Unhappy?

Let’s assume for a second you exist in this country with the same inalienable rights as the rest of us. If you’re reading this, I assume you’re not a 5-year old child scavenging for food in Bangladesh. I assume you have access to clean running water, medicine, and internets.

Fulfilled all those criteria? Awesome. Unhappy? Brace yourself –

IT’S PROBABLY YOU.

Lately, I’m noticing a trend whereby many of us (myself included) bemoan a life of unhappiness while simultaneously making little to no effort to change it. Ironically, the people in the best positions to change their own lives seem to complain the most about the unwillingness of, or lack of enthusiasm in other people to change it for them.

Who died and made the rest of us responsible for your inner glow?

Now let’s be clear, I definitely recognize depression as a clinical illness. But many of us aren’t clinically depressed. We’re just in a shitty situation that we’d rather not be in - and instead of just accepting the choice we’ve made when we choose to stay, or making the alternative choice to leave, we’d rather bitch, cry, and moan about how someone else could’ve fluffed the pillows nicer on the bed we chose to lie in.

I haven’t live very long, but this one thing I know – happiness can’t be found. Kind of like Dorothy looking for home in the Wizard of Oz. Home is within. Happiness is within.

Sometimes, you just gotta stop trying to be happy and just be.

And sometimes, YOU have to decide to change your unhappy situation for YOURSELF.

Happiness sprouts the moment you decide you ain’t taking it no more and walk out of that life-sucking relationship.

Happiness blooms the second you arrive at your wits end and vow to quit that dead-end stress-filled job.

Happiness blossoms when you make a decision to accept the choices in life you’ve made, count your blessings, and LIVE ON.

And when happiness is seeded into our lives, we must also accept that is our responsibility to cultivate and nourish it. Some of us have got to stop scurrying around like life is one big ass sale and we’re mad at the saleslady because the two-for-one tank tops are sold out. Some of us need to just start realizing that we haven’t made a sufficient effort to keep our own selves happy. *looks in the mirror*

So, here’s to owning our emotions! *sips honey Jack*

And here’s to not waiting for 2013 to do so! *takes another swig*

Happy Kwanzaa! And Happy New Year!

Blonde Hair, Don't Care

WARNING: RANT COMING

If I catch one more skillet-fried, black-as-me, chocolate black woman tryna pull off silky blonde hair, imma snatch her by her wig and slam her face against a beauty salon window.

Violence? Yes, VIOLENCE. EARLY. Look ma, that look ain’t for you. IT’S NOT FOR YOU!!! Trust me, you look ridiculous with those goldie-locks. I can assure you no one’s fooled into thinking that’s your natural hair color. What’s more, it just doesn’t look good. Leave blonde to the Mary J. Blige’s and T-Boz’s of the world. It was never meant for the Naomi Campbell’s and India.Aire’s.

Don’t believe me? I can prove it to you. Watch this.

This is Naomi Campbell.

This is Naomi Campbell on blonde.

Any questions?

But, for serious. Bright hair distracts from a dark-skinned woman’s main attraction: her skin.One undeniably awesome feature of blue-black skin is glow. No blemishes. All that melanin blocking out the UV rays makes for softer, supple, strokable, wrinkle-free skin that stands the test of time. You’re obliterating your natural radiance with that mop of straw you’ve slapped up there. And why? That’s like putting vanilla icing on a chocolate cake. I mean… it can be done, and of course it’ll do in a crunch. But if given a choice, who’d wanna ruin the chocolate experience with pasty white goo? I mean… If you’re gonna have some chocolate cake, have some chocolate icing on it for the love of Jehovah.

*sigh* Ok. This blog’s gone too far. Rant complete.

I don’t know why it especially turds my soup to see dark-skinned girls making bone-head beauty moves. Maybe I should blog more about it - somebody’s gotta tell these girls about the perils of tangerine gloss over purple lips. Perhaps a little more delicately next time? I dunno…*shrug*

Ahl holla.

Thanks, You.

Blind. Crippled. Deaf. 105 years old. Who’d really be there for you?

For me, that list is short. That list is short for most people. Especially those of us who don’t have children. Sadly, that list is still short for many of us that do.

What causes a person to voluntarily tend to someone else in there time of need? I’ve seen a woman invest all her lifelong love into a child and be ignored by that very same child in her time of need, only to be rescued by another she’s ignored all her life.

It’s all about the values instilled in us.

Prayerfully, there is something inculcated in each individual that directs tending to the elderly, the sick, and the disabled. It is each of us, knowing right from wrong, that decides to care for those in need among us. Ironically, in most circumstances, there is no amount of pain, love, neglect, or worship on the part of the one in need that will change that. It’s just who we are. Many have cared for someone they barely know in sickness or old age. Some have even come to the rescue of their own abusers in times of need.

My mother told me a story about my nephew today. Not even ten years old, he volunteers to take out the trash. Undoubtedly, he’s learned this from his parents. It occurred to me, without a doubt, this child will be there for his grandmother. In his mind this is simply how things are done, and I’m certain he will carry that with him into adulthood. Selfishly, I also realize this child will be there for me as well. No matter what. His parents have instilled in him this subtle thing of right and wrong that will guide how he treats people for the rest of his life.

In some selfish way, when we care for others and teach our children to do the same, we are really tending to ourselves. Raising a generation of children who’ll refuse to turn their backs on those in need. We’re leading by example. It’s something not only to be proud of, but to be grateful for. Grateful that this example will propagate through generations, thus serving us all.

Thank you to those who selflessly sacrifice for the well-being of others. It’s not said enough that you make the world a better place for us ALL.

patter

i remember
the precise patter
of his heart racing
beneath my ear

him?
I could do without
but his patter?
his patter, I miss

Can beautiful just let smart live?!

My bestie recently earned her doctorate in neuroscience. She’s gorgeous (no exaggeration). A few months ago, we were complaining about our abysmal dating experiences when I think I made her cry:

Her: “I’m real hopeful about the future.”
Me: “I’m not. You think shit gets better after grad school? I don’t. Negroes are already intimidated by brains… da f*ck you think gon’ happen when they hear you’re a Ph.D.? There’s no hope for either of us. It’s over. We’re gonna be spinsters.”

I speak harshly at times. Ok…most times… so I apologized. I can’t even say I really believe that - I was just having a moment. But beneath my point lies one nagging assumption:

Women can’t be too smart. If you are, no one will like you.


I just cringed typing that. Even looks bad written there. Mostly because I don’t want to accept that I’ve accepted that. But I have.

Enter Kanye West and his Runaway movie. He serves up Selita Ebanks as a feathered-out Phoenix – complete with 12 ft. wing span and 24-karat talons.



I truly enjoyed the flick and CAN’T WAIT for Kanye’s album. Runaway left me with three thoughts:

1) Damn! Selita Ebanks has some nice tetas! Are those things real?!?
2) “Your girlfriend is really beautiful… do you know she’s a bird?” – voted most memorable line. I’m still snickering at the double entendre, even if it wasn’t intended.
3) Society’s conceptualization of ultimate beauty in women is usually coupled with romanticization of naiveté.


I get it. Men fantasize about exposing women to new things and being eternally jocked because of it. Wide-eyed gratitude generally comes easier from dogs and toddlers – and stupid people. Accordingly, men cherish (subconsciously or not) ignorance in women. Oh, you can be smart… just don’t be too smart - meaning smarter than the cute boy you’re talking to.

I know there are men who find smart women to be the sexiest thing on the planet, but I’m willing to bet they’re in the minority. Also, I’ve found that a man’s fascination with a woman’s intelligence usually wears off quickly – right around the time when she’s right and he’s wrong. Suddenly, smart isn’t sexy anymore. Nope, then you’re just a bitch.

I dunno...maybe it’s just me. Perhaps some day I’ll learn to walk these fine lines between intelligent and bitch - between assertive and dike - between opinionated and shrew. Or maybe some day beautiful will go her own way, and just let smart be.

Black "Dating" Proposals

Of course I couldn't just let "Black Marriage Negotiations" slide!!

Who Cares About Black Male Privilege Anyway?

In a recent post, @TKOEd expressed concern regarding the terminology “Black Male Privilege.” Reasonable criticism from reasonable individuals always makes me pause to think. That’s when it hit me:

Why are Black women defining their grievances vis-à-vis Black men anyway?

On some multi-tiered dream-within-a-dream “Inception” type isht, the concept is about as patriarchal as it gets.

We must ask ourselves, what is the purpose of the Black Male Privilege debate? Is it not to articulate grievances of Black women in hopes that those injustices be eradicated?

If this is true, then we ought to express grievances of Black women in a narrative centered on Black women. We need not relegate Black women’s plight to a position beneath the thumb of Black men. Furthermore, there are enough communication difficulties between Black men and women in America today. I concede tossing up the word “privilege” if it means our intergender debates proceed productively.

If our purpose is to abolish injustices specific to Black women, we must begin our conversation on agreeable grounds (that’s Persuasion 101). The history of the Black man in America makes it extraordinarily difficult for him to swallow the idea of being an oppressor. Correspondingly, the Black Male Privilege debate has become divisive, and inevitably distracts us into a counterproductive and phallocentric discourse.

When we discuss the issues of Black women, let us discuss the issues of Black women, not the privileges of Black men. In that way, we keep the debate appropriately focused instead of derailing it into a conversation that ultimately buries our gripes (which is exactly the opposite of what we desired in the first place).

Barriers to medical advancements and the silly people that perpetuate them.

I read an article on CNN today that really cramped my crotch: Many studies great news for mice, not so much for humans

Besides the fact that it’s misleading and poorly researched, the commentary fails to disclose one very important aspect limiting the translation of bench-top biomedical research to clinical practice – profitability.

Here’s the skinny: sometimes, academic scientists can cure diseases in lab mice. Often, that’s where the story ends. Basic biomedical research infrequently becomes real-world application. There are significant reasons for this beyond those discussed in the CNN article, and they are multifold:


First, academicians aren’t particularly interested in profiting monetarily from discovery. Sounds silly, right? Unfortunately, it’s generally true. Most academics aren’t beholden to academia because they want to be rich. I’m not claiming that everyone conducting biomedical research at a university is altruistic, but if money were a pressing issue, they’d probably work in industry where they could make truckloads of it. Furthermore, it’s somewhat frowned upon in the scientific community to be all about da benjamins. I guess because researchers are supposed to be in it for the greater good, or fanatical about the integrity of our work, or something like that. Whatever the reasons, academics seldom turn their biomedical research discoveries into tangible, patentable, and marketable products (read: medicines).

Second, industry doesn’t care what academics do. Admittedly, I’m exaggerating. Yet, ask any employee of a pharmaceutical company’s research and development team about this, and you’ll find the truth isn’t too far fetched. Industry is about profit. Drug companies have one major goal: make money. If they intend to develop a drug and market it, they require near certainty that the drug will sell. Unfortunately, diseases and/or novel therapeutic modalities that interest academics because they’re rare or understudied, usually carry the least potential profit for pharmaceutical companies – because they’re rare and understudied. Furthermore, communication between academia and industry is abysmal, preventing even those ideas which might be of mutual benefit from propagating in fertile soil. Many researchers are working on closing these gaps; still, the sharing of intellectual property between academia and industry can best be described as “throwing it over the fence.” As a result, few if any academic biomedical research discoveries are subsequently translated by industry into tangible, patentable, and marketable pharmaceuticals.

Furthermore, WE LET THIS HAPPEN. That’s right, you and me – the market. We dictate what sells based on what we buy. And for some reason, we’re more concerned about erections than we are about prostate cancer. We the people aren’t protecting ourselves from the inherent dangers of free markets in medicine. We’re content to let the market regulate itself. As a result, acne has a better shot at being cured than melanoma. There are ways out of this. The government could offer incentives to pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments for rare but fatal diseases. We could develop programs that foster discourse between academia and industry. We could invest more into therapeutic development via The National Institutes of Health…

The point is, the greatest barrier to medical advancement isn’t lack of technology - it’s misdirected motive. If we can engineer diseases in mice, trust me when I tell you that we can cure those diseases in humans. Yet, as long as we allow the healthcare market to regulate itself and let profit be the primary motive for medical advancement, we’ll get drugs that induce 4-hour erections and treat restless leg syndrome instead of cures for breast cancer and Alzheimer’s.

Yes, the whole world causes cancer. Sorry.

I read about cancer and conduct research towards a cure nearly everyday of my life. Little disheartens me more than the constant barrage of attacks (usually instigated by companies trying to make a profit) aimed at products which have served us valiantly for decades, now accused of being carcinogens (cancer-causing agents).

Look folks, the truth is EVERYTHING causes cancer. I can design an experiment that demonstrates any entity you can think of induces cancer in cells growing on plastic. Even water. The fact is, environmental stressors promote tumorigenesis. Yet, cancer itself is a set a complex genetic diseases – none of which can be attributed to a solitary cause. A series of unfortunate genetic events generally precedes the unchecked cell division that typically initiates tumor development. Thankfully, your body is pretty good at protecting itself from singular perturbations; nevertheless, accumulating events can overwhelm the body’s defenses, thereby causing the petrifying disease. To my dismay, people tend to focus on avoiding particular disease-causing agents, instead of taking a more beneficial holistic approach to health.

So does this mean microwaves and cell phones don’t cause cancer? If I’m perfectly honest, I have to give you an answer you probably don’t want to hear – I don’t know. In fact, the jury is still out in the cancer research community on many environmental agents purported to be cancer causing. But the axiom of consequence has previously been stated - EVERYTHING causes cancer. Hence, the best advice anyone can give you when it comes to lowering your risk for tumor development is simple: “all things in moderation.”

I know you didn’t want to hear that. You wanted me to provide a list of things you could consume or avoid to lower your cancer risks. How’s this for a list: eat right, exercise, keep away from bad things, take in more good things, place limits on everything. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle will help to reduce your risks for cancer, and ALL diseases. It really is just that simple folks… and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or should I say a cancer biologist) to figure it out.

Black women are not broken, SO STOP TRYING TO FIX US!!

I get so frustrated with relationship/dating advice that places blame squarely on black women’s behavior when it comes to being single. Sure, there is always room for self-reflection, and of course there are MANY things we as women can change, but we must recognize the PRIMARY issue is not us. If we don't understand that there is a mathematical discrepancy that exists, we'll continue to try to fix something that's not even broken (which, of course, only makes the situation worse).

I'm actually hurt when I read things like: "the reason 70% of black women are single is because they’re (insert insult here)" - statements like this clearly don't acknowledge the larger problem that must be addressed. As one self-proclaimed relationship/dating advice expert submitted to me:

“Men look for three main things: great personality, respectability, and emotional availability. Many black women lack those three things which plays a huge role in why they’re single.”

Advice based on this perception is incredibly dangerous and injurious to black women. We often internalize this advice (when truly there's nothing wrong with us), and resultantly become too accommodating and emotionally available. Too many black women can speak of short “relationships” which have left them as struggling single moms, heartbroken due to infidelity, or with an STD. Too many black women are left wondering why they tolerated an undeserving man’s tomfoolery from Jump Street.

Look, the reality is, black women can self-reflect until kingdom come, it still won't make enough educated black men pop up to wife us all.

If you keep trying to fix your screen while the true problem lies within your VCR, you’re going to f*ck around and destroy your television – which was working just fine to begin with!

When it comes to black women marrying equally accomplished black men, the numbers just aren’t there. Just accept it and start broadening your horizons. If you read any dating advice geared towards black women that doesn’t ostensibly acknowledge this idea, dismiss that b*llsh*t as tomfoolery before it obliterates you from the inside out.

The main problem is we, as black women, haven't figured out how to navigate the system. We haven't figured out how to build a black man up to our level without insulting his masculinity. We haven't figured out how to love those who love us first, even if that person is not the same race as us. We haven't figured how to become patient as opposed to excessively tolerant…

I certainly don’t have all the answers - I’m still learning how to iron out those dilemmas for myself. I just pray we start searching for solutions in the right storehouses, and stop damaging self-esteem by convincing ourselves that there’s something dreadfully wrong with us, when in actuality, we’re just fine…for the most part ;-)

Cablinisian Privilege

Tiger Woods has the thickest veil of impenetrable presumed innocence that I've ever seen on a man who would have been a slave in 1864.

I don’t care what he calls himself, cablanasian, cablinisian – whatever the hell the term is he uses to distance himself from black – Tiger Woods would’ve been pickin’ cotton or in the kitchen snappin’ peas with the rest of us common negroes 150 years ago. Yet somehow he’s arrived at a level of success that permits him to tell police to go to hell - AND THEY LISTEN. That’s right folks, as of today, Dec. 1, 2009, Tiger Woods has not offered any details to authorities regarding the crash that occurred while driving on his property at 2:30 a.m. last week (ref). He has, however, released a miniscule amount of information to fans via his website saying he has “cuts and bruises and was ‘pretty sore’.”

Fast forward to this evening when another of Tiger’s affairs is elucidated (ref). Laughably, a response is posted on RollingOut.com titled Another Wood’s Mistress Surfaces? Why Are Women Trying to Destroy Tiger’s Marriage. Of course, the obvious question is: Why is Tiger Woods trying to destroy his own marriage? But more intriguingly, I’m completely befuddled by the propensity of the general public to presume innocence when it comes to Tiger Woods. Michael Jordan doesn’t even get that kind of red-carpet treatment.

Picture Michael Jordan dismissing authorities, telling the po po to come back later because he’s trying to sleep, and refusing to divulge the details of a crash that resulted in thousands of dollars in property damage and a potential vehicular homicide. Picture Michael Jordan walking away from it all with a $164 fine. No days. MJ’s ass woulda been up the river - old age, bald head, and all. The headlines would read: “Michael Jordan detained for further questioning in connection with mysterious crash” - and you know it. So why the discrepancy? Could it be we’re THAT color-struck?

Talkin' 'Bout Good And Bad Hair...See If I Care

If you think hair relaxers and weaves will ultimately result in the demise of Black America, you're wrong - and overly dramatic. I would not deny that the majority of African-Americans who permed their hair with lye in the '60s did so out of desire to assimilate. But honey, this is 2009, not 1964.

Today, Black women partake in a buffet of hair options and are celebrated for exercising variety in coifing. A quick assessment of today’s high schools demonstrates relaxers do no more damage to a Black girl's identity than Nickelodeon. Our teenage girls (who frequently have authority over their hair choices) manifest a spectrum of styles. They revel in everything from 2 inch twists to waist-length weaves, and zealously delight in planning their future uncanny hair ventures.



I don’t look at a 16 year-old girl who's had her hair permed, but now chooses plaits, kinky twists, or cornrows, and conclude that a relaxer taught her self-hate, or to hate her own ethnicity.



Nonetheless, the mother who chemically modifies her child's hair at age 4 teaches a potentially more damaging lesson, one that we fail to evaluate in favor of inconsequential discussions concerning aesthetics.

Certainly, this mother realizes the damage she may cause. Still, she's willing to chemically modify her child's hair before it's sufficiently developed, without informed consent, simply to make it "more manageable". As she is willing to risk permanent destruction to her child’s crown for the benefit of not having to “deal with it", this mother inadvertently confirms, "it's ok to be lazy". Surely, there is a subconscious lesson being learned by the child here, but is that lesson primarily about aesthetics, worth, or work ethic? Arguably, the lesson includes elements of each, but which is most substantial?

This begs a greater question: what are the priorities of the Black community in this great hair debate?

Let’s face it, eventually, natural hair will be universally accepted. The reason locs and twists are not readily tolerated in corporate America today is simple - there aren't enough Blacks there to make it acceptable. Ignorance will be abrogated the moment African-Americans possess a proportionate quantity of America's power. The ultimate focus of the Black community should be arriving at that point most expeditiously.

But alas, we preferentially debate who's the “blackest”.

Truthfully, natural hair makes you no more conscious than relaxed hair indicates self-hate. Both populations are contributing to a billion-dollar a year black hair care industry that profits Asian-Americans almost exclusively.

Yet, this we don't discuss. Priorities, people!

How do we build wealth in our communities? How do we impinge upon white America’s stronghold? Is assimilation a necessary component of Black America’s transition to acceptance? These are the questions that need debating – and answering.

Honestly, hair is just hair. Individuals choose to style it in a variety of patterns, for a battery of reasons. Each time we pit naturals against relaxers, we lend credence to the notion that hair is the quintessential component of the Black woman's identity. What lesson are we teaching ourselves with this behavior? What are we proving to those who are watching us? That black people are as superficial and materialistic as they’re deemed? How ‘bout we take the steam off of that argument, and refocus our priorities on what really matters - progress.

So when it comes to good and bad hair, this blogger just doesn't care.

And now, for your viewing pleasure: Spike Lee's Good And Bad Hair. Enjoy!

You sir, are a racist!

Ignorant racists are the most dangerous kind. No, not belligerent racists, but those who are subtly racist and fail to recognize their own prejudice. How can we ever dispose of racism if we don’t first acknowledge it? Accordingly, I composed this list, specifically for the benefit of the ignorant majority. Note (*cough* white folks): If any of these apply to you, YOU ARE WAY MORE RACIST THAN A LITTLE BIT.

• Said “I’m not racist”. Everyone is at least a little racist. Defending any of your actions with this statement is merely an indication of your ignorance.
• Believed “white privilege” doesn’t exist. Minorities are ~35% of the US population. Name 35 minority senators…GO!...What?! No dice? Ok, gimme 5 minority senators…Give up yet?
• Worn an afro as a Halloween costume. Frankly, I’m surprised by the frequency of this behavior.

• Believed Mexicans aren’t minorities. *sigh* Mexicans aren’t the majority. Not in the US. Not in the world.
• Argued that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. *sigh again*. I can’t. I just can’t with this one.
• Said “I have 3 black friends”. Why are we counting? Is there a limit?
• Celebrated “post-racial” America. Don’t make me fall out of my chair laughing.
• Given your car keys to black man in a Prada suit. If the silk tie didn’t indicate that he wasn’t the valet, the Italian leather shoes damn sure should’ve given it away.

Additionally, let me say I don’t buy into the notion that black people can’t be racist simply because as a people they lack power over the establishment. Fooey. There’s institutional racism, and there’s individual racism. Furthermore, there are gradations of racists. If you were raised in the United States of America, a nation founded on the premise that “all men were created equal” (except the skins and the coons – to hell with them), you almost certainly have at least one racist bone in your body. The question is, how racist are you? Realistically, if you don’t realize you’re at least a little racist, you’re probably A LOT.

Relax. ACORN is not a left-wing conspiracy. It's a hot ghetto mess.

The controversy over ACORN has reignited with many on the right outraged following Fox News coverage of a video posted on BigGovernment.com. James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles are being heralded as heroes for conducting a “sting operation” which revealed ACORN personnel on hidden camera advising a “pimp” and a “prostitute” on a mortgage application.


The ACORN staff members caught on tape were subsequently terminated. Sadly, they probably thought they were doing their jobs. Congratulations James and Hannah! You’ve discovered what many have known for years: ACORN is a hot ghetto mess. Are you surprised? I’m not.

I could have told you ACORN is unorganized and completely unreliable after they provided “housing counseling” for me during the purchase of my first home. Following my brief interaction with the organization, I was willing to sum up their service with one word: Ghetto.

So relax right-wing. ACORN is far from an undercover Obama-led conspiracy project. I can assure you, if Barack Obama had ANYTHING to do with ACORN, they’d be ten times more professional. Just ask the campaign headquarters that sprung up one block from my home a few short weeks before Election Day.

Yet James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have managed to point out one thing: the tremendous disparity between middle America and da ‘hood. Yes, white people, they sell cigarettes out of the package in the hood. And food stamps. And unreleased movies on DVD – 2 for $15. And we “play in the fire hydrant”. And ‘hood people occasionally patronize a host of other “illegal” ventures - it’s usually called a “hook up”. Holla if ya here me.

Pass The Mic!

It’s wonderful that Americans are engaged in a sorely needed discussion about healthcare reform. Yet the voices of reputable professionals have been notably diminutive in this debate. The opinions of physicians, nurses, scientists, public health policy experts, etc., are infrequently solicited, perpetuating the ignorance of the masses to larger, potentially more deleterious issues.

For instance, reasonable individuals identify inefficiencies in our current healthcare system as problematic; still we fail to have proper discussions about the nature of those deficiencies and how to correct them. It’s painfully evident to me as a scientist that there is a glaring inefficiency in the government’s return-on-investment for the $30.5 billion it spends annually on biomedical research. Much of that research is conducted in academia on rare diseases for which there is no available treatment. Often, these are the same diseases for which pharmaceutical companies have little to no financial incentive to investigate. As academicians are seldom concerned with profit, much of the $30.5 billion ends up in publication oblivion. In other words, huge potential for therapeutic discovery is lost between the academic’s thirst for knowledge, and industry’s requisite for profit. This isn’t an unfamiliar phenomenon to biomedical scientists. In fact, we often mock the gap between academia and industry by describing the collaborative effort to communicate ideas between the two as “throwing it over the fence”. This problem is far from beyond repair. Easily, the government could offer enticements that would promote collaboration between academia and industry, thereby encouraging the translation of a larger chunk of that $30.5 billion into tangible therapeutics.

That’s plainly obvious to me, and I’m just a Ph.D. candidate. Imagine what a Nobel Prize winning biologist could add to this discussion.

I don’t hesitate to place blame on healthcare professionals for allowing their voices to be muted. Yet, I also recognize that we as a people effectively silence the commentaries of those which are most desperately needed. We are magnetized to sensationalism, rather than verity. Resultantly, “Joe The Plumber” becomes a household name, while in the midst of a storm of controversy around healthcare reform, few can identify the current Surgeon General.

If we want real solutions, we must engage those who have been most aptly trained to provide them. So the next time somebody wants to discuss Bill Maher and Sarah Palin’s position on some aspect of healthcare reform, you should ask them about Steve Galson and Regina Benjamin’s stance on the same issue...they’re the acting and prospective Surgeon General (I figured you might need to know who they are).

Often, those with the loudest voices are the least worth listening to.

What’s Really Wack About “Basic Bitch”

If you haven’t been privy to the latest phrase in feminine degradation, don’t worry, you will be. Comedian Lil’ Duval has popularized the slang term “basic bitch” as a colorful descriptor for what we’ve commonly referred to as a “hood-rat” – a female of pitiable stature who has failed to recognize or rise above her underprivileged upbringing (see video below). As the comedian Spank pointed out, it’s not the “bitch” part that’s troublesome (women are immune to that one), but it’s that word “basic” which really burns our bums.

It didn’t bother me at first, because the phrase obviously doesn’t apply to me. But then I thought about the subliminal message that’s sent when we attach negative connotation to a term that literally implies simplicity and fundamentalism, and then use it to degrade women.

Our society debases independence and assertiveness in women and celebrates mediocrity. We exalt women for their physical perfection, not their intelligence, ambition, eloquence, leadership, or even education (so what if perfection includes a few nip-tucks here, or augmentations there). We go so far as to tell independent women with standards that they’re “stuck-up bitches”. We even punish them with isolation and ridicule.

Yet when a woman gives you exactly what you requested, you demean her by calling her a “basic bitch”.

Silly me. I thought men appreciated qualities like natural beauty, politeness, and traditionalism in women. I thought being pleasant and easy to please was a feather in a woman’s cap.

The fortunate thing about this term is that women will indubitably rebel against it. They’ll position themselves as such that they can only be described as something other than “basic” - which will unfortunately create more disparities between the sexes in the African-American community where the idiom originated.

Men who throw this expression around really need to check themselves. Real talk fellas, if you degrade women for being simplistic or conventional, you’re probably going to transmogrify them into something you really don’t want to deal with – AGGRESSIVE BITCHES! Just like how y’all turned “suck my d*ck” into a derogatory phrase...and then wonder why black woman have an aversion to oral sex. Gag me with a spoon.

Just sayin’…

What if women as a whole demanded more from men as a whole? What if we refused to spread our legs for anything less than an educated brother, pulling down a comfortable salary, and demonstrating lucid potential for a successful future?

Could you imagine what the world would be like?

This is not an unexplored concept for me. As one of my best friends frequently points out, this strategy is doomed from the start. There will always be some hoe-rat that thinks she can make a man fall in love by breaking the rules, not realizing that the rules are actually orchestrated for her protection.

I commented yesterday that “p*ssy is power”, and you know what was thrown back at me? “All women don’t have to use their p*ssies to get what they want.” *sigh* Clearly this individual has misconstrued the raison d'être for this phrase. The point is, the longer you keep your legs closed, the more you present a challenge (within reason, of course). When you present yourself as a challenge, a man will either rise to meet your expectations, or kick rocks. Ladies, don’t be deceived into thinking you can put something on him that’ll make him love you. Generally, male minds don’t work like that – ours do. I guess what I’m saying is, giving it up too soon is completely counterproductive. For everybody (you’re ruining it for everybody!! (insider) lol). Remember when it brought shame upon a woman, her father, and her family name to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage? Remember that thing called chivalry? Just sayin’…

Why am I not surprised?

You’re probably aware that Pat Buchanan (senior advisor to Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and former Republican presidential candidate) has been on a tirade this past week, hurling his racist views, and charging that Sonia Sotomayor is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. He claims that she is merely an “affirmative action appointment” - never mind that she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, attended Yale Law, or that she has more judicial experience than any nominee in the past 100 years. Nope. Not according to old Pat B. There’s no way that any of Sotomayor’s accomplishments were merited in accordance with anything other than her race.

That bothered me, but not as much as the response - NADA. No, Not from liberals - they’ve launched the obligatory counter-attack. But the silence from the G.O.P. leadership, in my eyes, echoes their agreement.

I googled the names of prominent republicans, curious if any of them denounced Pat B.’s comments with the realization that his statements are destructive to party progress. Not surprisingly, my searches didn’t turn up any hits. Not even when I cross checked Pat B.’s name with -- (drum roll please) -- Michael Steele. Was I really expecting something else? **sigh**

Steele has become a symbol of all that’s wrong with the Republican Party. Seriously.

1. He sounds ridiculous. Like most republican leaders of today, his rhetoric rarely makes sense. I hate to break it to you Mr. Steele, but minorities aren’t going to be drawn to the Republican Party by you saying “y’all come”. And you can keep your fried chicken and potato salad. Uncle Barack is barbequing on the white house lawn next week.

2. He looks ridiculous. As John Stewart pointed out, very reminiscent of the Angry Customer from Sesame Street. Lemme think, what else looks ridiculous? How ‘bout that squirrel on Sarah Palin’s head? Or Mitt Romney’s forced smile? Mark Sanford’s alligator tears? Or hell, just plain old Rush Limbaugh...


3. He IS ridiculous. I would call him an “affirmative action appointment” - if I thought he was actually QUALIFIED. This man has no appeal with minorities, whatsoever. Consequently, he has no shot at attracting diverse populations of voters. If this is what Republicans think we want, they are sadly mistaken. They haven’t heard a word we’ve said in the past 50 years. We’re already hip to that game and not interested in being bamboozled. But hey, kudos on their ability to effectively swindle Michael Steele.

I concede that Steele is only symbolic of the party’s issues; he himself is far from the problem. The G.O.P. has been flailing around desperately like a deep sea fish on dry land ever since George Bush endorsed John McCain’s presidential bid with a tap dance (no, really – the President was tap-dancing, literally). The longer the fish remains out of water, the more wildly it thrashes. Until, of course, it dies. One could only hope for as much.

The Miseducation of the American

Last Thurday, Barack Obama called the U.S. healthcare system “broken” and vowed not to tolerate “endless delays” in fixing it. I presume that’s what prompted TNT to air "John Q" last week, and Showtime to broadcast "Sicko" this morning. Realizing that my perception of this issue is influenced by my recent reading of Carter G. Woodson’s “The Miseducation of the Negro”, I find myself incensed that the U.S. citizen has allowed himself to be so readily bamboozled.

“John Q” is a story about an average blue-collar worker who resorts to holding a hospital hostage in order to ensure that his dying son receives a $300,000 heart transplant, which his insurance company refuses to cover. Although it’s a fictional account, “John Q” points to glaring deficiencies in the U.S. healthcare system. Patient care is financially focused; an individual is treated in accordance with what he can afford. Furthermore, this system contributes to a culture of arrogance and apathy within the healthcare profession (sorry doctors and nurses, but it’s been my experience that veterinarians are often much more accommodating and sympathetic when it comes to clients that can’t pay - could be because euthanasia is one of our options :-p). At any rate, “John Q” makes a salient point - capitalism may be a fine social model, but perhaps it is not applicable to every aspect of a country’s existence. Surely in a nation as great as the U.S., land of the free, home of the brave, one would not be subjected to choosing between adequate healthcare and the next meal.

Michael Moore brings this point home in his own unique way in “Sicko” . Upon sighting the free healthcare provided on U.S. soil to detainees at Gitmo, he rounds up a few rescue workers who suffer from an inability to afford proper treatment for their post-9/11 afflictions. Surprise surprise, the facilities at Guantanamo Bay deny these U.S. citizens, however they receive adequate diagnostics and medical care at a Cuban hospital – for free. One woman burst into tears when she finds the $120 medication she uses to treat her respiratory condition available in a Cuban pharmacy for around 5 cents.

As Americans, we are misguided. We are so convicted in our belief that there is no way other than democracy and capitalism that we regard communism as a great evil. We label Fidel Castro and the Chinese government as "the devil" because they support Marxist principles. We’re taught this hate and to reverence capitalism more than we are taught the difference between communism and socialism. We are so miseducated as a people, that the average American fails to recognize the socialist elements at play in their own everyday life – SOCIAL security, the FREE library, PUBLIC schools, even the police and fire departments are completely financed by the government.

"When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his 'proper place' and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary.” – Carter G. Woodson.

I am appalled that many Americans are outraged by the idea of socialized medicine. It seems to me that those who believe capitalism is the best model for healthcare are simply posturing – capitalism is always good, socialism is always bad. This drone-like mindset contributes to the cause of the wealthiest five-percent, who seek to fatten their pockets without regard to the suffering endured by those beneath them. As a result of their miseducation, the very individuals who are oppressed by the system are not only appreciative of the current structure, but advocate perpetuance of it. Their education makes it necessary.

Barack Obama is certain to face much opposition from conservatives when it comes to healthcare reform, so much so that I fear he will cower away from a true reformative agenda until he has secured a second term. I’m sure that there are appropriate counter-arguments to be made to the socialization of medicine, yet I pray that as a people we become informed to the point that our perspective doesn’t remain as simple and constrained as: America is great because of capitalism, therefore capitalism must be great for healthcare.

Dude, you got us all wrong – lemme tell you what women REALLY want.

I’m not going to sit here and tell you women aren’t materialistic. I’m not even going to deny that we don’t lust after Barack simply because he’s a handsome commander-in-chief. I won’t even pretend like women generally don’t care about how much money a man makes. If I told you that, you would call me a liar, and vow to never read my soap-boxes (er eh…I mean blogs) again. And you’d be right. So I’ll start instead by straight-up admitting that even though I have my own isht, I too become giddy when a dude pulls up in an SLK to pick me for dinner at the Chart House!

But looks, education, a career, and money are only a small slice of the what-women-want pie. Height, 24-inch biceps, money, and 25 doctorate degrees don’t replace our basic need to be adored and respected, or our desire to “feel like a woman”. Yet, so often we hear men go into this “woe is me…nice guys finish last” narrative. They seem to think that unless they drive a Mercedes, can bench press 250 lbs., hold an M.B.A., and work for a fortune 500 company, women won’t be interested in them.

Negatroid. Sure, just like men, women have fantasies. But generally, we’re realistic when it comes to dating. I’ll let you guys in a little secret: most of the time when women are sitting around complaining about the deficiencies of men, we’re complaining more about the things they should DO but won’t than we are about the things they could HAVE but don’t.

Here’s some more food for thought for the single men. So often I see you guys sell yourselves short when it comes to a lady you like. You walk by her a thousand times before you stop and ask her name. You don’t call because you’re concerned she won’t answer (so you send that b*llsh*t @ss “what’s up” text). You don’t want to spend money on dates because you “ain’t no sucka”. All these behaviors translate to women as either a huge ego, or a lack of confidence. If you regard me as a respectable young lady who deserves to be properly courted, why don’t you court me properly? Are you just trying to see what you can get away with? If that’s the case, don’t be mad when I treat you like a jump-off and turn over and go to sleep as soon as I get mine! Furthermore, ask yourself: would a confident man demonstrate fear of rejection? No! A confident man knows he’s a great catch and could care less if one particular woman is disinterested! I know - men love women who “play their part” and “let a man be a man” in relationships. Truth is, there are lots of women who actually WANT to play that part. However, you must realize that roles are defined from the moment of the first exchange between a man and a woman. If you don’t play your part and court a lady properly (AHEM…the traditional role of a man) in the dating phase of a relationship, don’t expect her to be a submissive Suzy-homemaker six months down the line.

On to my boyfriends, fiancées, and husbands. First, let me throw out this caveat: I’m single, and have been for quite some time. But I can tell you this – NEVER has a female friend or relative called me to complain about the fact that their man’s car isn’t fly enough, that he can’t afford to take her out, or that he didn’t bring her an extravagant enough floral arrangement. The complaints usually go something like this: “he never takes me anywhere,” “he stayed out all night and didn’t even bother to call,” “he doesn’t appreciate me” - all intangibles. What does that tell you? If she’s with you, it’s probably because of YOU. Men seem to always want to believe that they have to buy a dozen roses, make dinner reservations at The Capital Grille, and drive an Aston Martin to keep a woman happy. Trust me - it ain’t about that (not sayin’ that we don’t like those things too!); it really is the thought that counts. Here’s a tip: save yourself the $32.50 on roses, and just make the frickin’ phone call. Pluck a tulip from the neighbor’s lawn. Bring home her favorite candy bar once in a while. And if you can’t afford that dinner at The Capital Grille, how about just going to Red Lobster (I don’t know anybody who would turn down some cheddar bay biscuits!). Finally, this whole “play ya part” thing applies to you too. Confident, respectable men make calculated decisions, and they’re prepared to deal with the fallout no matter the outcome. You can’t seriously expect your lady to let you be “the man of the house” and manage the finances if you’ve been known to blow your entire check on video games.

That’s it – confidence, love, respect, adoration…you know, the intangibles. Please, fellas, stop running around talkin’ ‘bout how women don’t know how to treat a good man, how we only want to date thugs and gangstas, or how we have unrealistic expectations of men (we don’t really wanna date Barack! Barack is too damn busy! And married!). Next time you tune your lips up to make those assertions, ask yourself the following questions: have I successfully defined myself as “the man” in the relationship? Am I as confident as a thug or gangsta? Is the pressure I feel really due to my own silly preconceived notions of what I think a woman wants from me? If that pressure has anything to do with possessions, it’s probably more YOU than it is HER. Most women I know genuinely want to be loved, appreciated, respected, and courted. Usually, they would rather you make the “honey, I’ll be home late” phone call than show up the next day with a bouquet.

There’s no big mystery to what women want. Be confident, and learn to put that ego aside. Trust me, that’ll carry you a long way as far as most women are concerned.