Wales2004

I totally missed this but I do want to respond. I was trying to make the point that being black isn't mutually exclusive of everything else and there are black people who are also gay. I wasn't suggesting that you meant that black people don't exist. This is neither here nor there because if Joe is beaten up because he is a boy and Jane is beaten up because she's a girl and they both end up with cracked ribs then the reason for the beating doesn't override the result of the beating. I do make a distinction between residual racism and racism because one happens by association and the other is direct. It's not a question of which is worse but the victim of residual racism has the option of not associating with the target of the racism while the target does not have that option. I am stating that more as a point of fact and not to in any way slight any victim of residual racism. Gay people may be discriminated against as have others but my initial point was that a gay black guy can be beaten, dragged, hung, et al. so I can't get with the whole this happened to gay people like it happened to black people when I know that this also happened to black gay people. If a news report states that a black lesbian was murdered, is she a woman, black, or a lesbian? She's all of the above but being black in America seems to me that you cannot be seen as anything else by some people. That should be thrown in that great big discussion of race in America. Then again everyone who is not black or white isn't even invited to talk.

I didn't see the show but I just viewed an edited clip and I do agree with her on how racism is diluted when just about everything is labeled as racism. I believe she's right in that it probably leads to "racism fatigue" and causes some people to be less likely to care about more serious cases of it. Idisagree that a person has to be black to experience and know what racism is. I think she may have been channeling some experience that she knows Rosie O'Donnell wouldn't have. I think Rosie bringing up raising a black child may have come across as having a black friend being the reason one is not racist. Along with some other aspects of America's race discussions that I find off is the belief that only black people in America can ever experience racism or know what it's like. Race is some sort of socio-political construct, imo, devised to subordinate people. Everyone at a certain point just fell in line and made out as if it's something wholly natural and not created by society and that everyone is somehow helplessly and hopelessly bound to follow and enforce.

Hate may be hate but I don't think the comparison is the same. I personally get put off by someone comparing being black to being gay as though black gay people don't exist. I could go on... Raising a black child is defintely not the same because now we're not even talking about first-hand experience. We're talking about either being saddened by a child's misery or someone's hateful stares or words that are still directed toward that child. Mothers can feel pain for their children but I don't believe the can feel their children's pain. Instead of trying to discuss these things through a prism of being able to "know what it's like or what it may feel like," maybe people should figure out that being the subject of discrimination or being an outcast is awful. So now that we understand pain and suffering exists go forward with possible solutions. I wholeheartedly agree that racism should be a topic open to everyone. A person does not have to have experienced any of another person's experiences to know that it was bad or awful. If I fall and scrape my knee, no one needs to tell me that he or she fell as well to be able to say too bad for me or get up and stop whining about it.

Are you just joking about her knowing on that basis? You can probably find a bunch of women who disagree with her and who would be right then? I receive reinforcement every day that people either don't know what opinions are or they have a hard time respecting any that differ from their/s because far too many people are adamant these days that their opinion is a fact and whoever agrees with them is right and whoever does not is wrong. She may be right if saying that some women may be seeking attention but many are not. Who knows how many suffer in silence.

I'm not going to attempt to psychoanalyze anyone for whatever positions they want to take on this. There are probably a wide range of reasons why individuals would have a problem with their defense. I don't know any of them and I have no idea what they know, don't know, believe or don't believe. I just think it would be wrong on my part to assume that a wife and children are always well aware of all things pertaining to a husband/father. His wife may have believed she was dealing with a cheating husband and maybe she was too consumed with her children and own issues to notice whatever signs/clues people believe a serial rapist would be leaving around the house. And who knows how the death of her son affected her. And I don't think not being able to see something that everyone else thinks you should see in another person makes one stupid or blind either. As for knowing how you'd react--you may very well be someone who knows how you'd react in a situation. Sometimes I think I'd know but there are situations where I'm unsure how I'd react. I was raped as a child and I didn't figure out what happened to me until I was an adult. It greatly impacted aspects of my childhood and I know what it's like to be nine years old and want to die. I tried to kill myself and today which may seem funny to me today but certainly not then. Yet despite that, I cannot relate to any of these women. I simply cannot see myself knowingly keeping something like that secret for decades unless I had one of those moments like Pola Kinski who said she got tired of hearing people tell her what a great man her father was. I am certain I would not have been able to watch him on television or hear about how great he is without saying something. Any notion that we all would or should react the same way in a given situation seems faulty.

People are going to believe whatever they want to believe -- evidence or lack of won't make a difference to some. I don't know who is lying or who is telling the truth and I am not going to assume that the number of women makes the accusations any more credible. Nor will I assume that those coming to his defense makes the accusations any less credible. If true, then along with all the other terrible aspects is the fact that this was not exposed soon enough to save some of the victims. A whole lot of enabling and indifference had to have taken place and all of those people who helped make this happen, if true, should be made accountable as well. His family should be expected to defend him unless they know what this is true and I am not going to assume that they know anything -- especially his children. Crime shows and documentaries sometimes depict how people are able to lead double lives to which their families are oblivious. Unless someone is claiming this all took place at his house and even then people can get away with things and his children are of a generation that may not be as aware of what kids might easily figure out today, especially if they thought their father was a great dad.

Oh Carly, honey somebody still loves you

This is one of those songs I could easily find annoying but it hasn't happened yet:

I feel as if we've hijacked this thread so I'd like to move this over to a new general music discussion and leave this as intended with a video to redirect it back:

I absolutely love this song:

It's all subjective isn't it? I think CA sounds good. Extra--I can do without. I can say the same for Patti LaBelle when she goes overboard simply because she can and I can do without overboard. Neither is alone in that category with Michael Bolton being a great offender whenever he seemingly feels challenged (he and Patti Labelle had some near scream off once). Style over substance is another subjective matter. Motown artists were stylized though probably all pretty talented. When it comes to The Supremes and Diana Ross, I guess it's debatable which ones were the best singers. Maybe Kylie Minogue took it to another level but Madonna probably rewrote the book. Nowadays you have more of a focus sex appeal than focus on singing talent.

Both of the songs I like are used in commercials and are infectious as pop should be. If you don't like Christina Aguilera's voice then I can see how you would not like anyone's voice who sounds like her. I don't think she sounds like her though and overdone melisma is annoying but it still doesn't take away from CA's generally great voice. I don't take pop stars too seriously.....I leave that to them and their critics. The problem you find with today's pop existed in other decades too. Who would believe that the writer of something such as "Mickey's Monkey" could be a capable lyricist? Trite pop is at the core of some of the most fun songs ever. The 80s is full of it and probably the decade with the most fun music, imo. Now I haven't paid much attention to the "Applause" lyrics (maybe they're on the level of "Vogue"), but "Do What U Want" does say something over whatever you find repetitive. I read that she thinks the song is R&B. While there is a thin line imo between the two, I don't think R. Kelly's appearance on a song makes it R&B. I still think this song is pop but his collaboration with Justin Beiber qualifies as R&B, if that's even worth anything these days.

I'm not a fan of either but R. Kelly still has a great voice and this song is stuck in my head (I blame Best Buy):

McCain/Palin probably didn't seem to be much of an alternative to some so the timing was perfect for him and his inexperience. That's on the Republicans for not running "better" candidates. On another note, I just came across this: http://www.khou.com/news/local/White-guy-wins-after-leading-voters-to-believe-hes-black-231222981.html

I think he was probably an idealist who believed he could make a difference and maybe he still does believe that in some way, but the politcal machinery is bigger and stronger than anyone who thinks he or she can change Washington or any state house. Either you play the game or walk away with your soul intact. Or maybe you find your soul again once you leave office.

iTunes free song by Tori Kelly:

A few years ago I was listening to the radio in my car and I heard Al Sharpton (who was the guest on a radio show) say that there was nothing worse than preaching the funeral of an irrelevant negro. I was put off by this because I don't happen to beleive that any person is irrelevant and is worthy of a decent burial, if that is their desire. Now had he been talking about criminals, et al,. then I would understand his point but I cannot...... But then again, Al Sharpton has never been my cup of tea so that only turned me further in the opposite direction. Is he helpful to some people? Sure.

I was watching a sports talk show discussion about the Washington Redskins and it reminded me how backwards America's conversations about racial matters tend to be. Participants seem to always begin with "I'm not" black, white, Jewish, Native American.....fill in the blank. No one ever seems to believe that they might be able to understand how another human being might feel about anything at all because they can only experience things through "racial emotions" or "ethnic emotions" or whatever other label gets slapped on. Now I suppose that many black American voters are Democrats based on that party being less hostile to black Americans than the Republican party. It makes sense that a person would affiilate would the party that seemed less offensive to that individual and the Democrats are inclusive in their platforms/agendas (at least on the surface). I don't know where you get the impression that all the black Americans love Al Sharpton though. And to what major black concerns does he eloquently give voice? I'm not sure why he even has a show on MSNBC as he has so much trouble reading the teleprompter and his timing is terrible. He's an example of the media trying to dictate to the public what the public supposedly wants. Think of it this way, do you believe any similarly skinned stranger on the street knows you better than you know yourself? Do you believe that you and all the similarly skinned people in the nation, the state in which you reside, or even the street on which you reside, share all of the same values, beliefs, likes/dislikes, personal goals, interests, etc.? If not, is it really that hard to believe that black people aren't some sub-humans devoid of independent thought and feelings who don't all share the same hopes, dreams, etc., other than those who simply want to be treated with respect and as if they are capable of the same type of emotions, thoughts, et al that you are?

I think it's wrong to constantly stop law abiding residents and to treat young men like criminals when they have not done anything illegal. Bill de Blasio's son happens to be pretty big for a 15 year old and the message being sent to him and others is that they are never going to be treated with respect and dignity because they look like potential criminals and this is okay because it will make a whole lot of other people feel safer, and they should just accept it as their contribution to those who feel safer--as though this makes perfect sense. People are focused on the policy which makes absolute sense to them but not on the application of that policy and the damage that application. The policy may sound color blind but the people enforcing it are clearly not and it's application is discriminatory in nature. The police should try canvassing those high crime areas more frequently and focus on the known criminals instead of those who are just going to and fro.