An InHineSite Introspective: Do Women Need Men?

Miss Mya

I’ve told myself a thousand times over, “I don’t need no man." “A man DOES NOT define who I am.” “I can do bad ALL by myself.”…real talk! Unfortunately, these cliches have become extremely commonplace and familiar, especially for those of us who do not want to appear needy or clingy. I have always enjoyed my independent, self-sufficient side. I’ve enjoyed not having to depend on ANYONE for anything, except my parents and they never let me down. That’s it; I guess it depends on what and who you put your hopes in.

I have asked myself this time and again: Do I really need a man? I remember back in college a guy telling me that I really needed a man to help release this aggression I had pinned up inside (that was hilarious)! Ladies, what are you living for? Are your daily activities, habits or routines solely geared toward getting a man? At the end of the day, is it a man that will ultimately make you happy? An article found on CNN.com talked about being more accountable, focused and motivated when in a relationship? You’ve got to be kidding me! I would hope that regardless of having a man or not, that I would strive to be the best, do the best and share the best at all times…cased closed! Clearly that’s not the case with some women….and one has to wonder who the “real” person is and what her motivation is. Is she "keeping it real" when she has a man or when she doesn't? Are these positive, self-motivating characteristics signs of needing and keeping a man or self-improvement?

I can’t deny that I like being in a relationship and having someone interested in me romantically who desires and is attracted to what is my inner and outer beauty. God created us to love because He is love. He wrote a 66-book love letter just for us to contemplate, absorb and live by. So why then would I need a man when I have all I need in the one true living God. He sustains me, He holds me down, lifts me up, makes me smile, tells me I’m beautiful, encourages me, helps me through hard times, is my consolation when I need Him….man I could go on and on, seriously!

Needing a man is nothing more than misguided desires. We have come to use needs and wants interchangeably, thinking they are the same thing (when that is the furthest from the truth)! My want to have a man in my life stems from my own personal, flesh-filled desires to share, interact, grow, and learn with another person with hopes to meet that a person to share my life with intimately, forever. That particular want is vastly different than needing a man in my life. If me needing a man were true, that would mean there was something lacking or wrong with me that could be fixed or improved by a man being in my life. That could be nothing further from the truth….seriously folks! I need a man like I need a hole in my head, guys ain’t NOTHING but trouble.

Mr Hines

I recently had a conversation with a woman friend of mine about this very topic. She's 35, single, with no children. The conversation began with us discussing her recent break up with a guy she'd been with for over a year. They'd begun living together early in the relationship. I'd had a conversation with her just after he moved in. She was venting about the little things he did that drove her crazy. Almost a year later, things had become unbearable, prompting her to demand he move out. He put up a 'fight', dragging things on for several months. After a series of arguments and physically violent encounters, he finally left.

Before I divulge the rest of the conversation, I'd like to give a bit of history on her former relationships. Prior to the fore mentioned, she dated a guy older than her (around 40 or so). He lived in another state, and was admittedly less attractive than she would have hoped. When I asked her why she was dating him, she said he " treated her good". He made frequent visits to town. The relationship was going well until he began pressuring her to move to where he lived. She abruptly broke things off with him, saying she didn't want to be pressured into such a decision. The relationship lasted approximately 6 months.

The guy before that was about the same age and really handsome. He never moved in, and frankly only visited when she requested. He wasn't very 'smart', though, and this became problematic when they were among her friends. She found herself feeling embarrassed, and for this reason, broke things off with him. The relationship lasted less than 4 months.

The man prior to him was considerably older, at least 20 years her senior. This relationship ended well before we became friends, so I know very little about it. What I do know is they lived together for a long span of time (perhaps 3 years or more), even co owning a house. Things ended less than amicably, as she harbors bitter feelings towards him even today.

Given all that I know about my friend and her former relationships, I have come to a conclusion about her, as I have women like her. These women are destined to be single. Not cursed or doomed, but quite obviously destined. After years of living on their own, on their own terms, these women are not going to accept anything less than what they expect. Not to say that their counterparts somehow sacrificed all of their expectations, these women I refer to have become so ultra independent, their potential to compromise has all but disappeared. Perhaps shaped in part by former encounters with men, and subsequent years of 'making it on their own', these women appear to be proof positive that they don't need a man.

During our conversation, I conveyed these thoughts to my friend. She at first seemed to take great offense, suggesting that I was implying she was an 'old maid'. I assured her that I thought nothing of the sort. I asked her to look objectively at her past relationships, including the one that had just ended. I then suggested again that many women were destined to be eternally single, certainly not married, and that there was nothing wrong with it. I further explained that these women might even be 'lucky'. Compared to their counterparts, these women had the freedom to come and go as they pleased. They had no one to answer to, cook for, clean up after, compromise with, or indulge, unless they wanted to! Married people should surely envy them on certain levels!

Now, here's the irony. My friend didn't believe any of this. She was incredulous. She's 35, very unhappily single, with no children, but desirous of being a mother. Even though her past seems to dictate, if not foretell her future, she is resolute in her strong desire to be married! While I don't think it's an impossibility, I did point out that the more time that passes, combined with what seems to be an increasing incapability to compromise, the chance of marriage becomes ever more unlikely. She disagrees, stating that she "doesn't want to be alone forever."

Do women need men? This question is not easily answered. I would argue that even the most likely candidate to refute the notion may prove more 'needy' than what might be expected. Perhaps a large part of what we desire is directly attributable to how we are socialized and/ or the influence of culture or tradition in our lives.

Though my friend clearly exhibits all the characteristics of a successful career bachelorette, she still clings to a lifelong, little girl fantasy, that prince charming is going to come sweep her off her feet. While that in itself is harmless, the effect of failing to come to terms with reality, and accepting the possibility...probability...that you might just not be 'marriage material' is.

Understanding that we all have our own destinies to fulfill, destinies that are self defined, not characterized by whether or not we are married, or have children, or are married when we have children, may be the only way we can begin to adequately answer such a question.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/08/18/tf.women.need.a.man/index.html

Drug Legalization: 'WEED' ing Out the Myths

Mr. Hines
How many of you reading this know someone addicted to drugs? How many of you have family members, friends, or loved ones that have lost everything, and are now a mere shell of the person they once were because of their addiction? How many of you reading this have your own addiction problem? How many of you have suffered loss as a result of the abuse of drugs?

If you answered yes to any of the questions above, I have one final question for you. How will legalizing drugs change any of your answers? Like the effects of alcohol, nicotine, or prescription drug abuse, legal substances, the results on the body, mind, and spirit will remain constant. Does the argument that the "possession and/ or subsequent distribution or use of drugs is a 'victimless' crime" seek to validate what I see as an absolutely absurd notion? Perhaps peeling just one layer off of this rank onion is all that is needed to expose this fallacy.

After doing a bit of research, I've narrowed the drug legalization proponent's platform down to its basic elements. Legalization proponents are split into 2 branches. Those that are in favor of only legalizing marijuana, and those that desire that all drugs be made legal. The premise of both is that crime resulting from drugs being illegal would all but disappear. (I will point out that those that are in favor of only legalizing marijuana seem to harbor a disdain for other 'harder' drugs, and therein exists a split even within the movement.) I have to agree. If drugs are made legal, then quite naturally, those that possess, distribute, manufacture, and use drugs would no longer be guilty of committing crimes, which would in itself instantly eradicate a huge percentage of the overall number of crimes prosecuted in this country.

I suppose if murder was decriminalized, the volume of people being convicted of killing other people would be diminished to none. With the murder rate on the rise in this country, let's make it legal. Problem solved! What about sexual assaults? Make rape legal and let's watch the statistics drop...

Proponents further argue that related crimes would disappear. For instance, violent crime that results from waring drug peddlers at every level, in addition to users that commit crimes to obtain drugs. WHAT?! Let's get real. The nature of the drug world, much like the nature of the pornography world, is dark. Many people around drugs, no matter their role, eventually use and abuse drugs. The resulting behavior is a manifestation of the effect of drugs on the mind and psyche. Irrational, violent, uncommon behavior is par for the course even in the best of situations. Simply put, a millionaire might pull out a gun and shoot 10 people and himself, not because he was desperate to support his high, but because he wasted on coke!

Moreover, the assumption that the price of illicit narcotics would drop drastically, thus putting pushers and suppliers out of business is lofty at best. If that were to occur, then what would these folks do? Concede and go get jobs? Maybe work in the new government subsidised legal drug industry? Preposterous!

Aside from the hollowness of almost any argument given to legalize drugs, I think the best example why illicit drugs shouldn't be legalized lay in the fact that nicotine and alcohol are legal. Alcohol especially. It's legal to produce, consume, and distribute alcohol. It ranks as one of the biggest killers, from the effects it has on the body, to the numerous drunk driver caused accidents on our highways. Even though it is legal, the number of arrests directly attributable to alcohol is staggering.

In America, we pride ourselves on the upholding of principle, justice, and goodwill to each other, as outlined in the Constitution. With the inherent effect of drugs undeniable on society as a whole, it is our collective duty to unite against such an adversary. The war on drugs must continue, but perhaps with a new and improved battle plan.

For anyone who thinks different I have only one question...are you on drugs?!

Miss Mya
Me? On drugs? Ha, now that’s preposterous, a good girl like me? Never that…however, I’m pretty sure I know someone addicted to drugs and/or lost everything because of them. Me personally, I have not dealt with it but like I said, a few people pop into my head that have suffered a loss related to or as a result of abusing drugs. With that said, will keeping marijuana illegal keep help drug abusers see the “light” turning away from their wicked ways? Seems like it should be a personal choice, not a government choice by evaluating who is affected. What is very interesting is that three (3) of the United States founding fathers cultivated marijuana themselves (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin). Guess Former President Bill Clinton wasn’t the only one to “inhale”.

Just so we’re clear, I’m in the “legalizing marijuana only” camp. Why? Oh, I’m so glad you asked! How can something from the earth, which was created by God and put into the hands of man to take care and subdue, be illegal? There are so many things created by God that are abused and misused that ARE NOT illegal, why then is marijuana (we should be seriously considering how to properly use what God has put in our care)? This is the only “drug” I can think of right at this moment that is produced from the earth, so it has a purpose and place for us, as human beings to utilize it in the fashion it was created for: medicinal, aroma therapy, cooking purposes, etc.

Between the humble beginnings of this country and around the turn of 20th century there were NO regulations on cannabis, Indian hemp, also known as marijuana. What do you think caused shift to regulate this plant? In early 1930’s, Harry J. Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics “claimed cannabis caused people to commit violent crimes, act irrational, and act overly sexual. The FBN produced propaganda films promoting Anslinger's views and Anslinger often commented to the press regarding his views on cannabis.” The Geneva Narcotic Limitation Convention was promoted as a deterrent and restrictive measure to curtail importing and exporting drugs, later including in the treaty “cultivation, production, manufacture and distribution – related to the use of opium, coca (and its derivatives) and cannabis for non-medical and non-scientific purposes.” So basically some guy said it was bad, and it is so! Wow…

The studies are still fairly new in relation to the harmful effects associated with the consumption of marijuana. I completely understand not wanting to poison our children and cause long term health problems. However, what is the difference between tobacco and weed? I’m wondering why tobacco was never considered to be a threat. Was it ever regulated in the history of this country? Capitalist based economy = cash crop! Only thing I can fathom is that tobacco was a major cash crop for the United States and the country could not afford to regulate it in the same manner as they did marijuana. Marijuana and tobacco have similar if not the same health problems; they’re ingested in the same manner. Furthermore, marijuana is not as addicting as the nicotine ingredient found in tobacco. My point is the importance of consistency: one is legal and one is not yet they both have similar if not the same effects on the community and the body. Help me understand….it’s same with alcohol, which was actually illegal at one time and now has a rampant effect on this country as whole. Has anyone ever heard of Mothers Against Weed Smokers (MAWS)? I personally don’t hear of any deaths occurring as a result of being under the influence of marijuana, not saying it doesn’t happen, I just haven’t heard of it….

God was not inconsistent with the laws he gave to Israel. He did not waver or move as time progressed; new technology came into existence or as we became more sophisticated as a people. God is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. The same laws He established and required of the Israelites are the same rules utilized by Jewish people now, same rules. It would seem as though the United States would not have to waver back & forth with the wind on laws, especially not if you are establishing the laws with God’s will and desire in mind…

Taking it a step further, we’ll accept and promote prescription drugs that have who-knows-what-in-it, side effects that could kill you, with little to no relief of the original ailment and still say no to marijuana! Since there are no long term studies available as of yet on the harmful effects marijuana can have on the body, it’s still hard to say definitively that legalization on this drug is the way to go. However, I am leaning extremely close to legalizing the drug. From an economic standpoint and a legal standpoint, legalizing marijuana seems to be in the best interest of the country and its constituents.

Thinking about it from an economic standpoint, not only would the legal sale of marijuana generate revenue from taxes imposed on each sale that could be used toward education, health reform, feeding the homeless but there would be money saved from less policing and prosecuting sale, possession and consummation activities.

The legal pros, well my partner Mr. Hines has already outlined which I completely agree with, crime would decrease…case closed! Let’s not go overboard though, I mean really, legalizing rape & murder? Who’s smoking now, and what the heck is it!?!?!?!?

Health'S' Care or Health 'S'care Reform?

Miss Mya
People, what am I missing?! I’m not quite sure why the issue of health care is so prominent for President Obama and the nation as a whole. Every single 2008 presidential candidate expressed concern for and willingness to upgrade the current status of health care. Why is that? While perusing Wikipedia, one of my favorite online sources, I found the following information:

The U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a Universal Health Care system, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and others.... In spite of the amount spent on health care in the US, according to a 2008 report, the United States ranks last in the quality of health care among developed countries. The World Health organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the US health care system 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). International comparisons that could lead to conclusions about the quality of the health care received by Americans are subject to debate. The US lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, but some argue that these differences have little to do with the structure of its health care system.

Ah yes, I totally get it now, our influence on other countries and stature in power and authority may be misinterpreted if citizens of the United States aren’t even able to receive or have adequate health care. Never really thought of that way....so in other words, image is everything! Completely valid point, however I still fail to see the sense of urgency in the matter.Initially, I was thinking that there were hundreds of millions of people without health care, either not able to afford it, working for an organization or company that didn’t provide it, or maybe felt like they didn’t need it. On my way to work this morning, I started to wonder which companies and/or organizations might or might not offer health care.

As I drove along the question came to mind. How many people actually do not have health care coverage? As you know, I like to have at least some facts before I start to ramble and here’s what I found: “The number of people without health insurance coverage at some time during 2006 totaled about 16% of the population, or 47 million people.” This internet source says that a lot of the insured folks actually have inadequate coverage with limits on what it is covered and pay high premiums and/or deductibles. Interesting....is 16% of the population considered a lot? In my opinion, it’s not a huge impact. The source does not cite statistics on those who have inadequate coverage, but just says “many of those with insurance are not sufficiently insured”.So what exactly does that mean? Does it really matter how many people are affected? Yes and no. Yes, because obviously the health of one human being has greater or lesser value than another and ideally proper, adequate health care is the goal. Having proper health care for families is vital to the sustainability and prosperity of this country. I say no, because the overall cost to implement the reform covering the uninsured or under insured doesn’t seem worth it if only a few million people benefiting from the reform program. Another concern is that undocumented immigrants or those that wouldn’t pay into the pool would be able to access loop holes and/or obtain coverage meant for citizens of the United States.

Western medicine seems to focus on just taking care of the symptoms instead of researching and finding cures. As we all know health care in this country is BIG business, with little or no regard for the well-being of the patient. So why build an entire reform around a system that, in the long run, doesn’t benefit the user. Studies have shown that health care costs in this country are among the highest, especially for those who are obese. So why not push advocacy programs that will assist this country to get their weight under control instead of throwing money toward money-hungry prescription drug companies, non-empathetic hospitals and clinics? Why not put our efforts towards eliminating what we know to be a major problem and create positive, effective solutions for the masses. Just think about the mammoth –sized portions at restaurants and the cheaper yet unhealthy food grocery stores sell. These are just some of the many problems. Why not have exercise become apart of the daily work routine not by choice, but making it mandatory – these are the types of things that may have an impact on the health and physical condition of this country.

Well....that’s my two cents!



Mr Hines
Mya, I'll tell you what you're missing! The simple fact that your opinion, along with the opinions of potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans, has been spoon fed to you, almost injected via a hypodermic needle, by the very entities that stand to lose billions upon trillions of dollars they earn by choking it out of the citizens of this country! This debate is no different than the debate on oil dependency. The entities that earn billions in the oil business pay millions to keep the propaganda machine roaring, scaring people into thinking that alternative fuel sources are unrealistic and virtually logistically impossible to implement, or suppressing the reality that there exists the capability to produce an automobile capable of achieving significantly higher mpg averages. This is a simple case of the uber rich wanting to stay rich at our own risk!

The central issue is everyone having access to adequate health care. Everyone! Not just the rich, or the employed, or the self employed that pay up the wazoo, or the elderly on Medicare, or the military who utilize the VA. Those who have health care now, for instance, through their job, and oppose Health Care Reform because they are "satisfied" with their current provider, are the very people, in my mind, reform benefits most. In our current economic state, (where unemployment nationally topped 9.5% and 14% in at least one state), jobs are being lost by the thousands and scarce for job seekers. A person who is content with their health coverage on Monday could quite easily find his/ herself unemployed and uninsured on Tuesday. This is where the biggest impact is made. People are either condemned to a career in which they might be miserable, often mainly to have barely adequate health coverage, or they lose their job (they hated) and are punished two fold with the financial hardship of not having an income, and the harsh reality that they have no health insurance.

I will spare everyone, and not repeat much that I'm quite certain you've already heard. This debate is a no brainer. It is time for America to do with health care what the courts seemed to be so preoccupied with doing to Bill Gates and Microsoft. I would sooner have a monopoly in the world of computer technology than in the area that deals with my health. It is no accident how the current system evolved. It was planned and designed several decades earlier. (Go to http://kaiserpapers.org/ or Google Kaiser Erlichman Nixon. If you're not already aware, you will find it very interesting).

Do White People Like Dogs More Than They Like Black People?

California whale rescue cost $240,000.
WALNUT CREEK, Calif. _ Although analysts haven't finished calculating the total cost of rerouting two humpback whales that strayed into the Delta last month, the bill to taxpayers is in the six figures.
The massive rescue effort spanned more than two weeks and involved 35 groups, including agencies at every level of government and multiple nonprofit organizations.
Five Delta counties and as many U.S. Coast Guard stations took part; so did a handful of universities, a couple of pharmaceutical ... Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA)

Mr Hines

Do I really believe that collectively White people consciously like dogs more than Black people? No. What I am attempting to bring to the forefront are the seemingly race driven inconsistencies that exist with respect to this issue. I would like to make very clear that this is not meant to in any way condone, excuse, or diminish the despicable nature of Michael Vick's offenses. It is however an analysis of the fall out that followed.

Michael Vick plead guilty in federal court to a dogfighting conspiracy charge. He was also indicted on one count of beating or killing or causing dogs to fight other dogs, and one count of engaging in or promoting dogfighting. Each count is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The cruel nature of the charges is tangible. The illegal, underground world of dog fighting is replete with similar, and worse offenses. Like its popular counterpart, cock fighting, the images of bloodied, scarred, or even dead animals are common.

What, though, is fundamentally different between the results of dog fighting and...deer hunting? How about quail hunting? What about bear hunting? All result in the death of these animals. "Yeah, but deer hunting is sport", you say. I recently watched a television program about hunting. A group of men armed with rifles lay on a hillside. On their rifles were scopes that enabled them to hit a target 3/4 to a mile away! They were shooting deer, accurately, from that range. I was floored, having thought that there was a technique, perhaps finding, tracking, and finally executing the kill. Just sniping unsuspecting deer from a mile away seems somehow unfair and cruel.

Hunting any animal armed with assault rifles and thousands of dollars of the latest military tracking, camouflage, and reconnaissance equipment is hardly sport in my estimation. Not to mention the reality that the head of the animal ends up on a wall, or the body is stuffed and displayed. I find these 'trophies' to be slightly unsettling.

I do not have official numbers, and cannot back the following statement up with statistical facts, but, making an educated guess, based merely on the racial breakdown of the US population, more specifically the populations in areas where hunting is popular, it is my assertion that many more White people are avid 'sport' hunters than Blacks. (Not to mention the expense associated with hunting and the social economic statistics that are available, especially in these regions). I mention this only because if this is fact, the perception of what is sport and what is cruel and unusual becomes extremely relevant. I assert also that the world of dog and cock fighting is dominated by people of color. It is noteworthy to point out the perception of both, and the predominance of the group associated respectively.

Another noteworthy phenomenon is the amount of money, resources, and man hours that are involved in individual or organized attempts to save animals. It never ceases to amaze me when I see a news story about the 15 firemen that spent 8 hours extracting a kitten from a well or a trapped in a crevice in the wall of a building. Like the article above, hundreds of thousands are spent on whales that swim off course or beach themselves. I suppose these are valiant, worthwhile efforts, but I have to stop and wonder. When I see so many under privileged, mal nourished, under resourced, seemingly forgotten little brown skinned boys and girls around this country, I wonder are the efforts to save them as intense and urgent? They are 'off course' and 'beached' by the thousands, and worthy of our heroism in 'saving' their lives.

Since Michael Vick's conviction, he has become a poster child for Animal Rights groups. He has not only suffered a loss of freedom, he has also suffered financially, probably now and in the future. Worse though, is the blow his reputation suffered and will always suffer, as he is hardly associated with anything but negative undertones. He plead guilty in a court of law, and served his sentence. Is the rest of the hoopla really necessary? Is it warranted considering the circumstances? Would it have been the same if it had been Eli Manning or Tom Brady?

Celebrity might have a lot to do with the fall out, but much like comments, events, and attitudes directed at President Obama, the role race plays is unmistakable. Also the fact that dogs were involved, and in America, dogs are 'Man's Best Friend.' As cruel as we might find his actions, Michael Vick is a human being, and the 'victims' were just dogs. I have two dogs that I love very much. It would pain me deeply if something were to happen to my dogs at the hand of a human being. I am conscience bound, however, to value the life of my fellow human, and the lives of the family he or she is responsible for, over that of a dog, or any other animal.

Michael Vick has 3 children. People sought to take his freedom, his money, and his future earning potential (re induction to the NFL) away from him, over the death of dogs. Does the crime justify the severity of the punishment, which not only impacts Michael Vick, but obviously includes his children? Is responsibility for the death of dogs, born and bred to die, like the minks that end up on the backs of the rich, really reason for the suffering of an entire Black family?

Miss Mya
Here’s what I’m wondering...did Michael Vick know what he was doing was wrong? If he did, regardless of what other people do, we are always responsible for our actions, period. Playing the race card every five minutes is not as popular or fruitful as it once was! I don’t know of many celebrity superstars that pled guilty to dog-fighting conspiracies. However, I do know that when it comes to celebrities and felony charges to discourage potential offenders, they become examples to deter others from making similar mistakes. Hence, harsh charges are brought, consequences are suffered and hopefully a lesson is learned from their mistakes and cruelty.
So the lesson here boys and girls is to play nice with the doggies!

Deer hunting, saving the whales, extracting kittens from tree limbs and the like are not the issue. How much attention animals are given is not the issue. Whether black man is railroaded by the justice system and the media is not the issue.

Genesis 1:26, God illustrates man receiving dominion over all the earth:

And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Have we translated “having dominion” to doing whatever the heck we want, whenever we want, with whatever type of animal we want? Seems that way, doesn’t it. I’m not the biggest animal-lover, don’t really care too much for dogs; I do realize that having dominion over a certain thing also incorporates protecting that thing. Parents and teachers are responsible for protecting their children and/or students, a husband is responsible for and protecting his wife. Even though, we’re talking about animals, it’s not ok to use an animal for entertainment with no regard to their sustainability in health and life. These dogs were not able to make decisions on their own behalf to participate in these violent ordeals, nor did they see any of the hundreds of thousands of dollars made from their own blood and life. These dogs were in the care of individuals who had no consideration for their life, health or purpose.

Here is the overall issue: treating animals with an honorable amount of respect, not as equals to humans, but as well as animals should be treated. A dog, be it pit bull or poodle, should expect to live their life purposefully as God intended. It's not right for us as humans to "have our way" with them as we see fit but to incorporate their usefulness in our lives. We truly have to be SMART in our choices and what God has put in our care.

Gay in America: Army of NONE?

Mr. Hines
I looked up the word tolerance on dictionary.com. Here are 4 out of the first 7 definitions:

1.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3.
interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4.
the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

I am fascinated with the use of the word tolerance with regard to relations between the different races, genders, religions, and sexual orientations found in America. My fascination spawns from its ambiguity. One has to wonder, when tolerance of a group is referenced, exactly which definition above is applicable?

Definitions 1 and 2 are quite similar, and offer a generally positive perspective on one's feelings towards a group. Definition 3 differs slightly, but is fundamentally positive.

Definition 4, however, is a drastic departure from the tone sensed in the first 3. It seems to suggest less of an allowing, understanding, or live and let live attitude. Instead it emotes a feeling of near exacerbation, a finite limit or level of allowance.

If America is a country with a government who claims to uphold, practice, and promote tolerance; tolerance of those around us who are different, (be it race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation), where does the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy fit in? The origin of this policy dates as far back as the Revolutionary War, at which time sodomy was treated as grounds for dishonorable discharge from the armed forces. In 1942, homosexuality was officially recognized as grounds for separation from the military. In 2009, in a 'tolerant' America, the same policy exists.

The question becomes, is Don't Ask, Don't Tell an example of our tolerant nature? Or, more succinctly, is tolerance, by its own definition, actually a smokescreen for a general exercise of intolerance? I have chosen not to engage in a cliche conversation, with the normal benchmark statements like, Gays can fight just as well as heterosexuals! Or This is the same prejudice that afflicted Blacks and other minorities in the military. Such statements made when attempting to argue such a point are futile when used against the perpetrator. I liken it to coming into a room and finding a trail of destruction, asking your 6 yr old rhetorically "Who made this mess?". Your 6 yr old pointing at the crib containing your 6 month old, insisting the infant did it, simultaneously swearing to God he hadn't, all with the a look of innocence on his face that, for a split second, actually makes you think you're crazy.

I personally don't want to be tolerated. Not as a Black person, a man, a homosexual, or anything else. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is equivalent to 'hide the gay, and you can stay'. It drives home the reality that in our society, we have fair, objective, permissive attitudes towards your opinions, practices, religion, race, or sexual orientation...just as long as 'we' agree with them, and they don't make 'us' uncomfortable.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is an appalling microscope that magnifies the harsh hypocrisy that plagues or social fiber. Note that I have not given my personal feeling or moral interpretation of homosexuality. It is unimportant, if not totally irrelevant. The opportunity to work for a company, serve in the military, study at an institution, or attend services at a place of worship is supposedly a right we were extended as Americans, immune from judgement based upon race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

I guess I'm just tolerant (definitions 1, 2, and 3) like that...


Miss Mya:
Tolerance….under what societal “rules” and/or cultural mores include tolerance? To what extent is this “tolerance” exercised? Is the United States of America a country that claims to uphold tolerance? Or does the "tolerance" occur only after oppressed individuals present no other choice but to tolerate their culture and existence? Tolerance is not a forced reaction but a proactive measure, a voluntary choice, if you will.

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is an issue of…wait a minute, what exactly is the issue? At this point, I’m not convinced it’s tolerance, per se. News segments, articles or various blogs will explain their stance or viewpoint but no one ever comes right out to say why there is a “preferred” sexual orientation in the military. I’ll tell you why: homosexuality is a different breed of a protected class. There’s a certain stigma attached to gays that makes heterosexuals uncomfortable. That subtle and/or overt uneasiness toward what homosexuality may represent is the threat to one’s own masculinity or femininity.

Have you ever had a person of the same sex approach you with romantic advances that were unwelcome? How did it make you feel? Honestly, it made me feel a tad bit violated as the person knew my sexual orientation and that I did not 'roll like that'. Why did it bother me you ask? From what I understand, there are some in the gay community that “get off” on approaching heterosexuals as a challenge to turn them out (if this is getting too raw for you, you may want to stop reading)! So in other words, this chick was totally coming on to me in hopes she would get me to like and enjoy her sexual advances (and whatever else was on her freaky little mind)! This is an isolated case and I personally don’t believe this is the norm. However, because that stigma is out there and we know that it occurs, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was presented to help the masses serving alongside their countrymen.

So, did the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy achieve the goal it set out to achieve? Unfortunately, I can’t say that it did. It has caused healthy, competent, intelligent, homosexual soldiers to be discharge from the military because the real issue of them serving in the military was not addressed. America has a track-record of managing the symptoms instead of getting to the root of the problem and finding a cure. Although, I don’t believe in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, I can certainly relate to and understand the ideology behind it.

Single Moms: To Date Or Not To Date?

Miss Mya
Are women with children really a turn-off for men to date? If so, why would they be turned off? Initially, maybe they’re thinking “She won’t have any time for me” or “Her kids are way too bad, not disciplined enough” or “Why should I take care of somebody else’s children?” These thoughts, among others could be running through the mind of a man pursuant of a relationship. But on the flip side, it seems as though a lot men have become much more sensitive to the fact that there are a growing number of single moms around the country and their chances of connecting with a woman that does not have children is less and less probable. And here’s some proof as to why men see single women as catch instead of a “throw-away”:

“Yahoo! Personals polled single men…asking why single moms make great dates, better potential mates, and are super sexy!” Here are some of the results:

• There is nothing like a mother. She is a woman that is responsible and focused on life. She knows what she wants out of life and will not sacrifice the happiness of her child for just any man. So, if she decides to date you, feel lucky.
• Single moms know what they are looking for and are independent. Any man or woman can appreciate dating someone who has confidence in themselves. Face it, great moms are sexy!
• You get to see how they relate to their children and how they relate to people they love. And for single dads looking for their own "play date," this also provides insight on how she might interact with our kids and her attitude about important life issues.
• Single moms enjoy their time out more and can appreciate a simpler evening of just spending time together. People with a fun, positive attitude and outlook are always more fun to date.

Based on these comments from the poll taken by Yahoo! Personals, it really sounds like men are willing to give relationships with single mothers a fighting chance. Single mothers have comparable characteristics to single women without children. Looking at the character of the woman, like how she carries herself, how she thinks, how she makes decisions, her ambition, and her goals in life is much more important when deciding whether to date her solely based on if she has children. Here’s an example: we all know Nadya Suleman (a.k.a. Octomom)…the lady with fourteen (14) children! It’s quite possible that a man is out there that wants to date, court and/or marry her, quite possible. However, given her unstable mental capacity and poor decision-making skills, it would seem a guy would shun her not because of the number of children she has but on the uncertainty of Ms. Suleman being able to engage in a healthy, sound relationship.

These comments from the poll bring to mind a wonderful passage of scripture in Proverbs that talk about the Virtuous Women – Proverbs 31! There were a few verses, Proverbs 31:25 – 28, that struck me in this chapter and seem to fit this discussion on single mothers:

She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed…

Who wouldn’t want to court, date or marry this woman! My goodness, if I was a man I’d date this woman! Aside from Jesus Christ, this is a wonderful person to emulate. Although this passage of scripture can apply to ALL women; single, married, with/without children, a guy that finds a woman that has children may also find out she shows evidence of these remarkable characteristics, not feeling like he has to run away or shun her.
So what it comes down to is this: letting a trivial factor like a woman having children determine whether you will date her seriously could mean giving up “the one”. There are a lot of women on this earth, but how many are meant for you to meet, date, court and/or marry? Are you willing to give up a healthy relationship just because of children? If you’re that picky, get ready to settle for whatever comes your way!!!

Mr. Hines
In order to answer this question, I will pose several qualifying questions. Though a question shouldn't be answered with a question, in this case I will have to make exception.

1. Why would a desirable, attractive, hardworking single man, with no children, desire to get involved with a woman with children, when he has prepared himself essentially, to find his mate and start his own family unit?
2. Assume the man above was raised in a home with both parents...Isn't the environment where he was raised in conjunction with standard socialization in our society bound to instill in him an innate search for a woman with no children, ready to bare his?
3. (This one might be a stretch, but I think it is a possible psychological, unconscious thought pattern) I don't know the number of people that remain virgins until marriage, but might the presence of children for some men create the illusion that the woman is 'used goods'?
4. Given questions 1, 2, and 3, why would a woman with children presume to think that such a man would find her 'a good catch'?

Ladies, unload your weapons! Violence is never the answer! I am simply posing questions that came to mind while pondering the subject. To be fair, I will personalize my answer, as I think I am qualified to give accurate, fair, and unbiased insight.

I have dated many women with children. (Some of you might be reading this...Hi!) I've dated terrific women with children. I met them, we 'hit it off', we talked and established a connection. It must be said, however, often the mention of children was strategically inserted in conversation well after an obvious chemistry was realized. I am proud to say the mere fact that the woman has children isn't enough of a bombshell to stop me in my tracks. I never considered children in the picture to be a deterrent, but I have to be honest. In my heart of hearts, I identify with questions 1 and 2. I'd like to think I was always objective enough to measure a woman on her merit; her endearing (or not so endearing) qualities and such, leaving the fact that she has children out of my assessment.

How could I though? Honestly, how can I, or anyone, not take into account all that the children encompass? I contend that the longer a women is a single mother, the more her independent spirit is cultivated. I always found this to be a hurdle. Many single mothers, thankfully, are so strong, so brave, so 'hands on', and decidedly not in "need of no man". While these qualities are essential for raising children single, they are destructive when trying to cultivate a relationship. In my experience, women were unable to relinquish these traits. Some out of fear, others perhaps denial. It was the number 1 reason these relationships never worked in my experience.

Also noteworthy is the presence of the children's father/ fathers. This, more often than not, for obvious reasons, always made for uncomfortable encounters. Ironically enough, in most instances, the women seemed unaffected, (probably because of the depth of the 'bad blood' between her and her children's father), which always made things worse. They always seemed perplexed at my discomfort, as I sat and watched arguments between her and him, with me sitting there on the couch, with the children on either side of me. I felt like one of the kids! The father of the children would leave, and I would be noticeably uncomfortable. This would cause arguments between us in many cases, because the women would tell me I was silly for feeling as such.

It's not impossible, but given my experiences, it takes a 'special' man to take on that dynamic role. I have come to the conclusion that single men would be better off finding women with no children. Single mothers also benefit, because the numerous men that 'abandon' them because of their children can't be good for their psyche. Perhaps a better idea would be for single mothers to date and develop relationships with single fathers. The playing field is leveled, and the commonalities between both are increased. I have seen many examples of this, and am convinced of its success ratio over its counterpart.

An InHineSite Afterthought:

Mr Hines

Question: Since it's been confirmed that as a general rule/ policy in policing, an officer cannot intrude upon a person's home without a warrant...

Did the Cambridge Police act 'stupidly' simply because of what seemed like a violation of rights?

...or because they may have violated the rights of the 'top Black intellectual in America", a professor, and friend of the President, the first Black President...

My point is, this kind off thing happens every day to Blacks in every city in the USA! Now the police are acting stupidly?! The more I think about it, the more disturbed I am by the comments. Hey Barack, are you going to call every police department stupid every time they do the same thing to one of us 'common negroes'?...

Man, just stick to health care and Iran ...

Miss Mya

My thing is this: He's saying what we, the common black folk have been saying (for quite some time now). I guess it's out of order or wrong or something for him to have an opinion and share it?!?!?!? Unfortunately, either way he is gonna pay for it; 1) He was distracted from the game plan which was supposed to be pushing the healthcare reform vote – which definitely will not meet the deadline he proposed; 2) Now, people are reconsidering if they should have voted for a black man (or glad they didn’t) 'cuz now he's gonna make me feel "guilty" for what my ancestors did….Aw man he really is just another angry black man!!! Not sure if he should have to pay for it though, but that’s what comes with being the President of the Free World!
I mean, President Obama isn’t the type of dude that just lets whatever come out of his mouth. When press conferences are scheduled like this, they already know who's gonna ask the questions and his advisors more than likely briefed him on that question possibly coming up even though it had nothing to with the subject matter of press conference. After all that, he still chose to say what he said not out of anger or spite but I believe to get a message across that this type of behavior is an epidemic that is long-overdue for a resolution.

An InHineSite Special Feature: Keep it Presidential, not Existential?

Miss Mya
"The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home," ….These comments from the President are said to be out of line, too harsh and unnecessary. Really…Do the masses understand or know what racial profiling feels like and or look like? Let’s start by defining what racial profiling is, from Wikipedia: “Racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a "predictable" manner. Different from Offender Profiling which looks the nature of the offense, how the crime was committed, possible mental abnormalities and other personality characteristics. Hmmmmm….the Offender Profiling seems to dig a little deeper than ONLY racial and/or ethnic characteristics. If the Boston Police had used Offender Profiling instead maybe they wouldn’t have as “stupidly” as they did.
My own personal opinion, I think the line of questioning toward President was a set-up in the first place. The press knew about his friendship with Professor Gates and more than likely had an inclination he would be biased toward the situation. The press conference was supposed to drive support for health care reform and the last comments that are made concern the unnecessary arrest of Henry Louis Gates. It seems as though the press was just trying to get Obama off his game since he seems so “cool like that”, never hostile or agitated, says all the right stuff at the right time, for the most part. Unfortunately, he fell for it, said his piece to then be criticized for having an opinion and sharing it when asked.
Now for these idiotic police officers, what could these fools have been thinking? After the confirmation it was Gates’ residence, what else could there have been to “investigate”? I know police officers have to stay in control as the authoritative figure protecting and serving the public. A lot of times that disciplinary tone sounds like outright disrespect, yet you really can’t do or say anything because they are “the law”. No matter what words were exchanged, how much their ego was shattered, etc, note this: there were at least three officers on this call arresting a notable Boston resident who were not able to protect and serve the public who was truly in need. Who knows what kinds of crime(s) were going on while they arresting an innocent man at his own home. Seems like the officers were putting the public in more danger than Henry Louis Gates….

Mr. Hines
I hear you Mya, but we need to understand a few important facts. First, the president generally keeps comments pertaining to local situations such as this to himself, particularly this early in the game. He prefaced his statements with the fact that not all is known about the occurrence. He also said he wasn't there and couldn't be sure. Most importantly, he admitted he was a friend of Mr. Gates, and "I might be biased...". The reason why his next choice was to comment further using the word stupidly is beyond me. My jaw was on the floor, as I'm sure were the jaws of his senior advisor David Axelrod and his staff.

My worse fears are manifesting themselves now through this turn of events. I wrote about this during the election, as I pondered the psycho-social effect the election results would have on society. The reality is, the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World, is a Black man. Easily, the most recognizable man in the world now. The indescribable irony is that if he were driving a car in the neighborhood where I grew up, and all that was noticeable was his brown skinned head, he would be profile stopped just as if he were as 'insignificant' as me. The police, upon walking up to the car to inform him they are looking for a suspect for a shooting that occurred 5 miles away, or to ask him what gang he is a member of, might blurt out something like "Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were somebody else!...". Yeah, perhaps any other of the 'qualifying' Black people to profile.
I'm not police bashing here. I'm trying to point out a phenomenon. Maybe one that even the president himself is not aware of. He is arguably the only Black man that should be immune from the plight that every other Black man in the world might suffer, and yet he himself incredibly isn't! Maybe he needs to read this so he can reason before he speaks. I don't care if you're Barack Obama, Oprah, Bill Cosby, Michael Jordan, or Nelson Mandela! In places urban or rural, USA, get 'caught' driving with the wrong color skin, and it's a guarantee, if your recognizable face isn't visible, (and it isn't necessarily to police from their vantage point, as they are most like to only be able to make an identification of your color), you might as well be...guilty.

Finally, when dealing with the police, you have to remember...they are report driven. Despite what really happened, the report the officer files is going to be the official account of the incident. For example, if an officer violently throws you to the ground, jumps on top of you, drives his knee into your back, wrenches your arm back and cuffs you, the report might read something like this..."I, officer Doe, badge #******, assisted subject to the ground. Employing approved departmental techniques, I then prevented subject from injuring me or himself, I next proceeded to place him in restraints for his safety and mine."

Get the picture? YOU CAN'T WIN! I've spent better than 15 years of my adult life learning that lesson. Mr. Gates was in his house it was reported. He was innocent of any crime. If he was asked for his ID, he should have just shown it and complied with any other directives given by Cambridge Police. As 'right' as Mr. Gates was, he made the mistake most of the public makes when dealing with law enforcement. Justice is wielded in the courts, not on the streets. If you feel the police are in violation of your civil rights, get badge numbers and names. Seek witnesses and write things down so you can remember the sequence of events, but for heaven sakes, don't try to win at their game. They are the Lakers out there and you're a last place wheel chair high school basketball team.

This will blow over, I assume, but not without a bit of scrutiny on Presidents Obama's haste and choice of words. Him being Black isn't the issue. It's just not customary for a president to have a public opinion about such things in the moment, especially when, as he stated, "I might be biased"!

Michael and Joe Jackson: Can the WORST in someone bring out the BEST in someone else?

Miss Mya

In recent weeks we’ve witnessed the unexpected death of THE greatest entertainer in the world. Various stories, documentaries, interviews, etc. have been revisited by the media regarding Michael Jackson’s life in totality, some of which might be quite disturbing to some: drug abuse, child abuse, his level of sanity and even personal injury. My counterpart asked the question if Michael Jackson should be “thankful” to his father for his “disciplinary tactics” for achieving such fame and fortune. Are you kidding me, Chez? This fame and fortune was achieved while sacrificing his identity, happiness and self-confidence. Wow, are you for real?We can concede Michael Jackson was the greatest entertainer in the world, right? Exactly how did he become the greatest entertainer? Were his talent, work ethic, and drive cultivated by his father? Was the abuse Michael Jackson endured by his own account meant to create the desire and motivation to embrace the perfection of the well-rounded entertainer he was known to be?

Let’s say that all of the above is true. Let us also concede that his father’s unwarranted abuse was the sole reason Michael Jackson became the phenomenal dancer and incredible singer he became. He became the single most well-known entertainer in all the earth as a result of extensive child abuse.It is often said that which doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. Unfortunately, I can’t say Michael Jackson was viewed as a strong man, grounded in any type of foundation that represented strength; hence the use of drugs or other addictive substance would not have been necessary. From childhood, he never lived a life of normalcy or commonplace. As a matter of fact, his childhood was completely eradicated. His uncommon notoriety and fame were something every person, at one time or another, felt they wanted or wished they had because of the power and money that are associated with it. In addition to Michael Jackson’s fame and fortune, we also know that he was an extremely unstable and despondent. So let’s go back Chez’s question…I really had to ponder this and consider what was at stake and this is what came to mind:

Matthew 16:25-26

For whoever desires to saves his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

I think it is safe to say Michael Jackson literally gained the entire world as a result of his extraordinary ability to entertain. He had millions of fans, millions of albums sold, millions that wanted to catch sight of him in concert, and millions that wanted to follow him everywhere he went, even until his unexpected death. And through it all he surrendered himself, his soul for the sake of being the greatest entertainer. In this division of Matthew, Jesus is teaching disciples about faith in Him and the significance of the cross. Familiar, recurring themes in the New Testament is dying to self, accepting Jesus Christ as the perfect example to live life and becoming a new creation, a new person in Jesus Christ. Michael Jackson sensed this and knew there was something powerful and incomparable about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Michael Jackson was in search of something, filling a void that the fame and fortune couldn’t fill. Was it a fair trade? Would you sacrifice your identity, ability to just “be” for his great fortune and legendary status? It truly depends on what a person deems important and believes is worth the ultimate sacrifice. If you’re willing to give up your own life, why not give it up for something that is secure, unfailing, steadfast and true….

In all honesty, his life and death have been a lesson to me that all the stuff in the world can not make you happy. Nor is all the stuff in the world worth my sanity, my joy, my peace or security.

Mr. Hines

Bravo, Mya, bravo. Spoken just like a woman. More specifically, just like a mother. Let me ask you one question...what's that Michael Jackson's clutching in his arms, talent show trophies? If I"m not mistaken, it's 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5 ...(sorry, I seem to have lost count) Grammys. Ironic...

I don't want to get my hands too dirty here, but I will try to be as forthcoming as possible about my honest opinion in regards to this topic. This issue is near and dear to my heart, and therefore I harbor strong, definite ideas in this area.

Can the alleged 'worst' in one person serve as a catalyst to bring out the best in another? Without question. Moreover, I am almost convinced that this is accurate in most cases, but I think it vital that we first address the notion of one being at their worst. My assumption, inclination, belief, is that much like in the case of Joe and Michael Jackson, the presumed tyrannical behavior is actually a tenacious and insatiable desire for their children to excel, to reach the outer reaches of their potential. At the root of the this pursuit is the love only a parent could possess, that would allow, even demand, nothing but perfection from their child, something that could not be entrusted with an 'outsider', who wouldn't have the capacity (or inherent vested interest) to make such demands.

I watched an interview where Michael Jackson stated that his father would make him and his brothers rehearse dance steps for hours upon hours. Joe Jackson would have a belt in his hand, and when one of the boys would mess up a step, Michael claimed he would 'tear them up'. When asked how that affected him, he went on to say that he later in life suffered from as much as regurgitation at the mere sight of his father. He insists that he harbors a great deal of hatred for him because of the 'abuse'. When asked what else his father may have used to hit them with, he said "extension cords...anything he could find."

Let's get real. My mother has 10 brothers and sisters, ranging in age from approximately 48 to 74. All are still living. The oldest was a nurse for 40+ years, who's son (my cousin) graduated from Boston University with honors, who went on to become a navy officer, only later to work for Apple, attend Stanford, and now works for Jeff Hawkins, the Palm inventor. The second oldest was a biophysicist, who worked for Shell Industries for some 35 or so years. I have an aunt who before her bout with cancer, worked at the Duke Ellington Ellington School of Arts in Washington DC for years, and is well known in DC circles. I have still another, 3rd oldest I believe, who was Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Trenton, NJ when she retired several years ago, and continues to receive awards and serve on boards till this day. The two youngest, both I believe hold MB As, one having been the subject of a Black Enterprise article years ago when she landed a coveted spot at AT@T.

I'm not being braggadocios about my family. Talk to any of my aunts and uncles about my grandmother and grandfather's parenting 'technique'. They will, as if it were yesterday, give account upon account of extension cord, belt, leather shaver sharpener, broom, switch, branch, bare hand...too many to name, beatings they received. My mother included. Do you suppose they all resent their upbringing, that today would have landed my grandparents in prison? Do you assume my grandmother, who birthed 11, and died at 58 or so, before I was born and able to be held by her, did not love her children? Do you think that my grandfather, born in Alabama in 1910, the son of a share cropper, who moved his wife and 2 children to NJ in the late 30's, built his home brick by brick after a full days work on his own, (he used to tell me that one over and over), didn't love his children?!

It's not a question of someone's worst. It's a testimonial to the commitment that only unquestionable love can solidify. Michael Jackson's mother and father had 10 kids (a brother died at birth). His father saw in his kids, Michael especially, a gift. Left on his own, Michael Jackson might have become a good entertainer. Maybe a great one. Perhaps one of the best even. It's my contention that Joe Jackson's commitment to his children ensured that the highest potential would be achieved. Thus Michael Jackson isn't good, great, or one of the best. He is without question the biggest, greatest, and best all around entertainer ever!

Maybe Michael Jackson suffers from issues that would have plagued him regardless of his father's influence on him as a child. I don't know much about them, but I haven't heard too much corroboration and echoing of the same sentiments from his brothers. I also don't see too many people spending millions of dollars in minutes, living at their own private Disneyland, making more people faint than the Beatles, and clutching 7 Grammys. There are people who hardly had money to buy food, but would forsake a month's worth for a Michael Jackson concert ticket.

Would Michael Jackson have give all that up in exchange for a father who might have given slight encouragement and hugs, even when he messed up or wanted to quit? Would he have traded being the greatest for a struggling career, or maybe even a job in the mines of Gary, IN?

I DON'T THINK SO! Good job Joe!

Education: Does it make the 'Cut"?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, acknowledging that California faces tough economic times, proposed an austere budget Thursday for the next fiscal year that would take billions of dollars from public schools, shut down four dozen state parks and release tens of thousands of prisoners to close a projected $14.5 billion deficit...

Virtually every state department was required to slash 10 percent from this year's spending, a move that would cut services for many Californians, especially the poor, the elderly and the disabled...

Schwarzenegger's planned trims include the elimination of $4.8 billion from public schools over the next 1 1/2 years and a reduction of prison imates by 35,000, including the early release of 22,000 inmates over the next two years. The budget would also cut prison staff by 6,000, including the layoffs of 2,000 prison guards...The San Francisco Chronicle

Mr. Hines
I am out and out perplexed in regards to what I see as a 'crystal clear' necessity. As stated in the excerpts from the Chronicle article above, in California, almost every state department is going to cut 10% of this year's spending. In most states, a very similar situation exists. We are in the throws of an economic crisis, as we have been reminded over and over, ever since the day we woke up and it was upon us.
States are comprised of many departments, or state works. In every state, these departments are falling victim to cuts not seen in years if ever. There are no alternatives. Even with stimulus funds, many states still find themselves hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. California quite possibly has the highest deficit of all. Drastic measures, to say the least, are on the horizon.
As Governor Schwarzenegger has outlined, almost every state department will be impacted. Not to mention the proposed early release of up to 35000 prison inmates back into society (one where being a felon and seeking employment is difficult enough without the economy being what it is). Who is sacred? What function of the state is untouchable, or immune to the disaster at hand?
I say none. This status quot reluctance to make cuts in the area of education is nonsense. The artificial cloak of sovereignty that has been placed over the education system needs to be lifted. Public education is a state function that costs billions, and is subject to cut backs just as any other state function.
The facts surrounding the subject are so egregiously embellished and misrepresented, I can almost begin to understand why the public is so easily fooled. Cuts in the area of education is characterized as the cancellation of numerous teacher's contracts, the disproportionate increase of class size, and diminished curriculum.
That representation is at best incomplete, if not false. The truth is in most states, stimulus money will take up a small part of the slack. Education departments will be faced with the same challenges other agencies are faced with. How to save as many jobs as possible. At the same time strive to deliver the highest standard of education to their students possible. It can, and will have to be done. Make no mistake, solutions will not be reached over night. There are numerous areas where money can be saved that don't impede on the classroom. Many extra curricular programs, school building projects, and 'expendable' administrative positions are just a few areas to start with. Many of the after school programs and such will be subsidized by stimulus funds allotted to and administered from a different agency. (i.e. kinder cares, city recreation centers, and social service programs will help pick up the slack with respect to programs such as student breakfasts and lunch and non intramural athletics).
The end truth is we all have to sacrifice in this period of restructuring. Does the layoff of 6000 prison staff in California register with anyone? How about thousands of newly released felons back into our neighborhoods with jobs as scarce as they are? Folks, let's take our head out of the sand. I could spend an entire day listing the amount of state jobs that will be lost in California. Education is not immune. It is indeed an important state function, but no more important than others that are suffering the same fates.
My vote is yes, education makes the 'cut'.


Miss Mya
It would be nice to be able to “treat” all state agencies fairly and the same. I mean fairness and justice is the foundation of this country, right? What happened to priority? What happened to taking care of the stuff that matters the most (to the residents of the state, the people affected by the decisions)? Without a doubt, the voters have designated education as a high priority, yet time and again the education budget is shifted, reduced, completely cut, etc. These cuts and shifts not only happen on a local and state level, but even on a national level! How was Proposition 98 implemented as a vehicle to properly guarantee funding for public education, kindergarten through community college, and now this has been blatantly ignored? Seeing as how the most recent propositions were not passed this past May shows the lack of trust and confidence in the government to adhere to the voice of the public. Prioritizing spending, budget cuts, pending legislature, etc., is how a healthy, thriving business operates. The factors that have or can have a greater impact on the greater community would seem to be the driving force of decision-making in this state. Clearly, that is not always the case. At one point, it was most important to inundate the state with as many prisons as possible. Now with budget cuts, we’re looking to release thousands of prisoners into a society where they originally weren't “fit” to live in a civilized manner. Furloughs are already in place for correctional officers and lay-offs are on the horizon. In retrospect, could education have had an impact on prisons being so overcrowded? With the proper focus, care, and commitment from the public school system could those same individuals have turned that law-breaking energy into positive, community-building activities? One can always wonder, but one may never know…

WE'RE HEEEEERE!!

It's here people! The place to come to for social commentary with a no holds barred, intelligent, comical, spiritual, often cynical, and certainly NEVER dull twist!

Mya and Chezare Hines offer spirited discussion of the issues. They are both opinionated, yet contemplative. They rarely agree, but ALWAYS in the end, will agree to disagree.

Don't let the name fool you. They aren't married. They aren't siblings. They aren't related at all. They are two Hines with minds of a different kind. Similarly intellectual, strikingly different.

Log on every Wednesday and check out the hot new topic. Log on and answer our poll to voice your opinion and see things InHineSite!