Oh Snap! Marcus Bachmann Calls Gays "Barbarians"

"

Just when I think I've heard every single nasty slur or insult a conservative blowhard can come up with, tada! Here's another one! In a short clip, Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus came up out of her face and compared gays to savage barbarians that need to be taught to be civilized little people, lest they run amok and corrupt the children. Well I guess it's a step up from being possessed by/called a demon. Listen to this crap below.



If there's one thing that disgusts me more than an ignorant straight homophobe, it' a self-hating queen, and trust and believe this gal falls into the latter category. Most of us know firsthand how hard it can be to embrace your sexuality as something normal when everyone and everything around you is sending a message that is the exact opposite. But what I cannot tolerate is someone actively encouraging anti-gay sentiment and spouting vicious lies about LGBT people when they are clearly gay themselves. If you're not at the place where you're ready to wave your rainbow flag high, then so be it. But don't project your internalized homophobia onto the entire community and make life harder for the rest of us.

Because when you do get caught smoking crystal meth with that male prostitute, tapping your foot in an airport bathroom or tricking on young boys with church funds, you'll have no one to blame but your gay ole' self. Unless you have a legion of pathologically delusional followers that give you bundles of their personal income without a second thought (I see you Ms. Eddie girl!) and a fellow pimp to put your hoes in their place for having the audacity to think for themselves (sup Creflo!). In that case, let the fleecing continue! Somebody needs to out this girl. Stat!

Rant over.

Creflo Dollar Defends Eddie Long

Via Rod 2.0

All I can say is birds of a fucking feather...hell you know the rest. Fellow Atlanta mega-church pastor Creflo Dollar has come to the defense of Ms. Eddie Long, who recently settled with the four young men accusing him of luring them into sexual relationships with cars, cash and other goodies.

In his defense of his "brother in the Lord," Dollar (how appropriate is that last name) compares Long's situation to a car wreck, praises him for having "insurance" and criticizes ex-New Birth members for leaving. I think I'm gonna be sick.

"I can't believe people would believe their preacher because he had a wreck instead of praying for him," said Dollar. "He's loved them and he's taken care of them ... and he had a wreck. Here's the good news: He got insurance! He's still anointed!" 

Pardon my french, but how can people sit there and applaud this bullshit? Just when I think I've seen how low church folks will go in the worship of their "holy men" I'm proven wrong. So now we're supposed to look at Eddie and think "Well he may have preyed on those young boys (who were actually spirits of lust or some other stupid interpretation) with the finesse of a street corner pimp and then used our cash to cover up all the details, and he hasn't said a word to us about a case he vowed to fight. But hey, he's still anointed and appointed!"

Seriously, if this was a white mega church, Eddie would been out on his ass long ago (Ted Haggard anyone), but since it's a black church we gotta lift pastor up, even when he's been exposed as an arrogant, deceitful, manipulative, hypocritical, self-hating charlatan. Are we really that hard up for leadership in the black community that we have to accept this? As The Boondocks' Huey Freeman once said, "What happened to standards?"

This whole fiasco could've been a wonderful opportunity for Long to come clean about his own struggles with his sexuality. True, it would've cost him dearly, but if he'd had the courage to endure it, something good could've come out of it. He could've apologized to the LGBT community for marching and speaking out against us, and starting working towards mending wounds caused by his past actions. It could've sparked a still much needed discussion about sexuality and homophobia in the black church, which, whether you're religious or nonreligious, affects your life in some way.

But now all we're left with is the same old crap--a church full of homophobic, sycophantic straight folks and closet queens giving their time and coins to a pimp in preacher's clothing. Anyone who still attends his church might as well carry a sign that says "Fleece me baby!" If Long, Dollar, Joel Osteen (Lawd it's just something his cheesy smilin' ass I don't trust) and the rest of the holy rolling brigade are God's chosen, then I will gladly do a double-backhand spring into the jaws of Satan.

Enough ranting. Watch Creflo unload his big barrel of crap below.

Donald Trump And The Birthers: A Mini-Rant

Being that other bloggers have summed up much of my feelings about Donald Trump and the whole birther controversy, I'll keep this short and sweet (hence the title).

1) Although it is understandable that President Obama would show his long form birth certificate, the act will not quiet the birthers (to be fair the Democrats had their own crazies in the form of the 9/11 truthers, although I don't recall John Kerry attempting to use that as a legitimate platform in his campaign). The reason being is that they are not interested in anything remotely resembling the truth or actually finding it, but only in having their own prejudices and delusional suspicions confirmed. So fuck them.

2) Donald Trump probably doesn't give two shits whether or not the president was actually born in the United States. He only cares about what will serve him best in his supposed presidential run, and latching on to the birther theory was the best way to both align himself with the Republicans' racist, basket case power base and get the necessary media attention he craves like fiends need freebase. His blatant disrespect of the president by hammering him on a long-disproven fringe theory (and is now attempting to cast doubt over his educational background) is only matched by his ass-backwards arrogance in claiming "I have done a great service to the American people." So fuck him.

3) I try not to make generalizations, but anyone who still clings to the belief that President Obama is not an American citizen that is not certifiably insane is a fucking moron. And oh yeah, fuck you.

I'm Not A Hater I Just Think A Lot: On Tyler Perry And Spike Lee

This gurl has cracked. During an interview with Hip Hollywood, Tyler Perry played a Madea voice clip that said "I will punch the hell out of you, say something else!" and dedicated it to Spike Lee, who hasn't been shy about his criticism of Perry's films. Perry then went on to say that black people are the only ones who exhibit a crab mentality when dealing with their own, citing Langston Hughes' critique of Zora Neal Hurston. Watch below.



Italians didn't have a problem with The Sopranos? Don't tell that to the National Italian-American Foundation, who protested the show back in its heyday. "Our goal is to get 'The Sopranos' off the air," chairman Frank Guarini said in a 1999 New York Daily News article. "'The Sopranos' is a terrible stereotyping and unfair portrayal of Italian-American families."  And I guess the the Order Sons of Italy in America (OSIA) missed that memo as well, since they called the show "an unreal picture of the Italian-American family," that was damaging to the self-image of Italian American children.

As for Jews protesting Seinfield? Why would they? Granted I've never been crazy about the show, but the few episodes I have seen contain nothing that could be deemed worthy of organized protests. What's really the issue is the fact that unlike the two aforementioned series, Meet The Browns and House Of Payne, are simply not funny or particularly creative. They are basically Perry's stage plays translated into a sitcom format, and without the option for improvisation or audience participation, they come across as excruiatingly dull.

Perry has countered claims that his work plays off stereotypes by explaining that characters like Madea, Mr. Brown and Joe are tools to draw people into his work so they can hear messages about faith, love and forgiveness. While they may have started out that way, what Madea, Mr. Brown and other characters have really become is a crutch, caricatures used as a smoke screen to distract the audience's attention from plotlines that are often trite, cliche and pedantic. And while I (and most people) have probably encountered my share of Madeas and Mr. Browns in real-life, showing the same one-dimesional portrayal over and over again implies artistic laziness on Tyler Perry's part.

The nearly dozen films he's made usually fall between entertaining/I'll get the DVD (Why Did I Get Married?, Madea Goes To Jail, Family That Preys) to cringe-inducing/Hell there's nothing else on TV/I'm at someone else's house and don't want to be rude territory (Meet The Browns, Diary Of A Mad Black Woman). He has yet to make his dramatic equivalent of  Do The Right Thing, Boyz N The Hood, X, or Rosewood. And on the comedy side, he's yet to produce a Hollywood Shuffle, Barbershop, Coming To America or Friday. Of course, Cube, Spike and Singleton and other directors/actors have all had their duds (She Hate Me, Beverly Hills Cop III, Are We Done Yet?), but none seem to take criticism quite as personally as Perry.

The themes of  Perry's movies, like his latest release Madea's Big Happy Family (which might as well be called Madea: Out On Parole, if the trailer is any indication) have worn thin and become predictable and formulaic. In nearly every film a dasmel in distress is saved by light-skinned white knight (complete with washboard abs), while God and Jesus get shouted out more than the word "cut!". Non-Christians are usually portrayed as selfish, unhappy or just plain evil, while the delivery of his message often has the sublety of a sledge hammer. Ambiguity, nuance and complexity are often dirty words in the Perry universe.

 Let's do a little comparison shall we? In Friday, when Craig's father discovers he has a gun, an admittedly dramatic circumstance (a father discovering his son owns a fiream and is in a potentially life-threatening situation) is handled in a naturalistic way that conveys emotion without going over the top.



Meanwhile in Diary Of A Mad Black Woman, when Charles tells Helen, his wife of 18 years, that he is leaving her and she has to leave his house, the melodrama is laid on as thick as molasses. Not only is it the night of their anniversary, he also shows up with his mistress in tow. While Helen's volatile reaction is understandable, the fact that Charles literally drags her out of the house makes the whole scene unbelievable. Not only does it go against Charles' refined, controlled persona (he might as well have been on street corner shouting "Bitch betta have my money!") it makes Helen's pain unintentionally hilarious.



Someone reading all of the above (and sorry if it took a minute--I'm not feeling particularly succinct today:), would probably feel compelled to tar me with the dreaded H word--a hater. Which is what I hate the most about this whole "feud" between Lee and Perry, because at the end of the day, Tyler is going to make the kind of films he wants and so will Spike. But why does someone have to be jealous of another person just because they don't like something? And why should we be silent in our dissent if the creator of a particular work happens to black? Wouldn't we then become the big black monolith--thinking the same, acting the same way, believing the same things--that racists, opportunistic politicians and movie executives assume we are? Women, latinos, asians, gays (remember the "too fem/it's unrealistic" debates when Noah's Arc debuted?) and other groups certainly don't have a problem questioning/critiquing media made by their own.

I'm all for black unity, but just because another black person made a movie or wrote a book or recorded a album doesn't mean I have to jump up and down and cheer for them like a two-year-old that just went potty for the first time. Supporting our own doesn't mean we should have to shut our brains off. Perhaps if Tyler Perry listened to the more constructive strains of criticism, the quality of his work might improve.

What Were We Fighting For?

Although 150 years have passed since the start of the Civil War, Americans are still divided over what exactly sparked the conflict and which side was more sympathetic, according to a new national poll.

"In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.



When asked the reason behind the Civil War, whether it was fought over slavery or states' rights, 52 percent of all Americas said the leaders of the Confederacy seceded to keep slavery legal in their state, but a sizeable 42 percent minority said slavery was not the main reason why those states seceded.


"The results of that question show that there are still racial, political and geographic divisions over the Civil War that still exists a century and a half later," CNN Polling Director Holland Keating said.


When broken down by political party, most Democrats said southern states seceded over slavery, independents were split and most Republicans said slavery was not the main reason that Confederate states left the Union."

Why am I not surprised? In the South you still see Confederate flags on bandanas, T-shirts and the backs of trucks. You'd never see Germans wearing swastikas shirts (unless they're Neo-Nazis). And the rationale is always the same: "It's a part of our Southern heritage."

No, New Orleans jazz, Cajun food and Mardi Gras are a part of our heritage. Proudly wearing/displaying a symbol of a culture that auctioned off and used human beings like cattle, separated them from their families, raped their women and degraded them at every possible turn, all under the guise of "God's will," should not be celebrated. It should remembered as a human rights tragedy that should never be repeated.

Even if you wanted to say the war was all about states' rights or the South's economic dependence on cotton, the issue still goes back to--wait for it--slavery! Southern states were fighting for their right to own slaves, and slave-picked cotton drove the South's economy. And while we're at it, let's not act like the North was some Promised Land for black folks, flowing with jobs and money. Northern states also benefited from the cotton trade, and discrimination was alive and well among northerners. Racism didn't magically stop at the Mason-Dixon line. In reality most of the Union army(and Abraham Lincoln) weren't idealistic abolitionists hell-bent on wiping out slavery: they were simply trying to preserve the Union and ending slavery was the best option.

Yes your Confederate great-great grandfather/uncle/cousin may have fought bravely in the war for a variety of reasons; but he was still fighting to hold onto a way of life that viewed me as three fifths of a person. So don't be surprised if I don't feel like showing my pride.

Negro Please! Celebrity Edition

 

It's been a while since I've had the misfortune of reading/hearing anything asinine enough to qualify for The Negro Please Award, but after reading Tyrese's remarks on relationship and cheating, I think it's time to bestow this award upon a new recipient. Of course Tyrese was already was on my diss list because of past homophobic incidents involving the humiliation of a male concertgoer and moronic tweets telling male R&B singers to put some bass in their voice. But this just takes the patriarchal cake.

While on Wendy Williams promoting his self-help book TK, the singer basically told his female readers that men will screw you over, so deal with it.

“I don’t have all the answers [for why men cheat], but I can say that most mothers raised their daughters to believe that if you cook, clean, thoroughly take care of your man and go all out for your man, that should keep him home. Unfortunately that’s not the truth, but I will say to my daughter when she gets old and starts dating is, if you end up being cheated on, don’t own the cheat. Don’t make the cheat yours. It’s something in that skirt and those legs and whatever the case may be, and [he] decided to dip off. Does he see the value in his woman at home? Yes, but if he ends up dipping off, that spaghetti couldn’t keep him at home.”

I have to agree with the statement that women (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't take responsiblity for their partner cheating. But of course the same get-out-of-cheating free card doesn't apply to women. When asked if he forgive infidelity from his wife, Tyrese responded:

"No way. See, it’s expected of men to cheat, even though all men don’t cheat. I can’t just generalize and say all men cheat, but it’s expected because it’s a part of our upbringing[...]no listen if your in high school or in college, if one dude has sex with ten different women he is a hero, he’s the champion of the campus. If one woman has sex with ten different guys, they’re all kind of things in the book right?[…]Its just a part of what instilled in us growing up.”

Me thinks someone's watched Ray a few too many times. Not every woman is B (and even she read Ray and threatened to leave with the kids at the end). This attitude does a disservice to men and women. First of all, all men don't cheat. But following this logic, men are just hapless victims of biology and tradition, doomed to dip their nether regions into any pair of open legs they come across. "Oh I love my wife/girl, but, oh no, there's a chick in a tight skirt in front of me. MUST. POP. HER. CHERRY!" And men who already have doggish inclinations will have the perfect excuse for their behavior. While I agree that most men are raised with this attitude, that doesn't make the behavior that manifests because of it right. Tradition is not synonmyous with morality.

Women on the other hand, will have to deal with a "Ho-until-proven-otherwise" attitude, because the minute she cheats or has more than three or four sexual partners, she automatically becomes no better than a backalley prostitute in the eyes of men like Tyrese. It's the classic double standard: men are allowed to "sow their oats," but women are expected to not so much as touch a vibrator until the white knight (or heavily muscled light-skinned man--I see you Ms. Perry) that pastor has promised them will come finally shows up (and he may still cheat, if Tyrese is correct).

But then again I don't know why I'm surprised: I've witnessed plenty of guys who play their girlfriends like Atari, but declare all out war if she's even suspected of creeping. Don't get me wrong. Cheating is cheating (although every couple's idea of what constitues cheating varies). It doesn't matter who does it, it still sucks. But this idea that women are just supposed to dismiss indiscretion under the guise of "letting a man be a man" is just bullshit. Watch the tomfoolery below.

Wrestling Wives? I Think I'll Pass

It seems TV producers are set on detailing the lifestyles of wives of every sport known to man. Basketball Wives, Football Wives. What's next, bowling wives? Or maybe rugby wives....those girls could probably serve up a good beatdown! And while I'm on the subject, still no soccer wives? Soccer stills get no respect! Sorry, I'm an ex-soccer player. But I digress.

According to TMZ, the producers of Pit Boss are reportedly teaming up with VH1 to bring us Wrestling Wives. Sources tell them the pilot has already begun shooting in Houston.

Sources say Sharmell Sullivan-Huffman (Booker T's wife), Stacy Carter (Jerry Lawler's ex-wife) and Jackie Haas (Charlie Haas' wife) are the main focus of the show.


We're told the show will also be centered around WWE wrestler Booker T's wrestling school in Texas -- which Sharmell helps runs.


Besides the fact that my wrasslin' fandom has long since waned, I can pretty much guess what Wrestling Wives will contain--backstabbing, bitch fits, Dynasty-style revenge plots (why does every black reality show star think she's Dominique Devereaux? She'd probably blow all you bitches out the water! I'm just sayin'), conspicuous alcohol consumption, someone trying to launch a fashion/handbag line or music career, and an end of season get together that turns into a huge catfight where someone is called a non-motherfuckin' factor-skank-ho-slut-homewrecka-bitch-trick. 
 
Honestly, it's not really Wrestling Wives that's the problem (I'll probably end up a hypocrite and watch an episode or two). It's just that TV, especially music channels, have become so dime a dozen. What happened to the days when MTV/VH1/BET reported on music and had scripted shows/cartoons? Ultrasound, The Year In Rock, Daria, Downtown, Clone High, Docugroove, Teen Summit, Biorhythm, Making Of The Video--remember those days? When artists, musicians and the industries around them (touring, video directors, songwriters, producers) were the main focus, and not teen moms and Jersey Shore? It's like they're not even trying to resembe a music station anymore. Reality shows have become the rule rather than the exception, and that sucks.
 
The only way I'll tune in is if by some miracle The Rock or John Cena make a guest appearance. Preferably shirtless and oiled up:).

Tennesee Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From History

I guess these were just love taps from Massa.

The rewriting of history continues. As if we needed further confirmation that many in the Tea Party are slightly off their rockers, the Tennesse branch of the party wants all instances of slavery and genocide committed against blacks and Native Americans removed from history textbooks, since they make the founding fathers look back.

According to the Memphis Commerical Appeal:

"The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”



Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.


“The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at.”

Poor Tea Party. We don't wanna hear about the negros gettin' lynch and beaten and raped by their masters! Or how the Indians were slaughtered and driven out of their land! All that truth stuff isn't good for our founding fathers' image!

This foolishness just reiterates my point about the current santification that's going on with Ronald Reagan. You cannot erase the parts of history you hate. All of it--the good, the bad and especially the ugly--must be told. Otherwise the same mistakes will be repeated. I don't have the energy to rant and rave at these folks, who are clearly deluded.

Read the rest of the report here.

Happy Birthday Ronnie. NOT!

I'm sorry but I don't get all the fuss people are making about Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. I'm sure his kids, Nancy and other family members and friends probably have fond personal memories of him. But what I truly hate, as I do with any public figure, be it Michael Jackson or Martin Luther King Jr. is this mass white-washing of his legacy that is currently taking place. No one (with a very few expcetions) is a complete saint or a certified sinner. So let's get a few facts straight about Ronald.

"Reaganomics"did nothing to help anyone but the weathiest Americans and is an ambomination that has continued to hurt middle and working class people to this day, as it has become Republican gospel. Wake up! It's been over 30 years and the money still hasn't trickled down! Not to mention his cutting of social programs that would've further helped non-millionaires.

During his presidency he did nothing to help the black or gay communities. How quickly everyone seems to have forgotten about the Iran-Contra scandal, in which drug trafficking led to black communities being flooded with crack cocaine in the eighties, from which sprung addiction and drug-related gang violence in neighborhoods already ravaged by poverty. Poverty that was the result of  by you guessed it, Reaganomics!

And lest we forget, Reagan's silence on AIDS and hooking up with fundamentalist douche bags like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson held up funding and potential medical treatments for years. In fact, AIDS, then called the "gay cancer" was pretty much joke in the White House during the early 80's. Literally.

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Press Briefing by Larry Speakes
October 15, 1982
The Briefing Room
12:45pm EDT


Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement -- the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?


Mr. Speakes: What's AIDS?


Q: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?


Mr. Speakes: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)


Q: No, I don't.


Mr. Speakes: You didn't answer my question.


Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President ...


Mr. Speakes: How do you know? (Laughter.)


Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?


Mr. Speakes: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.


Q: Does the President, does anyone in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?


Mr. Speakes: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any ...


Q: Nobody knows?


Mr. Speakes: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.


Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping ...


Mr. Speakes: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no -- (laughter) -- no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.


Q: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?


Mr. Speakes: No, I didn't say that.


Q: Didn't say that?


Mr. Speakes: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)


Q: Because I love you Larry, that's why. (Laughter.)


Mr. Speakes: Oh I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)


Q: Oh, I retract that.


Mr. Speakes: I hope so.


Q: It's too late.


This transcript was quoted at the beginning of Jon Cohen's book, Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine, 2001. ISSN # 1052-4207.

By the time Reagan finally decided to speak about AIDS in 1987, not only did he state the government shouldn't provide sex education, but his comments were tailored to his evangelical base, who were all to eager to claim the disease as God's punishment.

"On April 2, 1987, Reagan said: "How that information is used must be up to schools and parents, not government. But let's be honest with ourselves, AIDS information can not be what some call 'value neutral.' After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons."

Hmmm. I wonder whose values are those?

According to Act-Up New York:

AIDS research was chronically under-funded. When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied it. Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease. This drastic lack of funding would continue through the Reagan years.



When health and support groups in the gay community were beginning to initiate education and prevention programs, they were denied federal funding. In October 1987 Senator Helms amended a federal appropriations bill to prohibit AIDS education efforts that "encourage or promote homosexual activity" — that is, efforts that tell gay men how to have safe sex.

When Rock Hudson, a friend and colleague of the Reagans, was diagnosed with AIDS and died in 1985 (one of the 20,740 cases reported that year), Reagan still did not speak out as president ... In 1986 (after five years of complete silence), when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop released a report calling for AIDS education in schools, Bennett and Bauer did everything possible to undercut and prevent funding for Koop's too-little-too-late initiative. Reagan, again, said and did nothing. By the end of 1986, 37,061 AIDS cases had been reported; 16,301 people had died.

I understand that personal responsiblity is a factor. No one forced anyone not to wear condoms or smoke crack. We all are accountable for our own behavior. But that still doesn't change the fact that the Reagan and his administration systematically failed to meet the needs of people that desperately needed them most. That he allowed politics and personal prejudices to override any sense of compassion for communities that were suffering, and by doing so, exacerbated it. Reagan's job as president was to serve all Americans and he actively chose not to do so.

Now he's being reinvented as the Great American, an omnibenevolent president who as a friend to all. Pardon my french, but that's a bunch of bullshit. When public/historic figures, be they politicians or entertainers, are made out to be saints or demons (unless they are complete sociopaths), we do both ourselves and them a disservice by denying their humanity.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a great leader, a gifted speaker, and a fearless fighter against injustice. But he was also a philanderer and occasionally engaged in plagiarism.

Michael Jackson was a tremendously gifted performer, songwriter and singer who gave millions away to charity. But he was also an emotionally crippled man riddled with self-hatred about his black skin and features, and did everything he could to get rid of both.

Or course this also works the other way. Malcom X called white people devils (maybe that's why there's no Malcom X Day for the kiddies:) and proclaimed blacks should totally separate themselves from society. But he also recanted such statements after he went to Mecca.

My point is that when we white-wash a person's legacy we turn them into a symbol that is impossible to aspire to, forgetting their negative actions and their flaws. And when we make someone out to be a complete and utter villain (again with exceptions, i.e. Hitler, Stalin), we can often forget the good things they've done or changes that may occur in their views over a lifetime.

So when you wish Reagan a happy birthday, think twice as you blow out the candles.

Sarah Palin Inc.

Sarah Palin wants to get her name trademarked. Lest you think your eyes have deceived you, I'll type it again. Sarah Palin wants to get her name trademarked (and little Bristol's too). According to PoliticsDaily.com, Sarah and Bristol want to trademark their names for "entertainment and educational services:

"According to patent office application (serial # 85170226, Van Flein registered for a trademark of "Sarah Palin" on Nov. 5, 2010 -- three days after the midterm elections. The government trademark examining attorney has "found no conflicting marks that would bar registration." In other words, nobody else had already taken the proposed trademark.

A "Bristol Palin" application (serial #85130638) was filed on Sept. 15, 2010. Bristol Palin's stint with "Dancing With the Stars" premiered on Sept. 20."

For Sarah Palin's application, there are two classes of commercial service for which her name would be a registered trademark. One is for "information about political elections" and "providing a website featuring information about political issues." The second is for "educational and entertainment services ... providing motivational speaking services in the field of politics, culture, business and values."

The "Bristol Palin" application is for "educational and entertainment services, namely, providing motivational speaking services in the field of life choices."

This woman might as well wear a sign that says Still wanna vote for me? I can fix that!. I amazed that the irony of this situation escapes her. Why would you want to trademark your name as an entertainment brand when you're trying to establish yourself as a serious, viable candidate for the next presidential race (which I'm assuming she'll at least try to run for--get your wig and glasses ready Tina!)? But then again, why would a potential candidate do a reality show and use words like refudiate without a trace of shame?

I mean really, it's one thing when musicians or actors do it. Because they're entertainers. As much as I view them as artists, I (and they) recognize that they are a brand that generates millions, or sometimes billions of dollars, and is in need of protection.

Of course Sarah Palin is entertaining, but for all the wrooooong reasons. And as for Bristol, chile please. Five years from now you'll probably be praying that someone wants to infringe/misappropriate your likeness. I'm just sayin'. This is just further proof of how out-of-touch she is.

The applications haven't gone through yet because the patent office needs Palin's written consent before her name can be trademarked--that and the fact the office feel she hasn't provided enough evidence that her name has been used for commercial purposes. But I'm sure Ms. Maverick will keep on trying.

God, The Mountain Climber and Faith

Last Sunday I heard a sermon about having faith in faith/belief vs. faith in God. That may sound a little confusing, but the basic idea was that many people have faith in their beliefs, but do not have the faith to trust and/or obey God when he 'speaks' to them.

What stuck out in my mind was a story he told to close the sermon. A mountain climber climbs to the top of a mountain (It could've been Mount Everest, but I'm not sure. Either way, the mountain was very tall). As he begins his descent however, night comes and darkness begins to fall. Unfortunately the mountain climber neglected to bring any supplies or equipment with him to survive the night. He has no choice but to continue his descent. At some point he slips up, loses his grip and begins hurtling down the mountain and most likely to his death. Luckily for him, the rope tied around his waist snaps tightly, leaving him suspended in midair.

Of course, this still doesn't change the fact that he's hanging in midair in below freezing temperatures. So he and God begin to have a little conversation:

The man: "Save me, Save me!"  God replies: "Do you really believe I can save you?" The man: "Yes!" God: "Then cut the rope."

It sounds like an easy solution, but the man is in pitch black darkness. He doesn't know how far the drop is once he cuts the rope and becomes afraid. He never cuts the rope and freezes to death. When rescuers come the next morning, his body is discovered hanging only two feet from the ground.

This elicited much "mmmmhmmms" and "My Lords" from the church mothers and congregation. Someone even came forward during invitation (a man to be exact--you know what means--extra salvation points!), and it's easy to see why, if you take the story at face value: God knows what's best for us. All we have to is obey him and have faith, and everything will turn out right. Otherwise, we can face potentially deadly consequences. The story had that perfect mix of drama, action and fear that religion does so well.

But when I really thought about it, I gleaned something very different from the story. First of all, God is supposed to be omniscient. If he is, then he would've known this man's past, present and future. Which means he would've known that the mountain climber would eventually be hanging by a rope in the bitter cold in the dead of night. Most importantly, he would've known the outcome of his request that the man simply cut the rope. And if God already knew, then why would he even ask him in the first place?

Someone reading this post might respond  to my query with this explanation: "Because God wanted to see if he had faith. He was testing him!" To which I say: Why test someone when you already know the outcome? Especially if said outcome could mean life or death?

Secondly, this doesn't really jive with the whole "God is our father and we're his children," concept. I don't know about you, but if I was an all-powerful deity and saw one of my kids in process of becoming a human Popsicle, I wouldn't simply say cut the rope. Why only give him half the information and leave room for doubt? Why not scream out: "Cut the rope! There's a pile of snow two feet beneath you!" And if he still didn't believe, I'd shine my holy light and show his ass so he could see! Cause that's what a parent does. At least an all-powerful, omnipotent one anyway.

Which is leads to my main issue: Why is faith good? Why is believing in something illogical and irrational considered a virtue? In every other area of our lives, we're taught to be skeptical and rational, except when it comes to religion. Think about it: if I were at a car dealership and asked the salesmen if I could take a test drive, and he replied "You'll just have to take it on faith," I would think he was a damn fool or a con artist. But if the same man was in a pulpit, everyone would think he's a wise man. WTF?

Getting that job promotion sort of pales in comparison.

If God is so concerned about our lives and eternal destinations, why is he making himself so hard to find? If he truly wanted everyone to avoid a permanent vacation with the Devil, why only speak through "signs and wonders?" That is if you call finding a parking spot or having someone 'healed' of cancer when they had 'round the clock chemotherapy and constant medical supervision a wonder. A good thing? Yes. But parting the Red Sea it is not. But I digress. I swear, it irritates me every time I hear someone say "God told me to tell you," or some other nonsense. Screw the secretaries, I wanna speak to the boss!

God could simply resolve the issue by doing an act so improbable that the world would be forced to acknowledge his existence. Healing an amputee's leg by growing back the original limb for example. Or appearing before the entire planet in all your glory and replenishing the world so no one goes hungry would be a good show of Holy Ghost power. But then there would be no need for faith, and his plans would be ruined, even though he created the plot and knows how the story will end.

But then again, were God to prove his existence, the question of whether you'd worship him comes into play. Let's just say Old Testament God was pretty moody, at least from what I've read.

So is faith a good thing? Tell me what you think.

iPhones Suck!

Or at least their replacement policies do. Forgive me techno-savvy friends, but I believe is true (at least partly). While I myself do not own an iPhone, my man does so I do feel I have some experience to draw from . Of course, having speedy Internet access, being able to take high quality photos, video and audio clips and upload your entire music collection are big pluses. But the minuses are a bitch (pardon my french, but I've been on the phone all day with Apple and AT&T reps who keep contradicting each other and in general have no idea what the hell they're talking about).

In the past year since he's had his iPhone, it has: had trouble syncing(and when it does it takes at least 4 to 5 hours) has frozen up for no apparent reason, which almost required us to send it off in the mail for repairs which could've taken up to three weeks, bought applications that he never ordered (and showed up on the bill) and just last night it decided to die for no apparent reason. Not to mention the phone's always one drop away from a cracked screen and is hella hard to type on. Seriously, I've never seen a device that's so fragile and high maintenance--hell even CDs/DVDs/video games can survive a few scratches.

Normally this wouldn't have been too bad of a situation, but customer service informed me that the warranty had expired four days ago. Never mind that he told the people at AT&T the phone was on its last legs and asked if he could get another phone, to which they responded by incorrectly informing him that he'd have to pay around $300 to $400 for a replacement(even though he wouldn't have had to pay jack since the phone was still under the warranty at the time).

Of course having an extended warranty/insurance (which runs an extra 69.99) would've been helpful, and I realize it's our own fault for not having it. But what's really pissing me off is the crap you have to go through to get it replaced/fixed. During one of the many calls I made to Apple technical support, I was told I could send in the phone to get it fixed for $199 (which contradicted what another rep said earlier). However, I'd also have to pay $29 if I wanted an alternate phone sent, plus have the company place a $200(the price of the new iPhone) hold on my account for a few days. All told I'd pay around $400. And that's whether or not the company can fix the phone. Or I could've just sent the phone through the mail for $199 and be shit out of luck if they couldn't fix it, which could take up at least three weeks for them to determine. Life's full of tough choices now itn' it?

Not wanting to spend what would almost be a month's rent, I asked if I could send the phone to an Apple store in Baton Rouge to get a replacement, to which I was told no. I'd have to drive two and half hours to come in person to pay $199 for another phone, or as the employee at the Apple Store told me, the price they determined at their discretion.

What the f*ck! What's so hard about exchanging my account info over the phone or online, getting my bank card information and sending the new phone through the mail while I send the old one. They damn sure don't hesitate to suck the money out of my account the times I've paid the bill online. What's the problem now? It's not like it'd be hard to track me down. You have my Social Security number, which is pretty much the digital equivalent of a toe tag. *Takes deep breath and counts to ten* We'll probably end up going to the AT&T store and shelling out an extra hundred to replace a phone that could've been replaced for free a week earlier if the salespeople knew their contract plans. Oh well at least I got to vent at little. I guess the key words for this life lesson are: phone insurance.

Rants and Raves: The "Ground Zero Mosque" Controversy

It's been a while since I've done a rant and rave post, and I figure this is as good a topic as any. By now I'm sure everyone has heard about the controversy surrounding a Muslim group's decision to build a mosque and community center near Ground Zero, a.k.a where the Twin Towers were hit and destroyed on September 11, 2001. Now I can understand why people would be emotional over the building's location, but this is getting ridiculous.

Of course you have the typical knee-jerk reactions from the usual suspects such as Sarah Palin, who tweeted nonsense that building the mosque would "stab Americans in the heart" and asking peaceful Muslims to "please refudiate." Refudiate Sarah? Really? Are we making up words now? Then she had the nerve to compare herself to Shakespeare. I'm sorry but if this woman gets elected president or vice president in 2012, the only silver lining will be to watch Tina Fey making fun of her every moronic move on SNL for the next four years. But I digress.

Back to the mosque. People are talking like it's just the first step of a full-on Taliban takeover led by Osama Bin Ladin and the ghost of Saddam Hussein! First of all, the people who attacked us on 9-11 do not represent all Muslims. They were radical extremists. If some whack-job fundamentalist Christian blew up an abortion clinic tomorrow I'm sure no one would freak out if a church was built down the street. Because most Americans know that behavior does not represent all Christians. But when it comes to Isalm(or any other non-Christian religion) people suddenly get stupid.

Second of all, Muslims building a mosque near Ground Zero is not the same as the Japanese building Buddhist or Shinto shrines at the site of Pearl Harbor(yes people are really saying this-check the comments at MSNBC.com.) The attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with a religion or radical extremists. It was a military action, pure and simple. Should we get rid of every Italian, Japanese or German restaurant as well? Besides, if we follow this line of thinking, every Native American should protest the building of every Christian church they see, since the followers of that religion were responsible for taking their land and pretty much destroying their entire way of life, all in the name of Manifest Destiny. Oh how quickly we forget.

Another idiot statement made by the opposition is that the mosque symbolizes Islamic extremists' "victory" over America, and that by placing it near Ground Zero we'd be allowing the terrorists to win, when in reality the exact opposite is true. Labeling all Muslims as extremists, saying no mosque should built near Ground or anywhere else in America and any other sorts of bigoted statements only makes the terrorists' viewpoint-that Americans think we're superior to everyone else, that we're intolerant of other religions, that we want to impose our way of life on everyone else--true. Not allowing the mosque to be built would send the message that America is anti-Muslim, and would contradict the values of freedom of religion and democracy. Now I'm babbling but you get the point: building a mosque near Ground Zero is not anti-American. Denying people the right to practice their religion based on the actions of a few radicals is.

When You Assume....

You know the rest. By now I'm sure you aware of the whole Shirley Sherrod, NAACP-USDA controversy. If not let me summarize and bring you up to speed-Sherrod, an official for the Agricultural Department, was asked to resign by the Department of Agriculture when a video posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart surfaced of her giving a speech at an NAACP function. In the video Sherrod discussed not giving a white farmer "the full force of what I could do" to help him save his farm from foreclosure. This was followed by condemnation from the NAACP, while conservative blogs held the tape up as proof that the NAACP was racist.

However, if everyone had just taken a second to look at the whole unedited video and not be in such a rush to condemn, maybe this woman would still have her job. Sherrod went on to say that she recognized she had prejudices of her own, and she needed to overcome them in order to be a better person(those weren't the exact words, but that was her general point). In addition the white farmer she helped was interviewed and said he wouldn't still have his farm if if wasn't for Sherrod. Now the NAACP and the government look like damn fools for jumping to conclusions too soon.

Breitbart said he posted to video in response to the NAACP's accusations of racism within the Tea Party and that this wasn't about Sherrod. Sure it wasn't. That's why you posted an edited clip you got in an e-mail without verifying it and took this woman's words out of context, making her speech seem like a racist rant instead of a lesson in overcoming one's own prejudices. And now other conservatives like Ann Coulter are saying that Breitbart, not Sherrod, is the victim in this whole mess. Unbelievable.

This whole controversy shows how easily the media can be manipulated into a frenzy when facts are not thoroughly checked. It also reveals how easily we as a society jump up and down and cry racism, or accept that a racist act or statement has been made, be it from a black or white person., without knowing the whole story. While I understand the NAACP and the USDA didn't want to be tied to anything resembling racism, it wouldn't hurt to do a little more background checking first. And even though both have since apologized, I'm sure Ms. Sherrod wouldn't mind if a paycheck came along with it:).

P.S. For more background on Shirley Sherrod, her life and her civil rights record, click here.

Why You So Quiet? Being An Introvert In An Extrovert's World

For all my fellow introverts, you know what I'm talking about (and to all my extroverts, sit back, read and learn). I'm sure you've heard this sentence spoken at (or yelled at) you by some loud girl at school who's decided to get in your face and ask you a million questions, then look at you like you're in a padded cell with a straight jacket when you don't instantly babble back. Or you've heard its boy equivalent-"Man you quiet bruh."

I know I have. From the time we're little kids, we're all taught that to be gregarious and talkative is good, and to be quiet and reserved is bad. Think about it. Extroverts are described as outgoing, friendly and happy, while introverts are described as secretive, taciturn, cold and a host of other negative attributes( potential serial killer comes to mind lol). Personally I hate trying to make small talk, especially when I was working at Wally World (a.k.a Wal-Mart). I mean outside of "How are you?" and "Did you find everything you were looking for?" what exactly am I supposed to chat with this person about for the next two to five minutes? Most people that come through the line don't feel like talking, probably because they're too busy trying to get the hell out of the store. Besides, too much talking can slow you down, making you the object of hate from other customers in line. And the only reason conversation was encouraged was to soften the customer up to sell them a credit card, offering them the chance to plunge deeper in debt. But I digress.

The world sees extroverts as happy, healthy people who are the life of the party, while introverts get labeled loners and asked "What's wrong? or " "Do you need to talk about it?" Damn, all that just because I simply said "Hi" or "Good morning" and didn't feel like launching into a dissertation on Basketball Wives? Don't get me wrong, I like to go out, socialize with friends and talk about silly, pop-culture stuff. But I need my quiet time as well. Especially after big events like family reunions or meetings where I'm around a bunch of strangers all day. It literally feels like work to "work the room," and I usually feel a little drained afterwards. Seriously, unless it's hanging out with close friends, I'm going to need a few hours to myself if I'm around a huge group of people all day. This is probably why most successful politicians are extroverts, since it requires constant socializing and being around groups of new people everyday.

In conclusion just because I'm not smiling like a cheshire cat every second doesn't mean I'm planning to blow up a building or have a couple of bodies stored in a basement somewhere. It's good to be social, polite and friendly, but we introverts need our space every now and then. So back off a little (before you up end in the basement:).

Pat Robertson: "Haiti made a pact with the Devil"

This is digusting. Pat Roberston, host of The 700 Club, blames the recent devestation of Haiti by a massive earthquake on a pact the country made with the Devil to escape French rule. Yes you read that right. Why does this man still even have a show? Who could possibly listen to this and thinks this makes sense? What makes it even worse is the black woman, (who has since been identified as Kristi Watts) nodding in agreement as Pat babbles on. Seriously, why didn't the holy spirit of common sense rise up in her and guide her to slap him? Anyways, watch the clip below:

O Donnie Boy...

If you follow or have followed gospel music for the past 10 or so years, you know all too well about Donnie McClurkin and his story. If not, here's the short version: Donnie was molested at age 8, lived "the gay lifestyle" for 20+ years, was eventually "delivered," and is now straight as a (celibate or "single") arrow. Now I don't want it to seem as though I'm making light of child molestation or abuse. It is awful and disgusting, and can no doubt leave lasting scars on its victims.

However, I am sick of Donnie and others like him using this as an excuse for why they were(are) gay. If anything being molested by someone of the same sex would probably turn you away from further sexual contact, not embracing it. And why is that women or girls who are raped or molested by older men do not cite this as the cause of their heterosexuality? Or young boys who are taken advantage of by older women for that matter? There are many people who've never been abused, were raised by loving parents and are still gay. Furthermore, what does walking or talking a certain way have to do with who you are as a man or woman? If all men suddenly became super butch and women are became ultra feminine there would still be gay folks. These people need gender and sexual orientation classes *smh*.

All of this ranting comes from an unhinged tirade Donnie gave at the COGIC Holy Convocation Youth Service. Listen to the three part foolishness below and see what I mean.

Joe Jackson Needs To Shut Up

Leave it to 'ol Joe Jackson, the stage parent to end all stage parents, to make a buck in a time of grief. While being interviewed by CNN at the BET Awards, Papa Joe responded to questions about his family's emotional state with blase comments like "Oh we're fine," "Everything's great."

Joe, did you see your daughter Janet onstage last night on the verge of tears? That didn't look fine to me. Or were you too busy gettin' your groove on in the audience? But I could give even that questionable act a pass, because everyone deals with grief in their own way. It's not like I expected the man to be curled up in his seat in a fetal position bawling the whole night.

But that wasn't enough. Besides having his publicist read a prepared statement for him (even though he could've easily answered the question himself since he was standing right there), he also took to time promote his new record label. That's right Joe: don't worry about your son's untimely tragic death. There's coins to be made. Watch Joe's interview below and Janet's appearance below, and tell me who's truly grieving.

Ex-Miss Califronia Threatens Lawsuit

Well the saga continues. Carrie Prejean's lawyer is threatening to sue the pageant director Keith Lewis for statements he made regarding Ms. Prejean's dismissal.

Prejean, stripped of the Miss California USA title last week, "suffered severe emotional distress" and her reputation was harmed by Lewis, Charles LiMandri said in a letter sent Thursday to Lewis' lawyer.

LiMandri's letter also accused Lewis, whom he referred to as a "gay activist," of setting Prejean up to be fired because of her statements opposing same-sex marriage.

Lewis however says Prejean was fired in part because she missed several scheduled appearances.

"She came to us and said I'm not interested in your input; I'll make my own decision what I'm going to do," Lewis said. "You know, when you have a contract, when you're working for someone, you have a responsibility to follow through on what that requirement is." Lewis told King it was clear "she was not interested in upholding the title or the responsibilities."

Ok, first all of "severe emotional distress"? Girl please. You didn't get fired because of a "gay conspiracy," and your lawyer insinuating that you did is despicable. You got canned because you didn't fulfill your contract. If you were a crew worker at McDonald's, clocked out to go on break and never came back (we all seen someone do it lol!) you wouldn't even fix your mouth to claim severe emotional distress and threaten a lawsuit. Lying about taking pics with your naughty, surgically enhanced bits out obviously didn't help matters. Not that I think naked pics are horrible or anything, but if you're trying to be a pageant queen, you already know the rules about that sort of thing.

Secondly, you are neither a martyr for free speech or conservatives. You spoke your mind: gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. And the public, the media and Perez (as much as he gets on my nerves) responded to your opinion. Granted Perez calling you a "dumb bitch," among other things, was harsh. But you were not censored, just severely criticized. Be a big girl and drop the "woe is me, the queens are out to get me" routine. It's tired.

Lastly, I fear for your hair and makeup, because no self-respecting gay will do your head or beat your face now. Good luck on proving your case girl. You'll need it.

Obama's Deeply Disappointing Memo

Don't get me wrong. I'm still an Obama supporter, but he's going to have to do some hella damage control and give some concrete answers after this very offensive memo in defense of DOMA(Defense of Marriage Act).

In a nutshell, the memo states, among other things, that DOMA saves money, doesn't discriminate against gays, and most upsetting of all, compares gay marriages to incest, one of oldest and dumbest arguments in the book. Read this excerpt below if you don't believe:

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

And this part that pretty much insinuates that gays aren't a real minority group:

Because DOMA does not restrict any rights that have been recognized as fundamental or rely on any suspect classifications, it need not be reviewed with heightened scrutiny. Properly understood, the right at issue in this case is not a right to marry. After all, the federal government does not, either through DOMA or any other federal statute, issue marriage licenses or determine the standards for who may or may not get married. Indeed, as noted above — and as evidenced by the fact that plaintiffs have married in California — DOMA in no way prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the only right at issue in this case is a right to receive certain benefits on the basis of a same-sex marriage. No court has ever found such a right to federal benefits on that basis to be fundamental — in fact, all of the courts that have considered the question have rejected such a claim. (And even if the right at issue in this case were the right to same-sex marriage, current Supreme Court precedent that binds this Court does not recognize such a right under the Constitution.) Likewise, DOMA does not discriminate, or permit the States to discriminate, on the basis of a suspect classification; indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification.

Granted, it's not like I'm running down the aisle to get married (Lawd knows the state of Louisiana isn't going to give me the right any time soon), and I do believe health care and the economy are more pressing issues right. But this is just wrong. Saying I shouldn't be allowed to marry because it saves people money and that it the law doesn't discriminate against me (even though that was the point of its creation, to "defend") disgusts me. Like I said before, I'm still an Obama supporter and don't think he hates gays or is some kind of bigot. But this memo makes it hard to believe that his administration doesn't think of our lives and relationships as somehow second rate.

Read more about the memo at americablog or read the whole motion here.