, McGill is black, Montero is a woman and Perlman is not only Jewish but also physically disabled. People may think these choices are random but they never are in such a situation. The image of diversity in that moment reflects what Obama has said all along, we all are equal.

Looking forward, I imagine a day when a Chinese person could be president. The changes to the inauguration would be fantastic. I think, how would a Jew change the ceremonies? Would a Latino call the event the inauguration fiesta? Would a Native American have the biggest Pow-Wow imaginable? Many other races live in America and we all have different customs deserving respect. This day opens the door to the real possibility that one day, the inauguration may have lion dancers, dragons, fireworks and could resemble a Lunar New Year event. This event may one day feature Folkloric dancers, or native drums. One day, there may be Polynesian dance and roasted pig. Our country is a diverse place and until today, that diversity was not well reflected in Washington DC. Change has truly come to America.

Coordination...

When your child's primary doctor gives you a special number for appointments, etc., you really have to ask yourself, "Is my kid REALLY that sick?"

What I've discovered is that your kid does not have to be "that sick" but only has to have the potential to be that sick. As I reflect this week on John Travolta's loss (I realize that sounds silly, I do not know him or his child), I think about the terrible sadness he is going through. He probably had a special number for his son too, since the child had a chronic illness.

Jett Travolta had Kawasaki disease and that led to his death. As people speculate about whether John Travolta held his son as the child died, or did he give CPR until the paramedics arrived or was it his fault that the child died because of Scientology, none of that changes the fact that this man is grieving over a terrible loss. I can not imagine how he feels and it brings to mind worries over my own son.

He looks healthy, he plays, he attends school regularly. He has the occasional colds and bumps and scrapes from rough housing. He is, for the most part, a typical boy...but so was Jett Travolta. How a kid can look "normal" and happy and have something inside him that can kill is amazing.

This also brings to mind my friend's child. He looks normal and healthy too, but also survived 7 brain operations. You would never know unless you shaved the boy's head.

Which brings me to the issue of coordination. To say it is over whelming to coordinate medical appointments, school, fun family time and sanity time for myself is an under statement. Even with the medical problems you can not forget this is a child with the same desires for play and fun as any other child. It is a challenge in organization to say the least.

So as I prepare my son for various medical tests, I can only hope and pray that his problems will be healed and he will go on to have a happy, long life. People with healthy children have no clue the emotional rollercoaster we ride working to keep our children healthy.

Who is the real fighting opponent?

Have you ever been in a fight with your ex only to discover part-way through the "negotiations" that you really are not fighting with your ex. There is an invisible opponent hovering over you both and the fight is really with that specter, not the ex.

That invisible person is the new "plus-one" in your ex's life and the demands and dictates of that person are coming out of your ex's mouth. This reality brings a whole new level of fighting to the forefront. Now, you are not only confronting the ex about the personal crap the two of you have lived, there is the added crap of the demands of a person you don't know and most likely don't like or respect. There is some invisible force fueling a fight you never wanted, intended or created...but the fight is here, you are in it and the person who caused it sits quietly and safely at their own home. This person is the one you are fighting and the person in front of you is simply a puppet.

I realize immediately that anyone who allows his or herself to be pulled and controlled like that by another is pretty pathetic but that does not stop such situations from happening. The new person in the ex's life tends to feel his/her needs and wants trump any of your needs and wants.

This situation creates a unique mine field to navigate. How do you fight a person who seems to have complete control over your ex, who in turn has the power to hurt your family, specifically your child. What do you do regarding a person who is pulling the strings of of your ex so well that your ex can ignore the love and adoration of a child in favor of satisfying the puppeteer? How do you deal with a woman who is so clearly selfish that she would weasel this weak individual into lying to his son for her own self gratification?

If all you know about a person is the horrible effects he/she has on another that you -must- deal with, how is it possible to have a positive view of this other person at all? That other person becomes nothing more than the enemy. The ex is a protective fool, blind to the facts that he/she has become nothing more than a delivery mechanism. He/she is delivering demands from the current bed companion to the ex, resulting in a fight that really should not be happening.

If this person were not behaving like a 'tool', there would be no fight. But in order to not be a tool, puppet or fight delivery mechanism, he/she has to buck up and tell the new buddy something simple...the old relationship is none of the new person's business. Of course, if the puppet could do that, the fight would have never happened in the first place...which means what for the person fighting the ghost?

Duran Duran still rules!

I remember when I became a Duran Duran fan. I was entering high school and heard the song "Girls on Film." It was a catchy song and I liked the opening drum beats. It was the early 80's.

Little did I know at the time that I would join the millions of girls worldwide as what affectionately became known as "Duranies." There was a time when I knew all their weights, heights, the order their songs played on an album, the album titles (including several imports) and the names of their pets and girlfriends. I had several buttons of them and I wore them all, all the time to the point that the buttons on my jacket actually weighed more than the jacket itself.

I've attended several concerts, even in their later years, and I just think they are great...still. As a true fan, I had a favorite; John Taylor. If you look at his photo, do you really have to ask why? He's over 6' tall, nicely built, has an award-winning smile, that square Superman-like chin, sleepy brown eyes and tons of musical talent. He is probably the most talented member of Duran Duran.

I have to admit, I haven't kept up with my group of choice in years but still, the love for them remains. Another blogger commented that the music of our youth stays with us through the years. What an insightful comment! It really does. The music brings back good and bad memories and emotions from years ago. The songs are more than just bouncy tunes that DJs of the past dismissed as rubbish. These were the songs and performers of our youth who spoke to us. Maybe not in such profound poetry as the performers of the 60s or 70s...well, really just the 60s (LOL!), but the songs were still meaningful.

When I hear "Save a Prayer" by Duran Duran, I do think of a passionate one-night stand but it also reminds me of the HIV/AIDS crisis of that time. "Hungry Like the Wolf" is the song that really endeared me to Duran Duran because Simon LeBon chases a black woman throughout the video. This was the first time I'd seen on film a white man driven crazy with passion for a black woman. She was the object of beauty and although she was presented as kind of an animal in the video, so was he.

It's somewhat laughable that their videos created such controversy at the time...well, "Girls on Film" WAS pretty fetish-filled. Still, Duran Duran was also underrated, just like many 80s bands and other performers...yes, Adam Ant too. The best thing about their declining fame is it appears it may be easier to meet them one day...finally!

Ant Music

Lately, memories of the 80's have been populating my thoughts, specifically about a young guy named Adam Ant.

I'd honestly forgotten just how much I adored this guy. OK, he dressed like a cross between a pirate and a Native American, bounced around stage like he had ants in his pants and sang lyrics that were not exactly poetic literature, but he was fun...and underrated.

For all his style and frolicking about, he did have hits and an amount of staying power that beat out other 80's performers. Looking back on that time, I would have placed money of Spandau Ballet to continue over Adam Ant. I liked quite a few performers but I was also very aware that the flash could easily disappear and take Adam along. Mr. Ant even spoke about that in the song "Goody Two Shoes." Never being a fan of the media, he warns, "Look out or they'll tell you you you're a superstar, Two weeks and you're an all-time legend, I think the game has gone much too far..."

What I find amazing, sitting here in my 40's, is that I totally expected to no longer be attracted to -any- 80's singers anymore. Alas, I was wrong. Adam Ant, even slightly heavier and bald is still a VERY sexy man. That goes double for Mr. John Taylor of Duran Duran. Even Thomas Dolby, who is being sold as a "one-hit wonder" these days on VH-1, is still pretty cute and sexy without hair and several years later.

But the best thing about this realization is, the ability to express it without a ridiculing comment from others nearby. For whatever reason, and an even more baffling thing that I tolerated it, my husband took great joy in insulting my musical tastes. Of course he claimed it was just joking but I know differently now. Jokes don't hurt feelings, they are supposed to be funny.

This goes back to acceptance. Although I loved Adam Ant with his outrageous look, my friends in the 80's accepted that from me. In fact, they expected me to be "in love" with the latest British Invasion performer wearing make-up and leather or ruffles. That was/is a part of my uniqueness and it is unfortunate that the man I married chose to mock this quality instead of embrace it...of course, this is partly why we are no longer together. I never asked him to like my music, just accept that I did.