Uh uh, never mind the economy, or the fact that gay people are unemployed and unable to afford stuff like glitter or whatever else “the gays,” happen to purchase; no, never mind that. Instead, what’s important and on everybody’s mind is that Obama wants to make it legal for gays to marry. Keep in mind that this was just his personal opinion and no legislation has been advanced to suggest this becoming a reality. Nope, all that matters is that gays are gonna be married with the full blessings of Obama; and, straight people (whether married or single) will now have to deal with the hassle of not being able to get out of their driveways because they’re being blocked in by the gay married couple giving each other head in a parked car. Yep, forget the whole equal protection under the law thingy in the U.S. Constitution; shit, that’s an old-ass piece of paper anyway.

I mean, who wants to have gay people tossing salads within 500 feet of a school, right? So yeah, as absurd as it sounds, that’s what marriage equality means in the minds of many. That plus the idea that straight people will now have to contend with the obvious embarassment of being placed in a ompromising position, by a gay person getting down on one knee and offering them a marriage proposal in public. Yeah, straight people often get married for the wrong reasons, who wants to add a straight person being hitched to a gay person and having to act gay to  the list.

Yes, this is what people fear; and, it’s the reason there’s so much talk . And you better believe, as far as the politics of fear goes, as much as most try to deny it, this will have an impact on this years general elections. How significant an impact? I’m not sure. However, I am sure that these fears will be exploited by the many ignoramuses  among us over the next several months. Hell, you see how they’re already trying to play divide and conquer by using the black vote, right? Yep, they’re using the black church to divide the black electorate by making same-sex marriage the latest wedge issue. Smart move especially when you think about how black preachers are bent on not pissing off white Jesus in hopes that he would allow blacks and whites to drink from the same fountain if Negroes are allowed in heaven. Yes, it’s that deep for some of the members of the black clergy and the Sunday Communion Kool Aid drinkers they lead. So much so that I’ve heard that some of them are definitely going to sit this election cycle out. I’ve heard from good source that in one particular Obama For America campaign office, people are talking about walking out on the campaign.

It’s good to know that common sense still lives in the church…

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A major NewsChannel 5 investigation has uncovered serious questions about Tennessee’s war on drugs. Among the questions: are some police agencies more concerned about making money off the drugs, than stopping them?

At the center of this months-long investigation are laws that let officers pull driver over looking for cash.  Those officers do not even have to file criminal charges against a person to take his/her money.

It turns out, those kind of stops are now happening almost every day in Middle Tennessee.

Speaking to then District Attorney General Kim Helper about these stops and seizures in her jurisdiction, when  asked if it was a way to make money, she responded, “Well, you know, when you say ‘make money,’ I guess it is a way for us to continue to fund our operations so that we can put an end to drug trafficking and the drug trade within this district.” So how are police officers able to trample one’s 4th Amendment right as it relates to search and seizures? Easy. Under the guise of the “war on drugs,” the state allows police to seize money simply based on the suspicion that it’s linked to drug trafficking. The troubling part about the application of said practice, is that even without an arrest, an individuals money can be seized.

I guess this gives credence to the notion that money has no owners, just spenders.

In 2010 report, Tennessee received a D-minus from the Washington-based Institute for Justice, on the state’s “civil forfeiture laws,” which makes the practice all legal. As pervasive as the practice, per the law, money can be seized just on reasonable and unreasonable suspicion of money “found” in traffic stops being linked to drug trafficking. As you can imagine, this has given police officers on patrol the incentive to become state sanctioned pirates as they target out-of-town tagged vehicles along the I-40 east-west corridor, in what’s iknown as “Policing For Profit“.

According to the the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Blog:

In Tennessee, the police can seize your car, take your money, take your personal property, take your home, sell these items and use the proceeds of that sale for their benefit without the person being found guilty of a crime. In fact, the police can seize and sell these items without even charging the owner with a crime. And worst of all, the laws in Tennessee promote this activity.

[...] So why do the police do this? Money, Money, Money. The State of Tennessee receives millions and millions of dollars each year from civil asset forfeiture. They are among the highest in the country on the percentage of proceeds that go to law enforcement. And while some states use this money for education and public works, Tennessee allows local law enforcement to spend this money on drug enforcement. If the local police did not need any more incentive, the local law enforcement agencies receive 100% of proceeds for their respective agency. They cannot spend it on their salaries, but they do spend it on their agency which continues to operate in large part due to the millions of dollars they bring in each year.

[...] Further proof that the police activity is based on the money, sources reveal that the police on Interstate 40 are pulling over vehicles on the westbound lane of the interstate at a much higher rate than on the eastbound lanes. This is because they believe that drugs go east and money goes west. So they are clearly following the money and not the drugs. Again, the police agency that seized the property keeps 100% of the proceeds!

It’s too bad that unsuspecting drivers from out-of-state like New Jersey’s George Reby, aren’t aware of this practice. As a matter of fact, up until I read Reby’s story, I myself as a state resident, was not aware of the practice; heck, and to think I’ve been living here for the past six years. However, I’d like to think that if Reby were in the know, he would not have been as trusting of Monteray PD Officer Larry Bates, with whom he had a chance meeting last January when stopped for speeding en route to Nashville on I-40, on a business trip.

Check out the following via, Nashville’s NewsChannel 5:

But then again, maybe that’s just my “Liberal bias” creeping out as always. As pervasive and egregious this practice may sound, it is perfectly legal. aside from that, the main thing that keeps the practice alive and successful, is the ignorance of everyday citizens to their legal rights as afforded by the constitution. Police officers like Larry Bates above, count on us being ignorant about our 4th Amendment & 5th Amendment protections per the U.S. Constitution. I suggest you become aware of the fact that you do have the right to refuse to talk to the police without an attorney present, as well as the right to refuse or consent to a search of your property and person by the police without a proper warrant. Too often, not knowing your rights can become a hassle, and quite costly; but, like the old saying: knowing is half the battle.

QUESTION: Should law enforcement be allowed to carry out this practice?

But, politicians want to sit around and debate the issue. They want to request a whole bunch of statistical analysis to prove what every Black person over the age of 2 years old understands: police profile racially. Why do politicians play this game? To pretend they are actually attempting to address the scourge of law enforcement bigotry without actually doing a goddamn thing about the problem.

If all these folks are going to do is sit around in a little room and say, “profiling is bad…. we should do something about it…” and then move onto the next topic, they need to get the fuck out of office, because they do not care about what happens to real people in the real world.

Who are the people compiling the statistics and where are they coming from? Most of the time, they work FOR the people in power, who are invested in maintaining the status quo. So, not only can they manipulate the facts to make them fit the narrative of the white dominators, but they rely on information given to them by the oppressive law enforcement community. Somehow, the word of a cop is seen as more reliable than that of his victim, so he can lie about absolutely anything and be seen as the “good guy” in the story. What is to stop a white police officer from incorrectly listing the race of his victims in order to “prove” that he is not engaging in racially biased behavior on the job? (In fact, it was proven that in East Haven, Connecticut, police officers did exactly this for many years)

If a victim of police oppression reports the crimes that officers commit against him, it is usually written off as unfounded, or uncorroborated. Yet the word of a single pig is enough to land a man behind bars. Why are police given more credibility than an ordinary community member, especially if that community member is Black?

There is also nothing stopping police officers from harassing and endangering anyone who reports profiling or brutish behavior. Everyone knows about the “blue wall of silence”. If a Black person walks into a police station to report to an officer that one of his fellow “boys in blue” has committed criminal acts against him, he is putting his safety in the hands of people who are invested only in defending and protecting the man carrying the badge.

Combating racial profiling is not about crunching numbers, compiling reports and making recommendations that the police look at as optional. In order to fight racist police practices, there needs to be serious consequences for officers who are caught profiling. They should be kicked off the police force and charged with a felony. They need to be held accountable. As it stands today, police officers can commit even most egregious offenses, like the murder of unarmed people, with little to no chance of repercussions. ANYTIME a police officer shoots an unarmed person, they should be charged and convicted for murder (or attempted murder if the person is lucky enough to survive.) Police officers complain that they do not want to have to stop to think before they act, that it could put their lives in danger… well… tough shit. Shouldn’t you HAVE TO take a second to think before you take the life of another human being?

Police officers also should not be foreign invaders. If there is a need for law enforcement presence in a given community, the officers should be recruited from among local residents only. No more white “good ole boys” rolling into a Black community and running roughshod over the rights of the people who actually live there. Let the white boys stay in their little suburban communities and arrest the folks with the meth labs in their garage.

I understand the desire for activist groups to enforce racial profiling laws. There is this belief that compiling statistics to “prove” that racial profiling exists will somehow force police departments to change their ways. That the threat of removing funding sources to police departments who are non-compliant will help alleviate the insidiousness of racial profiling. However, I think that until a police officer has to worry about facing VERY REAL CONSEQUENCES, like PRISON TIME for engaging in such practices, there is really no incentive for an individual officer to change his behavior.

Recently, there was an amendment passed for Connecticut’s racial profiling law, the Penn Act. A huge production was made about the “much needed changes” to the Penn Act that were added. Basically, the legislators decided that the Penn Act provisions would be enforced more stringently if they added a “traffic stop receipt” concept to the legislation, so that motorists who have been pulled over can be sure that their race was listed correctly. They also included a provision that allowed people to anonymously launch complaints about profiling, and appointed a committee to investigate the claims, as well as to examine the statistics compiled for evidence of profiling. Honestly, I do not see the efficacy of this sort of approach. Why do people need “proof” that profiling happens? We all know it does! How do statistics protect motorists from police officers? Where is the incentive for officers to stop this behavior?

And what about pedestrians? How many anti-profiling laws include people on foot? We all know that “stop and frisk” policies are steeped in racial profiling. Why not include people who are walking through the community under the umbrella of these profiling laws? One proponent of the Penn Act Amendment here in Hartford actually became angry when another activists mentioned that the Act did not go far enough because it only “protected” motorists! He said that the Penn Act was not intended to protect people on foot, therefore the amendment did not include them. Well, if you are “amending” a piss poor law, why not make the logical choice to extend the legislation to cover ALL people who are profiled, not just those in cars?

Compiling statistics is not the solution. SERIOUS consequences for INDIVIDUAL officers as well as departments who violate the rights of community members MUST BE INCLUDED in order for an anti-profiling law to offer any serious protection for the public. It is one thing to “work within the system”, it is quite another to ignore what REALLY needs to be done to address police profiling and brutality simply to get a piece of legislation passed.

This from the Bonner County Daily Bee:

SANDPOINT — It’s unlikely that any other Bonner County sheriff candidate spent their Friday night like Shaun Winkler.

At his compound just outside Priest River, Winkler and other family members of the northern Idaho Ku Klux Klan klavern held a get-together that included a nighttime cross lighting. Winkler, 33, is also tied to the Aryan Nations and Church of Jesus Christ-Christian. He has participated in racially-charged Kootenai County protests.

According to Winkler, cross lighting, more commonly known as cross burning, often provokes strong reactions from most people. That’s why the ceremony is conducted in private within the compound once a month or so.

“Generally, for a cross lighting, it’s extremely rare we’d let any media there at all,” he said.

However, after discussing the matter with his family and associates, Winkler agreed to allow photos and outside observation for the ceremony. He said the evening was meant to express both camaraderie and religious devotion.

The evening began like many a family picnic elsewhere in the country. Group members barbecued and enjoyed a congenial meal with one another. About 20 people attended the event, although not everyone wore the iconic klan robes. Three attendees specifically identified themselves as members of the klavern. Winkler mentioned that not every member of the group could make the trip.

Afterward, Winkler called everyone’s attention to speak for about a half-hour on the racial, political and social groups they opposed. Finally, once darkness fell, the evening concluded by setting a wooden cross afire.

That particular action, Winkler predicted, would be the source of much misunderstanding.

“Mainstream society looks at cross lighting as a symbol of hate, but it predates the klan by hundreds of years,” he said. “We look at it more as a religious symbol.”

According to Winkler, the religious component of the ceremony dates back to back to Scottish origins, when clan members used it as a means of communication. He also saw it as a pointedly Christian symbol, a representation of Jesus Christ’s light spreading to the rest of the world.

[...] Despite the unpopularity of his racial views, Winkler is soldiering on with his sheriff’s candidacy. On Monday, he participated in a candidate’s forum at the Blanchard Community Center. He continued to insist his Ku Klux Klan ties would not impact his performance as sheriff or make him susceptible to racial profiling. Instead, he would focus on tough stances regarding drugs and sex offenders.

“Most people don’t know that we don’t just oppose the Jews and the negroes,” he said. “We also oppose sexual predators and drugs of any kind.”

Winkler added that if he had his way, perpetrators of sexual crimes would be hung immediately.

As for the cross lighting and his other white supremacist links, Winkler admits that those who oppose him for his viewpoints probably won’t come around. Given that likelihood, he’s not worried about alienating potential supporters.

“I think at this point, whoever is going to disagree with me will keep on disagreeing, and those who agree with me will keep on agreeing,” he said.

Personally, I think it’s good to see a Republican candidate brave and honest enough to show their true color. I wish there were more candidates like Winkler. You know, this way we don’t have to waste time with the silly arguments about whether the Republican party is made up of racist xenophobes, and bigots. I don’t know about you, but voters tend to place a premium on a candidate’s honesty. That said, with candidates like Winkler, we sure can’t go wrong, no?

“In the event I was elected sheriff, I would not act on racial profiling,” Winkler said. “Being in the white power movement, I know how it feels to be profiled by law enforcement.” (source)

Yeah, I’m sure you do know about that profiling thing, Shaun…

I’m sure you do remember Cherie Buckner-Webb, and what y’all did to her.

The language on the ballot that NC citizens voted either ‘FOR’ or ‘AGAINST’ on May 8th, or earlier, stated:

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

It is important to note that prior to May 8, 2012, thirty states have included “same-sex marriage” bans in their constitutions. Legal scholars note that there are three types of language that these marriage bans maintain, and the rarest (and most broad) are language types such that Ohio used. North Carolina has now adopted such similar language, even though the consequences were proven in Ohio and the people of Ohio worked hard (and are still working) toward better legislation.

I am of the opinion that the amendment was framed this way before and during the vote in order to appeal to the emotions of the religious voters of the South. In fact, the people who thought it was about marriage and gays came out and expressed how much bigotry and privilege they maintained, quietly or not. However, the idea of marriage is less the focus in the language of the newly passed amendment, and the phrase the only domestic legal union is. Why? Because the courts have to interpret exactly what that means. Additionally, the newly passed “marriage amendment” is nearly identical to a tragedy that passed in Ohio, that opened the floodgates to consequences for more than just persons of the same sex/gender seeking marriage. In fact, in both Ohio and North Carolina, same sex marriage is already outlawed without the amendments.

Beyond further marginalizing the LGBTQ community, the marriage amendment has the potential to affect domestic violence victims. In Ohio, defense attorneys argued that unwed heterosexual couples did not meet the criteria for a “union”, however the court may decide to define it, and as such does not qualify for certain charges. Defense attorneys were also successful in overturning domestic violence convictions on this basis, and the courts were unclear on whether or not certain protections could be afforded to victims in the form of restraining orders. Also, the courts ruled inconsistently on these matters across the state, and so victims in different regions were not afforded the same protections. Eventually, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional ban did not affect domestic violence laws; however, it took three years for the circumstances to reach the court and for a decision to be made. During those three years, damage was done.

Even more unfortunate is the language in North Carolina’s newly passed amendment is more vague, and potentially more dangerous, than that belonging to Ohio. While there are some extremely progressive parts of North Carolina, there are also very small, rural communities that may have different understandings of the phrase “legal domestic union” and, much like Ohio, provide unequal protection of the law. This matters. THIS MATTERS. This matters because people in rural communities may not have access to many of the resources in the larger cities, and it Amendment One is an issue of classism in addition to anti-gay, religious bigotry.

Along those same lines, Amendment One has a great potential affect legislation where children of unwed parents are concerned. Custody and visitation laws may be affected with parties who have never had a “legal domestic union” as the courts see fit to interpret. Additionally, insurance benefits provided by either parent therein have the potential to be affected. This is incredibly important because, as of 2010, 72% of Black mothers were unwed. Does this mean that in every instance, the father is absent? Absolutely not. In one way or another, either through the courts or voluntarily, I would suggest that it has been my experience that many fathers are around in some form. I do not have a statistic and I will not speculate on a statistic; I am saying this to say that the passing of this amendment and a courts subsequent decision could limit this involvement, ergo harming children and Black families. Amendment One is harmful because, in addition to the anti-gay, religious bigotry and classism, it has the potential to be racially discriminatory and harmful. It harms single-parent families which, by extension, harms the Black community greatly.

Also, it should be noted that in few counties in North Carolina, unwed heterosexual couples are allowed domestic civil unions; this provides that partners can be on one another’s insurance benefits in addition to other benefits. These include assisting with medical decisions, adoptions, will and trusts, and other financial decisions. However, since marriage between one man and one woman is now the only domestic legal union, many people will be at a disadvantage.

We do not know what will happen. I think that is important to say; however, we do know the things that have the potential to happen. Also, the fact that marriage between one man and one woman is the only form of marriage acceptable in the state of North Carolina (and the other states who have amendments) is illustrative of the fact that the governments are using emotional push-buttons in order to further underlying agendas. Moreover, Constitutional Amendments aren’t like trying on new shoes and deciding that we do not like the fit. It takes time, energy, and resources to ‘undo’ this; there is no easy fix. Once this gets out of hand and negatively affects the citizens of North Carolina, the legislature cannot simply pass a statute to remedy it; a new amendment has to be passed and this will be extremely difficult.

Again, as someone from North Carolina who has been on the ground working for just about a year against the passing of this very scary amendment, I’m torn between sadness, disgust, and rage. While not entirely surprised that the amendment passed, I did think that it would be closer; only seven of North Carolina’s 100 counties voted successfully against it. A few weeks before the election, I got a 21-year-old brother registered to vote because he specifically wanted to vote against the amendment. The day of actual vote, I got into many arguments with many religious Black people who felt as though voting for Amendment One was a testament to their religious convictions. Though I attempted to explain, I was devastated at how unchanged their minds were; and they were mostly in their twenties!

I challenged all of my Facebook friends to give me a reason to vote FOR Amendment One that had nothing to do with religion and I got no responses. However, I went to high school with a guy who is apparently becoming a minister, and very much disagreed with my stance on the amendment. He, as a minister, has a child out of wedlock and maybe might just be a Black Republican (I’m not quite sure of the latter). And so, to appeal to his religious nature, I introduced him to Loving v. Virginia, where a married Black woman and white man were sentenced to a year in prison (suspended for 25 years of probation) for their interracial marriage in 1959 because the court found that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Our government and constitutions should not be used as a sword, and it should not be used to prevent people from equal protection, rights, or benefits under the law. Our constitution is meant to give freedoms and not take them away. While in a way they’ve already begun, they are definitely coming for women and people of color next. Keep your religious opinions away from my constitution.

Not to mention the conversation between my graddaddy with my twin and I when we were (maybe) 10 years old. We were out with him and there were a couple of gentlemen who were, um… ‘together’ and my brother and I started making jokes at their expense… My granddad explained that they had done nothing to us and, in such, were due AT LEAST the respect due to any other human being. He started the lesson (which was surely longer than the above sentence) with “boy…” which meant that he was not pleased with our behavior. Needless to say, that approach has followed us on into adulthood. Sure, we’re macho men who still get our hands dirty, drive manual transmissioned cars and raise (somewhat) traditional families, but we allow people the personal respect to at least be indifferent to how they live their lives, so long as they play us the same.
Sure, my brain-to-mouth (or keyboard) filter often errs to the ragged edge of couth or politically correct or even mature sometimes, but dammit my intentions are usually good.

Anyway, looking deeper into the amendment, it not only carries the redundant banning of something that is already illegal, but goes on to remove legal recognition of domestic unions/partnerships. The language I am seeing used in support of the amendment is to “protect the union of marriage from activist judges,” which again is striking up a fight that shouldn’t need to be fought in the first place, but why in the hell are we needing to cut off the lines of benefits/support for (yes, even heterosexual) unmarried couples WITH this? Healthcare benefits, right to make emergency room decisions, childcare, domestic violence protections and more stand to be lost on people if this amendment is passed.
I actually got into it with a friend-since-12 on Friday over this one. He is a son of my churches former pastor, and is now a pastor himself and he went into this one with blinders fully on. When called on it, he never changed direction or even addressed any other issue than the gay marriage thing. I wound up leaving the conversation.

With the vote coming up on May 8th and knowing that I would be at work, and not wanting to take a 10 month-old out to the polls, my mom and I went to early voting on Saturday morning. She tagged along not because she wanted to vote or particularly even understood the measure, but when I mentioned Friday’s discussion with my friend (whom she knows as well) on the way home from work, she started with “yeah, I’d been meaning to ask you about that” and I explained the measure and what it attempted to accomplish on its surface, what it would mean to people around us, and what it would ACTUALLY accomplish in the name of claiming something that already exists anyway. Her response? “well, that’s fucking wretched! What time are you going to vote tomorrow?”

To be totally honest, I gave about a damn about ANYTHING else on my state’s primary ballots this year, and I do not even feel bad about that. With an incumbent president for whom I already planned to vote, I had no real plans to even VOTE in the primaries. I make no qualms that I randomly pushed buttons matching names I saw in my neighborhood on the way to the polling station only 2 miles away until I saw the “AGAINST” on amendment one; and as a black Christian male, I proudly voted against it. I was very much, in spirit and intentions, with the Triad People of Faith on this one, to the point where if anyone had offered to put one of their signs in my yard, I would have gladly and graciously supported it. Perhaps giving more clarity to my “Jesus was a Liberal” post from before, there is literally ZERO amount of out-of-context scripture that I would then or will from now allow me to vote for anything as damaging to families as NC’s Amendment One would be.
In the end, bigotry and zeal won out and an amendment that will conspire to screw a lot of people after people voted with their preacherman and his cronies instead of their informed consciences, but I know how I voted and I am vocally proud to say it.

“What we need is a body-culture revolution in black America. Why? Because too many experts who are involved in the discussion of obesity don’t understand something crucial about black women and fat: many black women are fat because we want to be.”  Randall writes in her op-ed piece.

She goes on to opine…

“How many white girls in the ’60s grew up praying for fat thighs? I know I did. I asked God to give me big thighs like my dancing teacher, Diane. There was no way I wanted to look like Twiggy, the white model whose boy-like build was the dream of white girls. Not with Joe Tex ringing in my ears.”

Needless to say, Randall’s article sparked a flood of rebuttals via New Media, mostly penned by Black women, fed up with being publicly dissected and made to shoulder a burden that should be shared by Black men and actually, a good portion of this country.  Go ahead and add this post to the ‘exasperated’ list of folks who eye-rolled at Randall’s article.

While I’ve gleaned that Randall is attempting to advocate for Black women’s health and wellness, I can’t help but take her to task for using her own personal experiences to speak for and judge everyone else. Across my social media platforms and/or timelines, I read nothing but updates by Black women (including and especially women of size) checking-in at the gym and touting the benefits of “cleaner eating”. A lot of us are in fact, taking our health seriously.  As a relatively healthy, fuller-figured Black woman myself– (full-disclosure, I did have a brief stint with an eating disorder when I was a teen, as a way to will my body slimmer) –  and contrary to what Randall suggests; I don’t walk around fist-pumping in the name of fat nor do I have an aversion to healthy eating habits– (up until about five years ago, I’d been a long-time vegetarian)– or being active. More importantly, I’m not fuller-figured via some man’s request and my experiences don’t mirror every other plus size woman’s. While I admittedly grapple with my body’s fluctuating weight, I don’t wrestle with the idea of being mostly comfortable with myself like many people would prefer… at least not beyond the norm of any woman who fusses over her looks. And it took a bit of work to learn to accept maintaining my body in its fullness, while shirking the opinions and judgement of others, who haven’t a clue about my well-being or social life.

Randall also makes the foolish (and common) mistake of generalizing the preferences of Black men (once again, due to her own personal experiences), suggesting that most of them prefer a woman with a fuller-figure and will express dismay at their partner’s weight loss…

“How many middle-aged white women fear their husbands will find them less attractive if their weight drops to less than 200 pounds? I have yet to meet one.

But I know many black women whose sane, handsome, successful husbands worry when their women start losing weight.”

The backlash from Randall’s article has been palpable, and she has felt the impact and responded to it:

“My statement was that many black women are fat because they want to be. I said the word, “many,” there was no “all.” When I talk about, “want to be,” I use an example of husbands. Let me use an example that’s even more profound to me—grandmothers. My grandmother was big as three houses. She was a brilliant, strong woman who ended up having grandchildren and great-grandchildren that went to Harvard and MIT and the like, to do big things.

When I think of what it is to be powerful and beautiful, I think of her. That’s something I wanted to be. In the heart of my hearts, when I think of strength and beauty, the first thought I have is of her. I am acknowledging her influence on me. I wrote and published four novels in 10 years. That’s doing a lot of work. The way I get that work done is not sleeping much or taking time to exercise and take care of myself. Those are choices I’ve made.

I haven’t gotten fat because of eating horrible foods, but by overwork. That’s a choice that most blacks make—going out and working the job as a domestic servant.”  (source)

And there she goes again…  Alice Randall has made a blanket assumption about a Black men, based on her experiences. Even when she attempts to personalize the article in her follow-up statement, to assert her own internal issues with her body, she seemingly projects it onto other Black women.

This brand of writing, which analyzes Black women’s bodies, rarely ever features anything particularly revelatory we aren’t already aware of or haven’t read lately. The emphasis is always put on Black women and is often written by other women (who are just as culpable for trying to police female bodies).

Living our best lives is important. Indulging a sedentary and excessive lifestyle is detrimental to anyone’s health, so enough with the “Fat Black Women Represent Obesity in America” trope; last year it was “Single, Educated but Sad and Unattractive Black Women” — and that one gets resurrected every now and again.  When it comes to Black female bodies and obesity,  there’s an amalgamation of factors at play and it’s not as cut-and-dry as Alice Randall — (who has a agenda book to promote, apparently) — and other people would like it to be, whether they like and/or agree with it, or not.

For once I’d like to read an analysis about the issue of Black people’s (not just women) health and wellness, which advocates healthful lifestyles, but is supportive in its exploration while presenting carefully documented reasons and solutions. I’d like to read more commentary from licensed experts, who’ve done the field work and painstaking research. Because honestly, these Bloggers, quasi-social scientists, and journalists playing couch-Physician while wagging their fingers at Black women for not “fitting-in” or to try to shame them into submission, is not the way.

As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?

Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!

Now the white people who actually wake up and don’t feel any particular way about other races is entertaining during times like these. The comment section is hilarious, I think back hands to the mouth are best given by people of one’s own race when they witness others misbehave.

The sane people, the ones who you wouldn’t mind living next too, hear shit like this and it sounds off an alarm in their head and they realize the comment just sounds……..RACIST….even if they can’t quite put their finger on it.

Blacks and some other sensitive to flaming language brown people hear shit like the comment above and we hunch our shoulders, because unfortunately, we’re used to it.

Blacks have had to listen and tolerate sneaky racial insults since….forever.

Loose color charged inferences like these endorsed by the NY Post aren’t lost on us knee-grows like racist whites would like to believe; the problem is that as Black’s on the receiving end of  overt type ‘yuck yuck yuck’ insults, we’re just not often in a position to slap the dog shit out of the white person whose grinning while calling us a Nigga using fancy words.

I think whites like Phil Mushnick are either so frenzied at the Niggas in Paris (and/or the White House) that they can’t help but to say insulting shit or he’s just that fucking racist that he wants to rally the troops together by speaking to the core issues of the issue of a mega team, white power, perception, ownership, a changing landscape and more brown people with heavy purses.

Racism is like a mental disorder, and sometimes when people with mental disorders are agitated they lose their ability to control themselves and sporadic impulse control takes over. Foul language falls from their lips but they can’t help it.

I would compare it to the types of behavioral challenges faced by those who suffer from Tourettes Syndrome.

Other will take what Phil said and while agreeing with his statement, will still take issue with the manner in which he delivered his criticism of the NY Nets. In his explanation of why he’s angry, Phil does neglect to take to task several other involved parties whose professional affiliations could be considered just as distasteful as that of the Jigga Man…but he doesn’t and he didn’t.

Double standard my red boned ass; because, by neglecting to point out the wrongness of everybody involved, he just wants to make sure the Nigga got caught.

So that leave the audience to come to the conclusion that he’s just a racist angry Cracka Ass Cracka who is fondling his dwindling self perception between his thumb and forefingers. I do find it hard to believe that a ‘real’ journalist couldn’t find a more eloquent way to conveying his opinion so I’ll just chalk it up to his fear of a Black planet.

I say its time to start calling a Spade a Spade, if free speech is still affordable and racially insensitive language is the clearest path from point A to the point B then why not indulge?

Me, personally, I’m tired to forcing myself to speak in a balanced and respectfully manner when it comes to the things I disagree with. We can’t have an honest conversation about shit, if we’re too busy tip toeing around the shit we’re trying to discuss, now can we?

Like my Grandma Hill would say, “I’d rather a loud racist then a quiet one, at least you can see him coming!” and I’ll have to agree.

Take the case of 44-year-old mother of five, Patricia Krentcil for example. Patricia, struggling as most white mothers have been recently, was arrested. Unlike the all too common “theft of education” charge levied against white mothers attempting to “do the right thing,” by enrolling their already disadvantaged children in better schools outside of their resident school districts. Instead, Patricia was wrongfully arrested for child endangerment; the absurdity of this is undeniable.

Patricia Krentcil of Nutley, N.J. (credit: CBS 2)

Of course not everyone reading this will agree with the idea that putting her red-headed 6-year-old into a tanning bed, is a form of endangerment — a claim that Patricia vehemently denies in the following interview with CBS 2′s Derricke Dennis – but I understand.

For some in her position, either that or able to relate to the plight of the white woman across America. Taking one good look at Patricia, one is able to see that like any good white mother in these times, she did what she had to do. That said, in all seriousness, this sounds like yet another case of “the man,” trying to keep yet another white person down. Yep, and to add insult to injury, they had her interviewed by a black man happy to toss around convenient tongue-in-cheek puns during his news presentation. Yep, real slick with that one was the liberal biased media.  Like everything, I’m sure you’d agree that this is Obama’s fault; after all, how else are white folks supposed to get ahead?

Perhaps if President Obama actually cared about white women, or more specifically white people, like the Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney does. Perhaps women like Patricia and the host of other God-fearing but marginalized people of un-color, would not be forced to do place their children into tanning booths in an attempt to secure a future for themselves, in Amuur’cuh.

You might even be so desperate for help that you reach out to a local radio show host like one father did recently for this exact same issue.

In response to an email from a listener concerning his daughter’s interest in girls, DJ Dominic Deiter declared over the air that the father could cure his daughter budding lesbianism by, “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.”

Once a person includes the words ‘father’, ‘daughter’,  ’your friends’ and ‘rape’ in the same sentence it becomes difficult to make things get worse than what they already are. However, the impact of the statement from this asshole gets even more insulting when you realize this is a broadcast from the ‘Rover’s Morning Glory’ radio program airing on WWMS 100.7 FM radio station.

This station is owned by Clear Channel Communications, also the home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the rest of those red throat-ed eels. Bain Capital, the company that Mitt Romney began and is still involved with, is the majority owner of Clear Channel so as you can see, the gangs all here and doing what they do which is talk hateful and ignorant shit to the masses unfortunate enough to listen to it.

Of course this didn’t go over well with the folks over at GLAAD who had the following to say.

GLAAD’s Director of News & Field Media Aaron McQuade says “It was appalling and dangerous for this show to tell a father that he should have one of his friends rape his daughter. That’s essentially how Dieter responded to this listener, and this is no laughing matter in a world where people are too often the victims of violence and sexual assault based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation. And Dieter gave this vile advice to everyone who was listening, including educators, parents and children – sending the message that it’s okay to physically or sexually abuse people who are perceived to be gay.”

I’m not sure what it is that’s got my head so fucked up these days. As I sit down to write about certain topics I’m forced to reflect on myself and what it is that I’m trying to say to you people.

Sometimes the journey through what “is” and “is not” okay and what “is” and “is not” fucked up is still blurry in my world. Like when I hear about the sexual assault of a person who identifies as gay or is suspected of being gay, I can barely muster the interest to bat an eyelash because its part of what happens when you ‘choose’ to be gay. Being both gay and a woman makes the chance that a woman will be the victim of sexual assault that much more likely.

Dominic Dieter: Radio DJ, Potential Rapist, & Definitely Misogynist

Sexual assault is more prevalent for some people in society than for others and focusing on how wrong rape is immediately makes one also realize how common sexual assault is. The further you go down on the societal totem pole the more likely you are to be a victim of sexual assault.

The chances increase as you add various factors to the situation such as economics, race and especially sexual orientation, because the ladder makes a question of what one does up for public debate. Being gay or perceived as gay is something that is viewed as wrong by closed minded ignorant people of all nationalities, races and gender.

LGBT people insult everyone else with their presence so not only is the act of raping a gay person a sexual assault, it is also a hate crime because the initial motivation for the sexual assault is to exhibit power over another person because of their gender orientation or perception thereof.

Rape is about power.

The rape of a gay person is about power and erasure. It is a double theft of a person’s right to self determination and privacy.

The value of the victim decreases as the biases increase and I’m sure there were plenty of insecure men and quivering homophobics who agreed that indeed, a gay woman (or any woman for that matter) should have ‘the gay fucked out of her’ because there’s nothing more threatening to the world then a woman who isn’t susceptible or receptive to the almighty penis.