Dear Attraction Theorists

I wish I had this shirt...

via Psychology Today:

Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men. So women of all races are on average more physically attractive than the "average" Add Health respondent, except for black women. As the following graph shows, black women are statistically no different from the "average" Add Health respondent, and far less attractive than white, Asian, and Native American women.

... What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women? Black women are on average much heavier than nonblack women. The mean body-mass index (BMI) at Wave III is 28.5 among black women and 26.1 among nonblack women. (Black and nonblack men do not differ in BMI: 27.0 vs. 26.9.) However, this is not the reason black women are less physically attractive than nonblack women. Black women have lower average level of physical attractiveness net of BMI. Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.

... The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone. Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races, and testosterone, being an androgen (male hormone), affects the physical attractiveness of men and women differently. Men with higher levels of testosterone have more masculine features and are therefore more physically attractive. In contrast, women with higher levels of testosterone also have more masculine features and are therefore less physically attractive. The race differences in the level of testosterone can therefore potentially explain why black women are less physically attractive than women of other races, while (net of intelligence) black men are more physically attractive than men of other races.

I've always been told beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or one man's trash is another man's treasure. That's just how the world works. Subjectivity is the reason rich people don't think they're rich. It's the reason for the difference between Islamic extremists and pacifists. It's the reason you either hate or love people like the Kardashians, Sarah Palin and Rihanna. Subjectivity is the basis of opinions, many of which simultaneously take their root in facts. Yet, one issue that never seems to have any factual basis, no matter who is examining it. That, my friends is attraction.

Attraction theorists, first of all let me ask you this: in the course of civilization, has there ever been one singular, solitary definition of what makes a person attractive? Yes, you can ask a sample of 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 people, but that will never account for the outliers. That will never be able to account for all the people who love black women (raises hand) or those that only like Asian midgets or those that can't stand any race.

How dare you guys compartmentalize black women like that? Since when has the attractiveness of black women been so low? You guys could not have been asking enough people of color, which I say with a grain of salt because people might not always identify with their color. Either way, there will always be people on either side of the fence - who either can't stand or can't resist black women physically. There are also going to be those who like one race a bit more than the next. It's not a question of who is more attractive, just what people like. Subjectivity reigns supreme in the question of attraction, and breaking it down so specifically is essentially pointless.

Second of all, why are you even studying something as trivial as this? This is another case of science trying to over-intellectualize things for the sake of 'knowing' them. You can have your graphs and surveys and numbers and samples. Attraction is probably the most rudimentary instinct that a human can have. Quantifying it does little for humanity other than give schmucks like you a job. There are so many more important breakthroughs that could have been accomplished in the time it took you and your cronies to figure out what gives everyone a woody. Additionally, what does this prove other than there is somewhat of a bias against black women? There's no groundbreaking legislation, medical breakthrough or amazing new revolution that came from this research. It's what we call 'shock science'; research for the sake of research, and you guys are at the top of the totem.

I understand it's only a research study. It probably won't hold any relevance after about a week. Yet research like this only serves to undermine black women even more. You guys hold their stereotypically strong demeanor and voluptuous figures against them as if those qualities are something to be ashamed of. Somewhere there's a black woman eyeing her curves with disdain or vowing to become more submissive just because of 'findings' like this. Why don't you guys put your (sadly worthless) psychology degrees to good use and figure out a basis for racism, or find the root of homosexuality, or decide what exactly constitutes insanity. That'd help society out a lot more than essentially deriding supposed characteristics of black women in the guise of 'science'.

Dear Vybz Kartel

As a rule, I've tried to keep the whole light-skinned versus dark-skinned debate off Dear Whoever, because it's simply a matter of preference and one's own self-worth when dealing with what skin shades they find attractive. Skin color is something that has hotly been debated in the black community for well over a century, with the 'paper bag test' and other ways of excluding anyone thought too dark to make it.

That said, I nearly vomited when I saw the above picture, Vybz. I'm holding no punches. You. Look. Turrible (Charles Barkley voice). You look like Tyrone Biggums' estranged Jamaican cousin. Those lips are ashier than the crackpipe you smoked to come up with the 'cake soap' idea. I don't know whether to call your condition jaundice or to just pronounce you dead. You are now what the Native Americans would call a 'pale face', which is ironic, because I'm sure the rest of you is blacker than an S of spades. I had no clue being a proverbial human zebra was in fashion.



Vybz, what made you think that cake soap was the solution to your own self-hatred? What's the matter? Have you been brainwashed that bad that you think the only way to continue your debatable success in dancehall is to be lighter-skinned? If so, you're sadly mistaken. The only dancehall artist with lighter skin to truly have a big break was Sean Paul, and he isn't even fully black! (Portuguese, Chinese and Black, if Wikipedia serves me right) If you're really doing it to improve upon your success, then why not take a page out of Beenie Man or Buju Banton's book (sans the cocaine trafficking in Buju's case) and... I don't know... make good music? 'Clarks' was a catchy tune, but can you really make a career of unofficial endorsement songs?

Regardless, the 'cake soap' product placement, no matter how much you claim it to not be a medical recommendation, will catch on like wild fire fiyah in Jamaica and you know it. A generation of young Jamaicans are going to see you and think the only way to salvation is through light skin. How DOPE is that? As if years of socioeconomic control by the British wasn't enough, here you come telling kids that dark skin is wrong. With brainwashing this good, who even needed slave masters? When we can brainwash our own selves, who needs overtly Caucasian standards of beauty? Kudos to you, Vybz. If anyone could undermine over a century of progress for blacks and make themselves look like a spectre in the process, it was you. I only hope all that 'air conditioning' that turned you into a walking dust bunny can make you disappear...

Dear Huck Finn

Erasing the word 'nigger' from Adventures of Huckleberry Finn erase the dynamic that makes the book so memorable...

via Publisher's Weekly:

Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a classic by most any measure—T.S. Eliot called it a masterpiece, and Ernest Hemingway pronounced it the source of "all modern American literature." Yet, for decades, it has been disappearing from grade school curricula across the country, relegated to optional reading lists, or banned outright, appearing again and again on lists of the nation's most challenged books, and all for its repeated use of a single, singularly offensive word: "nigger."

Twain himself defined a "classic" as "a book which people praise and don't read." Rather than see Twain's most important work succumb to that fate, Twain scholar Alan Gribben and NewSouth Books plan to release a version of Huckleberry Finn, in a single volume with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, that does away with the "n" word (as well as the "in" word, "Injun") by replacing it with the word "slave".

The term 'to whitewash', as defined by Dictionary.com, means:

•  to whiten with whitewash.
  OR
• to cover up or gloss over the faults or errors of; absolve from blame.

That second meaning is sacrosanct (look that up while you're at it) with trying to censor, make invisible or control the viewing of something. Whitewashing something literally means that whatever you had before is covered by plain white... Whatever was under it, no matter how ugly (or beautiful; depends on the beholder) is gone. Whitewashing is why the media butchers facts, why politicians are all liars and why by 2020 the Iraq War might not be in history books anymore. Whitewashing is what is happening to you, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, when the publishers of one of your new editions take the word 'nigger' out of your pages in lieu of 'slave'.

The word 'nigger' is synonymous with Southern culture from the early 1800s onward. It was as American as apple pie and baseball even past the Civil Rights Movement era. Though the negative stigma attached to its use has lessened the ease of its use, no doubt there are some people who still say 'nigger' as a term of hate towards Black people. That said, 'nigger', while hateful, is a part of Southern history, which is encapsulated in you, Huck Finn. Why are they trying to take some of your thunder away?

I'll tell you why: It's because people are uncomfortable with the ugly, hateful, detestable history of our country, and would rather whitewash over it with rosy rhetoric than paint the picture as it really was. It's because most people can't stomach the way 'nigger' was casually used in the South as not just a hateful word, but a general term for Black people. It's because people would rather gloss over the way things really were, to portray things the way they want them to be.

Somewhere in Anytown, Middle America, there is a 6th grade literature class going through a tour of classic American books, of which you are a part, Huck Finn. They're going to open your pages and take in the story, but instead of getting the truth - the real, gritty truth - they'll get the sugarcoated abridged version. They'll get the version in which Huck and Nigger Jim are equals in society's eyes, not the one where Huck first sees Jim as a 'nigger' before all else. Do people really want that? Do they want you to lose your effect. One of the reasons you were such a profound book is because of the candid portrayal of the racial attitudes that pervaded the U.S. at that time. Why would they want to rob you of that privilege? Why would they want to dilute you for the sake of safety? By taking 'nigger' out of your pages, the only bad vibe going away is the awkward moment when a white student has to say it around mixed racial company (I would've been able to live without that in my classroom). Censoring you, in essence is erasing the racist ideology that this country was built on, giving an imperfect and incomplete perspective on it. You, as a classic piece of literature, deserve more than that...

Dear Meg Whitman

The Kanye Shrug doesn't work all the time, Meg. We know what you did...

via ABCNews:

California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman today found herself battling allegations that she knowingly employed an undocumented immigrant housekeeper, failed to pay a portion of her wages and then fired her in an act of political damage control. The charges come a little over a month before the November election.

At a news conference in Los Angeles on Wednesday organized by celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Whitman's former housekeeper and nanny, Nicky Diaz, tearfully recounted how in June 2009 she was suddenly terminated by Whitman and her husband, Griffith Harsh, after she said she asked the couple for legal help to obtain U.S. citizenship. Allred also alleged that Whitman became aware of Diaz's undocumented status years earlier, but took no action. Whitman said the "charges are without merit."

Diaz told reporters that just a few months before Whitman announced she was running for governor as a Republican, the former eBay CEO fired her after nine years spent cleaning the couple's 3,700-square-foot home in an upscale Northern California suburb and shuttling their children to and from school and appointments.

"From now on you don't know me and I don't know you," Diaz said Whitman told her in the summer of 2009. "I was shocked and hurt that Ms. Whitman would treat me this way after nine years. I realized at that moment that she didn't appreciate my work. I felt like she was throwing me away like a piece of garbage."

At the current juncture of politics in the United States, the word politician and hypocrite are damn near synonymous. Especially with the emergence of the Tea Party and the so-called 'bipartisan' nature that the government is trying to engender, it's obvious that not everyone can be on the right side at all times. When it comes to election time, there ends up being a mad rush to clean up whatever muck can be raked up against a particular politician, most of it going on behind closed door meetings at the expense of lobbyists and donated dollars. That said, what happens when the political damage control just so happens to coincide with an issue at the forefront of that particular candidate's jurisdiction? Such is your case, Meg Whitman. As you prepare for election day in California, it's obvious your stake in the illegal immigration issue was much deeper than you wanted it to be.

Meg, I won't mince words: Illegal immigrants are everywhere. You know it. I know it. The American people know it. Yet, the major contention against allowing these people amnesty and asylum is that their place in American is more deeply rooted than most would like to admit. Meg, you knowingly hired an illegal immigrant in Nicky Diaz and had her in your employ for well over 9 years. By most employment standards, that's grounds for the job security AND respect that such a tenure warrants. Think about it Meg. If you had been working at a law office for 9 years and they tried to cut YOU off and disavow all knowledge of your existence for superficial political purposes, how would you feel? My guess is you'd probably file suit, go to the media and make a huge deal about it, much like your former housekeeper is doing now.

See the thing is, Meg, as a Republican candidate, you're walking a thin line here. Do you continue the status quo of using your power to manipulate other lives as you see fit, or do you stand by your party's platform of 'kicking all of the wetbacks illegal immigrants out'? They say no slave can serve two masters. Well, no political candidate can stand by two contradictory doctrines, especially on such a polarizing issue. Why try and hide the obvious, Meg? The role of illegal immigrants is as cemented in this country as is apple pie and fried chicken. You've got 9 years of faithful service to prove that, and I'm sure half of your party and cabinet have just as much if not more. I shudder to think how long it would've taken for this to get out in the open had Ms. Diaz not opened her flap.

SIDENOTE: Since TMZ is the one who reported Ms. Diaz's gripes, albeit in a professional manner, can we finally admit that, while cutthroat in their research, blogs are a legitimate source of breaking news?

Look, Meg, it sucks that you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar that your party's been trying to put on the high shelf for years now. Don't try to deny it, now that your candidacy is at stake, and certainly don't do it as a last ditch effort to cover your party's ass. That, in and of itself, would be just as hypocritical...

Dear Kanye (re: the VMA's)

I didn't watch most of the VMA's. The Washington - Dallas game had my attention because it was as captivating as an opening game as I've ever seen (word to DC). That said, I tuned in to MTV's yearly ode to the music video late, only to catch one thing: your performance Ye. I Youtube'd Taylor Swift's performance, and it was lame at best. She tried to make an underhanded acceptance of your antics last year (which I thoroughly lambasted you for), which came off sounding preachy and quick to capitalize on a year's worth of free publicity. You rose above her by not even directing any attention to her, or allowing MTV to pan to her anorexic-looking behind. But that's neither here nor there. Taylor's performance sucked because it was bad. Your performance, on the other hand, was masterful.

Rather than come back with a Taylor Swift apology song or try to make amends for what some would perceive as an off year for you, you decided to thumb your nose at all the douchebags, *ssholes and what have you. Now, that may sound ridiculous on the surface, but when taking a look at the performance as a whole, one can't help but think you're one of the best musicians out right now. First of all, you came out there dressed in a bright red suit. At first I was clowning it, thinking about Eddie Murphy in Delirious, but then looking at the stage from the aerial view, your aim (pun intended) was obvious. Ye, you were the target, the red dot that everyone had been aiming at over the past year because of your antics. Visually, that made the 'Runaway' performance a symbolic spectacle. Ironically, the song is about you poking fun at yourself for 'finding what (you) don't like the most' in everything and broadcasting it. That message hearkens back to your town hall-esque meetings at Rolling Stone, Twitter and Facebook where you're trying to make music from a position of happiness rather than sadness. I suppose one of those positions is one where you can poke fun at yourself and the people who've been chucking darts at you over the past year. You made yourself the target for yourself and for everyone else.

The second reason the performance was dope was that you brought out Pusha T. Plus, it seems as if the younger Thornton brother has something to prove, much like you do. Of all the heads you have lined up on GOOD Music, Pusha is my favorite. He's got the charisma, attitude and BARS for a nice crossover, though most of white America let out a collective 'Who's that?' when he stepped on stage. It was one of the only highlights to what I heard (better yet, read, thanks to Twitter) was a pretty lame MTV Video Music Awards.

SIDENOTE: The VMA's are officially dead, by the way. There really was no reason for half of the show aside from the performances. Chelsea Handler (who is comedic gold on her show) fumbled through three hours of celebrity jokes and a Rick Ross ride, and still couldn't get a genuine laugh from the dead-silent crowd. MTV completely lost its appeal when she jumped into a hot-tub with the Dirty Jersey crew, and died when she came out 'pregnant'. RIP to MTV.

Your performance was trill for one more reason: it means hip-hop is the IT now. Along with Drake, Eminem and Nicki Minaj, your feature on MTV, a (canonized) world stage, was a testament to the idea that rap music is here to stay. Ye, you solidified yourself as a heavy-hitter again with the this performance and kept it oh-so-funky with Taylor Swift by not even mentioning that squeaky-clean pop martyr. While she tried to milk last year's folly again, you were looking a year ahead to a gang of awards. Regardless of America's sweetheart, Ye, you were masterful last night, putting an emphatic exclamation mark on one hell of a statement to the music industry over the past few months. Your next album is sounding damn near classical, and we have no clue what's even going to be on it. That's enough holding your pocket, though Ye. Let's hear a few more GOOD Friday's before we crown you again, though somehow we might not even need it after that performance...

Dear Racial Ambiguity

In about 200 years (pending the End of Days, 2012 and any catastrophic world disasters), when we look back on the cultural and biological makeup of humanity, this will be considered the beginning of a society of homogeneous people. This letter is weird to write, for two reasons:

A) How easily skin pigmentation fragments us. No matter how much people want to say that they are color blind, the skin (and it's color) are the first thing that one sees. People take skin color to indicate much more than it should, even in today's 'post-racial society'. That a newborn child has more or less broken every rule we knew about genetics, and skin color, is a shock to most people nor an easy pill to swallow. The birth of this 'white' baby to these 'black' parents (note the quotation marks) is the beginning a new era in human genetics: that of racial ambiguity. Because of you, the entire notion of skin color will die in a matter of centuries. People won't be too happy about that either. For many, skin color is a delineating mark. With your advent, there is one less marker for people to judge with.

B) As a black person, proud of my heritage, it's exciting, yet disconcerting to think that race may die out. Where will the culture and folklore I've grown to know end up? Will they be celebrated as a part of your new hold on humanity, or will some cultures scatter like dust in the wind? Will some parts of your 'new race's' culture hold still, while other parts get discarded as useless or classless or outmoded? How can we be sure that in 200 years black or Hispanic or Asian culture won't die out or that one won't be held up over another?

Both A) and B) are legitimate concerns, but this birth signals a pivotal time in humanity. Racial ambiguity, you've long been a heralded black sheep in genetics. Your tendency to make people 'universally beautiful' is lauded, yet people chafe at the racial issues that come into play. I can only imagine the kind of internal strife that this child will experience in it's post-latent years. From taunts to questions to weird looks, that baby's blond hair may be as much a bane as it is a blessed surprise. Then again, in this post-racial society, where your presence is heralded, she may very well be a golden child. Who's really to know at this point? What we do know is that somehow two black parents, with two black children, birthed a child who would be considered traditionally white. Racial ambiguity, it stands to say that your shroud will still be appreciated in a post-racial society, though it still may not hide you from criticism. You're something that people fear but secretly lust after. That this child achieved it through natural birth is incredible. Hopefully by the time she's old enough to write, her racial identity will be solid and understood to her, but really won't even matter any more...

Dear Officer Carey (re: Sean Bell shooting)

via The Gothamist:

A police officer involved in the 2006 shooting of Sean Bell, the Queens man who was killed in a barrage of police bullets hours before his wedding, is now suing Bell's estate. The Post reports, "Police Officer Michael Carey's lawsuit says Bell was boozed-up when he got behind the wheel of the car after his bachelor party on Nov. 25, 2006, and also claims the doomed groom failed to wear glasses or contact lenses despite having poor eyesight."

According to the suit, "[Officer Carey] suffered serious leg injury when [Bell] crashed into the vehicle he was riding in before Officer Carey ever drew his gun and fired a shot." The lawsuit is part of a federal counter-claim "in response to a wrongful-death lawsuit being pursued by Bell's fiancée, Nicole Paultre Bell, against him and the other four cops involved." (The cops were acquitted in 2008 bench trial.) Earlier this month, Carey's lawyer argued that his client should not be part of the wrongful-death lawsuit because Carey, who fired three bullets at one of Bell's friends, believed he and other police officers were in danger.

When one gets cleared of a crime, ala OJ Simpson in 1995 or Snoop Dogg in 1993, it's natural for them to lay low for a while; to keep their noses clean and not to make too much noise on the scene. The person basks in their newfound freedom and disappears, perhaps trying to piece their life back together after months, maybe years, of damage. Yet, for some people, getting off scot-free just isn't enough. I suppose that's your case, Officer Carey. You and two of your pigs comrades shot and killed a man (not even a black man, in case you want to call BS on the race card), and injured his friends, all of whom were unarmed. You claimed self-defense when he ran into your car with his while you were shooting him. Then, when put on trial, you get off on all cases without so much as a hiccup in the trial. To me, that would be a gift: to knowingly end another person's life and to not have to be accountable for it. I would just walk away and not even question what happened until I'd cleared my head.

You, on the other hand, aren't satisfied with just getting off on the murder wrap. You'd rather pour salt, lemon juice and 100-proof vodka into a gaping wound by essentially opening up the case again. Why are you now counter-suing for an injury you received 4 years ago? The man you were 'accosting' on November 25, 2006 is DEAD. He no longer lives. His family, friends and fiancée all live with the fact that you took his life from him, and took him from them. And now, you want their money too? Your leg is going to heal, if it hasn't already!! What about Sean Bell's life? You can patch up a leg. You can't breathe life back into someone. Officer Carey, I'm not sure if you're remotely remorseful about what you and those other cops did, but it sure doesn't look like it. For that, you ought to be ashamed. And the NYPD that you work for should be just as ashamed for harboring people like you. It's as if you don't want to put the case to rest, or better yet you can't. Whatever the case, let me take off my conspiracy theorist hat. We all know what you did was wrong. Apparently you didn't and think you should be compensated for taking a life. Way to protect and serve...

Dear Slim Thug

Houston, we have a problem... Relationship-wise, that is...

via VIBE Magazine

The way Black people think in general is messed up. Both men and women need to change their way of thinking. It’s hard to trust a Black woman [sometimes] because a lot of Black women’s mind frame is that the man gotta do everything for her⎯ he gotta pay for this, he gotta pay for that, and if it ain’t about money then a lot of them ain’t fucking with him. If that’s what you’re here for then I don’t want to be with you

Most single Black women feel like they don’t want to settle for less. Their standards are too high right now. They have to understand that successful Black men are kind of extinct. We’re important. It’s hard to find us so Black women have to bow down and let it be known that they gotta start working hard; they gotta start cooking and being down for they man more. They can’t just be running around with their head up in the air and passing all of us. I have a brother that dates a White woman and he always be fucking with me about it saying, “Y’all gotta go through all that shit [but] my White woman is fine. She don’t give me no problems, she do whatever I say and y’all gotta do all that arguing and fighting and worry about all this other shit.”My girl is Black and White. I guess the half White in her is where she still cooks and do all the shit that I say, so we make it. She just takes care of me and I like that. She don’t be begging and I don’t gotta buy her all this crazy ass shit. And she’s a smart girl too. She graduated from Columbia [University] and I like that about her so it’s cool. I’ve dated girls that will buy a $3,000 bag and don’t know how to pay it off on their credit cards. They walk around in these Louis Vuittons and red bottoms but they’re riding around in raggedy cars, so it’s just getting your priorities right.

White women treat they man like a king and Black women feel like they ain’t gotta do that shit. Black women need to stand by their man more. Don’t always put the pressure of if I’m fucking with you, you gotta buy me this and that. Black men are the ones that motherfuckers need [but] I think a lot of them need to step it up too. A Black man who gets a little bread will go make it rain in the club and be broke the next day or instead of him going to invest in a business he gonna go buy new jewelry or a new car and still live in the hood. Black peoples’ mentality is real fucked up in general [and] it’s affecting everything. Black women need to be more genuine and be more 50/50 [but] It should be a fair exchange in a relationship period or eventually somebody is gonna feel like they’re getting fucked over whether it’s the woman or the man. I think that will help Black relationships out a lot.

Let me say this first: I haven't listened to anything Slim Thug-related since his failed foray into the mainstream with Pharrell, 'I Ain't Heard of That'. Aside from that, and a heavy 2005 stint with Mike Jones and the rest of the Swishahouse gang, Slim Thugga is an afterthought in my hip-hop world. That said, Slim, I can't really be too mad at you for saying something even remotely outlandish to cast your name into the spotlight for even a vague hour on Twitter. But we're not here to talk about your fame, my G. We've got to discuss this nice little VIBE interview you had 2 days ago.

First of all, Slim, where do you get off as the voice of black men? Percentage wise, you represent such a small spectrum of black males, that it is impossible for you to have an adequate perspective on relationships. I mean, can you honestly say that you've had a "real" relationship (not to throw salt on your current one; I'm sure she's wonderful) since you've been a rapper? The rap game is notorious for introducing previously well-grounded young black men to harems of she-wolves, only for those same rappers to turn around and disrespect every woman they meet after that. So, is this interview you speaking as a regular, everyday, average black man with a mixed girlfriend, or you as a regular man turned rapper (with the body count to prove it) with a mixed girlfriend? My guess is, the latter. As a rapper you're in no position to comment on the romantic and social standing of the rest of us, especially when you make songs specifically made for strippers to 'drop it low,' 'pop their p*ssies,' and other vulgarities that won't make it onto this blog.

Second of all, why even bring up your 'brother' and his white woman? That's like saying a homophobic comment and then saying 'But I have gay friends!' as a qualifier. Your point there is completely moot, my dude. How do you know tha A) your brother isn't lying out of his diamond-encrusted teeth, B) your brother isn't the .000000001% of interracial relationships that has no problems, or C) his wife is just plain-old docile to begin with?

Note to EVERYONE: Just because you have a friend, cousin, uncle, auntie, sister, co-worker, landlord or any other acquaintance that X is true for, does not mean that X is true for every person. Quit generalizing and take every instance at face value.

Slim Thugga, it would seem as if your intellect were pretty darn slim in its own right if you believe that man's marriage has no problems. Every marriage has its high points and its low points. Doesn't mean one marriage (or race in marriage) is better than another. Don't downplay all sisters because your 'brother's' marriage is seemingly perfect.

Third of all, Slim, your half-white, half-black girlfriend, while she's probably a nice person, is not the end all be-all of relationships. Just because every woman that you've messed with before her was trifling and had a credit score lower than her self-esteem, doesn't mean your current shorty won't be just as trife. You seem to think that a college degree and mixed-heritage are the only signifiers of a good catch. Whatever happened to a good listener, a shoulder to lean on or someone good with kids? All of the traits you listed of black people at the end?? Yes, they are sad. But are you really going to let a part of Black society represent the whole in your mind? That seems very silly, Mr. Thomas. I think you need some work on your relationship and societal ideals, quickly.

Slim, it's because of people like you that black men and women are so fragmented. Instead of pointing out differences and pointing fingers at what the other sex should do, you should be figuring out ways to bring us together. Stop with the CNN/MSNBC/Dateline backlash and support black women as a whole, rather than villifying those that are somewhat trifling. Maybe then their ideal of a good man won't have to do with the size of his wallet, but the size of his heart. Maybe then, black men won't be as quick to hop in the sack with anything with a pulse and scar these women in the first place. Maybe then, you won't be having drawn out debates on Twitter about relationships that you have no clue about. I understand that this is spot reporting, and that much of what you said could be misconstrued. Yet, were the words VIBE put on their website that far from what you really mean? I doubt it. Not to belittle your intelligence, but you don't seem like the sharpest tack in the box. Maybe you should leave the relationship talk to Steve Harvey, and get back to niche performing in Houston. It'll at least be a safe zone, where you can clown on all the tricks you want without sounding like a jackass...

Dear Michael Eric Dyson

It's been a while since I've seen a debate both this funny and this indicative of the shift in the eyes of the man from outright 'I hate niggers, spics and Japs' racism, to 'we have to keep these people uninformed so they don't know their history' racism. Professor Dyson, you were up at odds against 'the Man' incarnate. From the moment this discussion on Arizona's decision to ban ethnic studies started, it was obvious that you were up against not just the Arizona school superintendent, but a mindset that seeks to keep children in line with the ideal image of America: the land of opportunity and dreams. Michael, you and I both know that the US of A is not as rosy and dreamy as Arizona would like us to believe. You and I both know of the struggle that all ethnic groups have trudged through for the past two centuries in this country. We know the ills of not knowing your history, not knowing the true legacy of a country and what happens when racism takes the form of 'liberal', yet ignorant whites.

The superintendent used this policy of stopping racial separation (not segregation) in schools, as if teaching children different cultures would cause rifts. He tried to use the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. to justify that cockamamie idea, saying that people should be judged by the content of their character. Professor Dyson, you made the greatest point though: you can't twist words to make them fit your agenda, no matter who says them. You made him sweat. You made him repeat the same phrase about 6 times over the course of the interview, stumbling over his words and feeling like the idiot he truly is. It's even crazier because the guy made the use of Che Guevara's likeness into a bad thing, saying that kids were inciting anarchy and promoting communism. Professor Dyson, you were alive during the latter parts of the Red Scare. This type of rhetoric is eerily similar, though now, it's kids being admonished because they take an active interest in the way that the government is run.

Professor Dyson, you brought the superintendent's (note, I still haven't called that twit by his names) plans of running for office to the light, also indicative of a government that is content with the ignorant status quo as long as they stay in office. If this wasn't 'the Man's' coming out party, then I don't know what is. As a matter of fact, I hope that every American can see this video to understand how bass-ackwards we are trying to teach our children at the expense of history that is relevant. I'm tired of seeing history taught from the perspectives of the oppressors. All that does is enforce an underlying air of inferiority, no matter how much Arizona schools want to push that the opposite espouses inferiority. If America is at the brink of racial and cultural upheaval, Arizona is at the forefront, and for good reason. If we had more minds like you, Mr. Dyson, I'm sure that the struggle for understanding will end sooner rather than later...

Dear Phoenix Suns

via Bright Side of the Sun:

In an extremely bold move, the Phoenix Suns as an organization made a strong political statement in opposition to the recent Arizona immigration bill. Discussions on taking action began last week after the bill passed, with an idea that came from Robert Sarver, Managing Partner of the Phoenix Suns. According to Steve Kerr, the team discussed it internally before going to the league for approval to both wear the 'Los Suns' jerseys, but also to come out publicly in this way.

Kerr said both the NBA and the San Antonio Spurs were fully supportive of the Suns move. Ultimately, the decision was left up to the players, but in a locker room led by Steve Nash, it is no surprise how that turned out.

"I think the law is very misguided. I think it is unfortunately to the detriment to our society and our civil liberties and I think it is very important for us to stand up for things we believe in," Nash said of the bill. "I think the law obviously can target opportunities for racial profiling. Things we don't want to see and don't need to see in 2010."

I've always got on the NBA for too often taking the more conservative of stances when faced with polarizing issues. Whether it's a restrictive dress code, off-the-court conduct or what have you, the NBA has typically leaned toward the safer choices, keeping their stockholders happy and their players placated. That's not the case for tonight. I'm proud to say that you, the Phoenix Suns have taken a stand against Arizona's SB 1070, which is amicably being called the 'Racial Profiling Law'. Political stances aside, I think that you as a franchise are doing the right thing. Not only does the NBA have a major Hispanic population in the playing ranks, you have two of the more recognizable Hispanic faces in the league in Leandro Barbosa and Robin Lopez. Neither of them are winning MVP anytime soon, but in a state who's Hispanic population is growing faster than that of any other cultural group, that's big. Your franchise is in the 2nd round of the NBA Playoffs, and while there are bigger fish to fry, it's nice to see that the cultural issues of this sometimes idiotic country are on your minds too. It also doesn't hurt that you guys are playing another team with Hispanic fans. Hopefully Los Spurs end up getting destroyed by Los Suns...

Dear Jan Brewer (re: Arizona Immigration Reform)

Photoshop in an Arizona police badge and we have the same scene...

via The Washington Post:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Friday the most restrictive immigration bill in the country, setting the stage for a showdown with the Obama administration and reigniting a divisive national debate less than seven months before congressional midterm elections.

Brewer, a Republican facing a stiff primary challenge, said she had no choice but to act because Washington's failure to address the issue had effectively left border protection to the states. "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," she said, as hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside her Phoenix office. "But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

Even before it was signed, President Obama criticized the Arizona law, which requires police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally. Obama called the effort "misguided" and directed the Justice Department to monitor its implementation, warning that it could violate citizens' civil rights. Immediate legal challenges were expected from outside groups.

There is a huge difference between protecting the interests of the many and protecting the ignorance and small-mindedness of the few. That said, in a lot of states below the Mason-Dixon line and under the influence of Republicans, the ignorance of the few seems to reign supreme. Governor Brewer, I always thought Arizona was towards the forefront of a cordial relationship with immigrants, particularly those from Mexico. However, with this new bill focused on immigration, I can see that you and your state are about as bass ackwards as Glenn Beck attending an NAACP meeting. You see, by throwing this piece of shit legislation out, you're more or less saying to every non-white immigrant 'You are not welcome,' regardless of whether they are legal or not. This new bill doesn't enforce anything other than your own insecurities that in another 20 years, whites will no longer be the majority in your state (or much of the Southwest US, for that matter). What's the matter? Afraid that the popular vote might not swing your way again? Well, with laws like these being enacted, your hold might be a lot shorter than you think.

I mean, really.. Do we have to take it back to Nazi Germany, where any person remotely varying from the German ideal was asked 'Where are your papers?' Is that what misunderstanding and ignorance about other cultures have driven you to? Unlawful searches and unwarranted stops? By enacting this law, you're essentially giving the police the green light to racially profile people. Not that racial profiling wasn't an institution already, but I suppose having it on paper makes it all the better for you guys. Civil rights and general parity in the reach of the law don't matter when you've got a bunch of day-laborers immigrants to keep from adding to our GDP bogging down our infrastructure. You tell those wetbacks to stay on their side! And if they try to go out without identification, you arrest them and hold them for unlawful reasons! I wonder how long until they legalize racial profiling up here...

ESPN x Allen Iverson

If you haven't seen it by now, ESPN's 30 for 30 series is crack. The series brings filmmakers together with sports to chronicle the lesser known and more controversy-riddled stories in the history of sports. The last one was a riveting highlight of the intense rivalry between the Pacers and Knicks in the early 1990's. Coupled with hip-hop music and first-person narratives from those involved (Reggie Miller, Patrick Ewing, Larry Brown, Pat Riley, John Starks, etc.), the movie showed younger fans what the NBA used to be like. Regardless, 30 for 30 is set to take on another basketball story tonight: that of Allen Iverson. Not too many people remember the trouble that plagued The Answer just 3 years before he took the NBA by storm. Filmmaker Steve James returned to his hometown of Hampton to document the bowling alley brawl that almost put Iverson behind bars, as well as the brawl's effect on the racial affairs of Hampton, and on Iverson himself. From the trailer, you can tell it's going to be a pretty heated affair. It's definitely going to spark some discussion and paint AI in a different light than many know him now...