Oh Snap! Feminist Rants Against Beyonce's "Run The World"

Via Boy Culture

Apparently this girl (yes an actual girl) was less than impressed with Beyonce's "Run The World (Girls)" and spends about 5 minutes laying out the reasons why. It's an entertaining video, regardless of whether you agree with her points (her one about how Bey, deals with the fact her husband has written songs like "Money, Cash, Hoes" was particularly provocative. Watch and discuss below.

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.

Imma Homo

But enough about me....I'm talking about the track "Imma Homo," the ultra-gay posse cut by Rainbow Noise, a record label that specializes in "GLBTQ music artists with mainstream appeal." The video has become quite the viral hit around hip hop and black gossip websites, with posts on Bossip and World Star Hip Hop (along with the requisite blasts of homophobic comments). Spin did an interesting article on the song and gay hip hop and general, so I thought I'd give my two cents.

My thoughts: musically the track is nothing special. It features the same production used in most club/party rap right now: a repetitve, distorted voice for the hook and skittering 808 drums n' bass. Meanwhile the flows are entertaining, from the mid-90's sped-up rapping style that seems to have been spontaneously resurrected to the currently ubiquitous punchline flow (Pull the pink 22/ Joker face). Other standout lines include "I beat the pussy up, call me Dyke Turner," "Feet kicked up with a blunt/Watchin' Logo" and "Next time you see in me in the club/Don't forget the butt plug." But ultimately there's no classic verse or line I could see being listed in a top ten list.

But even with all that said, I can't to stop replaying it. Even though it comes off as kind of a generic rap song, save for the fact that all the MCs are gay, it's...actually..kinda...hot. Honestly, it's been hard trying to get behind most of the pro-gay hip hop, more commonly known as "homo hop," over the years, simply because the music wasn't very good, from a lyrical or production stand point. It's great that people are willing to come out and be themselves, but compared to "straight" hip hop (and let's just assume for the sake of this post that all these rap gurls are straight:), it often came off as corny and stagnant. Out of all the LGBT artists I heard of any genre, the only names I can think of that could be genuine, mainstream pop stars are Ari Gold, Kaoz and B.Slade.

Maybe the reason why "Imma Homo" works is because it's getting out the message (being gay is ok) without coming across as excruiatingly boring. Or perhaps it's in the attitude. Rainbow Noise don't go out of their way to be politically correct, with either the language (plenty four letter words and N-bombs are dropped) or the subject matter (the track is an homage to that time honored hip hop tradition---macking hoes).

Part of what makes hip hop great is its rebellious, "fuck you, I'm doin' me" attitude," and "Imma Homo" taps into that spirit perfectly. But that poses another dilemma: should we as LGBT folks nod our heads to lines like "How many niggas do you know that gotta tell them hoes to stop" and "I don't own her/ I encourage all my niggas to get on her," just because they're coming out of a lesbian's mouth? We cry misogyny whenever Lil Wayne, Wacka Flocka, Rick Ross or any other male rapper spits such lines. Should we hold Rainbow Noise to the same standards, even if they are helping to increase the openly gay and lesbian presence in rap music? Are LGBT artists truly progressing and finding a voice in hip hop (or mainstream pop music in general, which is what most rap is these days) by imitating their straight counterparts in attitude and lyrical content, albeit with a gay undercurrent?
Watch the video below and discuss.

Are We The Boys We Want? A Masculine Guy's Perspective

Recently a few blogs have been discussing the video/poem posted by Yolo Akili entitled Are we the kind of boys we want? In between spoken word rhymes black gay men talk about what they look for in a man and answer whether or not they would date themselves.

So would I date me if I saw me walking down the street? And started to cry each time we meet (oops that's Dionne Warrick). Anyway, I'm not sure if I would. On the one hand, I'm 5'10 with a medium build (damn am I on Adam for Adam?) and a handsome guy if I do say so myself, so I'd definitely catch my eye on a physical level. I'm creative, smart, very giving, easy going and have a wicked sense of humor. But on the other hand, I can be moody at times and very reserved emotionally. Plus my intellectual curiosity can sometimes get the best of me, and I can be over analytical about things and get lost in my own head. I think I would need someone who is earthy, more outwardly emotional and straight forward to balance me out. So...I'd love to be close friends with me, but I'd don't think I'd date me.

With that said, this emphasis (or let's be real) obsession with masculinity in the black gay community is problematic. So many guys are in search of the straight-acting gay holy grail, that they're willing to dismiss anyone who doesn't fit that criteria, no matter how good they may be. And what the hell does straight-acting even mean really? My dad is one of the most masculine men I know, but he watches soap operas (The Bold And The Beautiful to be exact). One of my roommates in college was straight but was a theater and dance major. Another straight guy I know hardly ever drinks hard liquor but loves daiquiris instead, while another guy loves Patti Labelle, but he is straight (hard to believe but it's true:). My point being, straight men don't always "act straight" so why should we as gay men expect that of each other?

While I personally feel I sway between the masculine and feminine, my overall aura/energy is more masculine, so I do feel qualified to speak more from that perspective. I can say from personal experience that masculine guys do feel pressure from fem guys to be the "man" in the relationship. I've had men expect me to always pay their way when going out(and their bills-so didn't happen!) and go to work everyday while they play the woman's role. I don't get why we would want to imitate straight couples, when clearly isn't working for them! Even in my current relationship, there was pressure at beginning for me to be more aggressive, to take charge and play more of the alpha male role. But I made it clear that that's never been who I am. I can be aggressive when it comes to pursuing things I want, but being some controlling, wannabe homothug is so not the business.

I like to lift weights. But I also love to read books. I like Ice Cube, Naughty By Nature, Biggie, Nas, Jay-Z, Marilyn Manson, Metallica, Slipknot and loads of other hip hop and hard rock. But I also love Madonna, Janet, Mary, Beyonce, Diana, Whitney and the rest of the diva brigade. I like Entourage, Menace To Society, Goodfellas, Diehard, American Pie, The 40-Year Old Virgin, Wedding Crashers, Friday, Family Guy and any other assortment of gangster, gross out and/or action flicks. But I can laugh my ass off at and appreciate films like Paris Is Burning, Changeling, Mean Girls, Bring It On, The Notebook, Waiting To Exhale  and Clueless.

I'm not some rough piece of trade that doesn't know that two plus two equals four. And I'm not a super femme queen who's sole purpose is to get their life in the club every weekend. I'm a whole human being, and so are other black gay men, be they more naturally masculine or feminine in nature. True, in any relationship each person is inevitably going to fall into some traditional roles. You may have an eye for interior design that your man doesn't. Or you may be more mechanical than he is, so you fix things around the house. But to resign ourselves to these cartoonish hypermasculine and hyperfeminine roles will only lead to disaster.

What's important in any relationship, be it gay or straight, is that the individuals in it are not trying to fulfill some fantasy for the other person, but are being loved and appreciated for who they are. On a side note, it would be interesting to find out if this same thing goes on in the lesbian community (i.e. an obsession with femininity). It probably doesn't, since women are allowed to cross gender norms in their appearance and personal interests in a way men aren't, regardless of their orientation.

Anyway, watch the video below, and tell me what you think.

Is Sasha Fierce?

A photo shoot Beyonce did for French fashion magazine L'Officiel has sparked controversy. In the shoot for the mag's 90th anniversary, Bey appears in different traditional African garments in an homage to Nigerian activist and musician Fela Kuti, who has inspired music for her new album. However, it is a shot of the singer's face, visibly darkened with makeup, that has gotten folks calling foul. According to a statement released by the magazine:

"Far from the glamorous Sasha Fierce, the beauty posed for the magazine with amazing fashion designers clothes, but also in a dress created by her mother. [It is] A return to her African roots, as you can see on the picture, on which her face was voluntarily darkened. All the pictures will be available in the collector edition, on sell at the end of this month."


Jezebel.com columnist Dodai Stewart seems to think otherwise:

It's fun to play with fashion and makeup, and fashion has a history of provocation and pushing boundaries. But when you paint your face darker in order to look more "African," aren't you reducing an entire continent, full of different nations, tribes, cultures and histories, into one brown color? What makes someone black — or African, for that matter — is not her skin tone. The African diaspora reaches from Brazil to Haiti to the United Kingdom and Pakistan.


It's one thing to feel moved by Fela Kuti, and quite another to treat blackness as a fashion accessory, like a pair of glittery heels you put on because it looks cool. What if Beyoncé were an Asian singer painted to look like a geisha, or given exaggeratedly almond eyes? Perhaps even more important: By painting Beyoncé's face darker, aren't the French fashion editors basically treating her like they would a white model, i.e. a blank-palette object on which to place concepts? And not an actual, authentic black person with African heritage?

First of all, I don't think Beyonce is posing in blackface. There are no big white lips and "darkie" expressions. But I must say I do agree with Ms. Stewart on a few points. Why would she only darken her face? Why not darken her whole body? And if she truly wanted to go back to her roots, why not take out her weave/lace front and rock her own natural hair? Morever, black folks do come in all shades and color, so if Beyonce wanted to pay tribute to her African roots, all she really had to do was show up as her beautiful, African American self (sans the blond hair) and highlight her natural features.

I disagree with her insistence that the paint is simply kitsche, as Kuti did seem to don facepaint occasionally from images I've seen of him. Maybe part of confusion is in what way this was meant to be an homage. If Bey's aim was to pay tribute to Kuti by actually taking on his physical characteristics, then the skin darkening makes sense (but of course she'd have to bind her chest, wear men's clothing, etc.) But in this incarnation it shows the magazine's (and to a degree Bey's) one-dimesional ideas of what "African" is.

But on the upside, more people will now who Fela Kuti is ( I know I didn't before today), which was her main goal with the photoshoot. The way she went about it is problematic, but not irredeemably offensive.

On a side note: Mama Tina did her thing with the dresses!

On another side note. I'm soooooo glad Madonna decide not to do a "Black Madonna" shoot for her last album. I would've hated to had to read Queen Madge! Watch Beyonce's photo below and let your opinions rip in the comments section.

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.

School's Out Lauryn

*Warning. This is a lengthy post. But I've highlighted the important points in red for my skimmers.*

I tried. We all tried. We waited patiently year after year for a follow up to your classic album (a term that gets thrown around too loosely these days) The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Slowly one year turned to two, then five. But we fans stayed strong. We suffered through erractic MTV Unplugged performances, your "call me Miss Hill" demands (by the way boo, Miss Ross the Boss coined that first. Respect the throne. I'm just sayin'), and ignored the constant subliminal shots of shade from Wyclef that you relied heavily on your collaborators for your solo smash. Like I said, we tried.

But after your recent string of trantrums and showing up to shows hours late, I think I feel justified in typing what many former fans are thinking: Diva, you are dismissed! For those not in the know, since embarking on a 17-city tour, L-Boogie has become notorious for coming on stage three hours late, and performing unrecognizable "remixes" of her classic hits that have left fans pissed off and bewildered. Such was the scene at a show last Friday:

"Aside from showing up three hours late to the sold-out event, which was scheduled to begin at 9PM, the 35-year-old left her supporters "confused" and "underwhelmed" by declaring that she was tired of "playing the same music night after night." The former Fugee performed remixes of some of her classics, while urging crowd participation.


"Nobody could participate because NOBODY knew the music!" a concertgoer told Sandrose.com. "Everybody was looking around like 'WHAT SONG IS THIS?'"


Fans also complained that Hill's band was too loud, thus drowning out her vocals. Fed up with her antics, some audience members reportedly booed the multiple Grammy winner before leaving the venue early. "They didn't walk out -- they stomped out!" emphasized the audience member.


Last month, Hill announced that she would launch a 17-date tour, and has been racking up mostly negative reviews ever since. The singer was blasted by several news outlets for her kick-off performance at Brooklyn's Music Hall of Williamsburg, in which she showed up several hours late and made no apology for her tardiness, announcing that she was "worth the wait."


Hpmh. Worth the wait. I have a few reasons why that is SO not the case.

1) It is not 1998. While you've been off popping out babies for Bob Marley's son, the music world has changed. Unless, your name is Lady Gaga, Beyonce or Rihanna, you have be on your Ps&Qs. In other words mama, you've got to earn your spot back.

2) You have no respect for your fans (or your band for that matter). And one thing we hate even worse than waiting hours for your butt to get onstage is to be lectured to like a bunch of schoolkids once you do arrive. Unless you were currently in critical condition because of a sudden illness or accident, the fault lies with you Lauryn. And if you're going to be late, you better perform your ass off.

3) You're acting like a spoiled, pompous know-it-all who feels like we peons should feel honored to be in your presence, no matter how horrible you look or sound. You are destroying your legacy with every tour date you play.

In short Lauryn, you've become divorced from reality. But in my personal opinion, you're not alone. All celebrities are out of touch to some degree. Let's face it: anyone who is constantly having their every wish fulfilled at a snap of their fingers and being praised and fawned over by millions of people daily is bound to become at least a little disconnected. Anyone who spends their every waking day creating a hype for millions of people to believe in will inevitably believe in some of said hype themselves.

The longer someone remains famous, the less they remember what is like to be "normal" and the harder it is for them to relate to everyday life and circumstances. Let's use Lauryn for an example: The Fugees blew up with The Score in 96'. Lauryn was around 20 or 21 at the time. That means she was a "normal" person for at least two decades. In the ensuing 15 years of fame, acclaim and controversy, she has become more and more detached from both the real world and memories of her pre-fame life, and more wrapped up in her own celebrity bubble. Apply that equation to your favorite actor or singer and you can just about guess when and how far they'll fly over the cuckoo's nest.

If a star has people in their circle who are unwilling to simply be smiling synchophants the bubble can be burst, and they can return to their peak acting, singing or dancing form. If not, the inevitable crash and burn will happen in some shape or form.

We fans are not totally innocent in this scenario though. If celebs are drunk on fame, we're the bartenders who keep serving them shots. From DUIs, drug addiction and domestic violence to accusations of watersports with minors, fans are extremely forgiving. No matter how far a celebrity has fallen, redemption is just one hot track or movie role away.

Just ask Kanye: this time last year most of the mainstream had written him off as a drunk, award-show-stopping egomanical asshole. Now all you hear is praise for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy and what an egomanical musical genius Yeezy is. Chris Brown's career looked utterly destroyed in the wake of Rihanna-gate, but all it took was a tearful MJ tribute and a pair of "Deuces" to resurrect it.

This selective amnesia can sometimes manifest into bizarre, digusting idol worship. In high school I remember being horrified at the depths of denial many of my classmates delved into to defend R.Kelly once the allegations (and the tape) came out. It was like we were eight and someone told them there was no Santa. They absolutely refused to believe it. Or if they did they offered this perennial piece of logic for their continued, unwavering fandom: Shit, that nigga can sing!

But oftentimes it simply comes with the territory when dealing with public figures. After all celebs are people too: and like all of us, they make mistakes, occasionally behave in immature, irrational ways and do not lead pristine, perfect lives. If they apologize (or least put on a good PR face) we'll welcome them back with open arms. As long as those arms are filled with a catchy hook or an unforgettable performance. So maybe school's not out for Ms. Hill. Maybe it's just recess. But it's up to her to decide how long she'll stay out and play.

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:).

Bebe's Kids (Why I Don't Want No Crumbsnatchers!)

Think back. Way back. Back to the beginning of this blog(if you were reading it back then lol:). In one of my first posts I made a passing comment about how I didn't want children, so now let me elaborate.

I desire lots of things out of life--a challenging and exciting career, a nice home, to have great friendships/relationships,to help others, to be financially comfortable--but having children isn't one of them. Growing up some of my friends (gay or straight) would always talk about having kids, wanting to be a dad so they can pass on their name, "spread their seed" etc. But I've never had even the slightest twinge to procreate/adopt, and haven't been afraid to say so. The thought of dealing with: changing diapers, teething, being woken up in the middle of night, teenage angst (it was hard enough dealing with my own, lol) does not appeal to me. Now if I could fast forward to the kids being out of the house and having their own, then I'd loooove to be a dad. 'Cause I love kids in small doses (i.e. if they 're someone else's.)

This stance has caused me to pegged as selfish by the aforementioned friends(granted this was years ago, so things and subsequently, opinions may have change since then.) Selfish? So me making the mature, honest decision not to have children I know I would not want is selfish, but popping out babies just because it's what I should be doing is responsible? Ummmm no. I mean if you think about it, having children when you truly don't want any is inevitably going result in some undeserved resentment towards that child, who did not ask to be brought into the world. If more people really thought it out and decided for themselves whether they really wanted to be a parent, there'd probably be a lot less foster kids, abused and abandoned children in the world. Which is what makes those who want to stop gay couples from adopting look so ridiculous. But I digress.

Honestly, I think a lot of people feel this way, but are too afraid to fight the pressure from family, friends, society, church(trust me, pastors practically piss themselves when a young couple with children walks through the door). There's no clearer evidence of this then at the checkout line at any grocery store (but I'll use Wally World as an example since I work there:). Not a day goes by that someone with kids tells me "Don't have any kids." And they're probably only half-joking. There's also the single mom with kids acting a fool, giving me the look of fuck, why didn't I use a condom! Or guys with their wives and kids with a look of absolute misery, like they'd sell their soul in a second to trade places with me.

Of course this is not true of everyone. Some people really love and want to be parents, and are great at it. But I'm not one of those people. That may change someday, but for now, I can't see myself being anyone's daddy. Besides, I can barely take of myself right now, let alone a baby lol!

Making Small Talk....

For the few months I've been employed as a cashier, I've had time to observe several psychological and social quirks present in customer service (you know I couldn't just stand there, bag groceries and pester folks about applying for credit cards).

First off is the issue of small talk itself. Personally I hate it--I mean let's be honest, when a customer asks how you doing, do they truly want to know? Nine times out of ten they're just doing what they've been taught to do in social situations. And the same goes for me--customers could care less about the inner most thoughts of my psyche or any personal problems I could be experiencing. The goal is to get in, get out and get on with our lives. Anyone who's ever worked in a grocery store, shopping, or the hellish world of fast food know's what I'm talking about. Out of all the customers you served, how many of them have you had an honest conservation in which you actually learned something about each other? Probably not too many. In my view the primary purpose of small talk is to make sure the customer doesn't walk away thinking both you and subsequently the store are raging assholes worthy of a lawsuit or a complaint.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's cool to be rude or insulting to customers, and everyone at least deserves a smile and nice greeting. After all, if they didn't come, I wouldn't have a job, and most people will respond to a small grin or 'Hi" positively. But small talk just seems so strange, a dance of fakery that everyone knows the steps to but doesn't know why they're swaying to the rhythm. This is further complicated by what I call "super-friendly suspiciousness."

An example: someone comes to the checkout, items are scanned, the total price is given, and they decide to pay with a credit card. I ask for ID, they give it to me, and it's expired. Or it's their parents' card that they've borrowed. I explain they I can't accept it, and the customer shoots back with a line like Well it's still me. What's the problem? At the point, it becomes a psychological game, one where I, the employee am basically saying I don't trust you. But I can't come out and say I don't trust you because I could get fired for accusing you of anything. Even though I'm basically insinuating that you could be trying to steal shit from right under my nose with an expired ID or a card that belongs to someone else.

On their end, the customer knows what I'm insinuating, but can't commence with raised voices, finger pointing, snaps and/or neck rolls, or cold stares because he's just doing his job, and if I start showing my ass, I going to look like a raging lunatic. Of course some folks live to show their ass and will put on a show anyway, but you get the point. Essentially, your job is to treat what are often total strangers with great kindness, until they give you cause for suspicion. Then they become potential threats with ulterior motives.

So what are you thoughts? Is small talk and customer service in general simply social norms or does it encourage fakery and false cheerfulness and kindness on a mass scale? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

P.S. I know this post is a little rambling, but it's about one in the morning so cut me some slack lol!

Chicago Honors Student Beaten To Death

From The Daily Voice:

A Chicago honors student was beaten to death on Thursday as two rival gangs fought outside a community center in that city.

An amateur cell phone video posted on YouTube showed a young man being struck on the head by a young man with a long wooden board, then punched by another young man.

The victim was later identified as Derrion Albert, a 16-year-old high school student who was walking to a bus stop when he got caught up in the street fight.

Cook County prosecutors charged four teenagers with first-degree murder, including Eugene Bailey, 18, Silvonus Shannon, 19, Eugene Riley, 18, and Eric Carson, 16.

"How could kids be so prone to violence that they would do something this horrific," City Alderman Carrie Austin said to CNN's Don Lemon. "What's going through their minds that they would even participate in something like this," she said, describing it as a "mob action."

"It is just absolutely ridiculous that we're not teaching our children any type of conflict resolution," Alderman Austin said. Austin also discussed the parents' responsibility to raise their children, but warned that the victim "had a great mother. It was not her fault. He was a honor student," Austin said.

The incident comes to light at the same time President Obama is trying to sell the city of Chicago to the International Olympic Committee as the site for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's move has already been criticized by some Republicans, who argue that the president should be focused on the economy, health care, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Baltimore Examiner columnist D.K. Jamaal sees it differently. "The question, then, is not whether Obama's Olympic lobbying is a good use of Presidential time, but whether Chicago, USA is a good use of the Olympics in the first place -- especially in light of how harshly many Americans judged the IOC for awarding the Olympics to China despite its pitiful human rights record."

What's going on in schools today? I mean everyone has witnessed fights at school before. But it is so shocking to me that young kids could have so little respect for someone else's life. And for someone who wasn't even involved in the fight. But if we want to go deeper, we all have a preoccupation with violence or fights. How many of us have either egged on or secretly hoped a vicious argument would turn into a fight? How many of us have watched someone get beat up and shout things like "Damn he got stuck," or "Babee, she got skull dragged?" Two kids fighting a school or people outside a nightclub suddenly become Floyd Mayweather or Evander Holyfield, just random forms of entertainment.

Now I'm not naive enough to believe that every situation can be talked out. Sometimes fighting is necessary, such as in cases of self-defense. But violence over petty bullshit (i.e. shoes, clothing, gang affilitation-why are you fighting over turf? you don't even own it! he say/she say) is senseless and never solves anything. It just leads those victimized to go out and seek revenge, contributing to more violence. Nothing is proven in random acts of violent aggression.

I seriously think anger management/conflict classes should be talk in schools. Obviously parents should teach their kids to respect others and take responsibility for their own actions. But sometimes parents can contribute to the mentality of 'fight first, think later,' so it's not that simple either. I also don't think that music or movies that have violent content automatically promote violence. Context needs to be taken into account before making that judgement.

But I do believe that each of us has to look in the mirror and take responsibility for ourselves. A video game or movie or song can't make you do anything. It can suggest, but not physically make you do anything. We have to value our lives and teach kids to value theirs and others' lives as well, and teach them how to look critically at the movies they watch and games they play, to learn how to separate fantasy from reality. Fighting or any form of violence should be a last resort, not the only option.

Here is footage of the fight below. Warning: It is graphic.

That's Not Cool....

"You gay!" were the words he shouted when me and friend passed by a house in our neighborhood. Nineteen at the time and "out" for less than a year, the word still cut like a knife when I heard it. I looked up and gave him a hard, icy stare as we rounded the corner and continued our walk. But little did we know, their harassment wasn't over. Two other boys caught up with us on their bikes and started trailing us. The loudmouth of the duo started spouting stupidity such as "It's not cool to be gay," "Who the man in the relationship?" (making the assumption my friend and I were lovers) and "Why ya'll wanna be gay?"

Since these were 15-17 year-olds we were dealing with, we quickly responded with a barrage of sarcastic, witty retorts and continued on our way. A few days later, and taking another walk through our neighborhood, we saw the same group of guys walking towards us. Looking at us with a mix of bemusement, disgust and contempt, remarks such as "Uggh faggots," "That's not cool...it's not cool to be gay," and curiously enough "Ya'll could suck my dick." Again I merely shook my head and dismissed them as young ignorant fools.

One night walking back to my friend's house we passed by one of our hecklers' house, where the group was playing basketball. As we made our way down the street, I looked back to find that the main instigator was following us. He came up behind and once spat his mantra "Man it's not cool to be gay," I responded by asking him what the fuck his problem was and why he care so much, while my friend said similar sentiments. We were reaching the end of our patience with this dude. He then grabbed my jacket and a tug of war ensued. Seeing how stupid this was (and how the jacket was cheap old anyway) I released it and we continued walking. Suddenly I felt a sharp pain on the back of my head. This guy had punched me.

I whipped around to find him jumping back and forth his hands up in a boxing positions, looking like the mascot for Notre Dame. Like all good cowards his friends quickly joined him and stood behind him, waiting for me to make a move. I thought to myself I can't believe this. I will knock you the fuck out! I was so in my own thoughts that I could barely hear his commands that we "get our faggot-ass on out of here" or something to that effect. I debated whether I should fight or not, and decided I didn't want to go to jail for pummeling a minor.

So we rounded the corner and continue back to my friend's house. But it wasn't over. The ringleader and his lackies ran up the street to us, walking side by side with us. The leader said "I don't like gay people," in a voice that rang with pure hatred. "Don't come on our street no mo'" he said. "Alright" I replied, still trying to diffuse the situation. Little did I know that they were done talking, and we were soon in a 2 on 5 fight in the middle of the street.

I saw my friend duck and dodge and swing at one of the attackers before he slipped and went down, and was stomped several times. I soon found myself surrounded by group of three, dodging and evading swings before being hit in the nose. The voice on the other of that fist exclaimed "Ooh I stuck that nigga," as I slipped on someone's wet grass and was subsequently stomped. A bystander, known to everyone in the neighborhood as "Blue Eyes" merely stood there and said "That's fucked up" with a smug smirk on his face. After they finished and quickly went back down the street. (On a side note, most if not all of the attackers attended church. I believe this probably supported their attitude towards us and emboldened them to 'put the punks in their place.')

As I walked back to my friend's place minus one shoe and a bloody nose, my body trembled with rage. The fact that two of the attackers had been to my house years earlier to play video games and hang out further contributed to my fury. As we reached my car, my friend and I traded revenge plots. My first thought was to run them all over, stuff their corpses in my trunk, and dump them in a ditch. His plan consisted of us ridin' up on them with baseball bats and swinging to the fence on their asses. Another thought was slashing the tires on of the guy's tires.

It was the first time in my life I'd seriously considered murder. I finally understood what could make someone feel so angry that they'd want to take another human life. It is the feeling that you've been so humiliated, so violated and so betrayed by what someone has done to you that simply beating them up or insulting them back isn't enough. The only way the situation can be resolved is for that person to not exist anymore. There is no room for compromise or discussion. They have to go.

We did discuss calling the police, but decided against it because of the cause of the attack. I know it doesn't make sense, but at the time both he and I were still deeply in the closet to our families, and reporting the incident would have led to questions I just wasn't ready to answer at that time. I think many victims of gay bashing don't report for this very reason, or they feel the police and their family won't be supportive. The closet makes you do strange shit. But I digress.

For days after we were jumped, I sank into a funk that varied between blind rage and deep depression. I knew homophobia existed and felt some of its sting before, but never had I been so closely aquainted with it. It truly hurt me to know that a stranger could hate you so much for something that had nothing to do with them. That event forever changed who I am.

Needless to say, none of those things happened that night or I wouldn't be writing this post.

However we still had something in store for them. And once some of our friends came back in town we sprung into action. We convinced a friend of ours to pour some sugar down the tank of one of our attackers' car. Unfortunately his gas cap had a lock, so his mother's car had to take one for the team. As we drove off I couldn't help but hum "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!" I know it was an awful thing to do, but at the time I wasn't thinking straight. My mind was completely clouded by revenge. I also used a label maker from work and had the same friend (he was very good at stalking about in the night) stick below the license plate on the same guy's car. I wish I could've seen the look on his face when he was babbling about b.s. with his friends and saw the words "platinum dicksucker" in all caps on his car. Things really started to heat up when we all rode by one of guy's house, blasting music and mean mugging the whole group as we rounded the curb at two miles an hour.

Of course, as the saying goes, if you fight fire with fire everyone gets burned. One night I let one of my friends drive and we ended up behind the guy's car. Since this was shortly after we placed the sticker on his vehicle, we rode his tail all the way down the street, trying to examine our handiwork. After he cut us off at a corner, opened his door and gave us glare. To speed things up a bit this led to a showdown at my friends house with at 12-15 people fighting in the front yard, and only ended after one of my friends called the police and the guys scattered like roaches. In the melee however, my car suffered a huge dent, which cost around $600 to fix. In the weeks that followed, two of the guys (not the main instigator) personally apologized to me and my friend and one of them ended up becoming a passing aquaintance. As far as I know, we've all moved on.

In hindsight, I would have never taken things as far as they went, or allowed my friends to. All that drama wasn't worth it. Through all that chaos, nothing got resolved. It wasn't until we actually talked that things got worked out. If I had to do it all again, I would've just called the police, filed a report, and done whatever I needed to do to make sure they were punished for they did.

Later on, I can't remember exactly when, it might've been a few months or weeks later, my friend's sister informed me the main instigator had been jumped outside the local movie theater. I didn't feel overjoyed or particularly sad for his predicament. After all, jumping folks and picking fights, that's not cool.

Chris Rock and "Good Hair"

This should be interesting. Chris Rock takes on the subject of black hair in this documentary set to be released in October. And ya'll know black folks got issues when it comes to our hair lol. Watch the trailer below:

Are Horror Movies Anti-Christian?

Lest anyone think this is some kind of moralistic, finger-pointing rant, let me explain. I don't mean anti-Christian in the sense of slasher flicks glorifying gore and violence. If anything scary movies at least promote the idea of abstinence: lose your virginity, you lose your head! After all, those are the rules! But I digress. Last night I was watching Scream, one of my favorite horror flicks, at my man's house, when this curious thought popped into my mind. As the last scene played with Neve Campbell a.k.a Sidney Prescott, popping a cap in her psycho boyfriend Billy's head, I noticed something about many of the scary movies I love for the first time.

From Friday the 13th and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to Jeeper's Creepers and Halloween rarely, if ever, do you see any of the characters pray or call on God (or any diety for that matter) to save them from the horrible situation they've found themselves in. I mean if there were anytime to get on your knees or lift up holy hands it would be when a seemingly indestructible mass murdering psychopath is after you and hell bent on slicing you to bits (or in Freddy's case killing you in your dreams). In pretty much every single scary movie I watched the characters that survive do so because of their own ingenuity and courage in the face of indescribable fear.

Think about it: when Sidney finally learned the truth about her boyfriend and her mother's death, she didn't wallow in the corner praying and speaking in tongues hoping to be spared. Miss girl got up and took care of business. She found the resolve to defend her and her friends' lives from within, not from an outside source. When Jessica Biel saw her friends get slaughtered by Leatherface in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the remake, not the original:), she relied on her own cunning to get the hell out of that house. Obviously The Excorcist is an exception to this rule, but for the most part, if you want to survive in a slasher flick you're left to your own devices.

Don't get me wrong. This not an attack on Christianity or any other religion. This is just an observation that many horror films, whether consciously or not, emphasis the triumph of the human spirit and will to survive over unspeakable evil. The day isn't saved by an all-powerful deity, but by ordinary folks forced to react to extraordinarily awful circumstances. Simply put, the main characters are their own saviors, which ultimately undermines the whole idea of God coming to people's rescue in times of trouble.

Of course this is all my hyper-analytical analysis. I, like most of the movie-going public, primarily go to see these films to get scared out of my mind and be entertained, and I doubt that Wes Craven or Rob Zombie thought that deeply when creating Scream or The Devil's Rejects. But I'm suprised more conservative Christians don't realize this subversive element in horror films. But then again it's only a movie. Or is it;)?