Tuesday, August 31, 2010

A Few Short of a Thousand

Like many black folks, I haven't been overwhelmed by the Age of Obama.

I don't regret my vote, and I respect the challenges dude has faced. I see the ridiculous outrage, the blatant racism, the double standards and the general effed up reality of the world and I'm glad I'm not president.

But, still, I can admit that I'm a little disappointed.

I didn't expect this cat to completely change the world in four years. But, I was kind of hoping, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that his tune on certain issues might change once he'd fully grasped the reins of power. Like many of the white bigots who opposed him, I believed that President Obama was something of Trojan Horse. Only, I thought he would bring a positive change in the racial war being fought in this country, while conservatives feared he would bring the destruction of their world. Neither of us had it right.

There have been changes, but they've been of the incremental and behind-the scenes variety. Truly, I blame myself for my disappointment because if I'd honestly assessed the situation I would have realized that Obama the candidate only addressed race directly when backed into a corner. I should have known that President Obama would rarely be backed into a similar corner.

But, my disappointment has not turned into disillusionment simply because of what's in the picture above.

Air Force One is traveling to do God knows what in the name of the United States of America, and four black folks are involved in the discussions, with one of them being the actual decision maker. They are not serving drinks, or cleaning the cabin. They are making decisions, and appear comfortable in their skins. I don't know about y'all, but as a black man with a decent grasp of the history of my people in this country, that's a mighty beautiful sight.

Just beautiful.


Monday, August 30, 2010

Some Light Reading

I stole this link from Prometheus Six's site, but I thought some of y'all might be interested.

It's a 75 page scholarly paper discussing the fact that Western societies are actually the "weird" ones in the world, not everybody else. I think the topic hits on a lot the stuff I've dicussed about perspective, reality and generalizations.



Friday, August 27, 2010

Marching On

Trouble is coming to Washington this weekend.

Polemic news figure Glen Beck has scheduled is modern "March On Washington" for this weekend and he has hailed the event as a fitting tribute to the march once led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In fact, Beck has gone so far as to claim that he is now carrying the mantle of King's legacy far better than any of the black groups who purport to be part of King's lineage.

That deserves a chuckle. One of those rueful chuckles. The kind used to avoid anger or tears. A chuckle that says "Well, ain't that about a b*tch..." One of those chuckles.

Truthfully, there really is something funny about the situation. A man known for spewing racist filth, for trading in accusations and innuendo at the expense of truth and for his faith in a religion that openly subscribed to the notion that black people were inferior human beings up until 1979 has claimed that he is Dr. King's rightful successor. Even if this was a Hollywood script it would have to be one of those spoof movies, right?

In real life, Beck's proposal for his march has been met with derision, dismay, and in some circle, determination. Some folks have made it their "mission" to counteract Beck's march, while others have joined up to protect his "freedoms" and proclaim him a true believer in King's mantra. On both sides charlatans abound, and the event promises to be a media circus.

Which couldn't work out better for Beck.

The chance to bolster his media profile and attract more followers is likely the main reason for Beck's proposed march. The secondary goal is to continue the insidious assimilation of King's message into the conservative movement so that conservatives can have the perfect idealogical Kevlar to protect them from charges of racism.

What you didn't get the memo?

The aim of many conservatives has been obvious for years, but it's only recently that they truly been able to reap what they've sown. Through careful planning and devious machinations, they've managed to completely skew and distort racial issues in this country so that somebody like Glen Beck can name himself a worthy successor to King. Not only that, but Beck has managed to convince thousands of others to agree with him!

Conservatives don't deserve all the credit since liberals have only helped create this current state of affairs with their inability to discuss current and past racism without turning into complete pansies who lack in basic comprehension. But, I must give credit where credit is due, and contrary to the popular stereotype of conservatives as bumbling Jethros, they shown far more knowledge about the collective American psyche than liberals

As many pundits have noted, the level of truth and logic needed to win a debate these days is pretty low. You don't need to actually practice kindness, equality or honesty to label to claim those qualities. Concerning yourself with data and facts is considered passe`. And while I can't honestly say this is some new development in the annals of humanity, I will say that there seems to be a serious intellectual regression in America that makes our economic recession seem minuscule.

Beck represents much of what is wrong in this country today. His march is a celebration of an ethos built on the idea that shouting the loudest and longest is the most dependable method for creating reality. Beck is America in 2010. He perfectly encapsulates the mindset driving this country.

But, he will never represent Dr. King.


Wednesday, August 25, 2010

People See What They Want

The following piece is inspired by this article which I found to be disturbing as a Christian and as an American.

They say this is a Christian nation.
What does that say about God?
Not much, but it says a lot about man.
They use Christ as a hammer.
So everybody looks like a nail.
Bang, bang, bang
Drive your point home.
If they don't agree
They don't matter
He came as a divider, but they want unity
And they claim immunity for any action taken in His name
Even as He proclaims "I knew them not."
Does God seek a warrior people
To gather beneath His steeples
Paul said our enemies are not flesh and blood
But, all I see is flesh.
And blood.
Death in the name of "freedom."
Freedom's already dead.


Monday, August 23, 2010

Nothing Profound

I don't have anything profound to say today, but I did have something I wanted to share with y'all.

Have you ever noticed how little things can have a large impact on your mood?

My wife and I had a wonderful day on Sunday. I was kind, she was kind, we both got to have fun doing things alone and have fun doing things together. We just enjoyed each other and life in general. It was an abrupt departure from the contention and strife that had been a large part of the week up until that point.

And you know why?

Because I got to church on time on Sunday.

I didn't realize it immediately. It only dawned on me when I realized I wasn't angry, frazzled, or silently seething at my wife while sitting in church. I didn't spend the service praying to God to help me be a better husband or for my wife to be a better spouse. Instead, I was just enjoying God.

Initially, I couldn't figure out what made this Sunday so different from every other Sunday. The music, the preaching and the crowd were largely the same. It was only when I concentrated on why I was so content that it hit me; I got to church on time and it made my day.

It seems like a small thing, but it looms large for me. My whole life, it's been drummed in my head to be punctual in general, but especially when it comes to Sunday service. My father used to leave my mother, my brother and I at home if we failed to get ourselves ready for service on time. He and my mother got into screaming matches before service many times because we were going to be tardy, and unfortunately my wife and I have carried on the tradition of Sunday morning conflict.

While I called it a little thing, it's actually a big deal to me. Being late for church usually leads to me going over all the other times I'm late for something because of my wife, and before long I'm mentally tabulating all of her "slights" against me. In that mindset, it's hard to participate in service, and even harder to enjoy my wife for the rest of the day.

But, I was still shocked to see how that one good thing could snowball. I took my good mood from church and started using it as motivation to do all sorts of nice things for my wife, who in turn did nice things for me. I made myself ignore other stuff that I would usually get upset about, and instead concentrated on the good feeling inside of me. And sure enough, it changed the tenor of the entire day.

There's nothing truly profound about what I did, but it did impact my life immensely. I was reminded that all of us have control over our moods, and we have control over how we react to whatever life throws at us. I've promised myself to remember this good mood, and how much of an impact it had on my life, the next time I feel myself sliding into a foul mood.

Maybe the change will start with me.


Friday, August 20, 2010

Too Good To Be True

When I wrote about President Obama during his 2008 campaign, one of the topics I dealt with was how easily some folks were willing to believe the worst about him.

Whether it was the birth certificate issue, his supposed ties to terrorist cells or the lie that he was a Muslim, Socialist, Communist-baby killer, it seems like the falsehoods surrounding the president are so enticing that folks don't want to let them go. The New York Times tackled this subject recently after a Pew study came out with the news that nearly a fifth of those folks surveyed believe Obama is a Muslim, up from 12 percent when he was first elected.

When most of us were kids, we were chastised for lying, and told in no uncertain terms that dishonesty was wrong. In fact, polls have found that the vast majority of parents see "honesty" as one of the most important traits they want their children to possess.

Yet, many, many of us still love a good lie. We especially love a good lie that feeds into our own prejudices. That's why stories about the evil done by groups we don't trust and don't like are so easy to accept. We don't need proof, we don't need sources, believing these lies just "feels right."

The Times story notes that people have been told over and over again by Obama and others what he believes and how long he's believed it. Yet, many of them say his actions speak louder than his words, and that they just "know" he's a Muslim terrorist hellbent on destroying America. They don't care that he spoke about his salvation and how he came to God in a book written well before he ran for president,

But that feeling should be what gives us pause. When information lines up too easily and neatly with all of our pre-conceived notions about life we should make a special effort to vet that information. We shouldn't just swallow it whole and go off feeling smug and self-assured.

Some people use the "truth" about Obama to justify their own action and inaction in the face of the Christian beliefs they claim to hold. They've decided it's ok to "set aside" their religious beliefs because Obama is a threat that must be dealt with harshly. That means they do and say things that run against Christian beliefs, or they stand by silently while others do the dirty work for them.

But, what comfort does a lie really offer? What pain does a reality built on an obvious and detrimental lie bring?

Remember what people say about things that are too good to be true?


Thursday, August 19, 2010

The Dance

One of my female friends is engaged in The Dance right now.

The romantic two-step that precedes an actual relationship where people try to determine if they can actually stand the personality of this person who makes their hearts flutter and nether regions thrum.

It's a complicated waltz, particularly since the person she's dancing with is black, but not American. He lacks certain cultural reference points, and consequently has a very different view of black folks in this country. She finds some of his ideas about race, racism and black folks to be naive and borderline offensive.

I'm not surprised.

While her dance is romantic, it reminded me of the careful steps we all take when talking about race with folks with different ideas about how the world works. I recently wrote about the problems with attempting to consider people's intentions when trying to determine if their actions were racist. But, just because I think we need to minimize the importance of intentions doesn't mean I don't understand the realities of having a normal conversation.

Conversation, marriage and dancing have some things in common. Partners must be evenly yoked, have a willingness to compromise and a dedication to paying attention.  Otherwise, you end up with an ugly and uncomfortable mess.

But, finding the balance in a conversation is a difficult task, particularly when you're discussing complicated and serious topics that you have a vested interest in. How do you talk to someone about "rooting for the black guy" when they consider that sort of worldview the worst type of racism? Can you have a productive conversation about discrimination and classism with someone who believes that American blacks are inherently lazy, incompetent and rude?

Does conversing, or "dancing", with that type of partner provide any real benefit? Is the gulf in mindset too vast to ever traverse? Do we have a responsibility to try to educate certain folks, to force them to re-think their positions on life, particularly if we say we care about them? Or should we be more concerned about keeping the peace and focusing on our areas of agreement?

Do any of you have the steps of the dance mastered?


Monday, August 16, 2010

People Are Funny

Imagine if a group of Christians wanted to build a church.

The church is going to built in backwoods Mississippi adjacent to a plantation slave cemetery. The church, largely attended by white folks, would worship God in the traditional way.

Would that be wrong?

How about if there was a plan to build a church in a black ghetto? Would that church, again populated by white folks, be out of place, or insensitive? Would it be a slap in the face to black people?

After all, Christianity was used to justify slavery. Slave owners and their apologists used the Bible to prove that God supported slavery, and wanted slaves to be meek, docile and obedient. Later, during Jim Crow, the white church defended segregation and discrimination as the will of God; the human manifestation of the genetic segregation God ordained when he gave some folks more melanin than others.

Was not slavery a grave and terrible injustice done in the name of religion? Was not Jim Crow the same? Were these injustices less terrible and deadly than the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center? How about the horrors suffered by Native Americans in the name of God and Manifest Destiny? Do they count?

Why do some religions have to respect their surroundings, while others get to act with impunity? Have Christians opened churches and missions and organizations in areas where they are not welcome, or where the church has failed to do its mission in the past? How is opening a mosque, which practices Islam as it was meant to be practiced, disrespectful? Isn't it only disrespectful if you assume that being a Muslim means you support terrorism practiced by other Muslims? If that's your mindset, do you apply the same logic to Christians as a whole?

Are you willing to have your rights restricted based on the actions of others who claim the mantle of Christianity, but do very little to practice its tenets? Do you deserve to be lumped in with the hate groups that wrap themselves in the Christian flag and quote extensively from the Bible? How about the prosperity preacher pimps who use God to fleece the flocks and enrich their lives? Is this who people should compare you to, and the examples they should be use when making decisions?

It's funny that people can't see this very obvious comparison. It's hilarious, in a very sad way, that people are so blind to the ways they would restrict the freedoms of others, all while clamoring for their own "rights." Hypocrisy is ugly in all its shapes and forms, and so is discrimination.

People are funny that way.


Friday, August 13, 2010

What's "Intention" Got To Do With It?

I was having this argument with another black guy about the words "racist" and "racism."

We were discussing the common white tendency to immediately have a freaking fit when those words become part of a conversation about race, and the idea that many white people consider those two words equivalent to the word "nigger."

We agreed that the words "racist" are "racism" weren't even closeto  "nigger," but we disagreed on something just as important. The other guy argued that we have to take someone's intentions into account when we're considering their actions, and that should have some bearing on whether we consider their actions or them "racist." I don't buy that logic.

Intentions are important. If somebody runs into my car on purpose, it feels far worse than if they hit me on accident. Same thing with hurtful comments. But, to be honest, whether it was purposeful or accidental, the final result is the same. My car is dinged up, and something hurtful and insensitive was said.

I thought about intentions recently when I came across two stories. The first was the story sweeping the nation about "Dr. Laura" and her love of the word nigger. The second story flew below the radar, but was just as important. It's about a Chicago comedian who may have been the victim of housing discrimination.

In both stories, the issue of intent is deemed crucial by some folks. Dr. Laura argues that she didn't "intend" to look like a Klansman with her spiel about the word nigger and how unfair it was that black folks have a word that white folks get criticized for using in a familiar or derogatory way. Nor was her comment that folks should steer clear of interracial relationships if they can't take a little racial humor from strangers any indication of deep-seated problems with black folks. Dr. Laura said her "intentions" were to do good, and not hurt, and that should be the most important thing.

In the other story, commenters on the story about housing discrimination note that it's impossible to tell what someone's "intentions" are if they refuse to sell you their home. You can't be certain they wouldn't sell because of race, even if their real estate agent admits that they didn't really want to sell to a black person. Since we don't know without a shadow of a doubt what these people's "intentions" were, they shouldn't be sued or punished for their actions.

That's the problem with "intentions," they're really, REALLY difficult to tie down. If you slap me in the face, and call me a stupid nigger, it would appear to me that my slap was somehow connected to the color of my skin. But, you could argue that it was really about the fact that I stepped on your foot and refused to apologize, and you just called me a nigger because that's what some black people call each other all the time. So, since you didn't "intend" to be racist, it wasn't racist and you're not a racist.

Got it?

Only, that doesn't make sense. You don't get to dictate the impact and effect of your actions on other people. Nor, do you get to whip out the "intentions" card in order to invalidate the criteria of racism or discrimination. If your action qualifies as racism, then that's what it is. And, as someone who is committing an act of racism, you are a racist. That's the way things work.

If you lie, you're a liar. If you steal, you're a thief. It doesn't mean that's all you are and it doesn't mean that's all you'll ever be. It doesn't mean that you have to pay a penalty for those mistakes every day for the rest of your life. But, your intentions don't change the fact that you lied, or that you stole. No matter what your reasons may have been, you still committed those actions.

Too often people want to talk about intentions because they can always convince themselves that they had "good intentions." Well you know what the old cliche says about the concrete on the road to hell, right?

It's made from a blend of good intentions and tears.


Monday, August 9, 2010

All About You

It's funny how people take ownership of things that they can never really own.

I'm thinking about neighborhoods. How often have we read in recent years about African Americans being pushed out of communities through gentrification? Most of us have seen stories about hipsters and yuppies coming into depressed areas and bringing their Jamba Juices, Starbucks and Whole Foods with them. It's seen as an improvement to these areas  even if they are replacing more affordable neighborhood stores.

It's funny how a change in perspective can change the narrative.

That story is about a change in demographics in a Flushing Queens neighborhood, and the subsequent change in the products carried by supermarkets there. It appears that after traditional supermarkets moved out the neighborhood, grocery stores catering to Asian clientele moved in. That has pissed off some residents who complain that they can't find their regular products (like Boar's Head bologna, bagels and pet food) , and can't understand signs that aren't in English.

I'm not even going to discuss the glaring issue of supply and demand in a capitalist society. Instead, I want to look at the real problem here. People just don't like when things stop being about them.

If you read the story, you'll see phrases like "our neighborhood" being used. You will see complaints that people feel like strangers, that the neighborhood isn't set up to serve them anymore. You will see people who are upset that the world no longer revolves around them.

I appreciate how difficult change can be, and I understand how frustrating it is to go into a store and not be able to find things because you don't speak the language. Then again, I also realize that for many immigrants, that is their everyday life in America. I watched the move "Sugar" the other day. It's about a Dominican baseball player coming to America and what it drove home for me was just how much adjustment is necessary to survive and thrive in this country.  And yes, immigrants choose that life when they came to an English speaking country, but they also have the right to create their own enclaves within that country where they feel comfortable and secure. It's the American way and Germans, Italians, and Jews have done it for centuries.

According to the story, Asians make up roughly 50 percent of the population in Flushing. I think those demographics give them the right to have signs in their own language and sell the food they want to eat. I don't think they owe it to existing residents to make things easier for them, anymore than Jamba Juice and Starbucks owe it to black people to lower their prices. Sure, it might make good business sense, but there is no obligation and I get the distinct feeling from the folks in that article that many of them think there should be an obligation.

That's the arrogance of folks, and not just white folks. We think that because something has been one way for a long time, it will always be that way. I have more sympathy for the victims of gentrification because often they were denied the opportunity to move into nicer neighborhoods through redlining, and then had public services denied their communities. Some of their problems are not of their own making. But, for those left behind by white flight, my sympathy is muted. Yes, change is difficult, but the simple truth is that you don't own this neighborhood. The neighbor changes and shifts based on the power and desire of the residents living there, and it seems that these immigrants have that power. It would be nice if they made that transition easy for you, but since I doubt you made their transition easy for them, I don't think you have too much right to complain.

It's not all about you anymore. Deal with it.


Friday, August 6, 2010

Little Brother Got It Right

Sometimes I despair about our youth.

They seem oblivious, uncouth and irresponsible. Their thoughts on race, service, marriage and life can sound like ridiculous babble. Maybe it's because I'm nearing three decades on this Earth, but I find it harder and harder to relate to life as a teenager and feel confident about the direction they are taking the world in.

But, just when I'm feeling my worst, I read something like this.

You really don't have to read the whole article. Just the portions dedicated to the young man speaking at his high school graduation. A student at exclusive Hunter College High School in New York, Justin Hudson didn't just use his speech to commiserate with his classmates about times past, or congratulate them on all they've achieved. Instead, Hudson used his speech, which was selected by a faculty panel to be the graduation address, to speak on some more difficult issues.

He talked about the practice of using a standardized test as the sole determinant for admission into the school, and challenged students to consider whether they are truly more intelligent than their black and brown peers in poorer neighborhoods or just more fortunate. He challenged the idea that entrance into the ivory tower is proof of superiority.

He challenged the status quo.

I don't know the young man. Don't know if this was an aberration or a mirage. But, I'm glad that some young person is willing to consider whether they truly deserve the largess they've been granted. It wasn't that long ago that the New York Times ran a story that painted a pretty grim picture of young people's morality and humility. Thankfully, Hudson isn't one of those people who believes that everything he got in life is solely because of his greatness and worthiness. He understands it's far more than that at work.

That makes me happy. I'm happy that he's thinking, and I'm happy that he encouraged his classmates to think as well. The Times story may have spent more time on the power struggle at the school between teachers and administrators, but I think Hudson's words stole the show. His clear and necessary challenge was much needed and appreciated.

Go 'head lil' man.


Wednesday, August 4, 2010

I Just Assumed

I assumed he was white.

It's just a gut reaction whenever I hear about a mass shooting, I think "white man." Like kiddie rape and wire fraud, mass murder has been designated a "white crime" in my mind the same way crack dealing has been labeled a black one. It doesn't matter what the stats say, that's how I see the world.

I figured the man who killed nine people at a beer distributor was white, and I promptly forgot about the sad, but unsurprising incident. Consequently, I was shocked when a friend told me that the young man who killed his co-workers after coming in to be fired was a black man.

You can imagine how surprised I was when I learned his family claims that he killed all of those people because of racism.

Lately, I've been reading a lot of Walter Mosely's novels. Those of you who have read his work know that racism is a character in every single book Mosely creates. It takes different faces and it has different characteristics, but it's always stalking the pages. Mosely loves to discuss what it's like to be black in a country that ain't.

One of the themes running through his work is the anger and cowardice that lives inside the heart of an abused man. And, in Mosely's work, black men are often abused in a variety of ways. By their families, by their employers, by their lovers and, ultimately, by themselves. The abuse isn't limited to black men, but, as a man, Mosely's insight seems truest when he's talking about black men.

I don't know the young man who shot up that beer business, but I think I understand a little of his killing rage. Maybe his slights weren't as serious as those once endured by our ancestors, his degradation was likely only a pale shadow of the abuse blacks have faced in times past. But, his dreams were likely larger as well. He probably had accepted and embraced the lie of the America Martin Luther King Jr. once imagined, and which corporations tell us has been achieved every February. A color-blind America where it's only about the content of man's character, not the melanin content in his skin.

Mama Lorraine told us about dreams deferred, didn't she.

Shriveled, rotten dreams fester and ferment inside a man's mind and the bitter wine they produce is more than mildly intoxicating. The wine of the grapes of wrath does strange things to a psyche. It makes it seem reasonable to kill nine people instead of finding another job. It makes suicide seem like an acceptable ending to a day filled with the blood and pain of others.

It makes you mad.

No excuses can be made for murder. Sticks and stones have not ceded their domain to words.

But, while there is no justification, there is understanding. There is understanding of the madness that accompanies racial injustice. The madness that makes you want to lash out and forces you to distrust the aims of authority figures. That madness says that you have the right to join others at playing judge, jury and executioner.

Being told that you are less than, that you deserve death and denigration for the mere crime of your birth is a twisting thing. It twists reality, it twists minds, it twists morality. It twisted that young man who killed nine people, and it twists other people every day in large and small ways.

So, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that we ended up with a big mess. And neither should you.


Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Digital Laughter

The video is so ubiquitous, I won't even bother linking to it.

The young man's face adorns tee shirts now, and his most likely unintended catchphrase is sweeping the nation. It provokes giggles and snickers whenever it's uttered.

"They raping everybody out here."

Most of y'all have seen the video of that young Southern man with his wild hair wrapped in a red bandanna earnestly proclaiming just how dangerous things are in the projects. His sister has just explained to a somewhat stunned reporter that she awoke to find a strange man in her bed attempting to sexually assault her, and her excited brother is letting the world know that things are out of control.

He speaks with a somewhat effeminate tone, and his mannerisms are over the top. That, combined with his dress, hairstyle and hyperbolic utterances, has captivated folks across the Internets who are lining up to laugh at him. I've had numerous people forward me the video, and I've seen it on several social networking sites. There is no doubt, that this young man is the latest to enjoy an extended 15 minutes of fame thanks to viral video.

I must admit that I understand why folks find the video humorous. The animated monologue is funny, and it doesn't hurt that the speaker doesn't seem to be taking himself all that seriously despite his boisterous and distressed tone. I'm pretty sure there was a twinkle in his high, I mean "eye", as he spoke to the shocked white female reporter. I'd even be willing to wager that he wanted to see just how crazy he could be before they turned the camera away.

But, I wonder if most people got that nuance. Hell, I wonder if I just imagined it and what I really saw was just a sad commentary on the lives of folks with little education and little hope. And if that's what I was watching, then I'm curious about what's so funny? To be honest, I got a sick, sinking feeling in my stomach watching the young man make his comments to a news crew, and wondered if they would have been eager to run a similar rant delivered by someone of a different hue.

It seems like people are laughing at this young man because he doesn't know how to act. And while I'm in no position to throw stones considering my glass abode, I feel it's incumbent upon me to raise the issue of whether this is really who we want to be. I mean that "we" in the sense of black folks, and humans in general.

Humor in the digital age seems to be about laughing at people who don't fit the norm. Folks can't make up their minds whether they want people to be original, or whether they want them to fit in seamlessly with the herd. We laugh at folks when they fail to behave "properly", while not bothering to consider how many situations there are where we would look just as foolish.

I'm not trying to preach, just trying to make folks think about why they are laughing. There are all kinds of humor in the world, but just because something makes you laugh doesn't make it funny.


Sunday, August 1, 2010

Pondering Again

Why are black people always the measuring stick for everybody's oppression in America?

Why do people continue to believe that "this wouldn't happen if I was black" when they see all the horrible stuff that DOES happen to black people?

Why do people recognize that black people understand oppression, but tell us we complain too much when we bring issues up?

Why would the NAACP feel the need to trust or respond to any story that originated from Fox News and a die-hard conservative operative?

Why does the NAACP still use the world "colored" in it's name? Seriously, who understand that choice?

Why did so many folks find it "shocking" Amare Stoudemire had some Jewish heritage? Do people really think every Jewish person looks like Jerry Seinfeld?

How can anyone seriously not see the double standard being employed in regards to Tim Tebow?

Why does it feel like black athletes are constantly being asked to apologize for being well-paid?

Why don't media members, whose names and faces are often in the spotlight, feel compelled to publish their salaries so we can see how much they make to cover these "children's games"?

Why is Fox News the most highly rated news station on cable? What does that say about this country?

Why do men and women make courting so hard?

What's the appeal of tattoos on a woman?

Why is this congressman yelling so much like he doesn't know it's all a sham?

Why did so many people think Obama was going to change the world?


Raving Black Lunatic