Gone, but not forgotten

1958-2009

Say what you will about Michael Jackson, but let's face it: He was an amazing song writer, a superb performer, an impeccable producer, and in my opinion, the best all around entertainer of my generation. I'm sure he will be missed by his family, friends, and fans, but his music will live on forever. You better believe that.

Yesterday to celebrate the life and musical genius of Michael Jackson, I danced to Beat it and Billy Jean, rocked out to Dirty Diana and Scream, became introspective listening to Man in the Mirror and Heal the World, and reminisced with Hubby as we told our stories about watching the Thriller video for the first time.
And then around 7:45 pm, when the You Rock My World video started playing and my silly 2 year old jumped up and began dancing and giggling, all I could do was look at him, smile, and say "You have no idea kid. You really have no idea."

RIP MJ

Photo from earnest70six

Inauguration Day- 2009

To say I'm excited is an understatement

To say I'm in awe doesn't do this day justice

To believe Obama will solve all of this country's problems is naivete,

But to not acknowledge the significance of this day is foolishness

Olbermann: I have some questions

I identify religiously as a Christian, however I am in support of legalizing gay marriage (I explain why here). I know to some this is an oxymoron, and some of my friends disagree with me, but this is my opinion nonetheless.
I stumbled upon a video of Keith Olbermann explaining his take on the subject, and it resonated with me so much I decided to link to it here.

I stand in awe

In a country where African-Americans were counted as property instead of people, Americans elected a Black President.

In a country where it was illegal for a person of African ancestry to learn to read and write, Americans elected a Black President.

In a country where Blacks were not allowed to enter the same establishments as Whites, Americans elected a Black President.

If you've come to this blog looking to argue and debate political positions, I'm sorry, you can save that for another day.
Today, I'll be too busy looking my child in the eye and telling him:

"Son, you can be anything you want to be; Even President of the United States of America."

Did you miss me?

So for the past two months I have been completely buried at work. I'm talking late nights until 9pm, working weekends, 12 hour days, etc. It was rough. Anyway, we ended up hitting our deadline, and now I'm free! Since I haven't been posting all that much (yes, I know you all miss my 5 posts per month) I figured I would give a summary of a few things that I've been thinking about over the past couple of months.

-----

I've decided that Costco is a gift from God. I hate shopping, especially grocery shopping. You go to the store, pick up all the stuff you need, use it all up and what's your prize? You get to do it all again the following week. Not fun. But then, God saw fit to give us Costco. Now, instead of silently cursing because you forgot to pick up pasta for the spaghetti you planned to make for dinner *SURPRISE* Not only do you have pasta for tonight, you have 12 additional packages sitting in your pantry for whenever you need it. If this doesn't convince people that God exists, I don't know what will.


I'm sick of videos on news websites. Are people not allowed to read anymore? There's nothing more irritating than seeing an interesting headline, clicking the link to read the article, only to have Windows Media Player launch and then display

....buffering....

Then you have to sit through some ridiculously loud 15 second advertisement before you even get to the report. I'd rather read plain text any day.


I'm finding it increasingly difficult to toe the party line when it comes to Christianity. I'm a seeker; always have been, and I assume I always will be. I ask weird questions, and often come to unconventional conclusions. That's who I am and I accept that, but I find myself getting frustrated that I'm expected to conform to what "traditional Christianity" teaches. What happens if I just don't agree?


Hurricanes suck. 'Nuff said


Snopes exists for a reason. Use it BEFORE you forward me a message telling me Bill Gates wants to give me a million dollars. Actually, he doesn't want to give me a million dollars. Trust me.
On a similar note, don't forward me a feel good message that at the end says "send this to 575 people, including the person who sent it to you." Umm, no. I'm not going to do it. It's very rare that I ever forward those messages on to anyone, but I'm definitely not going to send it back to whomever sent it to me. Why would I do that? If you decide you want to read the message again, why not just go back to your inbox and re-read it?


If I hear one more person question Sarah Palin's ability to be Vice-President and raise a family, I'm going to scream. You do realize she's not a single parent, right? Why doesn't anyone ask how Barack Obama plans to raise his two young children if he were to become President?


I was saddened when Bernie Mac died. Two things I really enjoy in life are good music, and lots of laughter, and Bernie Mac had a gift for making me laugh until I cried.
"When a kid gets one-years-old, I believe you got the right to hit him in either the throat or the stomach. If you grown enough to talk back, you grown enough to get ****** up!"
Bernie Mac, The Original Kings of Comedy(2000)
Sure, it's a bit crude, but it's also hilarious.

45 years later

Last night, Dan, Ian*, and I watched, as Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.

It was a touching moment.

For the first time in our country's history, a person that is identified** as an African-American, has been nominated for the highest political office of the land.

I fully planned on watching Obama speak, but what was very unexpected, was how emotional (in a good way) it was for me.

I was proud that my grandparents, who were born in the era of "Whites Only" restaurants and bathrooms, were able to witness this. I'm sure it is a day, that never thought they would live to see.
I was excited that my parents, who were students that experienced desegregation of public schools, experienced this.
I was excited for people of my generation, that have witnessed a plethora of firsts for African-Americans.

But most of all, I was excited for Ian.

See, I'm hoping that for his generation, seeing an African-American nominated as a presidential candidate, or any other office with high standing, will be something of the norm. I imagine Ian fully knowing the history of Black people in America, but not being able to even imagine a time where the color of one's skin determined their worth.

We may not all agree with Obama's political positions, but put that aside for just a moment. Last night, the 45th anniversary of MLK Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech, was a historic night not only for African-Americans, but all Americans. It was a night that said "we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood", and that, is change I can believe in.



*Ok, Ian was asleep, but he was in the room while Obama spoke :)
**Describing Obama as being "identified" as an African-America is not meant to be an insult. Obama has both a Black and White parent, and it doesn't seem fair (IMO) to have him choose between the two. However, when a person sees Obama, he is typically viewed as a Black man, and that is the point I was trying to get across.

If only it were that simple

I was listening to a talk radio show today, and the host was discussing the latest Don Imus mishap. The host stated that it is often very difficult to discuss racial issues in the media. He identified himself as a 44 year old, White male, and it was his opinion that the moment anyone in the media says something pertaining to race, it can be easily misconstrued, and once that happens the public automatically labels you as a racist. As I was listening and thinking about the points that he was making, he said something that really grabbed my attention. He made the comment, "Any rational person that knows about slavery, realizes how horrible it was, but I'd like to think that we are at a point where we are moving past slavery." *

I sighed aloud, gave Dan a mini-rant about how that statement was short sighted, and silently vowed to turn this into a blog post. So here we go...

The history of U.S. slavery is a painful one. African men, women, and children were abducted from their homes, and forced to move halfway around the world to be used as unpaid servants. These people were auctioned off as cattle or some other type of livestock. Their families were torn apart, mothers and fathers were separated from their children, and wives were separated from their husbands. Slaves were regularly beaten as motivation to work harder, killed for sport, and the women were raped at the master's whim. If women had children in those days, they had no rights to them at all. They were property of the slave owner. These people were robbed of their religion, their culture, they were even robbed of their names (Slaves were often given the last name of their owners. As a result, today, most Black Americans whose ancestry lies in U.S slavery, still retain the surname of their ancestors slave owners).

As if the physical abuse wasn't enough, there was a good amount of mental and emotional abuse that slaves had to endure.
Slaves were consistently told they were ugly, stupid, unworthy of respect, and didn't deserve the same rights as others simply because of their appearance; because of the color of their skin, or the kinkiness in their hair. They were told that they were evil. To sum it all up, Black was bad, White was good, and that's just the way it was. This belief system was regarded as truth by adults, and they in turn taught it to their children. When those children grew up and had children of their own, those very same beliefs were passed down, and the cycle went on and on. Now while the slave owners were instilling these values in their own children, they were also relaying this same information to the slaves themselves, and you know what? The slaves internalized it, and although I don't believe it was intentional, they passed this same belief down to their own children. So what did all of this produce you ask? It produced a nation of both Black and White people that believed that the color of their skin determined their worth. It produced a perception among African-Americans that they were their own worst enemy, and all of this, every bit of it, was based on lies.

Now, U.S. Slavery lasted for over 200 years. Not, 5 years, not 10 years, but 246 years. If we say each generation is about 20 years, slavery lasted for about 12 generations.
After more than two centuries of bondage, slavery became illegal in 1865. The slaves were freed without a dime to their name, but they were freed nonetheless.
But there was a problem. While slavery became illegal in 1865, the legal ramifications of slavery didn't quite end until 1964ish (ie. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965) That's basically another 5 generations (1865-1964). And if you notice I said legal ramifications, not social ramifications. Although there were laws on the books that said Blacks were equal, society didn't always agree. If you question whether or not racism was socially acceptable after the Civil Rights Movement, all you need to do is read about the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, which lasted until the early 70's, to realize racism still existed at that time.

Now I'm sure a lot of you reading, know the history of slavery in the U.S., but I wrote that very abbreviated version of it to say this:

What you see today, in 2008, is the product of 17 generations of struggle, pain, intolerance, fear, hate, and disrespect, with a side of physical, emotional and sexual abuse.
To even imply that what had been built, nurtured, and sustained over 17 generations, can and has been eradicated in 2 generations (1965-2008) is downright insulting. Are we as a nation making strides and moving in the right direction? Without a doubt, the answer to that question is an emphatic yes. But to say that slavery and racism are not relevant to our present day society is foolishness, in my opinion.

* Since I didn't record the talk radio show I can't confirm what I typed was a word for word quote, but that was the sentiment expressed.

Where is that soap box?? ...Ah, there it is

So it's been reported that the Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, has been involved in a prostitution ring. It's been covered non-stop by all the media outlets and everyone is expressing their disappointment and disdain in regard to his behavior.
The thing is, his behavior isn't surprising. As a matter of fact, it is to be expected. Why? Because this is the standard of sexual ethics that we have set up for ourselves. His behavior, and others like it, in my opinion, is the result of our sexual revolution.

Sex is no longer held in high esteem. It's been put on the same level as food, shelter and clothing. A basic need, if you will. We've divorced sex from love, commitment, and intimacy. We've approved casual, commitment free sex as a right of passage and say "As long as it's protected, there is no harm."
We no longer value self-control. It's a "Do whatever feels good" society. We want instant gratification, and by God we are going to get it.

So when our society decides to detach sex from anything meaningful, when we look at it as simply an itch to be scratched, why are we upset when a politician does the same? I mean, for all we know his wife wasn't meeting his needs, sexually, and him going elsewhere for gratification is equivalent to dining in a restaurant versus eating at home.

Obviously, my last statement was a bit tongue in cheek, but hopefully you get my point. I'm really not trying to come off as self-righteous or holier than thou. I just want to suggest that if we want better from our government officials, maybe we should expect more from ourselves.

The Gay Marriage Debate

A message board that I visit frequently had a thread about the subject of gay marriage. Previously, whenever the subject of gay marriage would arise I would shrug it off and not even think to form an opinion one way or another. My reasoning was that it didn't concern me so it didn't really matter. If the legislation passed that was fine, and if it didn't, that was fine too. After all, it didn't interfere with my life. Anyway, for some reason while reading the thread I decided it was time to really ponder the issue.
I've decided that I firmly believe gay marriage should be legalized, and surprisingly it didn't take a long time to come to that conclusion.
Not allowing adults of the same sex to marry is discrimination plain and simple. It's actually reminiscent of a time when interracial marriage was illegal. Now, most of the reasoning that is presented to argue against gay marriage is based upon religious (mainly Christian in this country) principles that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. The problem with this argument is that there is a separation of church and state in America. If homosexuality is considered immoral or sinful by you or your church (which is another subject for another day) that's fine. The clergy of said church are not obligated to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony or to even recognize it religiously speaking. But that rationale should not interfere with the government's ability to recognize a same-sex marriage.
By not legalizing gay marriage, America is sending a very mixed message. On one hand, you are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation for job opportunities or housing, but you are allowed to discriminate when it comes to a legally recognized marriage.
It's inconsistent and unfair in my opinion.

Gather the lynch mob

There has been quite the uproar about comments made by golf announcer Kelly Tilghman jokingly saying Tiger Woods should be lynched--read about it here--

I think when most African-Americans that:

a) know the history of slavery
b) have heard the stories of violence and abuse against African-Americans, and
c) understand the discriminatory practices (past and present) against us

hear the word 'lynch', it evokes an immediate negative response. So yeah, when I read the title of a news article saying "Kelly Tilghman calls for Tiger Woods to be lynched" it definitely produced an "Are you freaking serious?!" reaction. But when I read what she said in context and watched the video, I'm not convinced that her comments were inherently racist.
The comment was ridiculously stupid, thoughtless, and inconsiderate, but I don't think it was malicious.
I think her intention was to express that since Tiger Woods is dominant in his sport the only way young golfers have a chance to excel is to get him out of the picture. Her word choice of lynch was horrible given Tiger is a black man, and the American history of lynching black people, but I get her point. She was trying to make a joke and it backfired. Heck, I could see myself making the same kind of joke (possibly with or without the use of the word lynch). She could have chosen another word and still made her point, but I don't think she made the connection in her mind.
I think it's important for African-Americans to remember that while the word lynch does have a painful history behind it, the word can and often is used without reference to Black history. On the flip side, I think it's important for non-Blacks to realize that the treatment of African-Americans in this country has produced some deep scars that will take a quite a while to heal.
Just my .02 cents.

Don't know who to vote for?

Check out this link for the best presidential candidate for you. It's a fun little quiz

http://glassbooth.org/

23 months

I don't understand dog fighting. Why would someone raise animals with the sole purpose of placing them in a confined space to try and kill one another? What kind of person takes pleasure in viewing this activity, let alone placing bets on it? Better yet, who in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to electrocute, drown or hang dogs because they aren't vicious enough?
By now I'm sure you all know what and who I'm talking about. This past week Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison for his part in operating, funding, and participating in a dog fighting ring. While I had heard about the story for months, I didn't know the details of how these dogs were killed.
I've heard of dog fighting before and I was under the impression that the dogs that were deemed unworthy were shot. I found that disturbing enough, but then I read about the creative ways these people killed their dogs and I was shocked. Who does that?!
Now having said that I also have to say I don't agree with the sentencing.

That's right. I don't think Michael Vick (or anyone else that participates in dog fighting) should be imprisoned for nearly 2 years.

I'm sure my opinion is an unpopular one, so I'll try my best to explain myself.
There's no doubt in my mind that Michael Vick should be punished for his crime because that is what it is, a crime. Dog fighting is illegal and since he participated in an illegal activity there has to be a consequence. I could get behind him paying a rather large fine (millions), community service with PETA or another animal rights group, or a combination of the two. Heck, I could even agree with him going to jail for a shorter amount of time -up to 6 months- but I think it is a bit extreme to place him in prison for almost two years. To take him away from his children and family for 2 years is over the top in my opinion.
I don't understand how Mary Winkler can murder her husband and is only sentenced to 210 days, but Michael Vick is sentenced to 23 months.
I'd rather have my prisons hold rapists, murderers, and child molesters rather than participants in dog-fighting rings.
I also have to wonder why hunting, fishing, and bull riding are deemed ok by society and are legal, but dog-fighting isn't. You could argue that at least when hunting we are using the animal for food, but the last time I checked there wasn't a shortage of meat at the grocery store nor is meat required for survival. Vegetarians seem to get along just fine.
One could also argue that it's brutal to make dogs fight to the death, but is it that much different from hooking a fish in the mouth, pulling it out of it's natural habitat and essentially allowing it to suffocate to death? Also, is wrapping a rope around a bull's testicles and having a cowboy ride him purely for entertainment wrong? I'm not saying these situations are exactly the same, or that they are even wrong, I just find it odd that they seem similar in nature, yet I don't see anyone calling for these participants head on a platter like Vick.
Hear what I'm saying. I'm not condoning what MV did at all, I actually find it rather disgusting. I just happen to be in the minority that believes the punishment doesn't fit the crime.